Yeah but the purpose of a company is not to employ people, it is to make money. The employment is a means to an end. If the money continues to flow without the people, that is better.

I can imagine creating a system designed to allocate profits to a broader set of stakeholders, but that's not the system we have.

It's called a co-op.

You haven’t seen toxic work culture until you’ve seen a co-op reduce its size (or rather, tighten the circle of distributions.)

So we shouldn't call it a shit move? I'm not sure what your point is.

I think it's fine to call it a shit move.

It's this part:

> Canning people when you do well is just a way to milk the cow that others raised for you.

I don't think people should reasonably expect to be employed if a company doesn't need them for its future plans.

> Plus it shows a blatant lack of imagination and foresight.

It seems to me Block has tried a whole bunch of different things. Imagination isn't their problem. I'm not deeply familiar with their business, but my hunch is that it's more that they're giving up on some of their pie in the sky ideas and consolidating on what's working.

a company's purpoe is profits not being a socialist scheme to support people