> Amazon has a lot of money to waste. It is cheaper to hire someone so they can fire them [...]
So... Amazon has a lot of money therefore they have to resort to money-saving practices? Or is the causality the other way around? How do these two sentences fit together?
Amazon has a lot money. These practices make them additional money. If they didn't have a lot of money they couldn't afford to hire to fire.
How can they do both?
- They waste money when they hire to fire and constantly onboard.
- They make money by not staffing enough resources but by using fear of being fired to force overtime.
Maybe the hire to fire costs are justified because the savings they get by understaffing outweights the cost.
I don’t think they do, but it’s a way to smear and make all Amazon engineers unemployable by proxy. I already have difficulties finding interviews at good companies because the Amazon name implies IBM level talent instead of Google level talent.
So... Amazon has a lot of money therefore they have to resort to money-saving practices? Or is the causality the other way around? How do these two sentences fit together?