Wizards of the Coast LAYOFFS

[Paragon]

Personally, I feel that this kind of mass job-insecurity is the fault of the economic model that shows debt as being a positive force for change. That, and the fact that it has simply become cheaper for companies to pay for new training for new hires then for increasing benefits of long-timers.

Is it that or is it the fact that so many people in the 90's took a very mercenary approach to their careers? Go wherever the money is. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact I am all for it but it is a two way street. I have a great freedom to go and find a job I want i.e. whatever the market is willing to pay me, based on my skills/qualifications (current economic conditions not withstanding, or perhaps they simply clarify an otherwise cloudy picture) but at the same time the company I work for has the right to seek someone who will do my job for less than I will if they can find someone that meets there qualifications. I agree that employement is considerably more volatile than in the past but at the same time we have more options than before.
Using a personal example my father has worked for the railroad for 30+ years. Makes good money, etc etc. But he doesn't necessarily have the training to go do something else. You can't really apply what he does to another field very easily. So the trade off is he is relatively secure but can't move to another job with ease if he wanted to. Where as most people in the job market have a broader skill base/experience so they are more moble. Do you see the trade off? Am I making any sense or have I been at work to long?

Paragon

 

[Vuron]

Hehe Pkitty's advice is ignored once more

 

[Lizard]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One thing no one has mentioned so far...

Here's a post that's pretty likely to get me in trouble.



I'm just enough of a socialist to disagree with the ideology behind that. No one deserves to go hungry or be homeless.

You've got it backwards. Being hungry and homeless is the default state of existence. Food and shelter do not magically appear. (Even a hunter/gatherer culture must actually go out and gather food. Someone in such a culture who sits on his lazy ass and does nothing will be quite handily allowed to starve, unless he is crippled or otherwise incapable of pitching in.)

What have you done to deserve someone else laboring on your behalf? (Your parents voluntarily undertook the responsibility of caring for you; they don't count. And even they aren't obliged to care for you once you're old enough to earn your keep; they may CHOOSE to do so, but it's neither a legal nor a moral obligation. (Depending on the culture, he may still be allowed to starve. Indeed, if resources are tight, either non-contributers starve or EVERYONE starves. Think of it as a form of layoffs.))

It's not a matter of "Deserving to be hungry". It's a matter of deserving to be FED. No one is born with someone else (except, maybe, parents -- see above) owing them anything. If you want something from someone else, you usually have to offer them something in return. (If they're kind enough to give without any compensation, lovely, but that's their choice to make, not yours.) Often, the compensation is not money -- it is friendship, companionship, emotional satisfaction -- but there must be something. Relationships in which one side gives and the other takes are unhealthy and parasitical, whether the relationship is personal or societal.

If you feel people "deserve" food, shelter, or what have you without them having to offer anything in exchange, you are more than welcome to contribute your own time, money, and effort towards helping any and all people you wish. No skin off my nose. It's only when you start picking my pocket to salve your conscience that I get upset.

 

[omedon]

I hope this isn't too off topic. I think it is safely out of the snipe category anyways.

A number of people have stated in this thread that a companies first responsibility is to it's customers.

Isn't a companies first responsibility to it's shareholders? Not it's customers, or it's employees?

These are just means to satisfy it's shareholders. This of course doesn't apply to mom & pop stores but it certainly does for large corporations like Hasbro.

Newspapers for example:
A newspapers customers are it's asvertisers. It sells it's subscribers to it's advertisers. Keeping readers satisfied is a means to keep the advertisers satisfied which in turn is a means to keep the shareholders happy.

Normally shareholders are only happy if there stocks are increasing in value. And most companies do this by any means possible. Though the interest in "Green" investments is beginning to change this.

A little more on topic now:
I have to agree with Chris, i don't think there is much more to say at the moment, we just have to take the wait and see approach. I have the highest confidence that D&D will survive, but will WotC? I am sure it will undergo more than a little restructuring after such a drastic lay off.

 

[Paragon]

um...I don't think my post was in violation of anything. I'm not blasting capitalism, or socialism. If I was out of line feel free to let me know Piratecat.

Paragon

 

[Holy Bovine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One thing no one has mentioned so far...

Okay. You and how many others? I love D&D. When not playing, I am on these boards. But I cannot afford $150 for the core books. Not when I still have my 2E books. Upgrades have to be competitively priced, or people will use the old version instead.

Very true #47. I can't imagine paying $50 for books I bought for $20 and have been using and still haven't noticed all these 'glaring' errors. I also haven't downloaded errata. I just couldn't care less that table X is called "Table for Number Crunching' when it should have been called "Table for Crunching of Numbers'.

And as far as I know everyone in my game is having lots of fun and we are enjoying the hell out of 3E.

It is truly sad though that all these people are losing thier jobs. At least this time its not right before Christmas (remember that layoff by Hasbro last year?). I hope all of these people get new (and better?) jobs very soon, but I'm not going to stop playing D&D because of these layoffs (not that I think anyone wants me too )

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One thing no one has mentioned so far...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wulf Ratbane
If you don't like it, start your own business. The world does not owe you a living.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just enough of a socialist to disagree with the ideology behind that. No one deserves to go hungry or be homeless.

First, you are comparing a statement of fact to your moral opinion, apples and oranges.

Second, your moral opinion may or may not be applaudable, but trying to force it on others is always bad.

 

[Fast Learner]

1. Why is anyone assuming this will affect D&D? Relax and wait and learn. Stress is born from assuming the worst.

2. Employing someone isn't "using" them, for Pete's sake. It's a simple energy swap: you do work and the company gives you money. If you don't want to be "used" then don't work. How silly.

3. It's always stunningly obvious in conversations like these which participants have never tried to run a business.

4. Again with the fallacies: WOTC not only made money at the $20 price point (as has been pointed out), but sales were far beyond projections. 3e has been a huge success. Gah. Pay attention, use facts (mine are from Ryan Dancey).

 

[omedon]

Something is telling me that this thread is going to be closed real soon.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

1. Why is anyone assuming this will affect D&D? Relax and wait and learn. Stress is born from assuming the worst.

2. Employing someone isn't "using" them, for Pete's sake. It's a simple energy swap: you do work and the company gives you money. If you don't want to be "used" then don't work. How silly.

3. It's always stunningly obvious in conversations like these which participants have never tried to run a business.

4. Again with the fallacies: WOTC not only made money at the $20 price point (as has been pointed out), but sales were far beyond projections. 3e has been a huge success. Gah. Pay attention, use facts (mine are from Ryan Dancey).

I think you are exactly right.

The game has been through harder times than this, no doubt.
Some less than ideal things may have occured, but the game kept going. It will now as well.

I think any shake-up is more of a threat to the D20 license than to D&D. And I don't see any reason to worry about that either at this point.