Free market capitalist doesn't want the consumers of his employment opportunities to be able to shop around
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
29 points (96.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
3127 readers
1203 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But speaking last year, Dimon countered: “You’re going to be facing ethical decisions like that. Think for yourself.
“How would you feel if you’re on the other side of that thing? Or do you want to be treated that way? Is it fair?”
Ohh poor little fucker likes capitalism when he's exploiting everyone but if the shoes on the other foot it makes him sad 😭😭😭
Threatening to fire people who already have their next gig confirmed is so fucking goofy.
So don’t mention it?
Lol that's what I was thinking about the whole article, has Gen Z forgotten how to lie or something?
Happen to every generation tbh. When you start you think everyone is a friend even your boss and HR, then you learn.
If you start a 'permanent role' with them, having already secured a next role, then it is unethical. That means you know, going in, that this is not effectively 'permanent'.
However. Having already started with them, if you find a better role, there is nothing unethical about taking that unless it contradicts an enforceable employment agreement. Maybe the role wasn't what you thought, or someone else has valued you more highly (in remuneration, working conditions or other benefits). It goes both ways and incentivising retention is up to the business - it's the flipside of lay-offs.
Roles are not "permanent". They have a contract with agreed upon terms. If they want to lock in exclusivity for some time period, they can negotiate and pay for it. It's a transaction. Unless there are mutually agreed upon terms, the opposing side saying they want something doesn't make you planning not to give it to them unethical. If they had a contract term about this they'd be suing people, not whining about being treated unfairly by college graduates.
So much this. Fuck anyone calling positions "permanent" when they'd lay off your entire team post haste if it meant gaining 50 cents of profit.
Its absolutely not unethical, companies usually have someone to replace you before they even know if they'll fire you.
The only permanence is change.