Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
If having issues logging in with login name, try using your DISPLAY name. If your password is the issue and you did not update your email address prior to upgrade, use the Contact Us link at bottom of page for a reset. ×
Bronze & Silver Supporters now have ability to create a blog ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
pepperonikkid

Schadenfreude: Mommy Warbucks shuts her purse on The Atlantic's lefty denizens

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

pepperonikkid

https://www.americanthinker.com/

By Monica Showalter

May 22, 2020

 

Article:

At a time when the news is filled with stories about small business–owners making humongous sacrifices to save their employees' jobs, and corporations and governments are running ads saying "we're all in this together," billionaire wifey investor Laurene Powell Jobs (estimated net worth: $32 billion), whose cash keeps the left-wing Atlantic Monthly afloat, has pulled a Bloomberg on the Atlantic Monthly staff and laid off a large number of them.  Her minions did it just as unemployment hits double digits, so with the job market collapsed, these newly laid off staffers can get ready for new careers as Walmart greeters and Amazon deliverymen. 

They're hopping mad about it.  Here's Forbes:

Laurene Powell Jobs, the majority owner of The Atlantic magazine, is worth an estimated $19.5 billion — a gain of $3.1 billion since mid-March. Despite the gain, The Atlantic, the publication in which she has a controlling stake, announced plans this week to lay off 20% of its staff, making Powell Jobs the latest billionaire to face questions about obligations to workers in the face of a ruinous pandemic. 

In a letter to the magazine's staff, chairman David Bradley said, "We are informing 68 of our colleagues that we will not have a place for them on The Atlantic's new course. The contraction affects mainly our events, sales, and editorial staffs." Bradley added that the company will freeze pay for its remaining staffers through the rest of the year, and that executives will take a pay cut. 

The news stirred agitation on social media, particularly within media circles. "Laurene Powell Jobs, the billionaire majority owner of The Atlantic, is rich enough to be able to pay the salaries of all 68 laid off Atlantic staffers every year for the next 3,000 years," wrote Zach Schonfeld, a freelance writer and former Newsweek staffer, in one of many critical posts.

Layoffs are about par for the news industry, which is seeing horrific losses as ad revenue collapses.  But for the denizens of The Atlantic, it's more bitter than for the others.

Unlike other people in the news industry, they thought they were shielded from those market forces.  That's because instead of dreaded shareholders, Laurene was doing the financing herself through her lefty Emerson Collective.  She drew a lot of gooey praise for it, and the Atlantic came to be viewed as a plum spot in journalism, a place where people like Anne Applebaum and David Frum and Ben Rhodes could go to write lefty columns.  Here's the masthead.  Laurene was there for all of them because she was sugar momma.


 

 

 Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

Learn to code...

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
4 minutes ago, Severian said:

Learn to code...

:giggle: 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
26 minutes ago, Severian said:

Learn to code...

Or at least learn to write.

I used to like Atlantic. And also Harpers. "Food for thought" and they both did the "long story" on things that got the short shrift in the media. But especially during the Trump era, they're little more than propaganda rags any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
Quote

Laurene Powell Jobs, the majority owner of The Atlantic magazine, is worth an estimated $19.5 billion — a gain of $3.1 billion since mid-March. Despite the gain, The Atlantic, the publication in which she has a controlling stake, announced plans this week to lay off 20% of its staff, making Powell Jobs the latest billionaire to face questions about obligations to workers in the face of a ruinous pandemic. 

Perhaps I'm a bit slow without my coffee this morning, but an employer's obligation to their employee is to make payroll, and if that employer finds that the revenues do not support the number of employees that are currently on staff, then the employer has ever right to do something about it so that the company remains solvent, which usually means letting people go.

Is there some unspoken moral imperative that goes along with employing someone when you're a billionaire versus just a small business owner?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker
3 hours ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

Perhaps I'm a bit slow without my coffee this morning, but an employer's obligation to their employee is to make payroll, and if that employer finds that the revenues do not support the number of employees that are currently on staff, then the employer has ever right to do something about it so that the company remains solvent, which usually means letting people go.

Is there some unspoken moral imperative that goes along with employing someone when you're a billionaire versus just a small business owner?

Leftist employees are entitled because .... well, they just are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
23 hours ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

Perhaps I'm a bit slow without my coffee this morning, but an employer's obligation to their employee is to make payroll, and if that employer finds that the revenues do not support the number of employees that are currently on staff, then the employer has ever right to do something about it so that the company remains solvent, which usually means letting people go.

Is there some unspoken moral imperative that goes along with employing someone when you're a billionaire versus just a small business owner?

There's probably more to it. YES, the employer has EVERY right (At least in Right-to-work/Employment-at-will) states. Downturns are a good time to get rid of "dead wood" . ESPECIALLY if it gives you a legit excuse to get rid of those you've wanted to for (legit) poor performance  because you knew they'd scream "protected class!!!" and sue you over it. 

Conversely, over 40-some years, I can think of at least TWO instances where a company has "carried me" through hard times (The '87 "mini-crash" that led to the S&L crisis and The '90-91 recession comes to mind). I'd like to think it was because I was considered valued enough to hold onto rather than have to be replaced at a future date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...