I highly doubt those remote workers are citizens of whatever country they’re remote working in or that Facebook/Meta relocated them there to a local branch. It’s generally nearly impossible (some countries have a remote work visa) to get a work visa if the company you work for doesn’t have an office in the country.
I guess that’s true until you get caught or a disgruntled employee calls the local immigration office. Worse is that not only is the employee charged with fraud and tax evasion (because that’s what they’re doing) but the company can be sanctioned as well.
If an employee simply picks up and starts doing their job from another country, they will almost certainly be still paying all the same taxes they usually pay in the country where their job is located. To relieve yourself of that tax burden requires a significant restructuring of your employment, tax residency in a new country, and most likely a double taxation treaty with your home country. Even then, if you were a US citizen, moving to a lower tax jurisdiction is unlikely to provide any significant tax advantages due to the way the US taxes global income regardless of where you live/earn your income.
It doesn’t matter where your job is located. It matters where you currently ARE and the laws OF WHERE YOU ARE. You pay income taxes in the country you reside and make income in, not the country of the business that paid you (in most countries). The US is unique in that you must file income taxes if you work even a few hours for a business meeting (ask me how I found out — the fines aren’t pretty).
Tax laws are ridiculous everywhere, but one thing is for sure, they want that income tax if they can get it. Especially because in EU countries (for most tech worker US salaries), a large portion would be taxed at >40%.
This isn’t how it works at all. If you spend less than 183 days/year in a country, you typically won’t have tax residency there. It’s quite normal for countries to tax locally sourced income, regardless of tax residency status. But a remote worker isn’t going to have any locally sourced income.
Even if you do get tax residency in a new country, there are many cases where that wouldn’t entitle them to tax a remote worker’s income anyway. For instance if you had tax residency in a new country, and tax residency at home at the same time, and there was a double taxation between the two countries, your home country would likely retain the exclusively right to tax you for all or most of that income.
So you are saying a contractor working for a company outside of their country doesn’t have to pay income taxes. I think you found the best loophole ever /s
Obviously, being a contractor for a foreign company doesn’t excuse you from paying taxes. The same applies if you are employed except now you are employed illegally by a foreign company. The employee isn’t the only one who gets in trouble, fwiw. I worked for a 100% remote company and there were legal guides for being a nomad. If you didn’t follow the advice, it was grounds for immediate firing.
Some countries don’t care, some, like Italy, will arrest you in a heartbeat. And some, will just fine you for every day you “worked” (the US).
For the US, tax residency for the entire year is 33 days. If you are an expat, this is something you are acutely aware of, because you can lose your foreign income exclusion for 5 years if you go back for too long. For most other countries, it’s ~180 days to become a tax resident, but that usually only applies in certain situations (like in Europe, if you are a tax resident of another EU country) otherwise it is 0 days.
> So you are saying a contractor working for a company outside of their country doesn’t have to pay income taxes.
No, I’m saying (and I’ll just copy paste it):
> If an employee simply picks up and starts doing their job from another country, they will almost certainly be still paying all the same taxes they usually pay in the country where their job is located.
There is no country in the world that claims to have tax residency over visitors on their 0th day after arrival. Working during a business trip, or while on vacation doesn’t create a tax liability in the country you’re visiting. Otherwise people would be routinely filing tax returns with foreign governments after business trips or vacations, which everybody reading this comment knows you don’t have to do.
Almost every country in the world has zero day tax policies (US included). A remote work visa in Spain has you paying taxes the moment you hit the ground. Same with a DAFT visa in the Netherlands, or a business visa in Bali. The fun part is, if you spend more than 33 days that year in the US, you’ll be paying double taxes that year — even with a double-taxation treaty. A tourist visa often doesn’t excuse you from paying income taxes either, like the US. Tax laws are usually weird, and translations aren’t often available (which are separate from visa laws).
Applying for a visa with work entitlements is a completely different scenario from doing remote work on a temporary entrance visa. Which is what most digital nomads will be using (without creating any foreign tax liabilities for themselves).
Even then you’re confusing tax residency with tax liability. You can arrive in a country, and immediately create tax liability for yourself (by getting locally sourced income for example). But you’re not going to get tax residency until you’ve spent some minimum period there (usually ~6 months), even if that residency is back dated to the day your first arrived.
That’s not true for most countries. Tourist visas are not for any kind of work. Business visas permit attending meetings and conducting business activities to benefit a company in the traveller’s origin country, but in general there has to be a connection to the country issuing the visa — “I just want to live there for three months” isn’t a business purpose.
Maybe it’s different when working for a company, but I’ve been self employed + worked in a foreign country under a tourist visa for 5 months. On arrival I was taken to an interview room for 5 mins to explain how I would fund my trip, explained I ran my own business working online, and once I confirmed I would not be working for a local company while there they were perfectly happy.
You need to know the local rules. If you enter the USA with a tourist visa or visa waiver (like ESTA), and tell the immigration officer that this is what you’ll be doing in the country, you’ll most likely be sent back. Foreigners need work authorization in the US to earn any kind of income — no matter if it’s paid abroad — unless the work is within the narrow categories of permitted activities under a business visa.
I don’t know of any temporary entry visas that prohibits you from doing online work while you’re visiting. Most of them even permit you to do in-person work for local clients to some extent. People who travel constantly doing remote work on VOAs isn’t anything new, it’s just more accessible now than it used to be. I’d be very interested in seeing any case law references you have to support this novel interpretation that you’ve come up with.
It’s not hard to come up with examples. For example the United States explicitly prohibits you from doing remote work:
”[…] any noncitizen who earns an income in the US must have proper work authorization from the United States government. Working while physically present in the US, even for a foreign employer and even if any earnings are paid into a foreign bank account, will still be classed as work.“
Content market from an immigration consultant isn’t exactly a great reference, but let’s see what they have to say about permissible ESTA business activities:
> What is the difference between permissible ESTA business activities and employment?
> The key points of differentiation are that VWP activity should not deprive a US resident worker of employment opportunity, and that the traveller will not be remunerated from a US-based source.
Your interpretation of the law here is highly novel. People have been legally doing remote work on temporary entry visas for decades. If this was in fact illegal, it wouldn’t be difficult for you to find some case law that supports your interpretation.
I’m not a lawyer but in my experience it’s common advice given by professionals to non-immigrants in the US that they should avoid all remote employment without American work authorization.
I was employed in the US on an L-1 visa, and my wife had an L-2 which allowed her to apply for an SSN and work authorization. The advice given by Deloitte was that she should put her existing remote foreign job on hold while waiting to receive the SSN.
When I later switched to an O-1, her work authorization ended (for some reason, O-3 spouses don’t get to work like L-2 spouses do). Another immigration specialist advised us that she should not get paid abroad while on the O-3.
B category visas certainly allow you to remotely carry out your normal work responsibilities while you’re in the country. Just think about it rationally, do you really think business travellers who come to the US to attend a meeting are expected to neglect all non-meeting related responsibilities for the entire duration of their trip? Do you think that it’s illegal to reply to emails while you’re on holiday? Do you think it’s illegal to sit on the beach writing a book while you’re on holiday?
The restrictions on work for temporary entrants are to protect job opportunities available to legal residents. Doing remote work for you job back home doesn’t threaten that. There are 10s of millions of people who enter the US on B category visas every year. If any of this was illegal there would be no shortage of case law to support this interpretation.
> “B category visas certainly allow you to remotely carry out your normal work responsibilities while you’re in the country.”
Sure. But if that’s all you’re doing, then you don’t have a reason to be in the country. Entry is granted for a purpose, not as a default right (even under visa waiver programs).
That’s why you want to tell immigration officers about the meetings you’re going to have and events you’re going to attend — things that require your physical presence.
This applies to other countries too, not just the USA. I know Thailand has become more active in refusing entry to Europeans doing remote work for 3-month periods one after another, with no business contacts in the country.
Over the past three years many countries have introduced a so-called digital nomad visa for remote workers. Why would they need a new category if this were already allowed under existing tourist and business visa rules?
> Entry is granted for a purpose, not as a default right
Tourism is a permissible purpose, and it is legitimately the purpose of entry for “digital nomads”.
> I know Thailand has become more active in refusing entry to Europeans doing remote work for 3-month periods one after another
Many countries, and Thailand quite infamously, have always had strict approaches to the tourist “visa runs”, because it has always been associated with visa and tax fraud, in the form of people working under the table jobs in the country (very frequently as English teachers). This isn’t new.
> Over the past three years many countries have introduced a so-called digital nomad visa for remote workers. Why would they need a new category if this were already allowed under existing tourist and business visa rules?
It depends on the specifics of the visa. But the most basic form of digital nomad visa is simply a longer duration multiple entry tourist visa. These are created to encourage digital nomads to stay longer than they could on a normal tourist visa, and they are created to capitalise on what the newly emerging digital nomad segment is. Which is simply a highly valuable group of tourists who bring lots of money into the economy without consuming any public services.
Other types of digital nomad visa are created to encourage people to shift their tax residence, and sometimes include tax incentives. These visas are created to capture free tax revenue that they would otherwise have no access to, and usually also don’t include any entitlements to public services.
They’re not created to allow something that was previously prohibited. They’re created to maximise the benefit that this segment of tourists can provide.
> “Tourism is a permissible purpose, and it is legitimately the purpose of entry for ‘digital nomads’.”
The dictionary definition of tourism is travel for pleasure. Full-time employment paid in another country is not that.
But of course online remote work is so new that legislation written decades ago doesn’t explicitly cover this. Maybe you’re right and the many immigration professionals I’ve talked to are just being overly cautious. I still wouldn’t recommend anyone try entering the United States on a tourist visa and telling the immigration officer that they’re going to be working remotely.
Full time employment isn’t the purpose for which a digital nomad enters any country. They already have that in their home country, and presence in the US (or any other country) doesn’t enable them to fulfil their duties in a way that they couldn’t do in any other country.
A digital nomad enters a country exclusively to pursue the pleasure of tourism. The entire point of digital nomadism is that those people have realised they can engage in tourism year-round.
Further, tax laws are usually separate from travel laws. Most countries claim world-wide income for tax purposes if you are a resident there (with other laws defining what it means to be a tax-resident) and it doesn’t matter what visa you are on. In the US, even if you work illegally as an illegal immigrant you are required to pay taxes (which isn’t reported to immigration authorities, according to the IRS website).
This is where people seem to get confused. A tourist visa might get you in the country, but there are plenty of other (tax) laws you have to abide by. For example, if you move to an EU country and work remotely for a US country that doesn’t have an EU presence, and get caught. It’s extremely likely the country could claim you are hired illegally in their country and force the company to retroactively hire you, pay employment tax, and be on the hook for VAT as well. Meanwhile, you sit in jail until they figure all that out (probably without bail since you could easily leave the country).
I remember reading an article about this not too long ago, I’ll see if I can find it. But regardless, if you want to be a nomad, being familiar with local tax laws and tax-residency laws is a must-do.
Its all about power. Expecting more than the contract you signed (which is usually a bad deal) when you are an employee is going to lead inevitably to frustration.
"Oh but if we are many to complain thigs may change".
Well except that you can also be mass fired, especially in tech where the consensus is that most FAANG are way overstaffed with bullshit jobs
All the anonymous posts on HN, Blind and Reddit about how SWEs only perform 10 hours of real work a week with a full salary must have made their way up the chain of command.
Anonymous posts are one thing, but the popular "day in the life of a [Facebook/Google] program manager" short videos were something else entirely. That entire genre was incredibly damning.
I'll try to look up the link later, but I'd swear that one of them goes something like this, and some of you guys probably know what I'm talking about: Lady shows up with her dog. Grabs a bunch of free snacks. Grabs a free smoothie. Hits the "funfetti room" with her laptop for a zoom meeting. Grabs an enormous seafood lunch at the (free) company canteen. Goes for a walk with her dog. Grabs another free snack and/or a smoothie. Goes home.
For many of us slogging away in retail or made unemployable by "5 years of experience"-ism, those were a barrage of "let them eat cake" moments. The delta between that quality of life and the average Zoomlennial's (the real average, not what any given coastal publication might have you believe) is unconscionable and in no way justified by apparent differences in capability. I watch luxury mansion tours for fun, and not one has made me nearly as furious as one of those DITL videos. They make the tech industry look like an upscale daycare for the adult children of the right class of global citizens, and no one else.
I don’t get the extreme focus on eating and drinking. Nearly every shot involves food and drink. These companies have so many perks to brag about, but all these young “influencers” talk about is eating and drinking all day long. Are Gen-Z people starving or something?
I (and many other engineers I work with) often get so engrossed with work I forget lunch. Who are these people stuffing their faces all day?
These people are “eating out”, and eating out is a luxury; hence, the videos promote the idea of a luxurious job (without, apparently, and real work to be done).
What makes those videos infuriating is that they miss out… any of the parts where she does actual work? And that’s a video choice not an indictment of the industry. Surely nobody thinks everyone at linkedin just wonders round the office sipping mojitos for 10 hours a day.
Between the sheer number of people getting axed in layoffs and the amount of, "Yeah I actually only do like 2 hours of work a day," boasts, it doesn't sound so farfetched. They're surely not doing something so technical and important that they deserve that versus, say, the person dealing with screaming, irate customers in a pharmacy for 8 hours (also, you can't sit, no sitting allowed, it looks lazy).
10 hours of real work would be quite an accomplishment at a big company, but it’s not all laziness. At least at Google, there is almost a complete lack of workable process and at the same time insane red tape around most everything. The environment is inefficient and blaming ICs for getting little done in this situation is unfair.
It’s usually rather about if you proved yourself or not. Who’s your manager, etc. It’s always been the case in all FAANGs since the last decade. Some people can do remote, some people can’t.
I can second that this is often about power, even if it's not deliberate on the execs part it can be perceived that way, in the early days of the pandemic at a previous job I saw this play out in a huge way, everyone in any management role at the company basically bailed from the office immediately, but made it very clear that everyone else had to stay in the office (until it was essentially government enforced).
It created this really toxic dynamic of managers lording over the staff remotely from their homes, while making overt claims on "oh its so important for everyone else to really pull together and come into the office" and how "difficult it was for them to be out of the office", many many people left including myself when we found remote work elsewhere.
Most companies have a huge and wide class division. It’s just that the differences used to be subtle and mostly hidden, but lately they are now more overt and in your face.
The traditional class divisions were mostly hidden: Companies strongly try to hide salaries. Chauffeurs and company limos for the execs operate from private back doors reserved for the execs. Lavish outings are usually kept secret. Huge perks like company-provided vacation houses and yachts are kept way on the down low.
WFH is harder to hide. When only the exec class gets to do it, and all the cogs need to be crammed into the office, this is overt and gets noticed. When your WFH office is bigger than most people’s apartments, it gets noticed (the execs in my company have caught on to this one and now all blur/tone-down their videoconf backgrounds). In retail, when management makes all the worker bees wear masks yet exempts themselves, it’s noticed.
Hang on a minute... Now the NY Post is a good source here, as long as it is bad news about Meta and contributes to the 'Meta is dying' narrative thanks to the layoffs? Very surprising.
I think the sentiment suggests that lots here have been scared to buy Meta stock when it crashed to $88. It's very important to disregard the news or predictions of immediate implosions of companies, or headlines of high sensationalism due to over-emotional events like layoffs and euphoric hype that manipulate human psychology.
We'll see how Meta does, but declaring it 'dead' or even 'dying' is nothing more than a great exaggeration.
As usually with these kind of posts, what’s happening inside the company (which is composed of many divisions and geographic locations, etc.) and what people perceive from the outside are two completely different things. I would not take this article at face value. There’s been such an article every month since the 2016 elections. They are useless, don’t lead to any interesting discussions on HN, yet people continue to upvote them to the FO because “hurr durr facebook is evil”
News medias talk about companies that hire 100 000s people, across 10s of countries, cultures, etc, etc and then write their stories basing on opinion of 4 random employees
A lot of large companies stage senior execs in places to simply say they have business presence for tax purposes. Just look at any company that has a bunch of top execs in Switzerland but don't actually make anything there.
I'm not sure of the exact qualifications, but some senior business owner typically needs to be included. I believe there is a headcount requirement as well, but no requirements on what that headcount does. Most large companies have zero issues meeting the requirements. For a small business/startup it's likely not worth it.
What is implied here is remote execs are not engaged / lazy. This is particularly unfair because the company is doing doing poorly and engaged in layoffs.
The argument is essentially everything would be better even if everything is exactly the same (same number of layoffs, etc) except the work location. It doesn't hold.
That's a bit of a leap. The argument is that the pain should be felt at the top as well as the bottom, as a function of the state of the company. The least execs could do is try to appear as if they're working to keep people's livelihoods intact. They could signal this in a number of ways, but it's a matter beyond an irrational sense of fairness; if the execs don't have to sacrifice anything at all, is the company really in such dire straits that employment has to be disrupted for the most vulnerable parts of the org?
I do agree that large scale layoffs should always include execs. Not even from a moral standpoint, but just from a logical one. Execs have the greatest ability to shape a company and are therefore most responsible when things go wrong. After all, how likely is an exec than runs a company into the ground likely to successfully manage a turnaround?
Of course, if a company’s execs control the company (have majority shares) then they can do whatever the hell they want - including firing everybody and running the company into the ground if they feel like it.
63 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadTax laws are ridiculous everywhere, but one thing is for sure, they want that income tax if they can get it. Especially because in EU countries (for most tech worker US salaries), a large portion would be taxed at >40%.
Even if you do get tax residency in a new country, there are many cases where that wouldn’t entitle them to tax a remote worker’s income anyway. For instance if you had tax residency in a new country, and tax residency at home at the same time, and there was a double taxation between the two countries, your home country would likely retain the exclusively right to tax you for all or most of that income.
Obviously, being a contractor for a foreign company doesn’t excuse you from paying taxes. The same applies if you are employed except now you are employed illegally by a foreign company. The employee isn’t the only one who gets in trouble, fwiw. I worked for a 100% remote company and there were legal guides for being a nomad. If you didn’t follow the advice, it was grounds for immediate firing.
Some countries don’t care, some, like Italy, will arrest you in a heartbeat. And some, will just fine you for every day you “worked” (the US).
For the US, tax residency for the entire year is 33 days. If you are an expat, this is something you are acutely aware of, because you can lose your foreign income exclusion for 5 years if you go back for too long. For most other countries, it’s ~180 days to become a tax resident, but that usually only applies in certain situations (like in Europe, if you are a tax resident of another EU country) otherwise it is 0 days.
No, I’m saying (and I’ll just copy paste it):
> If an employee simply picks up and starts doing their job from another country, they will almost certainly be still paying all the same taxes they usually pay in the country where their job is located.
There is no country in the world that claims to have tax residency over visitors on their 0th day after arrival. Working during a business trip, or while on vacation doesn’t create a tax liability in the country you’re visiting. Otherwise people would be routinely filing tax returns with foreign governments after business trips or vacations, which everybody reading this comment knows you don’t have to do.
Even then you’re confusing tax residency with tax liability. You can arrive in a country, and immediately create tax liability for yourself (by getting locally sourced income for example). But you’re not going to get tax residency until you’ve spent some minimum period there (usually ~6 months), even if that residency is back dated to the day your first arrived.
”[…] any noncitizen who earns an income in the US must have proper work authorization from the United States government. Working while physically present in the US, even for a foreign employer and even if any earnings are paid into a foreign bank account, will still be classed as work.“
https://www.nnuimmigration.com/can-you-work-remotely-from-us...
> What is the difference between permissible ESTA business activities and employment?
> The key points of differentiation are that VWP activity should not deprive a US resident worker of employment opportunity, and that the traveller will not be remunerated from a US-based source.
https://www.nnuimmigration.com/esta-business/
Your interpretation of the law here is highly novel. People have been legally doing remote work on temporary entry visas for decades. If this was in fact illegal, it wouldn’t be difficult for you to find some case law that supports your interpretation.
I was employed in the US on an L-1 visa, and my wife had an L-2 which allowed her to apply for an SSN and work authorization. The advice given by Deloitte was that she should put her existing remote foreign job on hold while waiting to receive the SSN.
When I later switched to an O-1, her work authorization ended (for some reason, O-3 spouses don’t get to work like L-2 spouses do). Another immigration specialist advised us that she should not get paid abroad while on the O-3.
The restrictions on work for temporary entrants are to protect job opportunities available to legal residents. Doing remote work for you job back home doesn’t threaten that. There are 10s of millions of people who enter the US on B category visas every year. If any of this was illegal there would be no shortage of case law to support this interpretation.
Sure. But if that’s all you’re doing, then you don’t have a reason to be in the country. Entry is granted for a purpose, not as a default right (even under visa waiver programs).
That’s why you want to tell immigration officers about the meetings you’re going to have and events you’re going to attend — things that require your physical presence.
This applies to other countries too, not just the USA. I know Thailand has become more active in refusing entry to Europeans doing remote work for 3-month periods one after another, with no business contacts in the country.
Over the past three years many countries have introduced a so-called digital nomad visa for remote workers. Why would they need a new category if this were already allowed under existing tourist and business visa rules?
Tourism is a permissible purpose, and it is legitimately the purpose of entry for “digital nomads”.
> I know Thailand has become more active in refusing entry to Europeans doing remote work for 3-month periods one after another
Many countries, and Thailand quite infamously, have always had strict approaches to the tourist “visa runs”, because it has always been associated with visa and tax fraud, in the form of people working under the table jobs in the country (very frequently as English teachers). This isn’t new.
> Over the past three years many countries have introduced a so-called digital nomad visa for remote workers. Why would they need a new category if this were already allowed under existing tourist and business visa rules?
It depends on the specifics of the visa. But the most basic form of digital nomad visa is simply a longer duration multiple entry tourist visa. These are created to encourage digital nomads to stay longer than they could on a normal tourist visa, and they are created to capitalise on what the newly emerging digital nomad segment is. Which is simply a highly valuable group of tourists who bring lots of money into the economy without consuming any public services.
Other types of digital nomad visa are created to encourage people to shift their tax residence, and sometimes include tax incentives. These visas are created to capture free tax revenue that they would otherwise have no access to, and usually also don’t include any entitlements to public services.
They’re not created to allow something that was previously prohibited. They’re created to maximise the benefit that this segment of tourists can provide.
The dictionary definition of tourism is travel for pleasure. Full-time employment paid in another country is not that.
But of course online remote work is so new that legislation written decades ago doesn’t explicitly cover this. Maybe you’re right and the many immigration professionals I’ve talked to are just being overly cautious. I still wouldn’t recommend anyone try entering the United States on a tourist visa and telling the immigration officer that they’re going to be working remotely.
A digital nomad enters a country exclusively to pursue the pleasure of tourism. The entire point of digital nomadism is that those people have realised they can engage in tourism year-round.
This is where people seem to get confused. A tourist visa might get you in the country, but there are plenty of other (tax) laws you have to abide by. For example, if you move to an EU country and work remotely for a US country that doesn’t have an EU presence, and get caught. It’s extremely likely the country could claim you are hired illegally in their country and force the company to retroactively hire you, pay employment tax, and be on the hook for VAT as well. Meanwhile, you sit in jail until they figure all that out (probably without bail since you could easily leave the country).
I remember reading an article about this not too long ago, I’ll see if I can find it. But regardless, if you want to be a nomad, being familiar with local tax laws and tax-residency laws is a must-do.
"Oh but if we are many to complain thigs may change".
Well except that you can also be mass fired, especially in tech where the consensus is that most FAANG are way overstaffed with bullshit jobs
I'll try to look up the link later, but I'd swear that one of them goes something like this, and some of you guys probably know what I'm talking about: Lady shows up with her dog. Grabs a bunch of free snacks. Grabs a free smoothie. Hits the "funfetti room" with her laptop for a zoom meeting. Grabs an enormous seafood lunch at the (free) company canteen. Goes for a walk with her dog. Grabs another free snack and/or a smoothie. Goes home.
Just another generic "day in the life."
I (and many other engineers I work with) often get so engrossed with work I forget lunch. Who are these people stuffing their faces all day?
It created this really toxic dynamic of managers lording over the staff remotely from their homes, while making overt claims on "oh its so important for everyone else to really pull together and come into the office" and how "difficult it was for them to be out of the office", many many people left including myself when we found remote work elsewhere.
Shows how out of touch these people are.
The traditional class divisions were mostly hidden: Companies strongly try to hide salaries. Chauffeurs and company limos for the execs operate from private back doors reserved for the execs. Lavish outings are usually kept secret. Huge perks like company-provided vacation houses and yachts are kept way on the down low.
WFH is harder to hide. When only the exec class gets to do it, and all the cogs need to be crammed into the office, this is overt and gets noticed. When your WFH office is bigger than most people’s apartments, it gets noticed (the execs in my company have caught on to this one and now all blur/tone-down their videoconf backgrounds). In retail, when management makes all the worker bees wear masks yet exempts themselves, it’s noticed.
Everyone else uses the already established defacto standard library from $language.
I think the sentiment suggests that lots here have been scared to buy Meta stock when it crashed to $88. It's very important to disregard the news or predictions of immediate implosions of companies, or headlines of high sensationalism due to over-emotional events like layoffs and euphoric hype that manipulate human psychology.
We'll see how Meta does, but declaring it 'dead' or even 'dying' is nothing more than a great exaggeration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/technology/meta-layoffs-e...
News medias talk about companies that hire 100 000s people, across 10s of countries, cultures, etc, etc and then write their stories basing on opinion of 4 random employees
The argument is essentially everything would be better even if everything is exactly the same (same number of layoffs, etc) except the work location. It doesn't hold.
Of course, if a company’s execs control the company (have majority shares) then they can do whatever the hell they want - including firing everybody and running the company into the ground if they feel like it.