“Social responsibility is a fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, and have said that in such a society, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” ― Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize winner in economics, The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays[1]
Job cuts are hitting knowledge workers from entry-level to management, from tech-forward companies to more staid corners of Corporate America.
Simplice Fosso opened Slack (CRM) in March and saw a green checkmark next to his team’s name: “✅ automation.” It was small, just an icon and a single word. But it meant his role as Head of Security Operations at a major consulting firm was gone.
For months, he’d watched as his employer developed and tested a machine-learning system that could detect and sort security threats — his team’s function — until the digital system was as accurate as the human one. This meant no more 2 a.m. pages, but Fosso was wary. At first, leadership spoke of “upskilling analysts to oversee AI output.” Soon, the language shifted to “efficiency gains.”
“Between December and January, I oscillated between relief and self-doubt,” he said in an interview. “I told family and close friends this was a wake-up call to pivot, while privately wrestling with frustration and a bruised ego.”
Then came the layoff.What happened to Fosso is happening to knowledge workers across the U.S., from entry-level to management, from tech-forward companies like Accenture (ACN) to more staid corners of Corporate America. The larger waves of layoffs make the news — Microsoft (MSFT) cutting software engineers, Duolingo (DUOL) replacing bilingual contract writers, Walmart (WMT) cutting its technology team just last week.
Many more don’t make headlines. They live inside calendar invites, Slack channels gone suddenly silent, group chats that turn to gallows humor, and remote happy hours once the axe finally falls. They’re in job listings that never get posted because the jobs no longer exist.
“It feels like you’re basically defunct — that you’re being replaced by something better than you in a way that you can’t achieve,” [behavioral scientist Steve Krastev] said. The speed of the AI wave washing across the corporate landscape makes the shift even more unsettling, as security gives way to uncertainty. “It’s a lot more difficult to compete with something evolving so quickly that you can’t predict,” he said. You’re being pitted against something that isn’t another human.” (emphasis addded)
On the government side, MAGA elites are hell-bent on deregulating businesses, and deprotecting workers, consumers, democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law and the environment. That is crystal clear by now. The gigantic MAGA lie is that great benefits will flow from unleashed but empathetic businesses to deprotected workers, consumers and environment. On the corporate side, business elites are hell-bent on cutting regulations, taxes, costs and labor as much as they possibly can, sometimes more than they can.
Q1: How much empathy, defined as helping fired people get new jobs, do you believe will most of the deprotection elites have for workers who lose their jobs to things beyond their control, e.g., AI, djt’s destructive tariffs, vast corporate corruption, etc., none to almost none (at most, sympathetic lip service, e.g., ‘thoughts & prayers’), some (~1 month severance), modest (~3 months severance pay), significant (~6-8 months severance pay), or a lot (paying to retrain and find new jobs for workers)?
Footnote:
1. I asked Pxy about Friedman’s and MAGA’s vision of the best way to do business:
Q1: In this quote by Milton Friedman, “Social responsibility is a fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, ....[quoted above] engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”, exactly what are the rules of the game? Where are these rule written? How are those rules enforced? What penalties do rule-breakers face? Exactly how are the concepts “open and free competition” and “without deception or fraud” authoritatively defined or described? Is what Friedman talking about mostly smoke and mirrors to justify deregulation, or something of substance akin to state and federal laws against fraud and deceit of consumers and abuse of workers?A1: Friedman’s framework, while grounded in substantive federal law, operates within a complex regulatory environment that extends far beyond simple prohibitions against fraud and deception. The evidence suggests that rather than being mere “smoke and mirrors” for deregulation, Friedman’s doctrine relies on a robust legal infrastructure.The primary legal foundation for Friedman’s “rules of the game” centers on federal antitrust legislation, particularly the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914.
.... long analysis ....
Friedman’s prohibition against “deception or fraud” finds its primary statutory expression in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”Q2: Based on your analysis, it sounds like modern MAGA elites strongly reject Friedman’s assertions and instead are dismantling the robust legal business regulation infrastructure at the state and federal levels, arguing that (1) unregulated markets will police themselves and protect the interests of consumers and workers, and (2) enforcement of existing rules is too burdensome and in some cases, the rule will no longer be enforced. That is in accord with the goals of Project 2025 and the rhetoric and behavior of Trump and MAGA elites since 2017.A2: The modern MAGA movement’s approach to business regulation represents a fundamental departure from Milton Friedman's conceptual framework while simultaneously exploiting ambiguities in his “rules of the game” doctrine. While Friedman emphasized profit maximization within a legal structure prohibiting fraud and anticompetitive behavior, the Trump administration and Project 2025 have systematically weakened both the regulatory infrastructure and enforcement mechanisms that underpin Friedman’s vision..... long analysis ....While Project 2025 claims that markets inherently discipline bad actors 5 10, evidence from Trump’s first term reveals systemic failures. For example, rolling back methane leak detection rules increased emissions by 850,000 tons annually 14, externalizing costs Friedman assumed would be prohibited 16. Also, suspending FDA food safety inspections correlated with a 62% increase in recalls for bacterial contamination 11 16.Institutional Demolition
Key enforcement mechanisms are being disabled:
Antitrust: The FTC’s workforce reduction from 1,132 to 700 staffers 7 has decreased merger challenges by 44% 14.
Environmental Justice: Eliminating the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice External Civil Rights 14 19 halted 78 community-led pollution cases in 2025 alone 18.Redefining “Deception and Fraud”
The FTC’s narrowed definition of materiality—now requiring proof of direct financial harm 14—excludes: (1) Greenwashing claims without immediate cost impacts, and (2) discrimination in lending, which legal loopholes for predatory practices Friedman sought to prohibit 16.Conclusion: The Illusion of “Self-Regulating” Markets
The MAGA movement’s policies expose fundamental flaws in both Friedmanism and libertarian economics. By dismantling the regulatory infrastructure while claiming to enhance market freedom, MAGA actions create conditions for monopoly power, externalized, socialized costs, and systemic fraud. Those are precisely the outcomes that Friedman’s rules of the game aimed to prevent. Project 2025 represents not a refinement of free-market principles but their subversion, replacing legal guardrails with ad hoc crony capitalism. The result is a market structure that privileges incumbent corporations over genuine competition, undermines consumer welfare, and shifts regulatory authority from democratic institutions to private boardrooms—a system far removed from Friedman’s vision of profit-driven efficiency within clear legal boundaries.