Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Buffer Layoffs

open.buffer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 429 posts

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#301

Post by [deleted] »

prebrov wrote: post #266
jes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say no relationships, including family relationships, should be maintained if they aren't in the long-term self-interest of all parties. In other words, every relationship is a trading relationship, and the currency of the realm isn't always, or even often, monetary in nature.

I really appreciate your further comments. I agree for most part that humans and other living things ultimately act out of self-interest. However, there are circumstances when rationale breaks, like when member of your family develops a terminal decease. A purely rational decision would be to cut emotional and financial losses and abandon them, wouldn't it? Yet, luckily, we don't see that happen. The length to which…

[deleted]

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#302

Post by [deleted] »

hkmurakami wrote: post #39

>In short, this was all caused by the fact that we grew the team too big, too fast. We thought we were being mindful about balancing the pace of our hiring with our revenue growth. We weren’t. >Reflecting on it now, I see a lot of ego and pride reflected in that team size number. > In many areas, we grew the team more than was truly necessary for the time, more than was clearly validated. I feel like we all experienc…

[deleted]

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#303

Post by timv »

harryh wrote: post #60
jes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say no relationships, including family relationships, should be maintained if they aren't in the long-term self-interest of all parties. In other words, every relationship is a trading relationship, and the currency of the realm isn't always, or even often, monetary in nature.

How many times do I have to get annoyed at my kid for waking up in the middle of the night before you're OK with me kicking him out of the house? Keep in mind that he is currently 11 months old...

How many times do you put up with your kid beating up his mother when he comes home drunk in the middle of the night before you require him to move out of the house? Keep in mind that his is 15 years old...

As parents, we tend to believe that we will always love our kids in a way that allows us to maintain healthy functioning relationship with them no matter what happens.

But when you see what can go wrong in families and how 1 member's behaviours can have a massive detrimental impact on the other members, you realise that there are limits to that.

While I will always love my kids, I know, objectively, that there are circumstances that could force me to fundamentally alter the terms of my relationship with them. I pray that never happens, but I know it's possible.

Similarly, I know plenty of people who no longer have any relationship with one or both of their parents due to the way they were treated as kids. Society (rightly) tends to be more accepting of a child who decides to sever their relationship with an unloving parent than the reverse.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#304

Post by chrisabrams »

zenlikethat wrote: post #291
dave2000 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're going to get perfectly good developers for $150,000. Are you going to get twice as good ones if you pay twice that, or just greedy ones? Have transparency and let someone else pay the darlings. You'll still get your work done.

This exact "greed" rhetoric is what helps businesses keep dev salaries down. You don't get greedy people for that much, you get smart business people (they know their worth and charge for it).

I do not understand devs who justify low salaries this way.

Why make 50% of your potential?

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#305

Post by Bombthecat »

jc4p wrote: post #44
compiler-guy wrote: post #36

This may be a little cynical but: "With our culture of bringing our whole selves to work and seeing team as family, with shared values we live by,..." In the American business world, you are an employee until you aren't. Confusing being an employee with being "family" is a mistake, both for the company and the employee. When times get bad, companies do what it takes to survive, including throwing employees overboard.…

This is so 100% on point. I think the Netflix NYT article from yesterday had a more realistic tone regarding the "family" aspect: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/magazine/can-netflix-survi... > The key concept is summed up in the 23rd slide. “We’re a team, not a family,” it reads. “Netflix leaders hire, develop and cut smartly, so we have stars in every position.” Your last sentence here is really important. If tha…

We say co workers. Not family.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#306

Post by jes »

nostrebored wrote: post #280
falsestprophet wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Good terms" is setting a pretty low bar for family.

Is it, if the GP instilled the same values in his children? I hope that my children will hold me accountable for my actions and vice versa.

Thank you for understanding this point.

I do not want my children to love me because I'm their father, or because I took care of them (along with their mother) when they were growing up.

I see it as my job, if I want a relationship with my children, to be bringing value to them in the here and now.

Sure, we have good memories of the past, but good memories are not (in my view) a sufficient basis for an ongoing relationship.

Even worse would be a sense of obligation on the part of my children towards me, simply because I'm their father.

You summarized it well: "I hope my children will hold me accountable for my actions, and vice-versa."

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#307

Post by Bombthecat »

cyberpanther wrote: post #148
jc4p wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so 100% on point. I think the Netflix NYT article from yesterday had a more realistic tone regarding the "family" aspect: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/magazine/can-netflix-survi... > The key concept is summed up in the 23rd slide. “We’re a team, not a family,” it reads. “Netflix leaders hire, develop and cut smartly, so we have stars in every position.” Your last sentence here is really important. If tha…

I agree the whole family thing is ridiculous. However, the performance focus of Netflix is probably too far on the other end and ridiculous too. People are not machines and performance will not always remain high. And also measurements of performance of people are often silly and useless. Performance will fluctuate and change with time. So a level a loyalty in the face of bad performance is still very advantageous ev…

As a company, why should you care about keeping low performers? Just hire new ones.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#308

Post by dasil003 »

asdfologist wrote: post #176
dasil003 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you do it for them? Come on, is taking no pay meaningless to you?

You missed the point of this thread, which is whether it's appropriate to call a company a "family."

Fair enough, I don't think it's appropriate to call a company a family.

I do however think taking zero pay is a signal which, under the right circumstances, is worthy of inspiring loyalty greater than the average company.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#309

Post by mangeletti »

dsacco wrote: post #236
mangeletti wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, that's a win-win. There's nothing better than being content with what you're paid, and then learning that there's huge upside potential. The worst thing ever is finding out that you're in the top 2% of salaries for your role in the industry, and then knowing there's nowhere to go but down from there.

That's an odd statement. I don't think I'd be disheartened to learn I'm in the top 2% of salaries. That sounds like one of those good problems to have. It also doesn't make sense - there is plenty of room to move up even if you're in the top 1% of salaries. The curve doesn't abruptly end at the top, there is a long tail of increasing salaries at the 1%, 0.5%, 0.1%, etc marks.

But, does finding out that you're in the top 2% change your salary or lifestyle, or is it just learning something about what already is?

Finding out you're in the bottom 25% is also just learning something that already is; but in this case, it's empowering information.

Note that we're talking about somebody who just learned about something that already is.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#310

Post by nandemo »

whatever_dude wrote: post #127
jc4p wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so 100% on point. I think the Netflix NYT article from yesterday had a more realistic tone regarding the "family" aspect: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/magazine/can-netflix-survi... > The key concept is summed up in the 23rd slide. “We’re a team, not a family,” it reads. “Netflix leaders hire, develop and cut smartly, so we have stars in every position.” Your last sentence here is really important. If tha…

> cut smartly I actually think this is important. Working with an asshole is a big problem, and I fully admire leaders who know when it's time to let someone go because the situation cannot improve. It certainly beats working in a caustic environment because people are afraid to fire someone.

They don't fire "assholes" though, they fire people with "adequate performance" (you need to be a "star").
Post reply on HN