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

Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 198 posts

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#41

Post by mseebach »

awat wrote: post #8

To comment on one of the sentiments in the last paragraph. I often find myself wondering about the people doing the bidding above them where they are the last one compensated on a middle-upper class level before the VP or CEO or whoever that makes the 100X worker salary. What motivates that person? I’m sure they are compensated very well but at an exponentially lower rate than the will they are serving.

You seem to imply that those top people receiving these large compensations are obviously unfairly and massively overpaid, and that this is an uncontroversial fact.

This clearly isn't the perception at that level. At least some number of people at the board level, as well as presumably these top people themselves, probably don't share that view[1]. This probably extends to the layers immediately beneath them.

I know from my own work that I'm not bothered by the fact that other people I sometimes interact with (I'm not the last layer before them nor do I think "doing their bidding" accurately describes my relationship with them) are paid significantly more than I am. I can plainly see that they are bringing skills and experience to the table that I or others at "my level" simply do not have.

1: Never mind the fact that the market also doesn't agree. The departure of a good CEO can move the market cap by a substantial multiple of the CEOs compensation.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#42

Post by urda »

Why is this on the front page? A recent grad, at a startup that grew too fast taking on too many employees, and didn't even get laid off, is writing about getting laid off? This is a medium.com fluff piece if I have ever seen one.

Come back and talk to me when you have actually been laid off.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#43

Post by seattle_spring »

trhway wrote: post #5

this is why i don't move out of Bay Area - me and my acquaintances have been through lay offs here at various years, during the booms and busts, and nobody had any significant issues promptly finding a new job (with a salary increase usually :). Compare that to, for example, the next best thing in US tech - when AMZN says come to Seattle i always imagine being laid off from it few years down the road (with a non-comp…

I think it's hilarious that you think Seattle is some backwater tech nowhere with only 2 companies.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#44

Post by Clubber »

qstyk wrote: post #14
110011 wrote: post #9

Jesus, can you be more melodramatic, self-congratulatory and pointless all at the same time?

It appears the original author would be better suited in a union shop. It would also appear that they’ve never owned a business.

The thing about owning a business is you never hire someone unless you absolutely, positively need to. This apparently wasn't the case at BigCo. Maybe they're the ones that never owned a business.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#45

Post by wolfspider »

vinceguidry wrote: post #17

The author of the article is misinformed about the true landscape of wealth and income inequality. The middle class is ultimately defined by the ability and need to build your own safety net. The upper middle class is able to do this with plenty of wealth to spare for luxuries like private schooling for their kids, income security is provided by their network. Just tap your network and find another job. The upper mid…

This is so horribly wrong- I've known upper middle class that get there by not spending hardly anything and owning their own business and operating it (e.g. Gas Station + Auto Repair). No leeching there. No accounting for "Luck" here or proximity to resources and opportunity. Do they actually teach this in schools or what nowadays? starting to seem prevalent. Life is what you make it, tomorrow holds no promises, opportunity doesn't knock it looks backwards through your peephole, can't take it with you, go where the food is(!!) Heh, how about some more pragmatic advice huh?

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#46

Post by aphextron »

refurb wrote: post #2

Having been laid off due to downsizing, I think everyone should go through it at least once. Sure, the first time will leave you panic stricken, but you'll come out the other side with a lot more clarity about the employee-employer relationship. You are disposable. Even the CEO is disposable (as I've seen many times). Once you realize that, you'll stop the BS about loyalty to your company. It's a business arrangement…

Can't agree with this more. Getting laid off was an invaluable experience for me in retrospect. As a young single person with money and job prospects it's basically a free paid vacation.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#48

Post by trhway »

seattle_spring wrote: post #43
trhway wrote: post #5

this is why i don't move out of Bay Area - me and my acquaintances have been through lay offs here at various years, during the booms and busts, and nobody had any significant issues promptly finding a new job (with a salary increase usually :). Compare that to, for example, the next best thing in US tech - when AMZN says come to Seattle i always imagine being laid off from it few years down the road (with a non-comp…

I think it's hilarious that you think Seattle is some backwater tech nowhere with only 2 companies.

or putting it in numbers : 530K vs. 130K (with 40K being employed at AMZN/Seattle and 40K at MS/Seattle) - "Information" at

https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca.htm

https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/washington.htm#eag

as i said, the next best.

Compare the scenarios:

- a 10%, 4K layoff from AMZN would present a high, by tech standards, unemployment situation of 4% (4K / 90K of the rest of tech capacity in WA with almost half of it - 40K - being just one employer - MS). So it would be very hard to choose and pick and negotiate on a new position, if any.

- a 10%, 4K (judging by various sources, 4K is probably a bit more than 10% of Google employees in CA) layoff from Google would just result in a hiring frenzy by the rest of the 500K industry trying to fill the positions.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#49

Post by dugluak »

refurb wrote: post #2

Having been laid off due to downsizing, I think everyone should go through it at least once. Sure, the first time will leave you panic stricken, but you'll come out the other side with a lot more clarity about the employee-employer relationship. You are disposable. Even the CEO is disposable (as I've seen many times). Once you realize that, you'll stop the BS about loyalty to your company. It's a business arrangement…

CEO is disposable, but often gets a golden parachute.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#50

Post by justherefortart »

Work for yourself. That's the answer.

One job means you get fired and you're looking for a new boss.

10 clients means if one fires you, you still have 9 you're hopefully keeping happy.

I try to follow what I read about Gates starting Microsoft in some Biography. He tried to keep 2x the salary of all the employees as cash on hand, so if something went bad, they could try to weather the storm as long as possible.

So before hiring anyone as an employee (including myself), I do this with my startups. (I work 1099 in the beginning as well and I fire myself [work without pay] first).

Getting laid off lets you know where your loyalties should lie. The circle of you, is what I call it.

Each circle goes out from there. For me that's the circle of my wife. Then my immediate family. Etc.

Post reply on HN