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

SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 557 posts

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#531

Post by [deleted] »

aristophenes wrote: post #401
pas wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That 4% number is complete crap, and you know it. Could you explain it please? Even U6 is below 8 percent. https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate the part time part is big of course ( https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2015/05/the-many-flavors-of-... ) but that's how it was for decades since BLS started tracking it. With regards to ethical wages, SpaceX should pay well, so people don't depend on them (t…

Article says 8 weeks of pay minimum, so that’s two months. USA has 6 months of unemployment benefits at half pay, which the employer pays for. Not sure if the severance pay comes with an agreement to not use that...

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#532

Post by lutorm »

dogma1138 wrote: post #448
jamiek88 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can and do hire approved permanent residents too. It’s harder but they can work on ITAR information too. However the point stands that those people are vetted and tracked. How effective that is once they are in China or Russia etc I don’t know.

They can but I don’t think they do that Elon was asked several why don’t they hire non citizens. I’m sure some special cases do happen but the bulk of their workforce is US citizens. And again you assume that they won’t get caught going to Russia or China to begin with or that they won’t be tasked with assets in country once they arrive. We’re talking about 500-600 people here out of them it’s not clear how many woul…

They don't care if you're a citizen or not, they care about whether you're legally allowed to work on rockets. From an ITAR perspective, a green card holder is the same as a US citizen, and from a recruiting perspective there is no difference.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#533

Post by johnchristopher »

kgwgk wrote: post #512
johnchristopher wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I left my previous employer, the reason was absolutely arbitrary. The new one paid more. That is literally the inverse of what arbitrary means: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will Now: > I didn't have to wait for the old company to not pay me the agreed upon salary, spend months offering them a "compensation improvement plan", and documentin…

b : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

I say "leaving previous employer because the new one paid more" is not an individual preference or convenient but the intrinsic nature of the decision. Maybe even motivated by necessity if more money was needed.

It's not like he chose the new company because the logo is red.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#534

Post by caconym_ »

kurthr wrote: post #529
theptip wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They aren't used for the same thing The old BFR design had a large carbon-fiber hull, the new one has a stainless steel hull. Unless I'm missing your point, that's a major piece of the rocket that's no longer made with carbon fiber. (The giant molds that they were building for the BFR hull, for example, are now redundant.)

It's not for production, it's for testing and looking cool.

From what I understand, the plan is for the production Starship to have a stainless steel skin. I'm sure it will be a much more refined construction than the hopper, but skinned in stainless steel nonetheless.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)#Second_stage_and_...

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#535

Post by kgwgk »

johnchristopher wrote: post #533
kgwgk wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

b : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

I say "leaving previous employer because the new one paid more" is not an individual preference or convenient but the intrinsic nature of the decision. Maybe even motivated by necessity if more money was needed. It's not like he chose the new company because the logo is red.

Employers rarely fire people for arbitrary reasons, then.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#536

Post by mulmen »

rhizome wrote: post #519
kerng wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is dehumanizing? Either way is awful, but companies have to make tough decisions and communicating those is not easy. Many people prefer an email over awkward semi-genuine HR discussions. Coworkers and manager will reach out afterwards in private and in person if they really cared about the connection.

It's dehumanizing in the strictest sense of the word: communicated by text on a screen rather than in-person.

That’s a superficial focus on human interaction that ignores he reality of business dealings.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#537

Post by anticensor »

wildmusings wrote: post #370
antpls wrote: post #265

I don't understand how anyone in the world accept such social contract of being laid off anytime for arbitrary reasons. If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. If you have to cut expenses because the company needs to be "leaner" then you cut the salaries starting from the top executives. Eventually you fire management, because the state of the company is in part the result of their decisi…

Freedom to fire enhances the willingness to hire. There’s a balance to be found, but if you make it impossible to get rid of employees you no longer want, you end up with an anemic labor market, like Europe’s. Barriers to firing also make it harder to justify hiring higher-risk candidates (e.g. former felons, high school dropouts).

Hard-to-fire markets also have necessary laws to promote hiring former felons, old age and disabilities.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#538

Post by johnchristopher »

kgwgk wrote: post #535
johnchristopher wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say "leaving previous employer because the new one paid more" is not an individual preference or convenient but the intrinsic nature of the decision. Maybe even motivated by necessity if more money was needed. It's not like he chose the new company because the logo is red.

Employers rarely fire people for arbitrary reasons, then.

If by arbitrary reasons you mean a not random reason like "they cost too much" then they do it all the time.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#539

Post by Faark »

deelowe wrote: post #210
entee wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been at a company where the 1-1 firings occurred over a morning. I was fortunate to keep my job, but I can tell you it was a pretty awful day for those staying (obviously not as bad as for those leaving :(). There's no good way to do this, layoffs of this sort are awful. I actually am not sure this is better or worse. You have a horrible Friday night, with untold stress, but at least you're not sweating at your…

There is a right way to do this. You announce it to the staff and at the same time you let those affected know. It's best to do this at the end of the day. Telling people "you may or may not still have a job, you'll get an email within the next 72 hours" is ridiculous. So what happens if it's Monday morning and I didn't get an email? Am I still employed? What if there was a glitch? What if I show up and I'm escorted…

> You announce it to the staff and at the same time you let those affected know.

To do this you would have to already have finalized this list of people to let go. Specifying that list beyond rough department targets to actual individuals probably requires involvement of many managers and might be what happened in those 72 hours, but I'd love to hear from someone with actual experience. Could larger organizations actually prepare that without leaking the layoff anyway?

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#540

Post by kgwgk »

johnchristopher wrote: post #538
kgwgk wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employers rarely fire people for arbitrary reasons, then.

If by arbitrary reasons you mean a not random reason like "they cost too much" then they do it all the time.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Do you think that "they cost too much" is an "arbitrary" reason? Or is it the "intrinsic nature of the decision" like in the "I leave because they pay me more elsewehere" case?

Post reply on HN