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

1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies

#51

Post by magduf »

RA_Fisher wrote: post #39
Frost1x wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As implemented in the current US economy, those price signals are also suppressed through collusion, cronyism, and near monopolies so it's not an exclusive issue of socialism implementations. Many markets are stagnant and do not offer healthy competition. There's a fair share of markets that still offer healthy competition, but from my perspective, it seems like the end goal of market optimization almost inevitably l…

One of the great things about capitalism is that it has some redundancy and resiliency. Competition may also lead to new features (markets), etc. On the other hand, this is duplicative and wasteful. Contrast the duplication (redundancy) of the capitalist system to the one producer model of communism. Less duplication but less resiliency and less ability to find new features (market). I think when a market is young an…

The problem with this idea of "duplication" is that, in reality, it's never been shown that monopolies are actually highly efficient. Humans just aren't very good at being efficient when they aren't forced to, and competition does that. The places where we do have monopolies that work out OK are where there's heavy government regulation, and even there the results are never as good as an industry where there's highly competitive private industry; it's just that, for some things, having a regulated monopoly is better than the alternative: we see this for utilities, subways, etc. where competition doesn't really make any sense or just isn't feasible (you can't really have 5 different subway lines going between the same 2 points in a dense city).

In reality, humans are frequently lazy, corrupt, incompetent, etc., and so in a market where there's healthy competition, the presence of competition provides a check against these problems, giving consumers an alternative when one player screws up too much. With a monopoly, there is no alternative, and no incentive to do better, unless it's being heavily controlled by the government which has to respond to voters.

Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies

#52

Post by mathattack »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #42
maxxxxx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always amazes how bad enterprise systems can be. My company uses SuccessFactors and also a thing called Windchill. After seeing how convoluted Windchill is you will think that SuccessFactors is actually quite decent. Kronos is also a great case study in terrible design.

Working at a startup that does b2b software it's pretty clear. "Tail wags the dog" development and placing the highest priority on C-level personal relationships

I think it’s caused by a few things:

- Enterprise software CEOs are more likely to come from Sales than their consumer counterparts.

- Enterprise software has more lock-in. Ones the market is saturated, their best financial move frequently is to milk the existing base rather than improve things. (This is why one should avoid long term contracts like the plague)

Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies

#53

Post by woah »

49531 wrote: post #41
ido wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economic growth was actually even worse before glasnost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#/m...

And if the US had been the one to capitulate to communism we'd be quoting stats about the lack of income growth of their workers in contrast to the wealthy. Viewing the health of a nation on the growth of their income isn't necessarily telling the story. Soviet inflation was almost unheard of save for hyperinflation shortly after the revolution, and hyper inflation after the collapse. Also as investment wasn't as muc…

Did people risk death to escape the US?

Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies

#55

Post by Hydraulix989 »

magduf wrote: post #47
dwaltrip wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't think employees matter, that is an issue. It is overly reductionist to say that a company exists solely for the benefit of the shareholders. Such a model is a rather incomplete description of reality.

>It is overly reductionist to say that a company exists solely for the benefit of the shareholders. It's not reductionist at all; that's exactly how it is in a purely capitalist system, and how it is in America. It's different in other countries, like European ones and Japan, where companies really do have a responsibility to employees and society at large, but in America they don't have any such responsibility, no m…

That’s right, the truth hurts. Here in America (especially in California) employment is at-will, and companies act in their shareholders’ interests. It is MUCH more difficult to fire employees in Scandinavia and in Asia where employees have much more rights, and there are legal protections in place. I see that you downvoted this 100% factual parent post because it goes against your rosy moral picture about how you feel America should work.

Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies

#56

Post by WhiteSource1 »

notTyler wrote: post #33
WhiteSource1 wrote: post #10

Left out Imperva, which was bought by Thoma Bravo in January. 150 people let go while the CEO makes $15 million. Mismanaged incentives - employees don't matter, just shareholders.

Yeah. My last company got bought by them and was told that in spite of their rep for shuttering and turning companies into shells this was absolutely not the case. Cue a few months later almost 10 percent of staff let go, hiring freeze for everyone except the sales department, and closing of the Chicago office to make money. They won't hire new devs even when they quit. If a company gets bought by them and you work t…

Because it's not just turning into shells. It's also getting rid of X and replacing them with Y. Replacing workers with workers in other geos or just replacing them with someone else, so the headcount stays steady or even grows but it's a different head.

Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies

#57

Post by WhiteSource1 »

magduf wrote: post #47
dwaltrip wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't think employees matter, that is an issue. It is overly reductionist to say that a company exists solely for the benefit of the shareholders. Such a model is a rather incomplete description of reality.

>It is overly reductionist to say that a company exists solely for the benefit of the shareholders. It's not reductionist at all; that's exactly how it is in a purely capitalist system, and how it is in America. It's different in other countries, like European ones and Japan, where companies really do have a responsibility to employees and society at large, but in America they don't have any such responsibility, no m…

Except for one thing: Engaged employees increase shareholder value

Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies

#59

Post by skybrian »

magduf wrote: post #47
dwaltrip wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't think employees matter, that is an issue. It is overly reductionist to say that a company exists solely for the benefit of the shareholders. Such a model is a rather incomplete description of reality.

>It is overly reductionist to say that a company exists solely for the benefit of the shareholders. It's not reductionist at all; that's exactly how it is in a purely capitalist system, and how it is in America. It's different in other countries, like European ones and Japan, where companies really do have a responsibility to employees and society at large, but in America they don't have any such responsibility, no m…

It's reductionist because it assumes management has no choice in how to run their business and US corporations are basically all the same.

This is clearly, obviously not the case. There are many ways to make money and the management of a company has a lot of freedom to choose how to go about it. Different companies have quite different strategies and cultures. Some treat their employees much better than others. Pretending they're all the same is sort of like saying it doesn't matter who wins in an election.

What we can say is that when new management takes over, sometimes things change quite drastically. But this isn't deterministic and so you can't conclude all that much just from knowing the theory of shareholder value.

Re: 1100 layoffs at Bay Area tech companies

#60

Post by coldtea »

woah wrote: post #53
49531 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if the US had been the one to capitulate to communism we'd be quoting stats about the lack of income growth of their workers in contrast to the wealthy. Viewing the health of a nation on the growth of their income isn't necessarily telling the story. Soviet inflation was almost unheard of save for hyperinflation shortly after the revolution, and hyper inflation after the collapse. Also as investment wasn't as muc…

Did people risk death to escape the US?

No, they just escaped it to avoid death (e.g. during the Vietnam draft).
Post reply on HN