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

“Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 193 posts

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#151

Post by mistermann »

coding123 wrote: post #20
brenden2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately there's little visibility into this, so we can raise our pitch forks and go after companies with angry mobs, but at the end of the day we don't really know what's going on inside every company. The law makers are the ones who write the cheques and make the system the way it is. The real problem is how laws are made and how the government functions.

There are usually people that know about the abuse. You have to hope for whistleblowers at that point.

This seems far too error prone for my liking, particularly considering the sub-optimal way in which we handle whistleblowers.

If we have such little control over our financial system that we have to literally rely on hope, wouldn't it make sense to maybe pull back the covers on this monstrosity and starting figuring out what's inside?

And if public policy makers once again deem the system "battle ready" and come asking for a handout again in 10 years, what then? If someone ran their family like this, we'd call them a bit of a dummy, wouldn't we? So why is this acceptable for the financial system upon which our society (aka: our individual lives) rests?

If we hadn't grown so accustomed to this madness, I think a lot of people would be more agitated by it, but it's been with us for so long we seem to just accept it.

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#152

Post by wool_gather »

twblalock wrote: post #126
brenden2 wrote: post #7

What I've been hearing on the internet is that companies are racing to lay off as many people as they need to now, before applying for their free bailout money from the government. It also sounds like businesses are trying to lay off more than they actually need to lay off, in order to get the maximum benefit. The terms of the bailout loans are such that they can lay off people before they apply, get the money, and s…

Let's remember that the businesses need this bailout because state and local governments forced them to cease operations for an unspecified amount of time. It's entirely reasonable for businesses to be compensated by the government in this situation. It's also reasonable to point out that the compensation is not enough, and it won't come soon enough, and some businesses will need to lay off staff to survive until the…

Why does this rationale apply to businesses but not to individual employees? The government forced them to stop working.

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#153

Post by travisporter »

ttul wrote: post #99
brenden2 wrote: post #7

What I've been hearing on the internet is that companies are racing to lay off as many people as they need to now, before applying for their free bailout money from the government. It also sounds like businesses are trying to lay off more than they actually need to lay off, in order to get the maximum benefit. The terms of the bailout loans are such that they can lay off people before they apply, get the money, and s…

Business owner here. First, let me dispel the myth that business owners are wealthy. All of my friends from school have more liquid assets than I do. I am utterly broke unless you count for the paper wealth of my company shares. When COVID hit, within a week we had customers dropping out of our sales funnel. Half of our expected revenue growth disappeared as customers decided to reduce risk and stick with existing so…

You may be a good CEO but is there any clause that prevents employers from firing everyone and taking the loan for themselves?

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#154

Post by hyperpape »

triceratops wrote: post #150
hyperpape wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a hard pill for people to swallow that they deserved to be laid off because their employer was non-essential. In an advanced economy, an enormous number (maybe even the majority) of jobs are non-essential. If they all disappear overnight, we'd have to rebuild the majority of the economy, and we'd extend the economic crisis by years. "Non-essential" businesses that are in trouble under major social distancing inc…

Small correction: auto mechanics are classified as an essential occupation under California's shelter in place order.[1] It makes sense. Can't run the other essential businesses and services without repairing the means of transportation. 1. https://covid19.ca.gov/img/EssentialCriticalInfrastructureWo...

I could’ve said that more clearly. The parenthetical meant they’d be open, but would get much less business.

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#155

Post by ttul »

mistermann wrote: post #146
ttul wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common misconception. It’s not uncommon for companies to use leverage to fuel growth. High yield venture debt is often tied to growth metrics. It’s not a mistake to operate a company using venture debt. In a highly competitive market, if you don’t lever up, your competitors will eat your market.

> It’s not uncommon for companies to use leverage to fuel growth. Seems true. > High yield venture debt is often tied to growth metrics. Seems true. > It’s not a mistake to operate a company using venture debt. Is this true, or might it be more accurate that particular people, depending on their situation, would like to have us believe it is true? If a company is operating using venture debt, or operating in any arbi…

Companies aren’t going hat-in-hand. Governments are rightly bridging companies if they agree to not fire people.

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#156

Post by twblalock »

wool_gather wrote: post #152
twblalock wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's remember that the businesses need this bailout because state and local governments forced them to cease operations for an unspecified amount of time. It's entirely reasonable for businesses to be compensated by the government in this situation. It's also reasonable to point out that the compensation is not enough, and it won't come soon enough, and some businesses will need to lay off staff to survive until the…

Why does this rationale apply to businesses but not to individual employees? The government forced them to stop working.

They are also getting help from the government, in addition to the normal unemployment benefits which have always been available. It's not like nothing is being done for them.

Both businesses and workers are getting some help, which may not be enough. But let's not act like the government is only helping businesses.

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#157

Post by [deleted] »

keanzu wrote: post #82
todd3834 wrote: post #4

Not to be pessimistic but I assume when a CEO cuts their salary there are other forms of compensation like stock. Maybe someone here with more experience can weigh in? Cutting $70k only helps one person keep their job. How many employees do they have? Anyways, I still applaud his desire to keep 100% of his employees. It is noble. Board and shareholders might disagree but it is nice to see someone looking out for the…

November 2015 120 employees He revealed to Inc. that he has sold all his stocks, emptied his retirement accounts, and mortgaged his two properties -- including a $1.2 million home with a view of Puget Sound -- and poured the $3 million he raised into Gravity. As majority owner, he is not exactly penniless. https://www.inc.com/magazine/201511/paul-keegan/does-more-pa... He's the majority owner of Gravity

[deleted]

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#158

Post by hyperpape »

bdcravens wrote: post #149
hyperpape wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a hard pill for people to swallow that they deserved to be laid off because their employer was non-essential. In an advanced economy, an enormous number (maybe even the majority) of jobs are non-essential. If they all disappear overnight, we'd have to rebuild the majority of the economy, and we'd extend the economic crisis by years. "Non-essential" businesses that are in trouble under major social distancing inc…

I think people will spend some of that money even in "non-essential" businesses, after they pay their essentials. For many small businesses, they can leverage the SBA benefits in the stimulus package to stay afloat.

To the first point: maybe they’ll eventually make that money back, but they also may need help to survive the crisis.

As for the second point, I’m a bit confused whether you think you’re disagreeing with me. Giving companies loans on terms they couldn’t otherwise get is a form of supporting them. I was disagreeing with an OP who said we should only care about individuals.

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#159

Post by ttul »

travisporter wrote: post #153
ttul wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business owner here. First, let me dispel the myth that business owners are wealthy. All of my friends from school have more liquid assets than I do. I am utterly broke unless you count for the paper wealth of my company shares. When COVID hit, within a week we had customers dropping out of our sales funnel. Half of our expected revenue growth disappeared as customers decided to reduce risk and stick with existing so…

You may be a good CEO but is there any clause that prevents employers from firing everyone and taking the loan for themselves?

Some governments are wisely tying their bridge loans to requirements that companies not do layoffs.

Re: “Today I cut my pay to $0. I'm committed to laying off 0 of our employees.”

#160

Post by ttul »

mistermann wrote: post #147
ttul wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope that governments make some adjustments to tax policy to incentivize some industry-wide de-risking.

I hope that we some day have competent, completely arms length people perform a proper systems analysis and produce competent, evidence-based recommendations, and then we implement those (because done correctly, these recommendations should be as close to the gold standard as humanity is currently capable of), plus , and extra say 0.5% skim off the top that goes into a kitty for a rainy day. Why this seems like too m…

That rainy day kitty is known as taxation.
Post reply on HN