Live data from Hacker News

Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

cnbc.com

281–290 of 595 posts

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being willfully obtuse here. No one in the US would call their 401k a pension.

Obviously someone who wrote this Wikipedia article would!

Pension is being used as a term of art here not how anyone uses it in standard parlance.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few companies that offer pensions. A 401k is not a pension. A pension is recurring money that is given to you upon retirement in perpetuity. A 401k is just a means of investing your salary into the stock market pre-tax. Your employer does not even have to contribute to it although many if they offer a 401k plan offer some form of match up to x%. My last employer offered to match my contributions up to…

> A 401k is just a means of investing your salary into the stock market pre-tax. If you plan to spend it when you're retired then it's a pension!

ok...

Then I guess my savings account is a pension too as well as the jar of small change I keep on the kitchen counter.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few companies that offer pensions. A 401k is not a pension. A pension is recurring money that is given to you upon retirement in perpetuity. A 401k is just a means of investing your salary into the stock market pre-tax. Your employer does not even have to contribute to it although many if they offer a 401k plan offer some form of match up to x%. My last employer offered to match my contributions up to…

> A 401k is just a means of investing your salary into the stock market pre-tax. If you plan to spend it when you're retired then it's a pension!

@chrisseaton

I'll just go ahead and spoon feed it to you: pension in the context of this discussion means a defined-benefit plan contributed to solely by your employer. I'm surprised a Senior Staff Engineer at Shopify is struggling so hard to grasp the concept of context.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is surely in a similar ad dollars crunch as Google. I can't imagine they're full speed.

They are also seeing record traffic so they might be doing alright. We'll find out when they report earnings later today.

I mean record traffic means record server usage with record low ad spend from their customers.

However, that's just a short-term hit. FB and Google may very well increase their own spending so they can capture the huge amount of people who are now using their platforms.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#285
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 401(K) is not a pension. The latter is funded entirely by the employer.

Why does Wikipedia say it's a pension then?

Because language is imprecise and depends on context - you and the GP are talking past each other. They are using the word in a conversational context and you are using it in an academic/technical sense.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension:

"A pension is a fund into which a sum of money is added during an employee's employment years and from which payments are drawn to support the person's retirement from work in the form of periodic payments. A pension may be a "defined benefit plan", where a fixed sum is paid regularly to a person, or a "defined contribution plan", under which a fixed sum is invested that then becomes available at retirement age.

The common use of the term pension is to describe the payments a person receives upon retirement, usually under pre-determined legal or contractual terms. A recipient of a retirement pension is known as a pensioner or retiree."

A 401k is a savings account, not a contractual obligation, so that's why it's not a pension in common usage.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those with pensions tend to be union members; the pension being a benefit insisted upon in negotiations between unions and their (government) employers. If a state declares bankruptcy, lists pensions as a debt, and the federal discharges the pension debt, the GOP can thumb their noses at unions in a very big way.

> Those with pensions tend to be union members I still don't understand. Surely almost every professional has a pension, but few people are in unions.

Pension is broadly understood to be a defined benefit. Workers contribute to the pool a certain amount every months, government/company contributes a certain amount every months for every worker and when a worker retires the worker draws a specific amount until he or she dies or in some cases until his or her heirs die. The government (via PBGC) is on the hook for the amount until the time of death. The issue with defined benefit plans is that they are as they are being "negotiated" not self-sustainable with the unrealistic return expectations and having costs not adjusted for the reality of increased life expactancy.

Currently most of non-union ( and mostly non-government union ) employees have a defined contribution plan. A worker contributes a specific amount every year, a company matches some amount of workers' contribution. At the retirement worker's draw down is limited to the amount in that account. If the account did well. the maximum amount is that can be drawn is large and if it has not done well, it is not large.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#287

This seems like a great time for Amazon or Google to buy Lyft. Amazon could bundle rides with package deliveries and get the pre-existing driver and passenger network from Lyft. Lyft was actually telling drivers to work with Amazon when the pandemic started (1). Waymo could take Lyft’s aggregated rider demand. They already have a partnership to transfer autonomous rides from Waymo to Lyft during bad weather situation…

love that this is the top comment on HN and not the fact that 1k people just lost their ability to pay their rent/mortgages, take care of their families, deal with medical costs.

In fact the top comment is now some partisan bickering! All these smart people and not 10% of them enough foresight to think beyond "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Not in the US, but I'm not sure someone unemployed and out of medical insurance can tell much of a difference between "red" and "blue" right now.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#288

- The tech companies having issues during covid-19 are all heavily invested in travel/transportation(Uber/Lyft/Airbnb etc). - They also are in industries that entirely use gig workers with personal contact in 90% of their services(airbnb the least of these). - I don't see other tech companies getting hit this hard(the sky is not falling!). - I really, really hope these laid off engineers find other jobs quickly and l…

I mostly agree at this point but wonder if covid's economic impact is just getting started and there's gonna be massive unforeseen 2nd and 3rd order effects. Hospitality/transportation and startups that were already in trouble (e.g. WeWork) might just be the tip of the iceberg.

Conversely, it's helped some tech companies (Amazon and Zoom) so who knows how this all shakes out.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, the FANG acronym was meant to represent the FAANG stocks, not the perceived quality of engineering within the industry.

I didn't know that. I thought it was because of their engineering chops.

I'm pretty sure it was stock based. For one, Netflix is like, completely different than the rest. They only hire senior engineers and basically substitute a talent pipeline with giant wages.

FAANG internships always sounded weird, considering, y'know, Netflix doesn't do internships.

Re: Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

#290
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real questions. I'm not a history buff. Has there ever been a time in US history that the federal government has been so openly antagonistic and overtly willing to attack opposite-party state governments? If so, what were the outcomes? If not, is there anything even close? Current question - what is the endgame for those who what blue states to go bankrupt? What do they get if that happens, outside of talking points?…

Well yes - there was a civil war! And more recently, the national guard was used to enforce school integration. Things have been much more antagonistic between the federal government and the states at times in the past.

For others curious, while the National Guard is a joint state-federal organization, the feds took control to enforce integration against the orders of the Arkansas governor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_National_Guard_and_...
Post reply on HN