101–110 of 264 posts
Like inflation, it's self-fulfilling. Perception is reality. Some people who strongly influence public perception - to whom we seem to have ceded our power to think critically and independently - who look for social disruption, want it. If businesses pull in their horns, stop supporting innovation, the economic result is easy to predict.
One thing it obviously does not address is the human element of who you cut and whether they will be “default alive” unemployed in a recession. A huge amount of YC advice in general positions founders as protagonists and employees as NPCs then are shocked people pick Google over their startup offer.
Funny thing is I’ve seen this exact advice destroy a company. In March 2020 they did deep layoffs and cited the need to be “default alive.” Then their main market surprisingly quickly grew in the rest of 2020 , they wanted to capitalize on that, but they had laid off too many engineers who knew their infra and had enough outages and slow product development that they lost to their competitors and are now way underwater on their valuation.
They decided to be serious and prudent and go “default alive” which ironically killed them. Of course if 2020 had gotten worse maybe they would look smart but the takeaway is there’s no easy answers.
I would just like to see the human impact of layoffs at least lightly considered in these conversations which it rarely is. And it’s bad for business to as Im sure many people are hesitant to join companies that will have a gut reaction of doing 70% layoffs. If you even think about doing 70% layoffs you clearly over hired and are not making good leadership decisions leading up to the layoff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a 70% cut...Cutting once and cutting hard allows you to reassure the people that are still here that you are truly profitable If your employees are dumb enough that they interpret a 70% cut of the workforce as a sign that your company is stable, you're doomed. It's hard to imagine the dumbest person in the world interpreting that as a sign of stability.
I mean, if there is some transparency and the numbers add up, and 70% cut appears to do the trick, then it would be pretty awesome being in the 30% with a real chance to shine. I imagine there would be a big increase in stock and pay to put things in motion too. Sounds great! Now if the plan is going to end in flames anyway, it still seems like a great reason to stick around and absorb the knowledge and experience. I…
And then there's the 3x increase in workload.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hibernating? They've been the order of the day since 1987. Sure, there's booms and crashes, but that's why we call it a cycle .
Yeah. My parent comment was insinuating that "This time is different" which of course it won't be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 70% cut is a great way to kill your company once the remaining 30% start jumping ship. Either because of the destroyed morale or because they're doing a lot more work in a higher stress environment.
I mean, losing money is a great way to kill your company. What's better: cut 10%, lose money, people leave, cut 10% more, still losing money, more people leaving, cut 10% more, still losing money, more people leaving. Likely at 50% now with no pivot and bad morale. Compare to cut 70% + some people leave, but now you can hopefully do a major pivot and do better?
Like inflation, it's self-fulfilling. Perception is reality. Some people who strongly influence public perception - to whom we seem to have ceded our power to think critically and independently - who look for social disruption, want it. If businesses pull in their horns, stop supporting innovation, the economic result is easy to predict.
That's why it is extremely frustrating to watch this unfold. The easiest way to kill inflation is to kill growth. But that won't help people in need anyway. An empty shelf of baby formulas are not a sign of "economy is too hot". It is a sign of supply issue.
Can I ask you why you've chosen this particular example? It is not about I agree with you, or I'm going to contradict in a some way, it is completely unrelated question. A complete off-topic.
This “default alive” advice is repeatedly shared. One thing it obviously does not address is the human element of who you cut and whether they will be “default alive” unemployed in a recession. A huge amount of YC advice in general positions founders as protagonists and employees as NPCs then are shocked people pick Google over their startup offer. Funny thing is I’ve seen this exact advice destroy a company. In Marc…
This “default alive” advice is repeatedly shared. One thing it obviously does not address is the human element of who you cut and whether they will be “default alive” unemployed in a recession. A huge amount of YC advice in general positions founders as protagonists and employees as NPCs then are shocked people pick Google over their startup offer. Funny thing is I’ve seen this exact advice destroy a company. In Marc…
100% agree with this part.
Going default alive was not the cause of whatever this company was dying. At best, it would slow or kill your growth, not your company. It sounds like it was mismanaged and prioritized something else over fixing their product. It is not bad for a company to focus on profitability.
More employees also does not mean faster product development, every developer knows this is often the complete opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a 70% cut...Cutting once and cutting hard allows you to reassure the people that are still here that you are truly profitable If your employees are dumb enough that they interpret a 70% cut of the workforce as a sign that your company is stable, you're doomed. It's hard to imagine the dumbest person in the world interpreting that as a sign of stability.
As someone who has witnessed such a deep layoff and was left in the 30%, I began job hunting and moved on soon after. When I eventually quit, senior management then explained how I was part of their grand comeback plans and offered a salary bump, and in my mind, all I could think of was how they were trying to balance a cost equation. People far more talented than me had landed pink slips, presumably because of how "…
I was genuinely scared when my time came, and it took another 4 months, but I consider myself lucky but am uncomfortable with the fact that a previous manager of mine at one of those large/profitable companies which had one of those fishing job postings, saw my resume and swapped me for one of his under performers (aka someone got laid off at the end of the fiscal year, and I got hired). And I took a ~40% pay cut for the privilege.
Literally the only people who were getting hired in my area where situations like that. Never assume you will get hired during a downturn unless you have a really solid network of people who will risk their own positions for you and/or work at companies that treat people like cogs to be replaced if they can get a cheaper/more effective cog.
I was at another stable but small company during the 2008 downturn, and I sadly had to turn away a lot of people I would have loved to work with again, but we were on a hard hiring freeze (the ones where upper mgmt breaths a sigh every-time someone leaves of their own volition because it gives them a bit more breathing room). So these times hurt no matter which end of the table your on.
So, don't assume the job market will remain the way it is today.
Edit: I don't really think all YC backed companies think that low of employees.