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

Twitter Layoff Started Today

linkedin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 355 posts

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#341

Post by allarm »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #176
notch656a wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only 16% of SF is families with children, so that's not really representative of someone living there.

That's a valid objection to two whole words of my comment. On the flip side, 99% of SF is people who live in homes. Most of those people will have more than a backpack's worth of stuff to move.

Well, I sold almost everything I had before the move. It was an interesting experience. I had 4 bags that I could afford to bring along, and at least twice more of the amount of things that I wanted to keep.

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#342

Post by ChrisLomont »

manyfriends wrote: post #244
ChrisLomont wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand). Has there ever been really any difference? I know rose colored glasses make people think times past were better in many cases, but I find no evidence…

> Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers. This seems a bit misleading from the article you referenced: “The researchers find that, for both men and women, more union involvement in wage setting significantly decreases the employment rate of young and older individuals relative to the prime-aged group (with no significant…

>Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state

No, this is never a good thing. No welfare state replaces the lost income - it may reduce the pain but does not remove it. Otherwise those people would not be unemployed - they'd be retired.

And especially for the young - each year lost is a year behind for wages their entire life as they lag in raises, promotions, skills, and opportunities.

I'm not sure why you think this is a good thing. I've never heard anyone ever claim it, and I've read and worked with econ stuff a long, long time.

Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper about the claim you made? Did you read it in econ literature?

> overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries

These only accrue to those in the union at the detriment of others not in the union and consumers at large. Unions reduce employment, have slower employment growth, and raise costs, which is borne by society. A union is a monopoly on labor, which has all the downsides of monopolies on goods or production.

Some examples:

[1] " We find that unions adversely affect unemployment rates and the growth rates of gross state product (GSP), productivity, and population, while increasing the rate of wage inflation. The impact on the employment growth rate is negative but not significant."

[2]: "We find evidence that links union influence to slower job growth during an economic recovery, a finding consistent with previous studies reporting that unions negatively affect average employment and employment growth."

[3]: Lists data for many countries and many time periods about how union shops have lower employment growth.

I could go on and on. So while there are benefits to union members, it comes at a cost to those not in the union, to economic growth overall, to employment rates and employment rate growth, and wage inflation (thereby eating up the gains of union wages to begin with). The literature is pretty clear on these effects.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-001-1012-0

[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-007-9004-3

[3] https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7250184...

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#343

Post by krallja »

thrown321 wrote: post #305
krallja wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s false; brokerages make enough money from retail customers with payment for order flow.

Isnt that the definition of front running?

No, front running is where they go take the same position as you, but in FRONT of you.

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#344

Post by jmathai »

dionidium wrote: post #177
jmathai wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the hate towards high cost of living areas. Making a few $100k in a HCOL area is similar to making $100k in a LCOL area. You don't live like a king if both your income AND expenses are higher. Both people in this example have a lot more in common than I'm reading into from your comments.

> $100k in a LCOL area OK, but it's very easy to live comfortably on $100k in a LCOL area. The idea that these people have no fat in their budgets is risible. Put me in charge of the books and I promise they'll be in tip-top shape in 6 months. But they'll hate me, because a lot of stuff they've been keeping in the "needs" bucket is gonna find its way into the "wants" pile in a hurry. If you don't have an emergency fu…

In all fairness, this applies across the board. I agree with you on financial responsibility residing with the individual.

$100k in a LCOL or $300k in a HCOL is sufficient to have an emergency fund. And in the same way that layoffs in a LCOL will hurt, it hurts in HCOL as well.

I just think that the lifestyle perception that some have of people in HCOL making $300k is very inaccurate. It's not nearly as extravagant as you might think.

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#345

Post by jmathai »

_puk wrote: post #221
jmathai wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the hate towards high cost of living areas. Making a few $100k in a HCOL area is similar to making $100k in a LCOL area. You don't live like a king if both your income AND expenses are higher. Both people in this example have a lot more in common than I'm reading into from your comments.

Having lived in both, the thing that got me is that if you're left with 20% after you've paid for everything that month.. that's an awful lot more left over in a HCOL area. But then everything seems geared towards parting you from that remaining 20% wherever you live :) I do feel for those laid off, not everyone being laid off will have managed to maneuver themselves into the ideal position over their time at Twitter…

Agree. I think money is sort of like a house. No matter how large or how much, it'll get filled or used.

Discipline in both will go a long way in not having a big house full of unused rooms and money that's not wasted.

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#346

Post by jmathai »

rayiner wrote: post #90
jmathai wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the hate towards high cost of living areas. Making a few $100k in a HCOL area is similar to making $100k in a LCOL area. You don't live like a king if both your income AND expenses are higher. Both people in this example have a lot more in common than I'm reading into from your comments.

> I don't understand the hate towards high cost of living areas. It's all the whining. These folks are privileged to have options, choose to live in certain areas, and enjoy the benefits (higher pay, more jobs if they get laid off, amenities, etc.) of those choices. But they still complain. I honestly don't get the psychology. Is it some sort of defense mechanism for folks who don't want to admit they're the elites t…

I agree that some, not all, wages in HCOL areas are very bloated. That's not always the case though and I imagine it's not the case for HR groups within Twitter.

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#347

Post by fleddr »

claudiulodro wrote: post #308
fleddr wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I have news for you: 100K in a LCOL is a type of salary that pretty much nobody in the US, let alone the rest of the world earns. It's an elite salary. The absolute top tier for employees worldwide. It's not hate, it's trying to get people to understand that they are elite and privileged.

That's not true. Plenty of trades, nurses and other medical professionals, etc. make a over $100k/yr. Here's a listing I was looking at the other day: Lineman with a 4-day workweek at ~$110k/yr in Newport, Oregon (populatioon 10k) - https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/cencoast/jobs/3582995...

Those are...ELITE. How hard is it to understand that word?

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#348

Post by lampshades »

mkr-hn wrote: post #319
lampshades wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is particularly troubling to you about the ideology of the people laid off? If I were a shareholder I'd say that it isn't compatible with capitalism and I feel that would be a sufficient answer.

What is "it"? As in the ideology, both what it is and what about it is troubling. You didn't answer the question.

You know exactly what "it" is.

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#349

Post by mkr-hn »

lampshades wrote: post #348
mkr-hn wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "it"? As in the ideology, both what it is and what about it is troubling. You didn't answer the question.

You know exactly what "it" is.

You must be one of those folks who struggles to understand other people have a different experience, different priorities, and different knowledge and that you have to actually communicate the thing in your brain if you want other people to know it.

I understand, but I really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not tapped into the Twitter meta.

Re: Twitter Layoff Started Today

#350

Post by arcticbull »

notch656a wrote: post #95
arcticbull wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often visas - either that they cannot get visas to live or work in a different country, or because leaving the US would cause them to abandon potentially decades of progress towards permanent residency.

Don't need a visa for Svalbard. Checkmate!

I've been actually - considered staying - and if you haven't I'd highly recommend it. Especially a day trip up to Pyramiden. While you do not need a visa to stay in Svalbard forever, you do need a Schengen visa to get there which not everyone can obtain!
Post reply on HN