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

Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 717 posts

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#211

Post by slickrick216 »

fleddr wrote: post #85

We live in such morally bankrupt times. You can just say "you take responsibility" without actually taking responsibility at all. Our expectations have become so low and we've become so complacent that just the statement is enough. In similar vain, "we care about your mental health" as is the common internal email from HR. No actual care is offered though. Giving staff a day off is a tangible example of doing at leas…

Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#213

Post by systemvoltage »

closewith wrote: post #186
systemvoltage wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All these people had salaries in excess of $180k I presume + stock compensation. Sorry, but they do not fall in the category of people that were exploited. I firmly believe in at will employment. In this case, the CEO exploited the investors, whether it is VC firms, institutional or private investors by making an error in the judgement of hiring needs. Of course there is a risk in investment, but when CEO's make majo…

> All these people had salaries in excess of $180k I presume + stock compensation. Sorry, but they do not fall in the category of people that were exploited. The gilded cage is freedom argument?

I am making the argument that they were not in a cage at all and that they were justly compensated for the risk of joining a rapidly expanding startup.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#214

Post by buscoquadnary »

nativespecies wrote: post #128
twblalock wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general the non-engineers at tech companies get treated pretty well and I don't think they are more likely to get laid off than they are at other companies. They also generally get the same kind of RSUs/options/stock comp as anyone else at the company: those are not normally restricted to engineers, although engineers often get more compensation than others. Marketing, advertising and sales people are especially v…

We honestly aren't treated better, and as you point out, are usually the first out the door. This has been my experience as a marketer over the last 16+ years. So, so many of my compatriots let go in these lean times (and often not backfilled), leaving those left behind to do 2-3X more work and get the ol "you're lucky to have a job!" speech. I've been laid off twice in my career, despite being considered a high-perf…

If it makes you feel any better layoffs are nothing personal, it all comes down to box ticking on a spreadsheet, to make numbers balance.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#215

Post by happyopossum »

paxys wrote: post #29

> As CEO, I approved and took responsibility for our ambitious staffing trajectory—this is on me Reminder that Vlad Tenev received $800M in compensation in 2021. In the same year the company made terrible bets on crypto and banking, took an irreversible reputation hit among its core user base because of the GME fiasco, had multiple user data breaches, was subject to several investigations and was fined hundreds of mi…

> Reminder that Vlad Tenev received $800M in compensation in 2021

No he did not in fact receive $800m. You seem to know a lot about the performance of RH stock, but you’ve completely missed the fact that the poor performance means he won’t be seeing that $800m worth of stock - almost none in fact.

He got a comp plan that could get him up to that much in stock if certain goals were met, but none of those have been met so he hasn’t gotten any of that $$.

Suffice it to say, if he had met those goals, they wouldn’t be laying off anyone, as their stock price would be sky high.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#216

Post by jeffbee »

renewiltord wrote: post #51
jeffbee wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past year he sold $55 million of shares. Let's don't be too credulous about cries of poverty.

Sure but that's not opex (the context of this thread). That's stuff he has by virtue of founding the company.

"I'm a founder and you are just OPEX" is how people get put up against walls.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#217

Post by xpe »

manquer wrote: post #87
jrochkind1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize it's not something that happens, but I would say "taking responsibility" would mean taking, oh, I dunno, $50M of that $800M in compensation in 2021, and distributing it to those laid off? (How the hell is your life different with $750M instead of $800M anyway?)

The rich don’t see it that way. At its core wealth accumulation is a scoring contest so every penny counts for those care. Also if you have all the material needs that is satisfied, then you go after the rare hard to get high value exclusive money drain this is human nature. For your specific example what that 50m might make difference it maybe a bigger jet that flies further or a second jet for the family or a yatch…

Imagine if I was visiting Laos and told someone I met in the countryside that I spent, say $2,000 on a racing bicycle -- which would be considered "normal" in bike racing culture in many parts of the US.

Imagine what that person would think!

My central point is this: People are quick to "normalize" their behavior relative to their perceived peer group.

So, yes, multinational CEO compensation is hard to comprehend. (It is arguably to the point where it does not serve those very corporations well. But that isn't my point...)

Just remember, the income and spending habits of a "typical" mid-range software developer in a major U.S. city are similarly incomprehensible for a wide range of people.

In some sense, it is turtles all the way down.

P.S. I'm not defending CEO pay. First, I haven't really studied it up close. I'd like to see more, erm, experimentation in it. Lowering it, sure. But also I'd like to see it deferred, for example, so a CEO's compensation is also tied to what happens after they leave. That would increase the incentive to not plunder the place or take shortcuts. Yes, I recognize this proposal seems to mix incentives between past and current CEOs. But that reflects reality. You can't just "wash off" a terrible previous CEO. And the "glean" from a wonderful predecessor will pay dividends for a long time.

P.P.S. Shameless plug: if you are a well-funded not-for-profit with a generous comp and benefits package, you could do worse than hire me. I'm an expert at studying CEO pay and pay inequity at organizations, both using intra- and inter- methodologies. I'm part of an exclusive self-selected, self-reinforcing group of self-proclaimed experts, so be sure to send your best offer.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#218

Post by lopatin »

Spivak wrote: post #146
paxys wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your company also do mass layoffs whenever you cause a production issue?

The impact doesn’t matter, the magnitude of the mistake does. * If I take all reasonable precautions and bad thing still happens — not a fuckup. * If try my best but make an honest mistake like being forgetful — minor fuckup. * If I try my best but don’t know something crucial — minor fuckup. If I am paid to be an expert on that thing — major fuckup. * If I deliberately choose to forego necessary precautions because…

“crypto up plz” being the calculated, good faith, board approved risk?

I’m not saying it was illegal. All I’m saying is the people who paid for the bad bets (with their livelihoods) were not the same ones who made the bets in the first place.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#219

Post by acuozzo »

bostonpete wrote: post #120
outworlder wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as their primary investing platform :%s/investing/speculation/g Very few people use RH as 'investing'. Those will be on boring brokers like Vanguard. I have a Tastyworks account too - the fills are way better than Robinhood's. As expected, since they charge some amount per trade. But that means that the "free" platform will definitely have more users, just because it's supposedly free (even though you pay for it in…

Wow, TIL you can use sed syntax in vi. I'm not a heavy vi user but that's still a handy trick. :-)

It comes from ex (the line editor sitting beneath vi).

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#220

Post by coffee_beqn »

RSHEPP wrote: post #147
fleddr wrote: post #85

We live in such morally bankrupt times. You can just say "you take responsibility" without actually taking responsibility at all. Our expectations have become so low and we've become so complacent that just the statement is enough. In similar vain, "we care about your mental health" as is the common internal email from HR. No actual care is offered though. Giving staff a day off is a tangible example of doing at leas…

Company I work for gives international Mental Health Day off, October 10th.

Nice token gesture but that makes just as much sense as having a National sick day. What am I going to time when I get sick?
Post reply on HN