401–410 of 717 posts
That's a lot of staff - it means 1/5th of your coworkers got laid off... I'm very bearish on Robinhood - I don't know if they have enough of a moat to defend themselves from other free stock trading apps. People have forgiven so many outages. The Gamestop saga was the straw that broke the camel's back for many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your math makes no sense. The fewer the employees laid off, the more the dollar per employee will be. What does that mean? If a company lays off only one employee, then all of the CEO's salary could have gone to one person?
I think it just shows that the CEO earned enough to give every laid off employee a whole annual salary, so you could argue that the layoff could have been prevented for at least a year.
Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this.
What is the cost of making the kind of mistakes this guy did? And who should pay for them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your math makes no sense. The fewer the employees laid off, the more the dollar per employee will be. What does that mean? If a company lays off only one employee, then all of the CEO's salary could have gone to one person?
I think it just shows that the CEO earned enough to give every laid off employee a whole annual salary, so you could argue that the layoff could have been prevented for at least a year.
> 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…
So if it's on you, how about YOU lose your job?
No?
Oh well then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, CEOs for decades (the 50s-80s) did just fine at a fraction of wealth disparity compared to today [1]. In fact, in just the last three years; the overall disparity has increased 31% despite corporations failing to properly manage the pandemic or their workforces. 1 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2022/05/23/ceo-worker...
> And yet, CEOs for decades (the 50s-80s) did just fine at a fraction of wealth disparity compared to today [1]. And yet, SW professionals did just fine for decades when making anywhere from a quarter to a third of today's FAANG salaries (inflation adjusted).
So the question becomes, are CEOs pay commensurate with their added value? Put differently, is the rise in production mainly attributable to the CEO (as wages were largely stagnant prior to 2020, yet CEO wages increased rather dramatically.) Are they adding more value now than they did before and, if so, can we actually measure it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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.
Not my company not my bets. I’m paid to staff a post at a company, the CEO laying people off has no more impact on or responsibility to my livelihood than I do to the workers of food truck I frequent. As a worker I take literally no risk except “one day they might stop paying me.” I am not impacted at all by how the company is doing. And if you’re a stock holder then you should love this move since it’s in your best…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then you get to France. Several hours late, because there is an SNCF strike once again :)
I actually respect he French attitude and willingness to stand up for their rights and way of life. We can endlessly debate whether they take it too far but in the backdrop of the rest of the world doing fuck all, I see it as a positive.
The point was that while Europe, as a rule, does lean towards more labour regulation than the US, the specifics vary so much that this is about the only useful generalization you make about it. The rest heavily depends on the country, and even geographical proximity doesn’t really play into it. (But you would know all about that, I expect.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your math makes no sense. The fewer the employees laid off, the more the dollar per employee will be. What does that mean? If a company lays off only one employee, then all of the CEO's salary could have gone to one person?
I think it just shows that the CEO earned enough to give every laid off employee a whole annual salary, so you could argue that the layoff could have been prevented for at least a year.
Should we talk about that too?