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

411–420 of 717 posts

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#411

Post by strix_varius »

adam_arthur wrote: post #358

The truth is that a majority of tech companies don't need 50%+ of their employees. Google could lay off vast swathes tomorrow and be immensely more profitable without any loss in revenue. The 2010s will be remembered as the golden era for tech employment. The second we start getting industry wide layoffs, the insanely high wage inflation we've seen will kick into reverse much faster than you probably believe possible…

> The truth is that a majority of tech companies don't need 50%+ of their employees.

Totally agree. The problem is, nobody knows how to tell which ones.

On the ground it's obvious. I'm sure everyone here knows who on their team is crucial to their current production stack, and also knows others who would have no impact (or even positive impact!) if they left.

One level up - the direct EM - has most of that context too, but some is already lost. At the next level (Sr. EM or Director usually), almost all of it is gone. At that point, cutting 50% is just guessing. Keep going up and eventually the risk becomes too high that you'll sacrifice your key players along with the rest. Bath water, baby.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#412

Post by codq »

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 you figure it out, let me know. I'm a content marketer recently laid off, and I've been dabbling in learning Python in my downtime as a general interest but also as a horizontal skill that... may prove helpful?

In the meantime, kicking down every door I can to find a great company looking for great content.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#413

Post by refurb »

xpe wrote: post #217
manquer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. (I…

Indeed.

I see plenty of people on HN complain that no, they are not middle class while making $400,000/yr because they can't afford a 2,000 sq ft house in the most expensive area of the US.

Like the old saying "An alcoholic is someone who has one more drink than me."

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#414

Post by jeffbee »

mepiethree wrote: post #352
tjr225 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't, but I think most people would guess that is accurate. I know I do. I supported one of their open source infrastructure solutions(that they weren't paying for mind you) when SHTF.

If all we are doing is guessing, I would also guess that people being stuck at home with nothing to do but mess around with Robinhood played a big factor

There is unsurprisingly plenty of survey data about what people did with their stimmies. https://www.nber.org/digest/oct20/most-stimulus-payments-wer...

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#415

Post by chii »

LeafItAlone wrote: post #400
chii wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overpaid executives failed Their failure has already dropped a huge amount of their stock-based compensation. Their base salary shouldn't be determined by the company's failure (only their _future_ salary). What if you applied this to a worker instead of a CxO? Would you yourself take a pay-cut, after the fact, if the company fails to perform?

Plenty of ordinary sales people are 100% commission based. Plenty of CEOs already do (or did during their tenure) take no material base salary and their compensation is tied entirely to the performance of the company. Is that not reasonable for large, profitable businesses. It has its own issues, but what compensation plan doesn’t?

> Plenty of ordinary sales people are 100% commission based.

that's not what i meant.

The question is whether you would take a pay cut _after_ the company performed poorly, but you didn't know ahead of time that it would cut your pay. Performance based bonuses or commission is obviously pre-negotiated and thus, not subject to post-fact alteration.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#416

Post by chii »

bsuvc wrote: post #386
chii wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overpaid executives failed Their failure has already dropped a huge amount of their stock-based compensation. Their base salary shouldn't be determined by the company's failure (only their _future_ salary). What if you applied this to a worker instead of a CxO? Would you yourself take a pay-cut, after the fact, if the company fails to perform?

> What if you applied this to a worker instead of a CxO? Would you yourself take a pay-cut, after the fact, if the company fails to perform? Yes. Yes I would take the CEO's total compensation package. I am skeptical that the CEO is worse off than any employee.

> Yes. Yes I would take the CEO's total compensation package.

As in you would accept, without knowing ahead of time, a cut to your salary when the company's performance drops?

I'm not talking about performance based bonuses or commission based pay. I'm talking about a salary that was pre-negotiated at the time of your employment, but upon the company performing badly, your salary is dropped.

This is what the OP is saying - that high CxO pay is the problem, and that they should have been paid less (after the company's performance dropped).

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#417

Post by rossdavidh »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #321
johnbellone wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it’s much better to cut fast and deep one time.

Why? Let the proles panic and leave on their own accord, it will cost you much less in severance.

You get very little from your employees in the meantime, the ones you are still paying, as they have a much harder time concentrating, and also don't know that they have any reason to care about the company's future. The first week or two after a layoff is very glum and unproductive.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#418

Post by JohnBooty »

bastardoperator wrote: post #228
twblalock wrote: post #118

A lot of Robin Hood's growth in particular was driven by people gambling their stimulus money because they didn't need it to make ends meet, and by the Fed juicing the markets with low rates for far too long, and by the ridiculous meme stock phenomenon. It was a perfect storm of stupidity. Personally I'm glad that some sanity is returning to investing, and we are still a long way from getting back to normal.

people gambling their stimulus money because they didn't need it to make ends meet How did you quantify this statement?

In my industry the wave of stimulus definitely caused behavior changes, it was pretty distinct.

Obviously, a lot of people did need that money to make ends meet. But it's also obvious that some % of the population was able to treat it as money they were able to play around and have some fun with.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#419

Post by rossdavidh »

adam_arthur wrote: post #358

The truth is that a majority of tech companies don't need 50%+ of their employees. Google could lay off vast swathes tomorrow and be immensely more profitable without any loss in revenue. The 2010s will be remembered as the golden era for tech employment. The second we start getting industry wide layoffs, the insanely high wage inflation we've seen will kick into reverse much faster than you probably believe possible…

Adding people fast is very bad for an organization's efficiency, for a variety of reasons, including the one you mention.

However, subtracting a lot of people fast is just as bad for an organization's efficiency, for a whole host of other reasons. Not that I expect Robinhood had much choice in the matter at this point.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#420

Post by adrr »

umeshunni wrote: post #372
adrr wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the discount brokers will go back to charging $5 trade. Will be a big loss for retail investors.

> Will be a big loss for retail investors You mean it will be a big loss for retail traders

If you’re investing monthly or dollar cost averaging into a position. Those $5 per trade add up.
Post reply on HN