Live data from Hacker News

Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

wsj.com

571–580 of 717 posts

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#571
post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then - found a company that employs half the people and become the next Google. Should be easy if your magic insights can make you twice as profitable. Maybe this is not how innovation works though.

Not a good argument from you. As if the sheer number of employees is what made Google successful in the first place. And as if efficiency alone makes a successful company. Why would you think these things?

GP was stating that 50% of tech workers at big companies are redundant. Armed with that knowledge he should be in a stellar position to found a company that is very profitable compared to its competitors who incur double the labor costs. This incredible competitive advantage will enable him to become the next Google eventually.

Sounds plausible? No? I wonder where the error is.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#572
post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention they are screwed if congress passes legislation to ban selling order flow to firms like Citidel.

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

Fidelity doesn't get paid for order flow, and it has $0 trades.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hardest part of this to me to deal with is that it’s the truth. For decades, the conservative line was if you give people money they’ll just blow it on gambling and booze. Turns out it’s true.

Ah yes, it’s completely fair that the only people who should be morally allowed to participate in the financial apparatus that sometimes leads to getting rich, are the people who are already rich. I see no incongruities whatsoever with this logic. rapid eye blinking Bunch of people lost money. Some of them got rich. Booze is good and gambling is fun and it’s ok to blow their own money on exactly the things that every…

> Ah yes, it’s completely fair that the only people who should be morally allowed to participate in the financial apparatus that sometimes leads to getting rich, are the people who are already rich.

I agree with your overall point, but to be clear, we're talking about day trading. There's a lot of arguments you could have about banning casinos, pro and con, but "hey, some poor person might win big on the quarter slot machines" isn't a good argument.

Also, the median "accredited investor" is a dentist from Topeka who's about to get suckered by an advance fee fraud. Being an accredited investor doesn't automatically give you access to good deals. There just isn't a pool of amazing investments out there hungry for capital but being stopped by investor protection laws. (But there is a pool of scams...)

(Note that I'm not saying that the system is good or fair or just; I'm just saying mechanically, accredited investor laws aren't the part of the system stopping you from getting rich.)

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#574
post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that, but companies that cut tech too deep will probably get crushed under a mountain of technical debt or gradually lose goodwill due to buggy or stale products. Point is, it's possible to ship crap with a small crew. But the cuts won't come uniformly from scoping back or removing low productivity engineers. You'll also see corners cut, upgrades delayed, security flaws ignored, and so on.

Obviously there's bias involved, but I really don't see a reality where this isn't the case. I've literally never worked at a company where half the team could be laid off and the product would still function at its current level of functionality for 12 months; let alone adding functionality. If you've worked at a company like this; I imagine there are some; then sure; the lights could be kept on. Hey there Oracle &…

I don’t know if I’d agree with the claim that 50% can be cut… but there is certainly bloat and it could be time to trim the fat. This would be very good news for the industry since all those engineers will start new things and build new companies.

That said, I think the salaries might stagnate. End of 2021 had everyone starting a new job and competing offers. It may not last so the negotiations won’t be as lucrative. Beyond that, tech salaries are high because the profit per person is high and that won’t change much, especially if companies trim excess employees.

I read somewhere a while ago (can’t find it) that Uber once discovered they had multiple teams all making an internal map gui, just siloed into different orgs so there was no visibility. While it’s a crazy example and probably fake, it’s not hard to imagine an org like google or Amazon where there are 100k employees having some level of duplicated efforts.

With office politics, some architectural decisions get made because everyone wants their team to touch important things. I was part of a team that owned a critical request flow and when they were adding new features it was decided that this API should be the entry point for those new features (10% increase in traffic estimated). So it went from a crud app (stateless app with database) to an API ingress with a (custom written) event queue linked to a queue processor (by AWS sqs) linked to a service that was responsible for handing the request off to one of several crud apps (except no new ones were written). Now 4 teams had a portion of the flow under their control. Was there a reason for this architecture? Yes. Would it have happened if the org didnt balloon from 7 engineers to 50? Probably not. Would customers have noticed? Yes, the API would have been faster and more reliable.

Beyond that, it’s well documented that tech people like shiny new toys. I interviewed at DoorDash for a pretty visible product team. They said they were hiring to do a complete rewrite of their product switching to and that it was their main deliverable for 2022. The team I was leaving during said interview was allocating 50% of headcount to rewrite the tech stack from binary on VMs to “AWS native” technology. No new features. If the team was told to cut some headcount or was denied headcount to grow, that’s be the first project axed because it doesn’t save money or help the customer. Meanwhile, my new team has 1/3 the people for a literal 10-100x traffic product with way more customer visibly. If you spent the last few years on this team, you’d think software engineering was lean and efficient. On my last one you’d say it’s bloated and full of busywork.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet tech is such a small portion of the labor force that layoffs here basically mean zilch when it comes to the unemployment rate/inflation, and thus there's a long way for it to fall before the Fed adjusts policy The really scary thing for me is the possible macro environment for tech. Indians will soon overtake any of the Western countries as the largest English-speaking population on the internet. As I'm sure ma…

Have you ever worked with an Indian company? I am just laughing each time I hear huge talent pool. So maybe your top 1% is incredible but they already left the country.

You’re not wrong but there has been a big shift in the Indian tech education scene the last couple of years. All these startups raised an insane amount of money and are suddenly hungry for product-focused talent.

The average Indian engineer used to aspire for consulting jobs (think TCS, Infosys) since product-focused jobs were so few. Now their goal is to get a job at a startup.

Consequently, the tech stack and skills they’re learning is entirely different. Not .NET and Java but React and Rust and UX design.

I really think the quality and type of Indian engineering talent you will see in the next 5 years will be radically different. The market has shifted drastically.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#576

"Last year, we staffed many of our operations functions under the assumption that the heightened retail engagement we had been seeing with the stock and crypto markets in the COVID era would persist into 2022..." We are now at the point when we will find out which of the changes to behavior (financial and otherwise) that came about with the onset of the covid-19 pandemic are going to be lasting, and which are not. I…

Next up, the remote work craze. Everybody thinks they are super productive working from home but on a larger scale I imagine it took a huge hit. Plus it is dystopian as fuck. People need to be around people outside of their immediate family to stay sane and I promise you most of these new remote workers are basically never interacting with people outside their small bubbles. It’s gonna swing back. Calling it now. A t…

> A ton of people I’m know made some seriously impulsive moves into houses way out in the middle of nowhere thinking this will last

I've seen it too, and I was really surprised because a house is a 5+ year commitment, and it wasn't (and still isn't) clear WFH will be commonplace that far out.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#577
post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covid and the wide scale embracing of remote work is really going to combine with layoffs to massacre our wages. Some FAANG companies will likely prioritize hiring in Europe and Asia and use that to pressure bay area salaries down.

That remote work stuff will go away. People are kidding if they think large organizations can innovate and remain competitive when everybody on a team isn’t in the same room. Individually people might think they are more productive (at least coders do) but the communication issues that arise from remote work are gonna really become an issue soon enough.

So I agree people are less efficient, but I think it’s here to stay.

I started a new job during covid and it took me a lot longer to few productive than I was comfortable with, and it’s because I couldn’t just grab someone and ask them to explain something quickly. Knowledge was way more siloed.

But the convenience of working from home and not commuting and not dealing with the office is hard to shake.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your best engineers are facilitators, not coding monkeys.

Those are not engineers then, they're managers. It's strange to see this confusion when it comes to software. Any other discipline and you wouldn't say engineers that don't do any engineering are the best engineers.

They are still ICs, not people managers.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#579

So several times I've had the opportunity to join fast growing startups that offered quite a bit more compensation, and equity as well. One of the things that I always took consideration of was the stability of the company vs where I was at. Many of these people made a bet that working for Robinhood would pay off, it didn't that is part of the risk that came with the SV salaries, and the stock. I get that it sucks, b…

I’ve heard a lot of tech people not consider stability because it’s so easy to just get a new tech job. Everyone was hiring. Everyone was throwing money everywhere. Why be stable when you can find an employer easier than calling a taxi.

Obviously that’s over now.

Re: Robinhood lays off 23% of staff

#580
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.

Fidelity doesn't get paid for order flow, and it has $0 trades.

Fidelity sells access to their dark pool which is default execution for orders at their brokerage. They make money off their order flow just like RH.

https://www.tradersmagazine.com/departments/brokerage/fideli...

Post reply on HN