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

Meta and Google are cutting staff

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 408 posts

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#71

Post by ras3022 »

game_the0ry wrote: post #55
kevstev wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's profits dropped last quarter, and that is a rare occurrence for them. Metas revenue actually fell last quarter, with profits dropping 35%. IIRC, that's the first revenue drop they have had since going public. This isn't about stock prices, this is about the strength of the underlying business.

Judging by the financials, the underlying business for both is strong, especially relative to many other kinds of businesses. The drop, still, does not look fatal when considering how much growth there was in 2020 and 2021.

Sure but the future is uncertain and when you’re selling ads it’s hard to control revenue. It’s much easier to control expenses.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#72

Post by nappy-doo »

tempsy wrote: post #13
treis wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Very clear the market has now negatively reacted to high operating expenses that largely stem from excessive headcount. Reducing staff by ~10% or whatever after doubling it in the last couple years isn't exactly a strong signal of anything.

I’m speaking more to the stock price than Meta’s actions. Shares trading lower than they were 5 years ago. And many of the unprofitable growth companies down 80-90% in less than a year. Point is tech companies are highly sensitive to interest rates and now have to course correct in a world where the market is punishing excessive spending.

Not really. Meta raised 10B (really their first debt ever) in April 2022, and GOOG has like 14B in debt. Google could pay that with less than a quarter's worth of earnings, and I think Meta's not far behind.

IMO, the market is overreacting. Both companies look pretty cheap to me.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#73

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

zerkten wrote: post #12
lumost wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, at a mega-corp there is very little data on whether an employee would be successful in a different group. Some groups have bad charters/bad team dynamics/bad skills match. An internal transfer has a huge amount of visibility into these aspects when they transfer, much more than an external hire would. Its a pretty good deal to suggest to employees that they find a new team rather than performing a layoff…

Other teams may be able to add headcount, but my experience with big companies is that the organization wants to manage the number of tenured people, and people who are now sitting in non-terminal levels. Given how many people externally are competing for spots there is less of an incentive to prioritize internal people. I don't necessarily agree with this, but you have to be aware of all the stakeholders perspective…

Based on my experience at FB, they way prefer to get internal transfers as they require less ramping up time. It's often not worth changing orgs though, as your equity doesn't get reset so you may end up with much less than a new hire

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#74

Post by strix_varius »

fleetwoodsnack wrote: post #66
strix_varius wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It's demoralizing to have an under-performing colleague stick around for months or years. It's even worse to work with someone who's mastered the art of "talking the talk" to get a job, who makes big promises but always has some excuse for why they can't deliver, and who never actually ships anything. Most first-level tech managers don't have the courage to fire fast enough. The best feedback I've ever gotten…

Seems like you have a responsibility to yourself and your team to bring this up with the appropriate party and go farther if need-be. Proactive feedback is more useful than passive resentment.

Of course, and that tends to happen, but the alignment of the manager to their team's mission isn't perfect. So you'll see:

"Soft coaching" instead of a PIP.

PIPs that end in "retain," leaving the PIP recipient to revert to their previous level of output afterwards. These are often celebrated as management success stories.

Working out an "exchange" deal with another team that has headcount or backfill so the under-performers float around.

The most common strategy from a manager who knows of a disparity in competency, but is unwilling to address it directly, is to over time expect (and ask) less and less of the under-performer, implicitly putting more workload on the rest of the team. Basically, take the under-performer out of all critical paths. This is especially likely if the direct manager was also the hiring manager, in which case they're reticent for their peers & boss to recognize that they made a hiring mistake. Even moreso if the hire helped the org's D&I numbers.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#76

Post by metadat »

dqpb wrote: post #54

They're also still recruiting

Just because a job gets posted doesn't mean it is actually available to be filled. The barrier to posting jobs to LinkedIn is extremely low.

Don't let yourself be fooled into a false sense of confidence, you'd really need to test the process out to see if it yields an offer!

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#77

Post by baq »

game_the0ry wrote: post #15

I can't read WSJ while at work, but after checking on the financials for both Meta and Alphabet, I do not understand why either would be cutting staff. Both look pretty strong, so I am not sure how cuts are justified or why Zuckerberg has a negative outlook, especially since 2021 was such a great year for both. Do American executives, investors, and start up owners not have the guts for even a moderate stock price dr…

Growth slowing = repricing from growth basket to value basket = 70% stock price cut

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#78

Post by baby »

game_the0ry wrote: post #15

I can't read WSJ while at work, but after checking on the financials for both Meta and Alphabet, I do not understand why either would be cutting staff. Both look pretty strong, so I am not sure how cuts are justified or why Zuckerberg has a negative outlook, especially since 2021 was such a great year for both. Do American executives, investors, and start up owners not have the guts for even a moderate stock price dr…

Layoffs are a way to get rid of low performers without legal issues.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#79

Post by throwaway22r »

tempsy wrote: post #7
jejeyyy77 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, being laid off sounds pretty good right about now. Paid vacation before going back into a hot job market for a full remote job.

Depends what your salary expectations are, I guess. Finding a role with the same compensation as a Meta/Google is more difficult than finding one of many dozens of companies that will pay you low six figures and some questionable equity package.

> some questionable equity package

one might argue it's a good time to gamble on a startup.

I'm recently spared from a massive layoff, but it wouldn't have been bad if I was part of that. The severance was 4 month pay plus accelerated vesting (for that 4 months)

I paid off my house thanks to the hot stock market in past 2 years (no one's saying it out loud, but pendamic has been a boom for IT workers), and have some cash cushion to maintain the lifestyle anywhere between 2 yrs to 5 yrs (depending on how frugal I choose to be)

So a 200 base and questionable (but high reward) equity in a startup working on things I'm interested in after a 4 month paid vacation? Doesnt sound too bad.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#80

Post by baby »

ras3022 wrote: post #71
game_the0ry wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the financials, the underlying business for both is strong, especially relative to many other kinds of businesses. The drop, still, does not look fatal when considering how much growth there was in 2020 and 2021.

Sure but the future is uncertain and when you’re selling ads it’s hard to control revenue. It’s much easier to control expenses.

> the future is uncertain

much less uncertain than any other companies IMO. They're printing money.

Post reply on HN