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

Plaid Layoffs

plaid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 345 posts

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#311

Post by vineyardmike »

nunez wrote: post #304
vineyardmike wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it won't! They may feel bad about less yachts and luxury, but they are absolutely not hurting . No one is starving, no one is losing their housing, no one is unable to pay the heating bill. Not even close to hurting . Lets not pity the $100mn-aires that just laid off 260+ people.

is anyone working at bigtech that got laid off starving though? bigtech pays a lot of money relative to US median; layoffs should suck for us but not be completely life-altering, especially given the severances/continuance of healthcare/etc. i didn't say that big money ceo will be suffering, but spending more than you have always hurts when you can't afford the debt, and going down in lifestyle always sucks

Most tech layoffs are not software engineers, they’re other positions (which make far less money). All the companies that froze hiring have laid off massive chunks of their recruiting and hiring teams, for example.

Sales teams have been impacted eg at Adobe, and some companies are cutting HR and support staff.

But that’s not the point, even responsible “normal” workers can’t really be expected to save more than a few months of living expenses, maybe a year if they’re an older employee. I expect most full find a job before then, but that’s “months” away from a really tough time.

Even if they don’t starve, it can still be pretty negatively impactful - it’s expected many will draw into retirement and savings, or will need to move to a cheaper housing situation (which is hard in SF), or will struggle to pay for children’s education costs. Some will take on credit card debt to cover expenses, or move in with their parents, or whatever. Starving vs “this billionaire lost a few hundred million” still a lot of room for normal people to suffer.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#312

Post by _djo_ »

refurb wrote: post #310
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent may not be advocating it, but one would have to be willfully blind not to see a tremendous spike in related chatter online ('eat the rich' comes to mind ). If it is not addressed, it will only fester. Open discussion is a way to release some of that pressure.

If it ever came down to eat the rich I’m sorry to say, but the tech crowd, including employees would be the first up against the wall. Hilarious how employees who make a salary 3-4X the US median somehow think they are the proletariat.

Revolutions are usually led by members of privileged classes, backed by the angry masses.

Nobody here is saying they desire that type of violent unrest, they're saying it's a likely outcome unless we change course, because as bad as it is for tech workers right now it's so much worse for those less privileged.

There's also the realisation that if even the most highly skilled workers in society can be treated so cavalierly and have not have enough certainty of employment and success then the system is broken.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#313

Post by refurb »

_djo_ wrote: post #312
refurb wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it ever came down to eat the rich I’m sorry to say, but the tech crowd, including employees would be the first up against the wall. Hilarious how employees who make a salary 3-4X the US median somehow think they are the proletariat.

Revolutions are usually led by members of privileged classes, backed by the angry masses. Nobody here is saying they desire that type of violent unrest, they're saying it's a likely outcome unless we change course, because as bad as it is for tech workers right now it's so much worse for those less privileged. There's also the realisation that if even the most highly skilled workers in society can be treated so caval…

I think the issue is that the lower classes look at the average tech worker and consider them a part of the problem.

When they start lining people up claiming you’re “middle class” making $400k per year isn’t likely going to work.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#314

Post by _djo_ »

refurb wrote: post #313
_djo_ wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revolutions are usually led by members of privileged classes, backed by the angry masses. Nobody here is saying they desire that type of violent unrest, they're saying it's a likely outcome unless we change course, because as bad as it is for tech workers right now it's so much worse for those less privileged. There's also the realisation that if even the most highly skilled workers in society can be treated so caval…

I think the issue is that the lower classes look at the average tech worker and consider them a part of the problem . When they start lining people up claiming you’re “middle class” making $400k per year isn’t likely going to work.

Sure, but I don't see how that contradicts what is being said here. You're assuming that commentators are welcoming a violent uprising because they think it would benefit them, but they're not. They're warning that one is likely if this continues, and even though it would be justified it wouldn't be pleasant. Least of all to people in more privileged positions.

The social contract is out of whack, and just because a lot of people struggling might look at tech workers as part of the problem (and not be entirely wrong, given tech's role in automating away jobs), doesn't mean those of us in the industry ought to then side with billionaires and the ever more concentrated concentration of capital. It means we should be doing our best to make sure the system becomes more equitable.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#315

Post by refurb »

_djo_ wrote: post #314
refurb wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is that the lower classes look at the average tech worker and consider them a part of the problem . When they start lining people up claiming you’re “middle class” making $400k per year isn’t likely going to work.

Sure, but I don't see how that contradicts what is being said here. You're assuming that commentators are welcoming a violent uprising because they think it would benefit them, but they're not. They're warning that one is likely if this continues, and even though it would be justified it wouldn't be pleasant. Least of all to people in more privileged positions. The social contract is out of whack, and just because a…

You're assuming that commentators are welcoming a violent uprising because they think it would benefit them, but they're not.

I see a lot of people talking like they’re on the same side as labor while lamenting their equity only returned 50% and not 300% like last year.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#316

Post by _djo_ »

refurb wrote: post #315
_djo_ wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but I don't see how that contradicts what is being said here. You're assuming that commentators are welcoming a violent uprising because they think it would benefit them, but they're not. They're warning that one is likely if this continues, and even though it would be justified it wouldn't be pleasant. Least of all to people in more privileged positions. The social contract is out of whack, and just because a…

You're assuming that commentators are welcoming a violent uprising because they think it would benefit them, but they're not. I see a lot of people talking like they’re on the same side as labor while lamenting their equity only returned 50% and not 300% like last year.

The vast majority of workers in tech don't get equity, and certainly not at those scales, to be fair.

Most are labor, as properly defined. They may earn less, but it's the same business relationship.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#317

Post by bobkazamakis »

refurb wrote: post #283
game_the0ry wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am advocating for accountability. Understand: accountability has a way of manifesting itself one way or another. Today, we complain on the internet. Next week, we see more riots where people tag walls with "eat the rich." Next year, the guillotines come out. [1] [1] This is a loose analogy that is not meant to be taken literally.

The CEO will be held accountable by the board and shareholders.

and they'll be sentenced to live out the rest of their days in parasailing from the golden chute. Such accountable!

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#318

Post by koliber »

Yhippa wrote: post #293
koliber wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if this is not a mistake? If you have 5 people and 10 projects, you hire 5 more to meet the need. If 4 projects go away, you fire 4 people as some would have nothing to do. Where is the mistake? I’m not saying it is always like this and the scenarios above is simplified to illustrate a point. However, it would be silly to assume all companies always grow in headcount, and any downsizing is the CEO somehow messin…

Just spitballing here, maybe the lesson is to not make business plans assuming "stonks always go up" and also take into account a recession.

What if the business plan reads something like this: When stonks go up, we hire, and when stonks go down, we fire. That does not seem stupid.

It still sucks to be fired. But the alternative world where we avoided firing at all costs, would mean not as many people getting hired when stonks go up.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#319

Post by koliber »

Yhippa wrote: post #294
koliber wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were the CEO of a company that needs to lay people off, how would you handle it differently.

Fall on the sword (i.e. resign, give money back) along with these folks being fired.

Have you ever guessed the future wrong in your personal life? Did falling on your sword help you and others in any way?

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#320

Post by refurb »

_djo_ wrote: post #316
refurb wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that commentators are welcoming a violent uprising because they think it would benefit them, but they're not. I see a lot of people talking like they’re on the same side as labor while lamenting their equity only returned 50% and not 300% like last year.

The vast majority of workers in tech don't get equity, and certainly not at those scales, to be fair. Most are labor, as properly defined. They may earn less, but it's the same business relationship.

They’d be called kulaks. “Wealthy” farmers.
Post reply on HN