291–300 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Severance requirements are not an entitlement. It'll make hiring harder than it already is.
It’s all about trade-offs and I think it’s worth it. I’d rather it be harder to get a job, but have higher job security when you get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people downvoting you are suffering from a sort of survivorship bias. Sure, now you'd like the comfort of knowing your employer would have to pay you a ton of money if they laid you off, but what if you were somebody who was recently laid off looking for a job and people were reluctant to hire beacuse of this requirement? It's not clear to me that it's a net win, from my perspective I'd rather be able to easily r…
> A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years do you mean the increase in demand/jobs we had after the initial covid lockdowns + wfh? is it possible that strong labor market was due to increased demand from the stimulus checks?
There are over two jobs open for every layoff. People haven’t realized how crazy the labor market is about to get with a collapsing workforce population over the next many decades.
There are, but the people aren't necessarily where the jobs are. I've got positions in Huntsville, AL that aren't remote-capable, and we cannot get people to even apply.
Have you considered moving?
Maybe it's just the segment I'm in, but I feel like Salesforce was hiring pretty hard up until recently. They wouldn't be the only company to go from a hiring spree to layoffs that quickly over the last quarter. We really need to lock this absurdity down and increase severance requirements for large companies heavily. It's one thing to gamble risk for the company, it's something completely different to gamble employe…
Severance requirements are not an entitlement. It'll make hiring harder than it already is.
Depends on where it happens. They are in many places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we need is 1-5% of these 10/20/30%+ layoffs go on to start new businesses. We've had a solid decade+ of FAANG dominance now and arguably all of these companies are comfortably milking existing cash cows with minimal innovation and increasingly degraded product experiences. I'm trying to think of one large tech company that has a better core product today than 10 years ago. Maybe Shopify / MS? Someone help me out…
Plenty of new companies have popped up over the past two decades, but every single time, if they make any progress on anything that might someday make money, a mega-corp will throw $300 million at them and competition solved! It's hard to be angry at the company for selling out, because the way capitalism works is all the money goes to the individuals who are able to effect the decision, so they get life changing amo…
Maybe it's just the segment I'm in, but I feel like Salesforce was hiring pretty hard up until recently. They wouldn't be the only company to go from a hiring spree to layoffs that quickly over the last quarter. We really need to lock this absurdity down and increase severance requirements for large companies heavily. It's one thing to gamble risk for the company, it's something completely different to gamble employe…
There was a slide deck by Sequioa going around recently, wherein one of the points was that the companies that cut costs hard and fast at the beginning of the recession were more likely to survive to the end of it. Either that or they see something the rest of us don't when looking at economic data (a long recession).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if we roll out some sort of socialized medical coverage. At least for my family, stability of medical coverage is a major impediment to changing jobs.
I continue to not understand the position that the default provider of health insurance has to be either your employer or the government. What makes it fundamentally different from housing, food, or transportation, where you just pay money and there's assistance for people who can't afford it?
The frustrating part of bad economic times is that bloated companies use it as an opportunity to clean house while projecting a positive signal to Wall Street. This move probably would have been just as needed two years ago but would have tanked the stock at the time. It’s sucks when real people get caught up in companies just virtue signaling to Wall Street
Indeed, it sucks to be laid off. But how is company's reducing costs "virtue signaling"?
If Salesforce does a reduction in force when the economy is strong it get spun by Wall Street as a sign of weakness and their stock takes a hit.
Do it in a down economy and it's a sign of strength and Wall Street rewards them (stock is up 3% today).
Salesforce did fine through COVID, heck the stock price basically doubled from 2020 to 2021. So they hire like crazy knowing it's unsustainable. Now their stock is at pre-pandemic prices and they start letting all those folks go when they're most vulnerable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stockholders likely think Salesforce had too much fluff and can get the same results with fewer staff. For example I believe they were working on some sort of solution for managing NFTs.
Ex employee here. Salesforce was the most laid back, rest and vest, coasting culture in my experience. Generous employee benefits, absolutely no work pressure. They took pride in their work life balance. Many employees (in product and marketing) were just focusing on (flavor of the day) activism - BLM, AAPI, GLBT, Homelessness in SFO. I always wondered if these employees had any 'actual job' in the company or their m…
https://www.thedailybeast.com/salesforce-is-ditching-its-awk...