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

Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 481 posts

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#141

Post by vt85 »

shagie wrote: post #87
ethbr0 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically (not sure if still true), Microsoft had top tier profit:employee.

They're likely still up there. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Microsoft+vs+Apple+vs+G... They're not the best best, but $919k/employee/year is impressive. Google is at $1.5M/employee. Apple is $2.4M/employee and Netflix is $2.7M/employee. (and to the dead comment reply claiming $10M/employee for Musk companies) Tesla: $158,613 https://csimarket.com/stocks/TSLA-Income-per-Employee.html SpaceX: $210,526 https://w…

[dead]

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#142

Post by havblue »

This isn't a moral justification, but isn't laying off workers when other companies have layoffs a simple supply and demand response? That is, the demand curve is the same for these workers but the supply curve shifts to the right and prices for the same job drops. They're betting that the people hired in a recession will perform better per dollar than the people let go.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#143

Post by astrange »

objclxt wrote: post #124
adam_arthur wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that Twitter is shipping features faster than ever after 80% layoffs. Don't think Twitter's revenue issues have anything to do with sales staff. Advertising channels/campaigns can and should be 100% automated.

> Interesting that Twitter is shipping features faster than ever after 80% layoffs. I don't know if deliberately breaking their developer API for third party clients counts as "shipping features faster than ever".

They also put back the "for you" tab to force people into algorithmic timelines, which they already tried once and pulled back since everyone hated it.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#144

Post by gota »

estebank wrote: post #67
anonporridge wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, 5% is a small, manageable number. Small enough that if you find you accidentally cut important people or roles, you can quickly get them back. The point in my second paragraph is that if the company actually needs a 15% layoff to maintain itself long term, it would be safest to do it in three smaller 5% waves rather than one fell swoop. After each layoff, you let the system settle and recover, making sure that…

> it would be safest to do it in three smaller 5% waves rather than one fell swoop This disregards the effect of repeated layoffs on the morale and mental health of human beings, which affects how "the system" settles and recovers.

Part of the second and third wave can take the form of a hiring freeze or slowdown. People who quit are not replaced and soon you have a 5% reduction in headcount

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#145

Post by JumpCrisscross »

chrisco255 wrote: post #98
pyrrhotech wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's silly to mention the cash on the balance sheet without also mentioning the debt of $77B. In reality, the net cash position is on the order of magnitude of $30B which puts a much tighter perspective on the impact of this cut. 40% of all public companies created since market inception in 1871 have gone bankrupt including many of the bluest of the blue chips. Complacent thinking like this is often the reason. Addit…

I would think the figure of public companies gone bankrupt to be much much higher over that long of a time frame.

> would think the figure of public companies gone bankrupt to be much much higher over that long of a time frame

Bankruptcy is a symptom of leverage. Companies more and more fail by being acquired into oblivion. (It's also common for a dying industry to consolidate until its last gasp.)

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#146

Post by bob1029 »

arwineap wrote: post #117
bob1029 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has a lot of sticky B2B customers Indeed. We are all-in on using .NET6+ for building software for our customers. This locks us into VS/Azure/Windows subscriptions as a side-effect. Our clients sign 5+ year contracts, so we aren't leaving this area any time soon. There are certainly less expensive ways we could run our business and deliver our product, but the amount of risk associated with those options is far beyo…

FWIW, we run .NET6+ on linux / docker on AWS

Biggest reason we are stuck on windows is because we use some windows-specific dependencies. If we dedicated ~6 months we could consider cross platform, but that would just be the beginning of the conversation. The 3rd party hosting/licensing costs on a per-customer basis don't even approach 1% of the total cost of the solution.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#147

Post by asah »

mgkimsal wrote: post #34

11,000 people - let's say an average loaded cost of $250k/yr. That's... ~$3b/yr these folks cost MSFT. Granted, it's per year, but ... keeping these people on for another 3 years would cost ~$10b. MSFT currently have $100b cash on hand. It's gotta be a little... frustrating to get be part of a 5% cut when there's so much free cash sitting around. I know, it's a narrow view of corporate finance, and I don't have the '…

It's worth noting that many companies have cash hordes outside the US but need to make payroll inside the US. https://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+repatriated+cash

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#148

Post by adam_arthur »

objclxt wrote: post #124
adam_arthur wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that Twitter is shipping features faster than ever after 80% layoffs. Don't think Twitter's revenue issues have anything to do with sales staff. Advertising channels/campaigns can and should be 100% automated.

> Interesting that Twitter is shipping features faster than ever after 80% layoffs. I don't know if deliberately breaking their developer API for third party clients counts as "shipping features faster than ever".

They obviously did that because the API is not benefiting them at all from a revenue perspective. If it were, they wouldn't have gotten rid of it.

Twitter was run as a charity prior to the acquisition. Just as many VC fat tech companies were

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#149

Post by hirsin »

pyrrhotech wrote: post #68
mgkimsal wrote: post #34

11,000 people - let's say an average loaded cost of $250k/yr. That's... ~$3b/yr these folks cost MSFT. Granted, it's per year, but ... keeping these people on for another 3 years would cost ~$10b. MSFT currently have $100b cash on hand. It's gotta be a little... frustrating to get be part of a 5% cut when there's so much free cash sitting around. I know, it's a narrow view of corporate finance, and I don't have the '…

It's silly to mention the cash on the balance sheet without also mentioning the debt of $77B. In reality, the net cash position is on the order of magnitude of $30B which puts a much tighter perspective on the impact of this cut. 40% of all public companies created since market inception in 1871 have gone bankrupt including many of the bluest of the blue chips. Complacent thinking like this is often the reason. Addit…

That's fantastic debt though, at presumably low interest rates. A dollar in my pocket today is worth way more than a dollar in debt at 3.0% interest or less. You can't subtract debt from cash on hand and get a usable value, they're different types.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#150

Post by simplotek »

qeternity wrote: post #44
mgkimsal wrote: post #34

11,000 people - let's say an average loaded cost of $250k/yr. That's... ~$3b/yr these folks cost MSFT. Granted, it's per year, but ... keeping these people on for another 3 years would cost ~$10b. MSFT currently have $100b cash on hand. It's gotta be a little... frustrating to get be part of a 5% cut when there's so much free cash sitting around. I know, it's a narrow view of corporate finance, and I don't have the '…

Why would they spend any amount much less $3b or $10b to keep people they don’t need/want?

> Why would they spend any amount much less $3b or $10b to keep people they don’t need/want?

I understand that HN is a US-centric forum, where neoliberalism dictates the baseline and the interpretation of all things in life is reduced to a simplistic transaction in a theoretical free market.

However, society is comprised of people with family and a personal life and hopes and dreams and aspirations. Hiring someone has a profound impact on their life, and firing them moreso. There's the income aspect, but also the impact it has on where a person can live and consequently all roots their family have in a community. Hiring a person entails a tremendous social responsibility, and moreso firing them. Microsoft has a hefty amount of immigrants from all corners of the world, and some who have visas that limit the odds they can stay even in the country, let alone their community.

It's deplorable how a company can toy with someone's life like that just because some exec feels like it.

Post reply on HN