Google to reduce workforce by 12k • Hacker News Board

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#171

Post by londons_explore » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:22 AM UTC

eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

Over-hiring and then firing in big rounds once a decade can sometimes be better... It can be a good way to get the low performers out without fostering a culture of 'must make the metrics look good or I'll be fired'.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#172

Post by Raed667 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:22 AM UTC

pocket_cheese wrote: post #124

ak_111 wrote: post #4

Question for those who got laid-off from tech recently (say since Aug last year): how hard did you find it to get another tech job? Would be interesting to get some anecdotal evidence to shed light on the following WSJ article which claims laid-off tech workers are finding it easy to get re-recruited: https://www.wsj.com/articles/laid-off-tech-workers-quickly-f... If the phenomena described in the WSJ article is true…

I like to categorize jobs into 3 tiers. Tier 1: Outrageous comp and difficult interviews. Tier 2: Great comp and medium level difficulty interviews. Tier 3: Companies that pay at or below average for an engineer and sometimes don't even have a coding interview! for the tier 1s I was outright rejected my application twice as often as before. I also noticed that they are more selective. I've passed "high bar" technical…

This. People talk about the job market as if it were a monolithic entity, but there is so much nuance by types and by regions that it is hard to make concise statements

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#173

Post by anothernewdude » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:22 AM UTC

pembrook wrote: post #58

A lot of people seem to be chalking this one up in the “memetic imitation among tech execs” column. However, in the case of Google, I’m not so sure. Google is an advertising business. And advertising revenue is extremely sensitive to changes in the economy (Companies cut ad spending when there isn’t as much demand to soak up). In the last recession Google was still rapidly stealing ad share from old media, but now th…

They've had all sorts of chances to expand that business, but have repeatedly shut down popular projects to the point where people hesitate before adopting new Google tools because they might get shut down with little warning.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#174

Post by spaceman_2020 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:23 AM UTC

The clock is ticking for Google.

The quality of their products is consistently on a downward trajectory. Somehow, both search and maps have become worse. Spam that would have previously been easily filtered now gets through my Gmail.

Meanwhile ChatGPT runs circles around Google for any serious query.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#175

Post by yakireev » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:23 AM UTC

trabant00 wrote: post #97

I don't understand why the comments are mostly upset in these cases. If it makes financial sense for you, as an employee, you are free to leave a company. Shouldn't companies have the same freedom? Why should the CEO be punished in any way for making such a decision? Having too many people being payed for some time and having to pay severance packages is not enough? What is the moral or legal base for attacking these…

> What is the moral or legal base for attacking these companies? Honest question.

If an employee leaves Google, Google loses 1/140k = 0.0007% of its workforce, a negligible amount. If Google fires an employee, employee typically loses 100% of their income, which is non-negligible.

So, Google firing 12k employees means that twelve thousand people will lose 100% of their income, for the sake of... shareholder interests?

Many people see this situation as morally not-okay.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#176

Post by prakhar897 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:23 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #146

Are we about to enter a new era of ultra-profitable tech companies? While companies like GOOG and MSFT have had ridiculously healthy margins compared to traditional industries for some time now, it's also been clear in recent years that these companies have become very loose with spending. Take GOOG for example, they spend so much unnecessary money on fancy offices, free lunches, diversity programs, highly speculativ…

A few years ago, I built an exact replica of a Saas product I saw online and priced it 1/3 theirs. The actual founder went mad and started a smear campaign. Lucky for him, Workload at my regular job picked up and I abandoned the project, but this highlighted the weak moats of most of these products.

and this is the main reason most companies overhire. It's so that engineers are less inclined to go home and build their own competitor.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#177

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:24 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#178

Post by izacus » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:24 AM UTC

oaiey wrote: post #150

sai_c wrote: post #48

Does anyone know what "Outside the US, we’ll support employees in line with local practices." exactly means? In Germany I could imagine it to be "You're fired. Go to the Arbeitsagentur and find a new job". Of course within the legal forewarning period.

In Germany any lawyer (or the work council) will block you from getting fired (because Google has no legal reason to fire you). What they do here in Germany is to negotiate to mutually void your contract by you accepting a financial package. So in theory you are right, in practice however, most companies (especially the ones like Google) have to buy you out of your contract.

Also, IIRC, when actual layoffs happen, in Germany they actually need to look at tenure and family status of fired people (e.g. fire people without families first).

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#179

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:25 AM UTC

trabant00 wrote: post #97

I don't understand why the comments are mostly upset in these cases. If it makes financial sense for you, as an employee, you are free to leave a company. Shouldn't companies have the same freedom? Why should the CEO be punished in any way for making such a decision? Having too many people being payed for some time and having to pay severance packages is not enough? What is the moral or legal base for attacking these…

Broadly, yes.

The issue appears to be a little more complicated though. There is no clear reason to do any of it beyond 'signalling' to the market that executives are trying to rein in cost in anticipation of what now appears to be almost inevitable recession ( partially because of signalling just like the one from Google ). It is a vicious cycle.

I am not upset, but I am not yet personally affected. I also have been saying for a while that low rate encourages unhealthy habits ( including in VC realm ).

I guess my beef is that the entire layoff is.. not really necessary?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#180

Post by cmrdporcupine » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:27 AM UTC

jatins wrote: post #100

I wonder if 6% really moves the needle in terms of cost. Coupled with the fact they are still hiring it feels like succumbing to investor pressure rather than a real cost cutting measure.

As I commented elsewhere, Q4 earnings report is in two weeks. The last two were poor and the trend wasn't looking good. I expect this is happening in part because Q4's is going to look even worse.