Google to reduce workforce by 12k • Hacker News Board

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#191

Post by quonn » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:33 AM UTC

MonkeyClub wrote: post #92

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.

> It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups I’m becoming more and more convinced that they’re preparing for a global recession. I posed such an Ask HN a while ago, before the Microsoft layoffs, where the general takeaway was that there’s no indication for a recession. However, after the 10+12K layoffs by the giants, and constant news about smaller layoffs by smaller companies (in the 100s per…

Okay, but why would these companies secretly know something that the rest of us doesn‘t? Maybe they are preparing, but it doesn’t tell us more about whether that‘s justified or not.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#192

Post by hcarvalhoalves » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:33 AM UTC

neodypsis wrote: post #2

Amazon and Meta I can understand why. But why Microsoft and now Google? What positions were affected in Google? Just developers?

This is an opportunity to flood the market with unemployed and reset salaries. They just needed the excuse: another company doing it first.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#193

Post by mi_lk » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:33 AM UTC

makach wrote: post #104

Not a bad email, and a decent follow up on the ones that are affected. It is also a reminder that killing yourself slowly at the workplace is meaningless. Management has no responsibility to you, and no promise is certain. It’s your responsibility to take care of yourself. My take, don’t be bitter. Take the severance as soon as possible and get back on your feet. Having Google on your resume is a very good thing.

This is the right attitude. Other higher-voted threads trying to shame the company/CEO etc. are only depressing to see.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#194

Post by yodsanklai » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:34 AM UTC

shapefrog wrote: post #164

DrBazza wrote: post #110

Another multi-billion dollar company making billions of dollars of profit dumps thousands of staff on the streets. There are two approaches here. Firstly, attrition, simply don't replace those that leave. Given the sheer size of the company, a hiring freeze and attrition would gradually reduce the size of the workforce. I'd be astonished if a company with a market cap of $1.2 trillion would be likely to collapse if i…

> Firstly, attrition, simply don't replace those that leave Nobody is retiring - why would you, you get a fat pay cheque and once you get out of the meat grinder Jr levels life is pretty good. Oh and if they fire you rather than you retiring, they have to pay you another stack of cash and keep those options that vest in a few years. "Seeing people posting about being laid off after 30 years of employment at Microsoft…

> Nobody is retiring - why would you

Turnover rates in these companies are pretty high! Surprisingly many employees leave after 1-2 years.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#195

Post by jrs235 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:35 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #171

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'.

>It can be a good way to get the low performers out

It can if individual performance is considered in who gets the axe in mass layoffs. From my understanding, individual performance usually isn't a huge factor in who's laid off.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#196

Post by malteof » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:36 AM UTC

kkoncevicius wrote: post #186

I don't understand some of the comments here, maybe someone can explain. Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed? As far as I am aware working for a company is not a life-long situation. And further - why don't we invert it and praise these companies for supplying thousands of six figure jobs for years. Surely being employed for several years is better than never bein…

They need to explain themselves to shareholders (why did they hire so many people in the first place, expensive) and employees (so that people want to keep working there also in the future).

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#197

Post by wheels » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:36 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.

I think calling them cockups is a stretch. A few points:

- Flexibility of the US labor market is one of the things that makes it attractive relative to labor markets of other rich countries: it's easy to hire more people when demand goes up, and fire them when it goes down.

- Demand just went down, all over the interwebs, since people miss doing things in real life.

- It's an easy time to fire a bunch of people without making your company look bad. I suspect some knock-on layoffs are CEOs taking advantage of the ability to clean house while everyone else is doing it.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#198

Post by helmholtz » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:36 AM UTC

kkoncevicius wrote: post #186

I don't understand some of the comments here, maybe someone can explain. Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed? As far as I am aware working for a company is not a life-long situation. And further - why don't we invert it and praise these companies for supplying thousands of six figure jobs for years. Surely being employed for several years is better than never bein…

> Is there a right to stay employed?

People have spouses, kids, mortgages. They relocate for work. They pour a lot of their time, energy & emotion into it. It causes people strokes, and hairloss. People bring the stress of their work home, and marriages suffer for it.

Your comment is rather glib. Praise these companies? No thanks.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#199

Post by makomk » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:37 AM UTC

bsaul wrote: post #157

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.

I agree with others here pointing that firing people isn't necessary a sign of having mismanaged the company. However, i think a good gesture as a CEO when acknowledging your company is going through rough times would be things like postponing your bonus, or diminishing your payroll. That would be classy. Note that the same could be said for politicians in charge. You want people in the country to make sacrifice and…

That would still ultimately be spun as greed and proof they were getting pay increases when everyone else was suffering - at least, that's what happened in the UK when a bunch of CEOs didn't get their normal bonuses during Covid. This substantially decreased the total pay of the average FTSE 100 CEO that year, and once it returned to normal every news outlet ran articles about how their pay had increased by a massive amount in the last year alone whilst ordinary workers' pay had decreased over the last decade. Of course, it was really only their pay returning to normal after dropping substantially over the last year or two in a way that normal workers' pay had not, and the actual numbers in the report this way all based on put their pay at lower than it was a decade ago.

Still, the press managed to turn them taking a temporary cut in pay that ordinary workers didn't suffer from into them getting an increase in pay that ordinary workers didn't get.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#200

Post by usrusr » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:37 AM UTC

bsaul wrote: post #157

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.

I agree with others here pointing that firing people isn't necessary a sign of having mismanaged the company. However, i think a good gesture as a CEO when acknowledging your company is going through rough times would be things like postponing your bonus, or diminishing your payroll. That would be classy. Note that the same could be said for politicians in charge. You want people in the country to make sacrifice and…

What if you could run an ad empire without employees? The human component of marginal cost in that business is zero. From capital's perspective, the final stage of perfection would be just a CEO serving the legal requirement of one existing. Surely that person wouldn't have to fret about their bonus...