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

Google to reduce workforce by 12k

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#271

Post by phpisthebest »

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…

>>I’m becoming more and more convinced that they’re preparing for a global recession

What if left to convince you, most of them have publically stated that is one of the reasons, and the economic indicators are all there.. I am not sure why people keep denying this reality, it is just faith in government that keeps denying it?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#273

Post by oblio »

W4ldi wrote: post #253
oblio wrote: post #247

If you've ever wondered, this is not about immediate money concerns. In 2021 Google made $257 billion aka $257 000 000 000. And a profit of $76 bn aka $78 000 000 000. It had 187 000 employees. That works out to $1.3 million income per employee. And a net profit of $406 000 per employee. They don't need to lay off anyone. They just want to. I've seen smaller companies where they first shift employees around, offer ev…

> They don't need to fire anyone. They just want to. Why would they want to? If they make so much money, why fire a few people for a massive amount of bad PR? So seem to know the reasoning. Enlighten us please.

Everyone's doing it, we might be in a recession, now is the best time. Their announcement both follows a trend and gets lost in the noise, it doesn't stand out as possibly bad management.

Plus someone was saying that it reduces inflationary pressures for employees. I.e. you put a lot of people out on the job market and you scare others inside the company, who are now suddenly happy to still have a job, ergo they stop asking as much for raises or for high salaries when they apply.

> Why would they want to?

Then enlighten me how a > profitable business needs to > large percentages of its workforce???

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#274

Post by Rezwoodly »

ergonaught wrote: post #234

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. Alphabet had 116 billion USD "cash on hand" at the end of September 2022. Even if the full cost of each of those 12K employees is 500K per year, that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working with around. Net income for that quarter w…

Elon musk set a precedent - you can treat your employees (serfs) like shit and get away with it. Layoffs, perks being removed, the tone has generally shifted to "look we have free coffee" to "we own you, be glad to have a job, oh and you might not actually have a job after all".

This is a change of winds, instead of pandering to engineers companies are trying to debase us and remind us where we are in the totem pole.its not about revenues, its about power.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#275

Post by mrtksn »

ergonaught wrote: post #234

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. Alphabet had 116 billion USD "cash on hand" at the end of September 2022. Even if the full cost of each of those 12K employees is 500K per year, that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working with around. Net income for that quarter w…

A CEO taking responsibility for firing people always reminds me of Gavin Belson's speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u48vYSLvKNQ

Did ever a journalist tried to ask how they took responsibility? Had they faced difficulties in their lives or careers or they couldn't concentrate on Succession's finale and had to rewind?

Maybe taking responsibility actually means they did something very positive for the company within the rules of the game and expect a bonus? Are they referring to the events as a mistake they made or are they saying that they were able to grab the talent pool and didn't miss the opportunity?

After all, CEOs and workers have different responsibilities. Hiring and firing for the opportunity and change in conditions is CEOs job and maybe he takes responsibility for properly executing it? Maybe this is the money shot of a CEO reminding the investors that the upside from these actions are solely on him and wants a proper compensation?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#276

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

oblio wrote: post #247

If you've ever wondered, this is not about immediate money concerns. In 2021 Google made $257 billion aka $257 000 000 000. And a profit of $76 bn aka $78 000 000 000. It had 187 000 employees. That works out to $1.3 million income per employee. And a net profit of $406 000 per employee. They don't need to lay off anyone. They just want to. I've seen smaller companies where they first shift employees around, offer ev…

Google is a company with a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder profits.

The average employee laid off is going to have 2 months of work - paid - to find a new job, plus an additional close to ~$80k or so to hold them over til they find a new job.

If Google hires people they don't need anymore - regardless of how good they are - are they supposed to just keep them on payroll indefinitely? Why?

Why are we feeling sorry for employees with great severance packages who are deep in the global 1%?

If the worst thing that happens to you in life is that you get laid off at Google, you've got a great life.

Life isn't all roses, there's ups and downs - and some people who were laid off are going to have a hard time, and that's sad. But it's also life.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#277

Post by xtracto »

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…

People over here say there's no recession. But believing HN's assertions on global economy makes as much sense as believing it's opinions on Medical or Science threads.

For financial information about the world economic situation I tend to prefer reading WorldBank, who's Global Economic Prospects for 2023 is not that positive: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/3...

---

Global growth is projected to decelerate sharply this year, to its third weakest pace in nearly three decades, overshadowed only by the 2009 and 2020 global recessions. This reflects synchronous policy tightening aimed at containing very high inflation, worsening financial conditions, and continued disruptions from the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine. Investment growth in emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) is expected to remain below its average rate of the past two decades. Further adverse shocks could push the global economy into yet another recession. Small states are especially vulnerable to such shocks because of their reliance on external trade and financing, limited economic diversification, elevated debt, and susceptibility to natural disasters. Urgent global action is needed to mitigate the risks of global recession and debt distress in EMDEs. Given limited policy space, it is critical that national policy makers ensure that any fiscal support is focused on vulnerable groups, that inflation expectations remain well anchored, and that financial systems continue to be resilient

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#278

Post by jstx1 »

ergonaught wrote: post #234

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. Alphabet had 116 billion USD "cash on hand" at the end of September 2022. Even if the full cost of each of those 12K employees is 500K per year, that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working with around. Net income for that quarter w…

> I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths.

There's some infantile obsession with this phrase in every layoff thread. "I take full responsibility" is partly a polite way to say that they aren't blaming anyone else for what's happening, it partly means "I'm the one making this decision" and it's partly ceremony for the sake of appearances - if you're outraged that the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company is using this language, that's a problem with you, not with them.

It's like being indignant when a friend or a colleague replies with "I'm fine, thanks" when they aren't fine, or when they say "I can't complain" when they're in fact capable of complaining - it's perfectly normal language for the situation and it's understandable to anyone who has developed the skill of not taking every word literally.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#279

Post by wideem »

Jagerbizzle wrote: post #151
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.

Significantly better than the tone-deaf email Satya sent Microsoft employees, which continues to cause undue anxiety for employees who have no clue if or when they'll be laid off over the next 90 days.

It's actually better for workers when layoffs are announced in advanced. They can prepare for it and not make an important financial decisions e.g.: buying house while waiting

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#280

Post by pm90 »

Moissanite wrote: post #243

I wonder how much major tech companies are taking into account "revenge" when doing their firing. For example, if I was a GCP Solutions Architect and got laid off, my skills would be well suited to jumping to a customer who is using GCP - but would I be inclined to support this activity, giving the employer who fired me more revenue? Depends on the availability of roles of course, but I would certainly be giving stro…

Nobody behaves this way. A GCP solutions architect has spent years acquiring valuable skills and experience. They aren’t gonna throw it away out of spite.

The only thing laid off employees will generally do is never, ever work for the employer that laid them off ever again.

Post reply on HN