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

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#311

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

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…

The larger these tech companies get the more they behave like old tech, like IBM. When a company is publicly traded, shareholders are more important than employees. Silicon Valley and startups are too ingrained with the "IPO/acquisition or bust" mentality and post IPO employees want RSU's or stock grants as part of "total comp".

You say you want a revolution? One where the people at the top are accountable? One where pay is more equitable from the bottom line employee up to CEO? Then people should be starting workers cooperatives[0] and not corporations with a goal of an IPO. Employees having democratic control of their own company, its projects, profits, pay scales, maybe voting in the c-suite executives, what countries they'll do business with, etc.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#312

Post by activitypea »

pepF wrote: post #36

[dead]

On MacOS / Safari, the full-screen video loops the first few seconds while bufferring, so I was just looking at the awkward guy on repeat. I also have to agree that it was a "bold" choice to use black text with a dark green background on a website whose primary color is orange.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#313

Post by paganel »

HeckFeck wrote: post #116
csvm wrote: post #89

Amazon, Microsoft, and now Alphabet. Is this because Twitter showed an example where you can lay off most of the non-core workforce and the tech will still go on?

I do wonder if this is a consequence of the "My day at Linkedin" TikTok videos that were circulating. Looks like they'll have to manage life without the wine on tap and the morning pedicures before attending 1/2 hour of meetings each day.

> the wine on tap

That always looked like an abomination to me, for the wine, that is. You either drink the wine poured directly from a bottle (or directly from the barrel, like my grandpa used to do), or you don't.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#315

Post by quelltext »

phpisthebest wrote: post #260
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 agree they need to stop with the rhetoric... but I am sure we are not going to agree with why or what the end result of that change be The statement should read "We saw the "day in the life" video, we know you were not doing enough work so now we are reducing head count because clearly you have too much free time"

Do you really think that?

Also, if so, do you really think that reducing force means reducing force were it's appropriate (triming true fat)?

All the companies are doing is to take the opportunity to save cost because everyone does, and because these companies can obviously survive.

They hired to keep in line with trends and now they fire for the same reason.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#316

Post by roncesvalles »

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…

Layoffs are not about saving money. It's all theatre to appease the powers that be.

"What explains why so many companies are laying large numbers of their workforce off? The answer is simple: copycat behavior."[1]

[1] https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-la...

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#317

Post by lonelyasacloud »

Seen enough cycles of laying off about 10% [1] of your workforce to try and halt a share price slide and make investors happier to realise it's in the Howto CEO & Keep Your Job manual.

QED, this announcement is almost entirely about share prices sliding in the tech sector since about the beginning of 2022.

ChatGPT's impact on Google is unknown, but it is a fair bet that it will be larger [2].

[1] It's always around 10% because all large companies carry functions and individuals who can be removed from the enterprise, and things will essentially carry on as before once the shock subsides.

[2] I don't think many would doubt Google could have rolled out its own ChatGPT'alike years ago. The fact that they didn't suggests that internally a combination of the undoubted reputational risk, cost and the risk to their existing revenue streams was enough to prevent it. Google's full of very bright people, and they've failed to find a palatable solution in years. So even if it is a solvable problem, it seems unlikely that the recent nasty shock from ChatGPT is going to have changed that.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#319

Post by Neil44 »

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…

If Googe doesn't need these people any more who would it benefit to keep them around? Google isn't social security and in any case who wants to work in a job where it doesn't really matter what you do because you're not really needed and just given busywork. It's just not a good way forward.

Getting all angry over a specific phrase which is clearly meant to take any responsibility or implication away from those being let go seems like a pointless wase of energy.

Post reply on HN