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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#481

Post by lwhi »

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'm not sure.

As much as I like and admire the spirit of your comment; the game is capitalism.

Just because you can afford something, surely you would sanction doing it unless there's need?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#482

Post by everdrive »

radu_floricica wrote: post #464
AYBABTME wrote: post #422

Every time I read stuff like: > "Over the past two years we’ve seen periods of dramatic growth. To match and fuel that growth, we hired for a different economic reality than the one we face today." I feel taken for a fool. Every damn body knew that the last 2 years were not representative of the future. Everybody knew that free-money, COVID and related phenomenons were a phase. I can't believe that Google, Shopify, C…

Really? Cause I'm making a public note here that I didn't know. I fully expected WFH and automation to continue to fuel the need for software development, albeit at a slower rate. I'm also making a public note that even if I foresaw a crash after printing free money, I didn't expect it to be compounded by the most drastic eco-legislation ever, plus a war in Ukraine. And I sure as hell didn't expect the last two to be…

I’m a bit out of the loop. What is the drastic eco-legislation you’re referring to?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#484

Post by Communitivity »

The current flood of layoff news from FAANG level companies is surprising, sad, and pathetic.

As others have posted, they could keep the people on but they aren't, probably because it isn't financially optimal in the short term to do so. The two problems I see with that are (1) the loss of institutional knowledge, morale, and attractiveness as a place to work mean it is financially suboptimal in the long term, but companies right now are only thinking 1 quarter ahead (maybe 2); (2) it takes time to ramp up, get acclimated, and execute a vision - that clock resets for each position when someone is released and the a new hire is added back later.

It used to be that when you worked for one of the new big corps (FAANG and those like them) it represented some security.

Now I am saddened to see them adopting the big consulting corp model, where you can get released at will and staff is constantly being optimized for the current task set/direction/clients.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#485

Post by pissedgenes »

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'd still bet we avoid a recession in the US, even if certain industries (like tech) contract sharply.

It's easy to forget tech is not the economy at large. What I think most people would classify as tech jobs — working in “internet publishing and broadcasting and web search portals” — are less than 0.3% of total payrolls employment.

But tech makes up ~26% of the S&P 500 market cap, so tech gets a lot more media attention because the companies are so valuable.

Layoffs are terrible for anyone involved. But even with the roughly 200K layoffs at public and startup tech firms in 2022 and 2023 so far, that's .001% of total US payroll employment.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#486

Post by gilbetron »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #276
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 feel…

> fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder profits.

This is kind of true, but not really.

To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#487

Post by brookst »

tephra wrote: post #476
AYBABTME wrote: post #422

Every time I read stuff like: > "Over the past two years we’ve seen periods of dramatic growth. To match and fuel that growth, we hired for a different economic reality than the one we face today." I feel taken for a fool. Every damn body knew that the last 2 years were not representative of the future. Everybody knew that free-money, COVID and related phenomenons were a phase. I can't believe that Google, Shopify, C…

In a similar vein, I would like to know what the "and I take full responsibility for this" line that CEOs always say in these emails actually looks like besides just saying it in the email.

That’s it. It just means that they are making a point of not blaming their reports (“today is a tough day, especially because Bob over-hired in marketing and Kate talked me into that engineering expansion”)

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#488

Post by xdavidliu »

AYBABTME wrote: post #422

Every time I read stuff like: > "Over the past two years we’ve seen periods of dramatic growth. To match and fuel that growth, we hired for a different economic reality than the one we face today." I feel taken for a fool. Every damn body knew that the last 2 years were not representative of the future. Everybody knew that free-money, COVID and related phenomenons were a phase. I can't believe that Google, Shopify, C…

> It was written in the sky since April 2020. Anyone with a semblance of understanding could guess that the COVID-fueled situation and artificial economic prop up would come due in the medium term.

Can you point to any comments that people with a semblance of understanding made back then in which they were able estimate the rough time window when things would come back down to earth?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#489

Post by lkjdsklf »

rco8786 wrote: post #232
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.

He said responsibility, not consequences. I am still not sure what people expect CEOs to do in these situations to "punish" themselves. Google is not going bankrupt, they are still wildly profitable, they overhired and are adjusting headcount by a few percent. It sucks for the people affected, I don't want to downplay that. But I'm genuinely curious what is supposed to happen to the leader in these situations.

He could resign. That would be "taking responsibility." Just saying you take responsibility isn't actually taking responsibility. Not in a way that matters to anyone anyway.

If he wasn't planning on resigning, he should have just left that bit out of the statement. It comes off as empty and tone def.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#490

Post by pnutjam »

radu_floricica wrote: post #464
AYBABTME wrote: post #422

Every time I read stuff like: > "Over the past two years we’ve seen periods of dramatic growth. To match and fuel that growth, we hired for a different economic reality than the one we face today." I feel taken for a fool. Every damn body knew that the last 2 years were not representative of the future. Everybody knew that free-money, COVID and related phenomenons were a phase. I can't believe that Google, Shopify, C…

Really? Cause I'm making a public note here that I didn't know. I fully expected WFH and automation to continue to fuel the need for software development, albeit at a slower rate. I'm also making a public note that even if I foresaw a crash after printing free money, I didn't expect it to be compounded by the most drastic eco-legislation ever, plus a war in Ukraine. And I sure as hell didn't expect the last two to be…

please elaborate on the "drastic eco-legislation", sounds like a talking point from a dubious source.
Post reply on HN