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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#511

Post by nova22033 »

Aunche wrote: post #474
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…

They aren't fools, they just have their own agendas. Sundar and other Google execs don't actually own that much Google stock, so they have relatively little lose by gambling with company money by over hiring. From Brian Armstrong's perspective, Coinbase didn't overhire at all. They captured all the crypto revenue they could during the boom, which inflated their stock price while Armstrong was cashing out as much as h…

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/011516/top-5-g...

The top individual insider shareholders of Google are Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Sundar Pichai

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#512

Post by dazuaz »

You can now Join an AI company and wait for Google to acquire the company and make Bank? Looks more like marketing Google investments in AI than anything else on that letter.

Best of luck to anyone affected.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#513

Post by fhd2 »

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…

These companies work not for their employees, but for their shareholders. I suppose shareholders would have revolted if they hadn't increased investment to potentially hit it big when they could. Turns out these investments didn't work out, so now they cut their losses. From a shareholder's perspective, I can understand this narrative as not foolish, rather courageous.

From an outside (and employee) perspective, it can seem foolish though.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#514

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

The Fed has been raising interest rates at historically fast rates all year in order to fight inflation by cooling down the economy.

Which is another way of saying "inducing a recession", as any educated person should know.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#515

Post by insane_dreamer »

chippiewill wrote: post #494
insane_dreamer wrote: post #438

This comment from a NYT opinion piece by former Slack CPO added some clarity as to one reason why tech companies are doing this: pressure from investors to keep the share price up. Public companies lose that freedom to do whatever they want even if they have tons of money in the bank. > Meta and Salesforce combined lost more than $700 billion in market cap last year. Both companies are now dealing with activist inves…

Google don't have to worry about such activist shareholders in the same way that other companies do. Larry Page and Sergey Brin have the controlling share in Alphabet thanks to their Class B shares. They only have a fiduciary responsibility to the other shareholders.

So does Zuckerberg. But while he and Page/Brin may have a controlling interest in _voting_ stock, they own a much smaller amount of overall shares. Sure, activists can't control the board, and Zuck/Page/Brin are not in danger of being ousted, their fiduciary duty is to the shareholders not just those with voting rights.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#516

Post by agluszak »

hammock wrote: post #463
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…

>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. How are they taking you as a fool? The p…

> That’s exactly what they said they have done.

But they're trying to frame it as if they cared more about employees than profits.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#517

Post by tootie »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #478
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.

These comments show up on every one of these layoff letters, but what do people actually want to see? The CEO resigning would only send the company further into turmoil and tank the stock (which is a significant portion of employee salary) even further down. Taking accountability doesn’t mean someone needs to suffer drastic consequences.

I think it's there just so no one infers the opposite. It's not unheard for executives to blame everyone else. Pichai is just affirming that he's not blaming anyone else.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#518

Post by jmyeet »

This is market virtue signaling. Some ascribe it to "copycat" behavior but I don't think the accurately captures the intent.

Sundar is telling the market "we're cutting costs". Even the most generous estimates of what these employees cost mean Google could have them do nothing and still make a healthy profit. Obviously they were doing something though so some value is being lost while costs are being cut.

Remember that every time you hear "we're laying you off because of a recession" or "cheap labor in the developing world took your job" remember that it's all propaganda. In all cases, a capitalist simply decided to eliminate your job and possibly give it to someone else who is ostensibly cheaper.

It's also worth noting that Sundar is financially incentivized to boost the share price [1]. There's not much semantic difference between "I take full responsibility" and "I want to maximize my own (already ridiculously large) pay packet".

[1]:https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/google-ceo-sun...

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#519

Post by John23832 »

netheril96 wrote: post #266
jensensbutton wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> diversity programs... Not even remotely comparable to the other things you listed. People such as yourself seemingly can't stop talking about it though, despite it having no effect on your life.

> despite it having no effect on your life. How could it have no effect on our lives? It has effect when you compete against a diversity hire, it has effect when you have to work with a diversity hire, it has effect when your manager has to decide who to lay off when your coworker is a diversity hire.

Of all of the minorities in the world, even of the subset that may compete with you on for a position, you just CAN'T fathom that some of them may be better than you? That in even competition, this person, who just happens to be a (gender, racial, sexual orientation, ability, religous) minority is better than you at the position you're chose to apply for?

Framing your competition as diversity hires (and contemplating the outsized concern that they have on your life) says more about than you think. You're the bottom of the barrel at what you do. "Diversity hires" don't compete at a high level.

I for one know that if my competition wins, whether they are a minority or not, they do it on skill. I've elevated myself out of the concerns of competing with diversity hires, because I'm great at what I do. Level up.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#520

Post by college_physics »

For those affected the tech layoffs may be crushing (though by many comments here on HN lots of people are fully comfortable with transactional relations with an employer).

An interesting question is whether this round of layoffs signals some sort of paradigm shift in the broader tech world, a "disruption event" amidst a "bad economy" that would indeed be a motivation for alternative business models, startups etc to pull up their sleeves, hunker down, survive the dinosaur extinction and emerge standing on the other side?

I don't think so. This is just "management-by-public-markets-stock-price", which is in turn management by collective madness

Post reply on HN