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

Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

newsroom.spotify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 495 posts

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#441

Post by Apocryphon »

honeybadger1 wrote: post #424
Apocryphon wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just turn off your internet services if you don't want to engage with differing points of view.

Luckily,I am fine with people having different points of view, even when they are wrong. I have the right to see them but not engage or to point and laugh and move on, they don't reserve the right to force me to engage. This person wishes to take the right away from people to even know of the differing point of view, never allowing dissent or support. Good effort though.

The original post you were responding to was talking about making an individual, private choice not to fund something they dislike. It was voting with their wallets. That is completely in the same voluntary spirit as you have, (it just happens to be a differing opinion from yours), which makes your overreaction all the more ironic.

Choosing to not patronize a business is not “taking the right away from people”, and to characterize it as such goes against the very ethos of consumerist-oriented postwar capitalist America.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#442

Post by pwinnski »

alldayeveryday wrote: post #354
bastardoperator wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is that complex. Who benefits from these mass layoffs? Everyone at the top benefits, and everyone at the bottom suffers. You are spot on when it comes to impact of layoffs. If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. To your point, I can't take any executive seriously if they're not self reflecting on their own failure. Mass layoffs should equal a new board i…

Who benefitted from the mass hirings? Stock holders, and also workers. Did the workers complain when the job market (esp in tech) was on fire and wages were increasing? No. Did they blame the people at the top for their new job and wages? No. But, now they want to blame leaders when there are mass layoffs. I think the blame is misplaced. The root cause was the stock market, and better yet blame the fed. The incentive…

Recruiters have reached out to you from two different companies. Company A and Company B are both offering compensation greater than you're currently making (which is almost always true for most workers), and you ask questions about the viability of the company (hugely profitable) and the job (very much needed).

On what basis are you to know that despite being hugely profitable, Company A is going to get rid of 28,000 employees, while Company B is instead going to cut CEO compensation by 40%? How can you be sure whether you're joining Alphabet or Apple?

There is nobody to blame for any of this but the leadership making poor decisions for which they won't face any consequences.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#443

Post by austinpena »

oxfordmale wrote: post #219
karl11 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revenue is irrelevant when looking at savings, you have to look at net revenue or gross margin. Majority of Spotify’s revenue goes to record labels. If you are making -40mm / yr then a $90mm swing is a huge deal. Also, can’t just look at salary - employees cost a lot more than their salary. 10% employer tax, health care, other ancillary benefits, IT equipment / space, etc. A $150k salary probably costs the company $2…

The cost picture is as follows: money saved on staff reduction - money spent on layoff packages - (temporary reduction in productivity, because of lower staff morale) Research shows there is no long-term benefit of layoffs other than the short-term gain in cash flow. Layoffs are only beneficial if they are needed for survival of the company

Can you link that research?

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#444

Post by andrekandre »

nrook wrote: post #95

The tide is turning; tech owners are attempting to curtail the high costs of labor in the software industry. The only way for labor to fight back is to stand together and form a union.

unionization is one thing, but i think i'd prefer to just do away with the conflict of interest (between owner/manager/employee) from the get-go and push for more employee-owned businesses instead

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#445

Post by npteljes »

capableweb wrote: post #174

As a long time user of Spotify (almost two decades in a couple of years...), this is my biggest gripe with Spotify: https://i.imgur.com/wfSka2H.png More and more playlists are starting to look like this, which is starting to piss me off. I don't really care if it's the record companies fault or whoever, and I blame 100% myself for getting into this situation in the first place. Started to use Bandcamp more and more l…

Yeah this is what we get for relying on streaming. After 10 months of YouTube Music, I just noticed my first disappeared track. Funny thing is, the track is found in the service, just disappeared from my playlist and the album art seems a bit different. Time to create a job that saves at least the tracklists.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#446

Post by buffington »

deltree7 wrote: post #414
buffington wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since people predict the future all the time, I'll assume you mean that it's a lot more difficult to make predictions in complicated systems like housing markets. Assuming that's what you meant, let's consider the "I" in "If I hire..." If you're hiring someone, whether it's for your home building business, or your tech company, you're not doing it unaware of the market you're operating in. No real estate developer is…

Have you built a Billion $$$ company? If so your comment about your own hiring is worthless. Anyone can run a small business. There are literally millions of SMBs For large companies with public investors, there is a risk of not scaling at the right time. History is filled with failed companies that didn't scale during 2012-2022 and were conservative. History is also filled with idiots who claimed bubble and predicti…

> Have you built a Billion $$$ company?

I was a cofounder and CTO of a company that, at its peak, had a valuation in the billions. So yes.

> History is also filled with idiots

No disagreements here.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#447

Post by npteljes »

erdaniels wrote: post #48

Unrelated but, does anyone have a good universal solution of what music you "like" or "own"? I want to move off of Spotify but I want to make sure all my music is playable from some platform or locally. A decade ago I moved off the good iTunes and foolishly lost my complete library of metadata of songs, so I want to avoid that again.

I run a homemade script to scrape my profiles on Mixcloud and YouTube for my activity. Hardly a good universal solution I'm afraid.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#448

Post by ReflectedImage »

deltree7 wrote: post #366
nytesky wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The layoffs aren’t about actually saving the cost of those specific employees. Instead, the threat of being laid off is being used as a stick to bring the remaining employees in line — productivity has been lower the last few years, and leadership has no real way to measure on an individual level or how to improve it, so putting the pressure on employees is a tried and true tactics. Further, they can make lower TC of…

Bingo! Not many people realize some firings actually increase productivity.

Perhaps but not at any of the companies currently doing the layoffs.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#449

Post by honeybadger1 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #441
honeybadger1 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily,I am fine with people having different points of view, even when they are wrong. I have the right to see them but not engage or to point and laugh and move on, they don't reserve the right to force me to engage. This person wishes to take the right away from people to even know of the differing point of view, never allowing dissent or support. Good effort though.

The original post you were responding to was talking about making an individual, private choice not to fund something they dislike. It was voting with their wallets. That is completely in the same voluntary spirit as you have, (it just happens to be a differing opinion from yours), which makes your overreaction all the more ironic. Choosing to not patronize a business is not “taking the right away from people”, and t…

It's worth noting that a business, just like any other organization or individual, should not be held responsible for the views or actions of every individual or group associated with it. A business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders and stakeholders, not to moralize consumers. Furthermore, it's important to keep in mind that censorship and restriction of speech goes beyond consumer choice and has much broader implications for society as a whole.

It is crucial that platforms like Spotify provide a space for a diverse range of voices and perspectives, even if they may be controversial or unpopular, in order to foster open and honest dialogue and the exchange of ideas. As a consumer, one has the right to make their own decisions, but businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views.

I do not see the irony.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#450

Post by Apocryphon »

honeybadger1 wrote: post #449
Apocryphon wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original post you were responding to was talking about making an individual, private choice not to fund something they dislike. It was voting with their wallets. That is completely in the same voluntary spirit as you have, (it just happens to be a differing opinion from yours), which makes your overreaction all the more ironic. Choosing to not patronize a business is not “taking the right away from people”, and t…

It's worth noting that a business, just like any other organization or individual, should not be held responsible for the views or actions of every individual or group associated with it. A business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders and stakeholders, not to moralize consumers. Furthermore, it's important to keep in mind that censorship and restriction of speech goes beyond consumer choice and has much b…

On principle I get it but who cares, canceling a subscription is such a minute act it’s like getting mad at a third party voter. It’s a quixotic act of protest that outside of an organized mass movement is unlikely to bankrupt Spotify. So perhaps you being so zealous about your stance is, appropriate enough, mirroring that same poster’s beliefs. That you cannot see the irony is telling, indeed.

> businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views.

If consumers cannot voice their expression via consumer choices they will attempt to do it at the legislature, courts, or the ballot box, and I doubt that state regulation is something you’d prefer.

Free market choice is the purest form of American expression, outside of over-litigation, and the fact that you denounce it marks you as naive about the alternatives that people will pursue instead if they are denied such.

Post reply on HN