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

The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

andzwa.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 292 posts

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#221

Post by komali2 »

spritefs wrote: post #181
komali2 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel quite strongly about this. Aligning society along a hierarchy of "intelligence" is really just aligning it on a hierarchy of access to education, which is just a function of economic class privilege (or racial class privilege really, these are tightly integrated even today in many societies for historical or otherwise reasons). Therefore I believe that as our society reaches for further egalitarianism, this hi…

> Aligning society along a hierarchy of "intelligence" is really just aligning it on a hierarchy of access to education, which is just a function of economic class privilege (or racial class privilege really, these are tightly integrated even today in many societies for historical or otherwise reasons). This is the claim: intelligence is just some combination of education, class, and race Let's state the obvious here…

Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned?

I doubt this can be demonstrated to have a much stronger effect than educational opportunities, which is a function of class, which in some societies, such as American society, is a function partially of race, for historical and contemporary reasons, as well as a function of economic condition (the two are inexorably linked for reason of generational wealth).

> leaving genetics out is just avoiding the obvious because it isn't politically satisfying

I'm very much of the opinion, and as far as I understand it research backs me up here, that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics, the overall outcomes are vastly more affected by things we have lots of control over, such as the egalitarianian-ness of our society, than things we don't really have control over, such as each individual's genetics (and do we want to go down the path of structuring our hierarchies around this? shall I go get the swath of sci fi warning against this?)

You seem to disagree, not sure why, though I'm curious!

> Are you in denial about (inherently) stupid people existing or something?

Nope, just seems mostly irrelevant in this conversation. What's the point of talking about genetics here? How about we do achieve educational access egalitarian, truly, and we find out some people aren't doing quite as good of art, or writing quite as good as poetry, or dreaming up quite as interesting apps, or doing engineering quite as fast, because they lost a genes lottery. Do you think it's a good idea to start structuring hierarchies around this? Seems cruel and pointless to me.

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#222

Post by hsn915 »

paxys wrote: post #203
hsn915 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earning $200k/yr without doing anything special is a privilige very few people in the world get to enjoy. I have no sympathy for these people. Learn a real skill and do something useful. Before you jump and say they do have a skill: why are they whining then? People who have skills don't whine when they are laid off. They just go and find another place to work. The fact that they need to whine so loudly about it tell…

And I bet you think your $50K/$100K/$150K or whatever else salary is perfectly justified and you are adding great value to the world. Why is that? Or will you admit that you are privileged as well?

I have admitted multiple times on HN and elsewhere that I don't think anything I've done in my career has been particularly valueable or useful to society.

I totally own it. I not only don't complain about being "laid off". I often quit jobs myself and spend some "gap" time doing nothing before I find the next job.

Currently I'm not working for anyone because I'm sick of all tech jobs.

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#223

Post by komali2 »

hsn915 wrote: post #202
komali2 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mate these people aren't your enemy no matter how much you think they make compared to you. You think it was only blue haired 300k social media managers that got layed off or something? There's sand pounding IT guys there that got layed off too, I know for a fact cause some are my friends. Yeah it was a Google job so it was lux but they were running fiber and getting called in at 2am cause some clueless executive's e…

If they have real skills they can find employment else where. They are whining because they know they were being over compensated at Google and that they are unlikely to be able to find another job that pays so much money with so little effort. They're not my enemies but they're not my friends. I don't feel sympathy for them. If anything, they should feel sympathy for me and give me some of that extra cash they've be…

> I don't feel sympathy for them.

Why not?

> If anything, they should feel sympathy for me

Maybe they do, have you talked to some? Also, why should they feel sympathy for you, if you're not interested in feeling sympathy for others?

> give me some of that extra cash they've been getting. Why do they deserve it more than I do?

They don't. Is it their fault that they get paid more and you get paid less for the same or different jobs? Are you pointing your finger at the right people, here?

> I can do "nothing at all" just as well as they did.

You seem to not like when people aren't paid per their labor output. You and I are probably quite aligned in our values, if that's the case. You and I both, for example, surely both find it insane that there are people, hardworking or otherwise, who now command orders of magnitude more capital than anyone on earth, or even in history.

Compared to a billionaire, you at whatever you make, let's say 50k, working harder than a googler making 200k for the same or easier job, are basically siblings in capital. I'd even go so far as to call you class allies.

Perhaps the direction of your anger being pointed distinctly away from the people who are actually causing this injustice is helping same? So why are you mad at random people who make a little bit more than you, rather than at someone that makes several tens of millions a year by simply existing?

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#224

Post by fatih-erikli »

astrange wrote: post #189
fatih-erikli wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So maybe their h-1b has just expired

It doesn't expire for 60 days because they're not "really" unemployed till then. Which is still extremely bad government policy; you don't want your best taxpayers to leave.

So maybe they avoid tax declaration and government no longer wants them in the country?

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#225

Post by komali2 »

csomar wrote: post #163
komali2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what labor did they contribute? Follow the chain and at most what they did was buy someone else's labor and attach it to the Google brand (through having more cash for hiring), there's other ways to do that though, like loans, or structuring as a co-op so all employees are simply the only shareholders.

There is a dangerous path in this rationalization that will lead you to Marxism. The theory is cute and some people in Europe thought it would work. It didn't and that's how we ended up with capitalism. Humans are capitalist traders by instinct. Marxism makes logical sense, however.

> There is a dangerous path in this rationalization that will lead you to Marxism.

Too late, I'm already a communist. A very capitalistically successful one, mind you.

Further along this thread is way off topic, I don't want to kick off a flame war of communism vs capitalism, I wanted to see what people have in mind about how companies like Google, that exist in a capitalist system, can be forced to care for the needs of their employees over the needs of their shareholders. Whether or not the system should / can be changed is, well, another thread or something lol, not for here.

That said your comment has some interesting ideas that I'm seeing as misconceptions ("some people in Europe that thought it would work" are arguably some of the most important philosophers in the western tradition) but maybe you're thinking along some lines I'm not aware of, so if you want to chat about this I'd love to do so in email, my address is on my profile page here.

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#226

Post by komali2 »

WalterBright wrote: post #180
komali2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what labor did they contribute? Follow the chain and at most what they did was buy someone else's labor and attach it to the Google brand (through having more cash for hiring), there's other ways to do that though, like loans, or structuring as a co-op so all employees are simply the only shareholders.

> But what labor did they contribute? I.e. you're positing the "Labor Theory of Value", which is the basis of Marxism. The LToV errs in assigning zero value to risk-taking and the fact that some people are far more productive than others.

Ok, so then, I'm doing a labor theory of value.

What actual risk does an investor take? Loss of capital? Compared to an employee who, in the situation where capital is lost, loses the means by which they feed and house themselves, and in the USA, provide healthcare for themselves?

On top of which, right now, investors aren't really taking much loss. This action by Google is done for shareholder value. So not only is the loss for an employee higher in a situation that "harms" a shareholder, it's also more pervasive: the employee might get fired anyway through no fault of their own, even if it's not because the company is going bankrupt and everyone's losing their money.

And while all this is happening the investor has invested in other ventures, potentially even competitors. If google goes bankrupt they lose their initial investment, which by most financial advisories I see should not account for a significant portion of their investment, retirement, or even just savings, so by material measures, they'll be fine.

Meanwhile the employee has put in their time, energy effort. They haven't been able to explore other means of making money, do research into potential investments for themselves. They've been building social capital, specific domain knowledge, client relationships, things that hold some value after a Google collapse, but not all.

At the end of the day I just don't see why what an investor does has any value at all compared to an employee. Can you help me understand better what you mean?

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#227

Post by [deleted] »

Invictus0 wrote: post #78

Everyone keeps complaining about being locked out of systems with just an email. Seriously, why do you care about this? You don't work there anymore: say goodbye to your friends over text message or email. The reason from the employer's side is obvious: knowledgeable, angry people with access to sensitive systems can wreak a lot of havoc. So take your severance and get out! Locking people out of systems is not a new…

[deleted]

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#228

Post by jujube3 »

paxys wrote: post #50
fnfjfk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are places like HP and Dell really comparable to Google on TC? You can also chill out working at a quiet local bookstore or other “BaristaFIRE” jobs that people like, but you’re not getting paid $500k to do it… (Microsoft definitely competes now)

There's probably a significant difference when you factor in stock appreciation (particularly for the long timers), but I'd wager base salary stays within 10-20% at all these companies for the same level/experience/location.

You would lose that wager.

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#229

Post by hsn915 »

komali2 wrote: post #223
hsn915 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they have real skills they can find employment else where. They are whining because they know they were being over compensated at Google and that they are unlikely to be able to find another job that pays so much money with so little effort. They're not my enemies but they're not my friends. I don't feel sympathy for them. If anything, they should feel sympathy for me and give me some of that extra cash they've be…

> I don't feel sympathy for them. Why not? > If anything, they should feel sympathy for me Maybe they do, have you talked to some? Also, why should they feel sympathy for you, if you're not interested in feeling sympathy for others? > give me some of that extra cash they've been getting. Why do they deserve it more than I do? They don't. Is it their fault that they get paid more and you get paid less for the same or…

What I don't like is whiners.

My values and your are not aligned at all.

Understand: I don't want sympathy from anyone. I don't think I deserve sympathy, nor do I need it.

Do I need to explain sarcasm to you?

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#230

Post by jujube3 »

spit2wind wrote: post #205
kerblang wrote: post #20

You work for google because you make insane money and have cachet you can take anywhere and get hired instantly. Hell, you can pull in 10 million funding for your startup idea if you like. Or just retire, get a boat, go sailing. Of course all of this had to go bad. Come on now. Stop whining already. I work in the IT sewer fighting rats. I will always have work. I'm filthy and I smell bad, but I'm doing fine, and no,…

I love how all the W2s be fighting against themselves as though they aren't all in the same position. Yes, there's a big difference between $300k and $30k. It doesn't feel quite so big, though, when one medical bill can bankrupt you, regardless. Or you're living paycheck to paycheck because school cost you $150k (plus interest). We all have a lot more in common than not. Hard is hard and people matter. Those laid off…

> It doesn't feel quite so big, though, when one medical bill can bankrupt you, regardless.

Can't happen because health insurance has an out-of-pocket maximum for the year

> Or you're living paycheck to paycheck because school cost you $150k (plus interest).

College prices do need to be reined in, but if you are making 300k you should be able to handle a 150k debt.

> Those laid off got a bad deal, period, because it has less to do with actual "merit" and more to do with at-will is a bad deal.

Seems like a pretty good deal, honestly. Generous severance packages.

Nobody likes layoffs but pretending that this is some kind of humanitarian disaster is just grotesque

Post reply on HN