141–150 of 414 posts
Pretty ironic seeing as just a few months ago, everyone was ghosting employers, taking counteroffers after accepting, and "quiet quitting". So let's quit pretending employees are holier than employers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their job is to increase value for investors Is their job to increase it in the short or the long term? These “I know we’ve been doing great for 3 years, but the past 3 months haven’t been so hot, so we’re going to cut jobs.” Messages seem incredibly shortsighted.
Public companies have an incentive to focus on the short term (quarterly reports). This really makes a difference in management behavior. Bill Clinton and Warren Buffett have both talked about this, and presented regulatory approaches to fixing it, but here we are.
Pretty ironic seeing as just a few months ago, everyone was ghosting employers, taking counteroffers after accepting, and "quiet quitting". So let's quit pretending employees are holier than employers.
This is important to understand because it relates to why there are layoffs now: the managerial class hates when normal workers have negotiating clout. Layoffs remove that clout by cooling the job market and making existing employees afraid to leave or ask for market rate pay.
This is important for most HN readers to understand: there’s been a long tech boom where we’ve had above average pay & benefits due to demand. This has lead a lot of us to think we’re part of the upper crust at companies because we’re paid and treated better, and that this is the natural order of things. Few C-level managers agree but they’re definitely hoping we continue to believe it and don’t unionize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the people who decide exec salaries are execs in other businesses, so they generally have 1) An inflated view of the impact of execs compared to other employees. This is a well studied psychological phenomena. People tend to overestimate their "skill/contribution" even in poor luck or even rigged scenarios. (There was a study which gave some subjects a head start in monopoly, i.e. more money, the subjects ten…
> People tend to overestimate their "skill/contribution" This can’t possibly extend to computer engineers right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not trend following, it is genuine existential fear, particularly someone like waymo - With 0% rates money is free and you can take forever to make a profit, nobody cares, just borrow more money if you run out. With 5% rates money is expensive and you have say 2 years to make a profit or everyone loses their job and investors lose their funds. This doesn’t really apply to massive companies like google or MS of c…
I picked Waymo because unlike some startups losing staff obviously isn't the route to profitability for it, and it started off as a Google-branded project backed by the near unlimited cash reserves of Google. If they're in a position where they're not confident of getting further support from that source, I don't think IRR calculations over a 2 year time horizon are the main factor there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly every single one of those execs is very replaceable too.
Says the person who lacks the ability to fire them. The reason why you don't have that ability is the same reason why you are seen as more replaceable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Um. Last time I checked So every google interview is for dev position and not other positions? Also, dev interviews depend on the person who interviews and not all people are the same. Plus, the difficulty of interviews means absolutely nothing - checking the ability to solve trigonometry problems using C++ gives literally ZERO insight in how the candidate will be USED, managed, what the interaction with other peop…
I hesitated a little bit, but I will admit you got me curious. The position assumes that you know a better way to assess that viability ( which assumes I accept that framing at face value -- I don't, but I want to get to the bottom of this argument ). Would you be willing to disclose your personal favorite measuring stick? I wholeheartedly disagree. It is trivial to generalize. Careful observation resulting in nuance…
Success is easy, failure is not. Step 1 - assess candidate knows the tech first (syntax, nomenclature). Step 2 - provide candidate with a problem that they can't solve and observe how they handle failure. A Kobayashi Maru type of scenario.
After that, trial period of months to observe how the introduction of new candidate changes team's dynamics.
This is not, by any means, "the best" scenario but it beats "let's solve a trigonometry problem using python/c/c++" because it places the candidate in a situation that occurs during work.
> Even as we speak, they’re streamlining, optimizing, and booking the best contractors in the Bay Area for the next eighteen months. I suppose the author didn't want to sound racist or the equivalent that concerns people of the same skin tone but, somehow, different economic situations and options in life, but over here in Eastern Europe Google and Amazon have been hiring all this time.
As I understood it, the point was that they are laying off people but hiring more expensive contractors instead.
> ...complicated global factors like [one], [two], and my desire for a marble kitchen island with a waterfall edge. As we all know, our competitors are relentless. Even as we speak, they’re [one], [two], and booking the best contractors in the Bay Area for the next eighteen months.
Perhaps some of you are beginning to understand the term Solidarity Forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the people who decide exec salaries are execs in other businesses, so they generally have 1) An inflated view of the impact of execs compared to other employees. This is a well studied psychological phenomena. People tend to overestimate their "skill/contribution" even in poor luck or even rigged scenarios. (There was a study which gave some subjects a head start in monopoly, i.e. more money, the subjects ten…
> People tend to overestimate their "skill/contribution" even in poor luck or even rigged scenarios. I don't personally understand this one, although I don't doubt its veracity. I am an engineer with years of experience in the industry, but I don't think my contribution is high or important; I could be fired at any moment and would anyone notice? Maybe in the short term yes, but mostly no. I am easily replaceable, my…
On HN coding is more respected than social skills. A software engineer is likely to crumble in 30 seconds when they are interviewed on CNBC.