So big tech has 220,000 layoffs and there is not the merest hint of a blip in the unemployment rate. This is not a tragedy - these people are going to find jobs, good jobs. In fact it's quite likely that they will go into roles which might do something other than online advertising. You know, something useful.
I very much want you to be correct, but having been around for a good amount of time, it's not always as straightforward as you suggest. In many instances, companies are reluctant to hire people who have been laid off, because they imagine that if company A laid the person off, obviously something's wrong with the person. In some cases, someone can take a couple of years or so to finally find a job, and that's enough…
Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
391–400 of 469 posts
Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
But GP is incredulous about that, because a no-poach agreement would imply that they're sitting behind a desk and stroking a cat. That's an absurd thing to picture, so by the GP's logic, those no-poach agreements didn't exist. QED.
Conclusive evidence of a conspiracy does, indeed, strongly evidence a conspiracy. Alas, this hasn't much to do with the "no evidence of a conspiracy" case. All no evidence evidences is no evidence. A point which seems widely misunderstood.
Even so, there is some evidence, though certainly not conclusive.
Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
hiring managers are not that dumb ... if you prior job is amazon, and you are applying for a new job 2 months after 18K have been laid off - they can put 2 and 2 together pretty easily. Even if you did leave on your own accord, they will likely assume you were let go. It's almost always easier to get a new job, when you still have one.
I've seen good people get laid off. So I certainly don't fault people for being laid off. Plus, being an ex-FAANG is a huge bonus when applying for jobs at "normal" places or starts ups.
YMMV on this one, depending on what you consider "normal" companies (non-tech, non-coastal, non-advertising).
Plenty of those hiring managers have their own opinions about FAANG employees
Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why hasn't worker pay arisen proportionally, since if they're working for multinationals they are similarly serving millions to billions? > And they actually did it by putting their money where their mouth was and became shareholders in these companies, at great personal risk to themselves. Judging by the steady growth in exec comp in Figure A of the second link, it doesn't seem like their efforts were very successfu…
> Why hasn't worker pay arisen proportionally, since if they're working for multinationals they are similarly serving millions to billions? They have. In China and other assembly countries. And there’s your ultimate answer for what the actual problem is here. For Americans. Pretty good deal elsewhere.
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/24/workforce-china-population-...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/24/world/asia/ch...
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/business/china-covid-tests-fa...
Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
What frustrates me most is that a lot of people recognize that there are issues in the labor market but the conspiratorial belief makes things way harder to solve because we don't even know what the problem is. I see this happening in a lot of areas in both economics and politics. It does seem that people like this story of omniscient evil people better than incompetent selfish people. Like we've seen how inefficient…
It's because people are trained to think in terms of individual actors instead of systems. They're also trained to think their country's system is great if not for the X, Y, Z people ruining it. Of course, those who are educated and those with power often have to face the reality that we must focus on systems and processes. It's not "conspiratorial" to assume corporations are invested in extracting the highest labour…
This isn't what any of us (at least me) are calling conspiratorial. The conspiratorial nature involves the... conspiring part. That organizations are in fact not doing what I quotes but instead working together in back rooms to help maintain the elite statuses. While this happens to some extent, it is not this Bilderberg group type things. If individual elite companies and billionaires independently lobby for their personal self interests then others of that same group often benefit from the same things. This should be unsurprising. But it doesn't require collusion, it just requires statistics.
It is not Dems and Reps plotting in back rooms to make Americans fight and hand over power to billionaires. You're watching too many movies. The easier explanation is that they all come from the same types of families and have gone to the same types of schools. They don't need to conspire because they already have the same reference frame of the world. They're not omniscient, they just have the same biases in their priors. But that's not conspiracy, that's emergence.
A perfect example of the conspiracy we are talking about is the top comment. I am willing to bet that theater was closed (primarily) due to the pandemic rather than because they wanted to squash these performers' demands. But as the old saying goes: never let a tragedy go to waste. The judgement of intentions are being made based on the outcome, and in many of these cases could not have been predicted apriori. So either the owner got "lucky" or they were omniscient. If the latter, why the fuck are they running an theater? The same can be said about a lot of common beliefs.
The outcomes might be similar or look the same as if these mega smart people planned all this, but that's a bias seeing the "successes" and ignoring the failures (a quite common human trait). The difference between these two views may not matter in terms of outcomes, but it sure does matter in terms of preventing the same things from happening in the future. Frankly this is the key failure point of many suggestions for how to resolve these issues and why we have decades or centuries of attempts that result in failures. Because we aren't looking at the complex causal chain of events (which we can't even know beyond a certain level of accuracy and is constantly changing).
Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
#396I just don’t buy it. To be clear this is claiming that the CEOs are sitting behind a desk stroking a cat, thinking “now I will crush the labor movement and make all my workers feel less secure”. This is just not a problem that Pichai is facing. Occam’s Razor points to the very simple, non-conspiratorial answer that it really is just stock-price driven (ie market-driven) thinking (one could say “lack of actual strateg…
I think you’re applying a “conspiratorial” vibe that isn’t necessary - employers are naturally incentivized to keep employees insecure and underpaid (relative to what they’d be paid if they organized, at least). It sounds like you’re knowledgeable on these topics, so I’d be surprised if you disagreed with any of these assertions: 1. Big tech would be willing to burn billions of dollars to crush any chance of tech uni…
Aren't the management also employees? They may have different incentives from those of the large shareholders too. Case in point, so many managers chase scopes by hiring as much as possible but firing as little as they can. I remember Googlers used to joke that "VPs will protect us" when it comes to downsizing teams.
Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unemployment doesn’t show laid off employees who aren’t yet collecting unemployment benefits. These tech workers got at least 60 days of severance thanks to the warn act.
Like most modern legislation, the warn act is way too long and thus filled with loopholes. Lawyers have already come up with many ways to avoid it and companies are putting them to good use.
Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some fields reduce worker infighting with unions. Some reduce it with licensing. Management insists, though, that Software Engineers are too prestigious for the former, and well, the latter is just gatekeeping. Weird, that!
Doctors are licensed, Plumbers, barbers, Lawyers, what's the issue with people in IT having a standard base of knowledge? One of the big pluses of IT is we supposedly hire people for what they know and not just some bullshit piece of paper but how do we know what they know? Maybe having something like a bar exam or your PE exam, I not saying not to hire people with out a professional license but it could be used as a…
It's hard to establish hard standards in an industry that moves as quickly as tech can, but virtually anything would be an improvement over the frat house hazing ritual that technical interviews have become.
Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely not the case if you're a FAANG developer. The issue is that a lot of these people may have to take pay cuts and make less than what they were previously earning. Especially if you were L4+ at Google or something. Not many companies that'll pay $350k+ for a software engineer. Those that will are not currently hiring.
So FAANG developers traded long term stability for stock based comp and now that deal turned sour? From a super lame C# dev at a boring company in a flyover state that's never gotten stock comp-- I used to fear a collapse in big tech that would cause an influx of skilled devs flooding into boring companies and displacing mere mortals like myself. Now that it's actually happening I'm very amused at how unemployable th…
Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power
#400I just don’t buy it. To be clear this is claiming that the CEOs are sitting behind a desk stroking a cat, thinking “now I will crush the labor movement and make all my workers feel less secure”. This is just not a problem that Pichai is facing. Occam’s Razor points to the very simple, non-conspiratorial answer that it really is just stock-price driven (ie market-driven) thinking (one could say “lack of actual strateg…
Dynamics like this wouldn't be unheared of. I hear that part of the reason airlines don't frequently computer on price is that investors don't like it because they typically invest in multiple airlines and don't want their investments to compete for slices of a pie by shrinking the pie.
Is it even collusion if I just do what my investors are asking me to?