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

Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 469 posts

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#411

Post by kerkeslager »

pmarreck wrote: post #120
gilbert_vanova wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a recent counter razor: "Never attribute to malice or stupidity what is better explained by self-interest" Many of these orgs laying off thousands have fallen into the depths of a moral maze -- where rational thinking is just impossible and all that's left is self-preservation.

When business takes a downturn and you have to choose whether you get to eat or the person you're paying gets to eat, do "morals" really come into play, here? > I have a recent counter razor: "Never attribute to malice or stupidity what is better explained by self-interest" My modification: "Never attribute to malice or stupidity what is better explained by rational self-interest" The key observation being that even…

It seems like you might have a more nuanced view of what the phrase "rational self-interest" means to you than the average person, but given how people actually use that phrase most often, I think that phrase isn't an effective way for you to communicate what you're trying to communicate.

The phrase "rational self-interest" as it's most often used is just a euphemism for "acquiring as much money as possible" which is neither rational nor what most people are interested in for themselves. There are lots of people who make the choice to take less money in exchange for more time with their families, more fulfilling work, etc., and that's a rational choice. And we have ample evidence that beyond a certain point, making more money doesn't make you happier.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#412

Post by giantg2 »

j245 wrote: post #407
giantg2 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"On the whole though, they have released many orders of magnitude more useful things than Hedge Funds." Well no shit - you're comparing an entity that creates "things" to one that doesn't! "gobble up PhD holders and the cream of the crop and use them to make 0.1% of the population 5% wealthier" Um, Google does this with data scientists. Maybe they do create a useful app, but make no mistake that their primary goal is…

You’ve missed the point… An entity that puts nothing into the host system, but consumes resources from the host to fatten itself is a parasite. In the case of hedge funds, it’s a zero-sum game. Either you or the counter party lose depending on how the bet goes. In aggregate, society gets nothing, but the cost of the net zero value is high (highly skilled people, taking resources away from other things). It’s profitab…

"An entity that puts nothing into the host system, but consumes resources from the host to fatten itself is a parasite."

You seem to miss how the system works. Those companies are where they are today because of financing. Stock purchases, including demand for existing shares drives that.

"In the case of Google Maps, no one has to lose for me to make a journey."

No, you trade your data (lose privacy) for that journey.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#413

Post by pmarreck »

kerkeslager wrote: post #190
jack_riminton wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the incentives will explain the behaviour, they always do. I suspect managers being judged on their number of direct reports explains some of the over-hiring.

> Exactly, the incentives will explain the behaviour, they always do. Who cares? "I was following incentives" is no different from "I was following orders." It doesn't become suddenly okay to do harm just because there's an incentive to do harm. Hacker News and startup culture in general are toxic because of people blaming market conditions instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. If it's really about…

I think that's an excellent incentive proposal, that even the boardmembers would probably agree with (as overhiring is not only costly in feelings, but in cash)

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#414

Post by ianbutler »

Apocryphon wrote: post #344
ianbutler wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, but if that's all it takes to cow someone, again, they never had real power, so nothing to crush. My point is, this shouldn't be all it takes to make people insecure about their position.

The power was never there. What was there was the prospect of being able to head to greener shores. It's not just about layoffs (which are still ongoing, so your numbers are preliminary and not the final tally), but also hiring freezes. For someone who loses their job now, not only are they competing with everyone else from all of these companies let go, there's far fewer positions open than there were before. So the…

I know for a fact Google for instance is actively filling roles and they just laid people off. This is theatre with unfortunate consequences for the little guy. Same with the other acronym cos.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#415

Post by randomdata »

sokoloff wrote: post #369
randomdata wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am free to associate with employer X without a corresponding requirement to fund a union that I might not care to associate with. With freedom of association, a union and employer could reach a contractual agreement to require that all employees who enter into an association with the employer must pay into the union, regardless of membership status. Freedom of association allows an employer to reject those terms,…

It's a fair (if a bit unusual) interpretation to elevate the rights of association of the employer and union over the rights of association of natural persons.

There is no change in the rights granted. Each party has full freedom to associate with whom they choose and only enter into only the agreements they feel are worthwhile.

I, an individual, could equally say "I hate that sokoloff guy and I'll work with you only if you agree to never hire him." and at that point they have to decide if I'm worth hiring under those terms or not. If they want to keep you open as an option then they can say "Nope. Sorry. Best of luck in your future endeavours."

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#416

Post by kerkeslager »

pmarreck wrote: post #413
kerkeslager wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Exactly, the incentives will explain the behaviour, they always do. Who cares? "I was following incentives" is no different from "I was following orders." It doesn't become suddenly okay to do harm just because there's an incentive to do harm. Hacker News and startup culture in general are toxic because of people blaming market conditions instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. If it's really about…

I think that's an excellent incentive proposal, that even the boardmembers would probably agree with (as overhiring is not only costly in feelings, but in cash)

Okay, but that's because you're well-intentioned and believe that changing incentives will actually fix the problem.

The predictable response from the top whenever cutting executive pay is proposed as an incentive, however, would actually be that they need to maintain competitive executive pay to retain talent.

The reality is that board members and executives are drawn from the same pool of oligarchs, and the "incentives solve everything" narrative is just a marketing ploy for the "close a symbolic loophole and move on to the next loophole" strategy. People who do harm just because there's an incentive to do harm can't be trusted not to do harm, because there's always another way to gain benefit by doing harm.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#417

Post by kilgnad »

5560675260 wrote: post #303
kilgnad wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean which do you prefer. Being on a team with terrible engineers, or getting layed off. Take your pick. It's not really a binary choice either. With unions it just increases the probability of you being on a team of terrible engineers while lowering the probability of you getting layed off. So the real question is which probability metric is more important to you and other engineers?

One of this scenarios would leave me without job, another one would push me to quit my job. Outcome is the same, but bad team is likely to cause a lot of frustration first.

No, one scenario is slightly better because it gives you the choice to quit. In the other scenario there is no choice.

Times constantly change you won't always be in a situation where you have the finances to just quit just because you're frustrated with a job.

As a high paid SWE we often forget that A job is more then doing something you "like" to do, it is a means of survival. When times change, when hard times come or when some life changing event happens, being allowed to survive is a good thing.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#418

Post by j245 »

giantg2 wrote: post #412
j245 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve missed the point… An entity that puts nothing into the host system, but consumes resources from the host to fatten itself is a parasite. In the case of hedge funds, it’s a zero-sum game. Either you or the counter party lose depending on how the bet goes. In aggregate, society gets nothing, but the cost of the net zero value is high (highly skilled people, taking resources away from other things). It’s profitab…

"An entity that puts nothing into the host system, but consumes resources from the host to fatten itself is a parasite." You seem to miss how the system works. Those companies are where they are today because of financing. Stock purchases, including demand for existing shares drives that. "In the case of Google Maps, no one has to lose for me to make a journey." No, you trade your data (lose privacy) for that journey…

> You seem to miss how the system works…

Yea, the way it works with hedge funds is, do whatever it takes to make a profit, underlying company be damned - see naked shorting GME.

Where is the “financing” in that?

What about all the companies that “got to where they are now” aka dissolved because shorting to oblivion would generate a profit ?

The fact you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and claiming that just buying stock = increasing demand = creating value should be a red flag.

“No, you trade your data”

How exactly does that happen in offline mode ?

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#419

Post by kilgnad »

screwturner68 wrote: post #385
bee_rider wrote: post #148

Earlier 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…

This type of thing is questionable.

It can be viewed from the other angle. If software engineers aren't licensed why do lawyers and plumbers have to be?

The pros of being licensed are obvious. The cons are less so. One thing licensing does is lower supply. It can be used to artificially lower supply so that prices and wages remain high.

Are you sure barbers are licensed?

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#420

Post by skmurphy »

dubcanada wrote: post #219
AlwaysRock wrote: post #175

Right before COVID-19 stay at home order in Chicago, a bunch of improvisers who preformed at the popular i.o theater put together a list of demands which basically asked for a bunch of changes to make the lives of performers better. They were not going to perform until those changes were made. The owner didnt respond for a few days and then said, "Hey! Heard you. Great valid concerns. But I'm actually shutting the th…

This is sadly why you need political power. People with money can afford WAY longer then you to just say "nah..."

I think it's less a question of "(politcal) power" than "bargaining power." And bargaining power is not fundamentally about your ability to withhold your labor from one employer but sell it to other employers.
Post reply on HN