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

Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

about.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 622 posts

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#501

Post by Apocryphon »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #497
Apocryphon wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But as amusing as it is to riff off of your analogy, your point is still wrong. When studying the behavior of human beings, and corporations are people, friend, it is important to try to fathom the motivations of their decisions. You can’t simply look at the behavior of companies, even in aggregate, and pretend it’s scientific to say, “ah, that is simply how they sustain themselves.” And in this case perhaps what peo…

If it is irrationality, it seems like a huge case of mass-hysteria is happening! When would it be time for you to consider adjusting your framework here? Is there really enough variation in the obervables here to justify seeing each company as its own fully-personed snowflake?

It does seem like a case of manic activity not unlike the overhiring that brought us to this point in the first place. As far as the economic validity of anything happening, who knows. I know better than to bet against the irrationality of the market.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#502

Post by WalterBright »

whatever1 wrote: post #151
softwaredoug wrote: post #63

Listened to a great podcast about layoffs yesterday ( https://hbr.org/podcast/2023/02/why-many-companies-get-layof... ) The takeaway is that layoffs are extremely trust destroying for employees NOT laid off, and in the end not clear they're a financial net positive. Both with direct and indirect costs (lack of engagement from employees, etc).

It takes long time for the layoff effects to hit the company. The main effect is that you lose the trust of the top performers. These will be the in the lookout for new opportunities the day after the layoffs are done. If you cut 10%, expect 10% from the top to flee within a couple of years. The second effect is related to the fact that companies usually target older people with expensive jobs. In an a big org these…

> If you cut 10%, expect 10% from the top to flee within a couple of years.

If the company was laying off the deadwood and the quiet quitters, the top performers know who they are, and are not concerned about being laid off themselves.

Top performers don't particularly care to work with deadwood and quiet quitters, either.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#503

Post by bastardoperator »

andsoitis wrote: post #212
todd3834 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of them over hired like crazy during the pandemic bubble. I wouldn’t say they were stupid but collectively most of them made a massive mistake. So yeah it isn’t hard to believe for me. I don’t think the layoffs are a stupid decision but I do think the extreme over hiring as if the bubble was a new normal was. Between 2020-2022 I literally conducted over 200 interviews for my previous employer. It was like we cou…

> Between 2020-2022 I literally conducted over 200 interviews for my previous employer. it sounds like you knew at the time that it was a mistake to hire this much and you were part of the interview processes. did you ever speak up, tried to make a case that it is the wrong move?

I might think this way if this was my first rodeo. When executives allocate money for hiring I assume they've put some thought into it with data outside my immediate view. You think I should be questioning executives? Most of us are out here just trying to survive and making C titles look bad in public is how you get fired immediately.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#504

Post by munificent »

WalterBright wrote: post #502
whatever1 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes long time for the layoff effects to hit the company. The main effect is that you lose the trust of the top performers. These will be the in the lookout for new opportunities the day after the layoffs are done. If you cut 10%, expect 10% from the top to flee within a couple of years. The second effect is related to the fact that companies usually target older people with expensive jobs. In an a big org these…

> If you cut 10%, expect 10% from the top to flee within a couple of years. If the company was laying off the deadwood and the quiet quitters, the top performers know who they are, and are not concerned about being laid off themselves. Top performers don't particularly care to work with deadwood and quiet quitters, either.

> If the company was laying off the deadwood and the quiet quitters

That's a big if, though.

Executives doing layoffs also tend to do them quickly and plan them in secret in order to reduce the chance leaks. That means they are deciding who to cut with very limited time and information. They make lots of mistakes.

Both times I've been through large layoffs, I saw skilled respected peers get the axe while deadwood didn't. It causes the loss of valuable employees and completely destroys respect for executives who are apparently so clueless that they don't even know which of their employees are worth keeping around.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#505

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

Aperocky wrote: post #209
johngladtj wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The companies belong to "capital", it would be far more distressing if they weren't doing what it's owners want them to do.

Funny though, since Meta is actually fully controlled by Zuck. He wanted the metaverse and $40B buyback, otherwise he could just simply not.

Sort of yes, but also no. He pays his employees with that stock, and it being higher makes that a better deal. Additionally, being valued as a growth company is much better than being a value stock.

Mind you, Im not interested in buybacks but if they paid a dividend I'd hold them till they lose their advertising business.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#506

Post by bastardoperator »

8note wrote: post #476
des429 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking ill? He’s speaking literally about what THEY did lol. There’s nothing subjective about it.

Despite specifying what they did, it's still framed in a negative way

If reality hurt's their feelings, maybe they should change their ways.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#507

Post by bentlegen »

bombcar wrote: post #477
bentlegen wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, Encanto (Disney Animation, 2021) and Turning Red (Pixar, 2022) were the most streamed movies on any platform for all of 2022 according to Nielsen. Moana (Disney Animation, 2016) was #4. It's debatable whether these films feel like "sequel direct to DVD" or not, but I don't think it's debatable that audiences are watching them. https://www.adweek.com/lostremote/nielsen-top-15-stranger-th...

Encanto was quite good, Turning Red was Disney quality, not Pixar (I feel). The problem with streaming is that you can stream repeatedly (believe me I know that) without incurring anything additional to Disney but costs. In the "old days" going to see Encanto in theaters would have cost our family easily $80+ - now that's just the cost for Disney+. And we would have gone, but why bother when it's available to stream?…

I would argue “ability to stream a 1+ year old movie repeatedly, on demand” is part of what makes keeping your subscription worthwhile.

I think Disney intentionally took a lot of family-oriented films and kept them out of theatres during covid (reminder Encanto released in 2021) to avoid the optics of creating super spreader events where children are at the forefront. In their conference call they mention going back to theatrical releases.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#508

Post by nuggets_ »

moomoo11 wrote: post #397
isodev wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes me sad. These are actual human beings losing their jobs. I guess they don't include “human cost” or “how much pain we inflicted” as a column in financial reports.

Do you feel bad for the minimum wage and non w2 people whose jobs you automate away being in tech? I’m a highly paid tech employee and idk it’s different feeling bad for someone who lost their $10/hr job vs someone making 400k tc

No, because the rising tide of automation should, at least ostensibly, lift all boats. If the extra utility created by automation is captured by technocrats, that’s a political and social problem, not a technical one. Pointing out the ways that technology can be abused isn’t an argument against technology - it’s an argument against abuse, and for governance that optimizes the wellbeing of constituents.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#509

Post by outside1234 »

teeray wrote: post #118
msm_ wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with analyses like this is they argue that layoffs are a bad idea and it's just companies shooting themselves in a foot. That's what people want to hear, so it gets a lot of clicks and citations. But, this also means that all the big companies (and that's a lot of them) that just announced layoffs made a obviously bad move. Are they all stupid? I find it hard to believe. It's more plausible, that yeah, layof…

> they make shareholders rich In that regard, I wonder if it becomes a Wall Street meme--layoffs for the sake of doing layoffs. Companies that performed layoffs made shareholders rich, so therefore if your company isn't doing layoffs in a layoff climate it's assumed that shareholders are better off putting their dollars somewhere else.

Not only a layoff, but one that is roughly 7%. That's right, everyone made exactly the same mistake, and 7% is the solution.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#510

Post by firstfewshells »

pokstad wrote: post #335

As a former GitLab employee from an expensive region, I’m a little concerned Sid didn’t layout the layoff process more transparently. Were high earners more likely to be laid off while lower CoL areas were kept? This was always a distant fear in working for a very global team where I knew teammates from other countries did the same job as me for much less.

Do you expect the CEO to tell his employees that they are more likely to be laid off if they are paid more compared to their peers?
Post reply on HN