Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

inc.com

91–100 of 250 posts

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#91

The real problem that author doesn’t call out is that at the end of the day, the people in charge don’t get hurt from these irresponsible boom and bust hiring practices. These companies knew the growth wouldn’t last, nothing lasts forever. They all maintain control while the little people suffer. The dream is to become insulated from the economic storms like they are.

They gamble with high risk and no stakes. If it works out, get win big. It it fails, they get to layoff people, restructure the company, and earn a small millionaire bonus. There's literally no losing for them.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#92
post #45

Isn't it much simpler. Given that Tech, compared to other industries (Mining, Energy, etc) is still in its early years - most tech companies optimize for Growth. While more established industries optimize for profitability / stability. What's happening now in Tech is that companies are beginning to graduate to these later years where they run into natural total address market plateaus where they need to shift from Gr…

Tech has been around for more than a century. IBM was founded in 1911.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#93
post #90
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is the equivalent of saying "it's not you, it's me" when breaking up. It's just a way of avoiding a discussion.

I know, it's a corporate platitude. It doesn't "mean" anything, but it just rubbed me the wrong way. "Taking full responsibility", to me, would imply some sort of sacrifice on your end. Words are cheap; hell, I can say that I take full responsibility for the Google layoffs. I have never worked for Google but I did about as much as Sundar Pichai to take responsibility for the layoffs.

He's saying don't get angry at anyone else at Google, I think.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#94
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I'd characterize ex-FAANG employees, who are still likelier to get future job opportunities than people who loyally stuck it out at No-name Software Co in Des Moines, and who probably made 200k+ for a while, "little people".

You are doing their job for them. A worker with slightly better prospects than others is still just a worker and ultimately still in the same precarious situation as they must still seek employment to earn a salary to live.

What do you mean? What should this person do if not work for someone else? Start their own business?

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#95
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I'd characterize ex-FAANG employees, who are still likelier to get future job opportunities than people who loyally stuck it out at No-name Software Co in Des Moines, and who probably made 200k+ for a while, "little people".

You are doing their job for them. A worker with slightly better prospects than others is still just a worker and ultimately still in the same precarious situation as they must still seek employment to earn a salary to live.

>ultimately still in the same precarious situation as they must still seek employment to earn a salary to live.

But earning a salary that, when used well, can last several YEARS of unemployment, makes them a very different category of worker. These are the last workers that need help, of all the world's workers.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#96

I feel like the author here is not thinking through the opposite. What happens to the CEO if they plan for the market to stagnate and then it doesn't? Then they look like fools as their competitors take market share and then they get replaced. The incentives just aren't designed to plan for decline.

Your comment supposes that it has to be extreme -- rapid growth or stagnation. Why do you think a responsible CEO / management team cannot plan for a 'moderate growth' pathway that sees steadier levels of hiring and firing more akin to what the rest of the industry shows?

I wonder if for tech companies part of the answer is also that moving people around is an 'easy' way to play with numbers. You go to the market / to your investors and say ''Hey, we've hired 1,000 people over the last 12 months, we must be doing so well [give us money]'', and likewise ''We're gonna lay off 1,000 people soon so we're all good here [give us money]''

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#97
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEOs are definitely something we should reconsider in this day and age. There's something about the kind of fiefdom that they command that I don't really know the term for it - immoral? Unnatural?

You've made me curiously now if there are any like democratic companies.

It's not just companies; almost no organisation is democratic. And this makes sense: how would I as a person leading a team making a bit of software understand all the information required to make top-level business decisions? That's more than a full time job.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#98
post #86

The real problem that author doesn’t call out is that at the end of the day, the people in charge don’t get hurt from these irresponsible boom and bust hiring practices. These companies knew the growth wouldn’t last, nothing lasts forever. They all maintain control while the little people suffer. The dream is to become insulated from the economic storms like they are.

Yeah; the thing that kind of triggered me on this was the Google CEO saying in December or January that he "takes full responsibility" for all these layoffs. "Full responsibiliyt"? Really? How are you doing that exactly? By still getting your full paycheck and bonus while you fired twelve thousand humans because you didn't consider that the economy after years of a pandemic might be volatile?

By saying that he is directing internal heat ( and external heat - like yours ) to himself, rather than HR, or middle managers etc in Google.

I suspect that's the reason for saying that. If you feel the need to blame somebody - blame me ( not other people or external conditions or shareholders ).

Ultimately it is his fault - even if it was forced on him be shareholders - he'd have the option of resigning ( following orders isn't a good excuse ).

In terms of the effect on him - you are assuming he isn't somehow human, and somehow these decisions aren't personally very hard to take.

In the end it comes down to whether you have a company culture of firing people the first mistake they make or not. Most people would suggests that's a bad company culture.

Whether they should have chased unsustainable growth is an interesting matter. I think the culture damage that large layoffs can have, particularly to companies that previous have always been growing, is substantial and underestimated.

ie the people left are often demotivated.

I once worked at a startup that let ~20 people go ( just under 10% ). The company was reasonably successful in keeping the best people in the short term, but motivation was right down and many of them drifted away over the next year or so.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#99
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are doing their job for them. A worker with slightly better prospects than others is still just a worker and ultimately still in the same precarious situation as they must still seek employment to earn a salary to live.

>ultimately still in the same precarious situation as they must still seek employment to earn a salary to live. But earning a salary that, when used well, can last several YEARS of unemployment, makes them a very different category of worker. These are the last workers that need help, of all the world's workers.

Ultimately the parent comment is about accountability. This is an extreme example, but if a billionaire kills another billionaire, would you "forgive" the perpetrator because the victim was relatively privileged compared to any other potential victim? No. That's not how accountability works. It is irrelevant here whether "even littler people" exist.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#100
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, it's a corporate platitude. It doesn't "mean" anything, but it just rubbed me the wrong way. "Taking full responsibility", to me, would imply some sort of sacrifice on your end. Words are cheap; hell, I can say that I take full responsibility for the Google layoffs. I have never worked for Google but I did about as much as Sundar Pichai to take responsibility for the layoffs.

He's saying don't get angry at anyone else at Google, I think.

Wouldn't adding that to the statement have the same effect but also be honest? Perhaps the effect would be even greater given that people wouldn't feel like the need to guess at the real reason?

I guess it's better than some approaches such as "we can do better."

Post reply on HN