Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

inc.com

231–240 of 250 posts

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#231
post #75

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".

It really depends on what your reference is. Compared to the average American? No, indeed, you wouldn’t. Compared to the CEOs and major shareholders of the biggest companies out there? Yes, one could make the argument. There’s a bigger financial gap between someone with 1 billion, or even 100 million, in the bank and someone making 200k than between someone working at minimum wage and someone making 200k. Although th…

This is so ridiculous. Why are you comparing anyone to a billionaire? If you've been making 200k+ for a few years and you have FAANG on your resume, you should have no problem getting through a few months without a paycheck, further, FAANG will, certainly, give you a better chance in future job applications. A person making minimi wage has none of these advantages.

Software and tech companies have had multiple boom and bust cycles since the 1980s. Even in good times there are always a few companies that simply don't make it. If you go into tech, that's a choice, you know you won't have a job for life, and you need to plan for such. If that makes you uncomfortable, go get a job with the government, or learn a trade (are plumbers ever short on work?), or become a doctor/lawyer.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's advocating that the powers-that-be should consider targeting a slightly underdamped hiring system. Where they over-hire, and as they're overshooting the goal then reduce the rate of hiring, allowing the normal low rate of attrition to bring the PV back down to the SP. e.g. a one-half critically-damped system. something following a standard first-order ODE like: \frac{dh}{dt} = K_p (h^\* - h) - K_i \int (h^\* - h…

Right, I was advocating for underdamped. Yes you overshoot, but you generally spend more time near your setpoint (optimal value).

Ehhhh, your argument was more that "severely underdamped" could be the best, even if it requires an additional forcing factor (firing/layoffs) to bring it back down to the setpoint.

The person you replied to was arguing that perhaps something a bit more mildly underdamped could get rid of the requirement for that extra complication (firing / layoffs).

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's what private companies are supposed to do though. Google is not a private company though. > The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again So instead of spending the time looking for a job, possibly relocating, settling down, getting used to a new workplace, etc, and staying there, they get to do all that and then do it again. This is not a trivial set of…

> Google is not a private company though. Well of course it is, isn't it? It's not state-owned, right?

I think what they’re saying is that they are a publicly traded company, therefore not “private” (privately owned)

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#234
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cry me a river, the same people who demand a long-term commitment from their employer will jump ship in an instant for 10k more after 6 months of employment. Companies are full of them.

If you want loyalty, hire contractors. You can't expect people (especially individuals) to act like they're in a contract without the upsides.

The same goes for the employee. It’s a two-way street.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Teacher strikes and unionization efforts have been winning Citations needed

Among the urban working class in cities like Chicago, union interest has been rising rapidly across a variety of sectors. Retail, education, warehouse labor, museums are all seeing increases in union activity. The mayor-elect is a former union organizer. Chicago is certainly one of the more pro-labor cities in the US, but they’re not the only ones seeing growing interest in organized labor. The Democratic Socialists…

The question was not about unionization, but the accomplishments of said unions, which remain to be seen. Unions that lack the strength to strike are a net negative.

The mayor elect didn't even support Bernie Sanders lol.

DSA membership has been nosediving for the past 2 years because DSA is effectively an appendage of the Democratic Party.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are kind of talking past me and @tombert btw. And you seem to have come here to claim some badassery on your part, and that we shouldn't expend energy on "being frustrated". > At what point is it the employee’s responsibility to assume that no job is permanent? Nobody claimed jobs are permanent and that everyone must be protected. Don't fight straw men, tearing them down isn't impressive in any discussion. If you…

> Reading deep into your replies it seems you basically got in here to say "don't complain you spoiled youngsters, work hard like I did instead". I think no such thing. I was excited when an intern I mentored got a return offer at 22 making as much as I made when I was 44 before getting into BigTech. I didn’t exactly struggle making what I was making over the years. During that time I had two big houses built in the…

Thanks for responding constructively. Apologies for being a bit jumpy. If I misconstrued your replies then double apologies.

> I’m also jaded. But to the point where any job is merely transactional and I don’t take it personally when the transaction of “trading labor for money” is not seen as mutually beneficial to both parties.

Yeah same. It's a transaction and I've made the mistake to look favorably -- almost friend-like -- at people who hired me, and got burned every time, long ago. Never again. Story for another time, likely never, but suffice to say that I was fairly innocent and believed in long-term partnerships based on me being useful alone (i.e. the only metric; turns out there are a lot more, yeah I was stupid).

Getting fired because the CEO had lunch with a Microsoft representative and he figured we will no longer work with the tech I was hired for and will look for new devs, or getting fired because you carried a single project that made $300_000 in a weekend on launch and they didn't want me to start asking for % of profit -- and a few other such cases -- opened my eyes.

> Who was “inconvenienced” by making $250K+ for a few years and getting laid off with a severance?

F.ex. having a tenure of only 5-6 months in a FAANG, sometimes 18 even, doesn't always look good on a resume. Or simply being fired at this exact time, people can do the math and they rush into judgement and figure you were the bottom 10% cruft that needed to be pruned. And you can't ever change their minds and give them the facts, they already made up their mind and view you negatively. It's maddening but with time I started making my peace with these brain bugs that many people have.

But yeah, I'll agree it is very far from critical.

> If you are contractor making “half as much as I am” - which by the way I’m on the lowish end of BigTech compensation - would you not take a contract for two years that paid you a total of $100K+ more than your average compensation?

I am not opposing you deliberately but nowadays? It's 50/50. Not all money is worth the stress. I get what you're saying though, if I was convinced that I can protect my mental health then yes, I absolutely would take that deal.

> I can’t really muster any outrage at a CEO. I don’t expect any better.

We 99% agree here. I can't muster any outrage about almost anything these days. Personally, I realized that I've lived in a fantasy most of my life (how that is possible when most of my life has been hardship, don't even ask because I can't answer that to this day) and got dead-focused on adapting and being a realist.

With me being a fairly paranoid and thorough programmer, you can probably guess that I turned into a bitter cynic in a matter of weeks. :D When you remove what's blinding you from reality but you're already smart and perceptive (I hope), it takes very little time to start seeing the world exactly like it is.

So yes, I can predict most corpo bullcrap and am usually seeing it a mile away.

My bitterness and occasional caring and ranting (like in this very thread) stems from the fact that it's extremely toxic and discouraging to be able to see how are things happening, what's their motivation and even their very likely conclusion... and not be able to do anything about it... yeah, it can ruin my mood and throw me into a grim broody state of mind for half a day.

I don't view it as a negative thing necessarily. I like it. Means I can still feel and not be completely detached like a robot making scientific observations with zero engagement.

But yes, it's a fine line to walk. Lean a little bit on the one side you start getting these pesky unhealthy things called expectations and thus get disappointed, lean a little on the other side and find out you wouldn't care about anything unless a nuke turns your life upside down.

It ain't easy to be both (a) smart and perceptive and a realist, and (b) excited for life. I am trying every day.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#237
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what private companies are supposed to do though. They exist to make a profit. The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again, if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing, think about advocating for a federal Job Guarantee which helps those who need it most: http://www.jobguarantee.org/

> That's what private companies are supposed to do though. Google is not a private company though. > The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again So instead of spending the time looking for a job, possibly relocating, settling down, getting used to a new workplace, etc, and staying there, they get to do all that and then do it again. This is not a trivial set of…

> Google is not a private company though.

The distinction I’m making is between public sector and private sector, not privately held versus publicly traded

>> if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing

> This makes zero sense.

No it makes 3 sense.

The private sector will always boom and bust. If you try to solve that with regulation you a) can’t and b) just make it harder for smaller businesses to compete.

Only the government can offset the whimsy of the private sector and prevent the inevitable boom and bust cycles of private investment from destabilising society.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>directing internal heat ( and external heat - like yours ) to himself, rather than HR, or middle managers etc in Google. The reason this is irrelevant is because it's not what Western society values. If he is sincere about taking responsibility, he would either resign with no compensation, or take a severe paycut for failure. If a CEO is handed a bonus when the company does well, then it must follow that their head…

I like that thought. If he earns a bonus in good times he should also suffer a cut in bad times.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#239
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's what private companies are supposed to do though. Google is not a private company though. > The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again So instead of spending the time looking for a job, possibly relocating, settling down, getting used to a new workplace, etc, and staying there, they get to do all that and then do it again. This is not a trivial set of…

> Google is not a private company though. The distinction I’m making is between public sector and private sector, not privately held versus publicly traded >> if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing > This makes zero sense. No it makes 3 sense. The private sector will always boom and bust. If you try to solve that with regulation you a) can’t and b) jus…

[deleted]

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#240
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's what private companies are supposed to do though. Google is not a private company though. > The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again So instead of spending the time looking for a job, possibly relocating, settling down, getting used to a new workplace, etc, and staying there, they get to do all that and then do it again. This is not a trivial set of…

> Google is not a private company though. The distinction I’m making is between public sector and private sector, not privately held versus publicly traded >> if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing > This makes zero sense. No it makes 3 sense. The private sector will always boom and bust. If you try to solve that with regulation you a) can’t and b) jus…

I don't think you could have communicated your message less clearly in the original post.
Post reply on HN