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

Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 250 posts

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#241

Post by cbsmith »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #228
cbsmith wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like a big claim for which I haven't seen any evidence. Umm... the entire basis for the article was that there was a belief that market conditions at the time would remain true "forever". That's a very different delusion from thinking there isn't something there. ...and there's plenty of evidence that there was real demand. Real revenue grew significantly during that time. Streaming services saw signific…

Sounds like you're equating 'demand for more engineers' with 'available cash' for any given company. I think you're mistaking demand for ability to purchase.

No.

You can have dramatic gains in revenue, increased sales, increased subscribers, etc., and less 'available cash'. What you do have is more demand.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#242

Post by lazyasciiart »

cbsmith wrote: post #241
lazyasciiart wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you're equating 'demand for more engineers' with 'available cash' for any given company. I think you're mistaking demand for ability to purchase.

No. You can have dramatic gains in revenue, increased sales, increased subscribers, etc., and less 'available cash'. What you do have is more demand.

Increased sales do not intrinsically require more engineers at most companies. It is possible for some companies to have required increasing engineering resources to cope with scale. But the vast majority of hiring was for people to work on future additional features to attract more customers. Zoom, Rec Room, DocuSign, and some other companies in that direct line of moving work and socializing online, yes. Facebook, Google, Salesforce, almost everyone? No.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#243

Post by cbsmith »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #242
cbsmith wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You can have dramatic gains in revenue, increased sales, increased subscribers, etc., and less 'available cash'. What you do have is more demand.

Increased sales do not intrinsically require more engineers at most companies. It is possible for some companies to have required increasing engineering resources to cope with scale. But the vast majority of hiring was for people to work on future additional features to attract more customers. Zoom, Rec Room, DocuSign, and some other companies in that direct line of moving work and socializing online, yes. Facebook,…

Companies generally don't require more engineers, ever.

However, if there is demand for your product, engineers are a good way to make it better. If you don't make it better, that demand will go to a vendor who does.

Either way, if you believe these companies never needed the engineers in the first place, it is an entirely separate claim from the claims in this article.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#244

Post by aeternum »

reaperman wrote: post #232
aeternum wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yeah, and I disagree. Goal should be to get to the setpoint as quickly as possible even if you overshoot as human nature is to keep the status-quo which generally means talented people wasting their time at obsolete companies.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#245

Post by sharts »

LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #13

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.

[flagged]

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#246

Post by ElFitz »

listenallyall wrote: post #231
ElFitz wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Is this "you" a generic one, or directed towards me specifically?

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#247

Post by lazyasciiart »

cbsmith wrote: post #243
lazyasciiart wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increased sales do not intrinsically require more engineers at most companies. It is possible for some companies to have required increasing engineering resources to cope with scale. But the vast majority of hiring was for people to work on future additional features to attract more customers. Zoom, Rec Room, DocuSign, and some other companies in that direct line of moving work and socializing online, yes. Facebook,…

Companies generally don't require more engineers, ever. However, if there is demand for your product, engineers are a good way to make it better. If you don't make it better, that demand will go to a vendor who does. Either way, if you believe these companies never needed the engineers in the first place, it is an entirely separate claim from the claims in this article.

I was addressing the claim that you made.

And I'm not presenting some amazing new idea. People have been discussing for years that these companies hire people just to have them, not for business goals.

"“They hire everybody, whether they need it or not, just to have a reserve of talent,” he says. “They can afford it.” " https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-tech-workers-say-they-wer...

""The worst part of working at Google for me was, as for many others, feeling under-utilized. " (7 years ago) https://www.quora.com/What-can-a-prospective-or-new-Googler-...

"Most people I know of who quit Google did so because they feel they were underutilized" (14 years ago! https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9qeuq/i_quit_my_job_a...)

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#248

Post by ImHereToVote »

zanderz wrote: post #177
berkethegrizzly wrote: post #122

The article is missing a huge point. The companies mentioned in it did not lose anything at all, or an amount that is negligible. They took advantage off the boom and made more money than they could in a normal situation. They did not lose anything (at least the companies mentioned in the article) in my point of view. They already knew they were going to fire the staff they hired. But they also knew that they had to…

Agree. Hindsight is 20/20. A conservative CEO who pulls back and doesn't lean into a growth cycle will be criticized even more for leaving money on the table. Whether the entire economy should be structured to incenivize all this instability is a separate question. Don't hate the player, hate the game!

But I do hate the game. Why are we letting natural selection control our societies?

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#249

Post by cbsmith »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #247
cbsmith wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies generally don't require more engineers, ever. However, if there is demand for your product, engineers are a good way to make it better. If you don't make it better, that demand will go to a vendor who does. Either way, if you believe these companies never needed the engineers in the first place, it is an entirely separate claim from the claims in this article.

I was addressing the claim that you made. And I'm not presenting some amazing new idea. People have been discussing for years that these companies hire people just to have them, not for business goals. "“They hire everybody, whether they need it or not, just to have a reserve of talent,” he says. “They can afford it.” " https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-tech-workers-say-they-wer... ""The worst part of working at Goo…

> I was addressing the claim that you made.

So is it safe to say then that you don't think tech companies fell for the forever fallacy?

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#250

Post by cbsmith »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #247
cbsmith wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies generally don't require more engineers, ever. However, if there is demand for your product, engineers are a good way to make it better. If you don't make it better, that demand will go to a vendor who does. Either way, if you believe these companies never needed the engineers in the first place, it is an entirely separate claim from the claims in this article.

I was addressing the claim that you made. And I'm not presenting some amazing new idea. People have been discussing for years that these companies hire people just to have them, not for business goals. "“They hire everybody, whether they need it or not, just to have a reserve of talent,” he says. “They can afford it.” " https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-tech-workers-say-they-wer... ""The worst part of working at Goo…

...and to clarify, you aren't addressing a claim that I made. You're making up an entirely different claim that is unrelated to my statement. You are contending that these companies don't know their operational needs and consequently hire and fire in arbitrary/capricious fashion. That may be, but it's irrelevant to the article or my point.

As you have pointed out, there has always been stories that large companies have unnecessary hires, and engage in strategies of cornering the market for labour. From that perspective, there has NEVER been demand for resources, there is no rationale for hiring more or fewer people, and nothing would constitute as "evidence" that there is demand.

Now the stuff you cite is not really supporting evidence of that. It's evidence that large companies often are inefficient and under-utilize use of their workforce. That is definitely not a new idea, and is well supported both by evidence and simply by intuition about the challenges of efficiently organizing people.

My claim was that given shifting labour demands, it's not necessarily "less harm" to under hire because at some unknown point in the future you may not want to have those hires.

Now, when you claimed that there was no evidence of an increase demand for labour... which really had nothing to do with my point. In part of my response to that claim that there no evidence with a statement that if there ever was evidence of demand, it was at that time.

There was, in fact, evidence. Maybe not sufficient to convince you, but certainly enough evidence to convince hiring managers. What there wasn't evidence of was that this increased demand would sustain itself forever. There never is. The idea that there is less harm in not hiring people because there is reason to believe that demand might decline at some unknown point in the future is just wrong. Sure, if you know that you only need someone for a week or a month, you shouldn't hire them for a long-term position. Not only is it harmful to them, but it is harmful to your organization. However, even if you know that need might dissipate at some unknown point in the future, if you know you need someone until something changes, there is no harm reduction in not hiring.

Post reply on HN