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

Layoffs Don't Work

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 801 posts

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#151

Post by SJC_Hacker »

Avicebron wrote: post #37
roenxi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) But I included an actual argument and, furthermore, it assumed that the research is correct. > I've seen enough 10x engineers get laid off... 2) That is sensible for the company. They have no idea how to use a 10x engineer, as can be detected by the fact that they're having layoffs. They don't know how to create value in the market and they're being forced into a position where they have to squeeze what they can o…

Unfortunately as I've seen countless times, it's also writing on the wall to the management team "TIME TO MOVE ON CAUSE DAMAGE TO ANOTHER COMPANY", I don't know why we don't expect management's head on the chopping block. If a captain orders a course into an iceberg, idk why we can't just hang the captain and course correct.

Because the captain owns the ship. Or is the best buddy of the person that owns the ship, and can blame subordinates in closed-door conversations.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#152

Post by rainsford »

roenxi wrote: post #17

> Research has consistently shown he was right about layoffs: They’re damaging to companies... The research is probably misleading. The damage was done to companies when the over-hired people who couldn't add enough value to justify keeping them employed. The layoffs are just when the damage is recognised. It is like borrowing a huge amount of money, using 90% of it it to buy prawns and leaving them out to rot for a…

I don't see much reason to think mass layoffs are typically the result of over-hiring rather than a reaction to changing circumstances that are different than when the hiring originally happened. The article opens with a perfect example, the constriction of the US air travel market following 9/11. The people most airlines fired as a result weren't "over-hired". Their hiring made sense at the time and they were fired when circumstances changed. I'd argue this is likely more often be the case than actual over-hiring, since it's easier for a company to see if they can actually utilize new employees now than it is for them to predict the future.

In cases like that, the layoffs really do seem likely to be damaging to the companies. If circumstances change for a company and they can no longer effectively use all their employees, the most obvious solution is to get rid of employees, but it then makes it far more difficult to recover when positive opportunities present themselves. I think companies trick themselves into believing that since hiring and firing employees is relatively quick, it's a good tool to adapt to changing circumstances in either direction. But that ignores the time it takes for a new employee to become fully productive and the increased difficulty/cost in hiring new employees if your company has a reputation as an unreliable employer. It also ignores the potential boost to productivity that can come from employee loyalty and job satisfaction and security.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#153

Post by Boldened15 »

dylan604 wrote: post #131
fx1994 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are a small team in big company, and management that made wrong decisions is still somewhere there but not my direct management, still getting same paycheck, car, cards and benefits but new managers (that accepted to take over and got brand new car for 100k€, cards and bonuses, bells and whistles) started to layoff workers so we know this is the end for my team, and of course they will do whatever it takes to "sav…

If your small team in a big company does not directly generate money, then you’d definitely be ripe for elimination. Time and time again we’ve seen examples of trams that are critical to supporting various revenue generating parts of the company while not directly making money themselves get cut as an “obvious” way to save money when only looking at the books. Been there.

Some are kind to eng ICs, you’re not laid off from the company just given time to join another team. As you can still be a high-performer with context on company culture/tech stack while on a non-revenue-generating team.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#154

Post by CaffeineLD50 »

"Companies who enact them as part of a broader change in strategy, Cascio says, fare better than those who enact them simply to cut costs."

Ah, the old strategic realignment PR BS. "Its not cost cutting because our C levels are clowns and screwed up. Its a strategic realignment for AI investment ". Lol. Didn't Salesfarce and Fakebook both use that one?

When will AI replace upper management? It can't do any worse.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#155

Post by derwiki »

throwaway3572 wrote: post #125
andrenotgiant wrote: post #44

> After the early-2000s dotcom bust, Bain researchers found that stock prices for S&P 500 companies that had no layoffs or laid off less than 3% of their workforce increased an average of 9% in the next year. Meanwhile, stock prices were flat in companies that laid off between 3%-10% of their workers, and prices plummeted 38% for companies that laid off more than 10%. Failing companies go through layoffs. Companies l…

Also, failing companies that use layoffs to restructure can succeed. For an example see IBM in the 90s. It’s hard but possible. And since the article uses stock price as a proxy for success, IBMs stock struggled for a long time afterward. It hit an all time high in 2025. And then there are non tech industries that just go through cycles, like oil.

IBM is up 40% from its previous 2012 high point. In the same time, S&P is up nearly 400%.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#156

Post by marto1 »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #71
pclmulqdq wrote: post #41

I remember hearing a take on layoffs that I think is pretty true: When you fire the bottom 10%, you lose another 10% who are from the top performers. The destruction of psychological safety for everyone at the company is irreparable, and you start to bleed your most productive talent, too.

I've seen this happen. I worked at an extremely efficient company that had a great product. We got acquired, and within months, were part of the acquiring company's yearly mandatory layoffs. They fired a bunch of (apparently random) people to meet the quota. This absolutely destroyed us. Morale was just gone. Within six months, about a quarter of our employees, mainly top performers who could easily find other jobs,…

> had a great product

> We got acquired

Can I just ask about the reason for this? Was it owners wanting off the ride?

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#157

Post by CaffeineLD50 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #150

Real talk here, and I'm sorry for being "that guy" Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping? I know multiple people who have worked their entire career thus far without ever staying at a place for more than 3 or 4 years. Some no more than two. Tech job culture is practically a mono culture with "hop jobs" being a hallmark. From an employ…

I resent the fake legal douche move of falsely asserting "low performance" as the rationale for their cuts.

Some people work hard and take pride in their work. And on top of their gaming down our wages with h1b workers and low benefit contracting they have the gall to assert we're low performers when what they want is a $20 million bonus for their execs.

But yeah, I see your point.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#158

Post by dleeftink »

thijson wrote: post #135
nthingtohide wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we have a different kind of stock market which forces participants to consider long term outcomes more? E.g. no HFT firm should be able to make a profit from such a stock market. Selling stocks earlier and often should result in a penalty or percentage being taken away as a fee. As a retail investor I would love to use invest and forget strategy based on trends observed in such a stock market.

It's not really high frequency trading in the sense of day trading, it's a bit of a misnomer. I would say it's actually low latency trading, the number of trades isn't huge. It ensures that linkages in the market operate quickly. Linkages between a stock price and its respective options. Or linkages between an index ETF and its components. The price discovery process should be fast, it benefits all of the market part…

Benefits how? Even if we are all 'market participants', the time investment between a hobbyist and career investor is rarely equal. An LFT/low frequency trading market would egalise this discrepancy.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#159

Post by s1artibartfast »

cjaackie wrote: post #145
DebtDeflation wrote: post #5

They used to be a once a decade "save the company during a recession" move. Now they seem to be a quarterly "manage earnings per share" move.

Shareholders are expecting layoffs now, it’s kind of sickening.

I think it is because most companies stopped firing.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#160

Post by filoleg »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #150

Real talk here, and I'm sorry for being "that guy" Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping? I know multiple people who have worked their entire career thus far without ever staying at a place for more than 3 or 4 years. Some no more than two. Tech job culture is practically a mono culture with "hop jobs" being a hallmark. From an employ…

I cannot speak for layoffs in all industries ever, but I agree with your assessment of layoffs in big tech from personal experiences.

I have way too many “lifer” friends in big tech who are deadly scared of layoffs and job hopping. They are also the ones who rarely got promoted and havent had a significant pay bump pretty much ever.

On another hand, half my team at a big tech company got laid off back at the start of 2023. 4 months later, I caught up with them over drinks, and the results were rather interesting. They all got around 4-6mo worth of severance pay, spent 2-3 months just skiing/traveling/hiking/vacationing, then 1 month or so interviewing, and then starting their new jobs shortly after. All seemed rather happy, both with their new positions/pay (which had a significant paybump) and, essentially, paid vacation break they took right before.

It seems like the heavity majority of those stressed about layoffs in big tech are lifers and those who are chronically averse to and dread the interview process.

Post reply on HN