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

381–390 of 801 posts

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#381

Post by voxl »

deviantbit wrote: post #334

This is a terrible opinion piece. Layoffs do work. Cutting hours does not work. I am always amazed how few people understand how a business operates. They think its a community organized event where there is unlimited revenue. There are a few basic accounting principles employees need to understand. It all revolves around Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity. If you think otherwise, take a "Cost Accounting" course.…

Your horribly simplistic take has already received a lot of backlash, but whatever I'm angry enough to add onto the pile:

1. Big tech companies doing layoffs are not hurting on revenue, so your basic assumption is wrong. 2. "Cutting hours" needs to be steelmaned if you're not going to anything but a charlatan. That means you have to interpret it as taking a paycut, as in a salary cut. This has actually been done before in worker-focused companies to survive covid, and in one instance I'm aware of the company gave workers back pay after surviving covid.

You also ignore all the intangibles that are no easy to measure, because of course the business acumen of "make number go up this quarter" is too short sighted to care about institutional knowledge or long term strategy.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#382

Post by hankchinaski »

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 agree with parts of what you say. I’m a career contractor or job hopper. I like it this way. I also am aware of the volatility of the industry. I prefer hopping and getting 20% pay bump each year. This more than offsets the risk of being laid off and staying a few months without income.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#383

Post by mock-possum »

ssssvd wrote: post #315

Had been advocating slower hiring & targeted reductions in a mid-sized tech firm for years after COVID, but it happened much faster under a newly appointed CEO. Under new leadership, we executed 1/3 layoffs framed as a "culture refresh" and to briefly lift the stock. It wasn't about survival, we had plenty of cash, okayish growth and fantastic ARR - more about a new corp-backed CEO adopting a "do-it-like-Elon" approa…

> Americans don't exactly dig EU/UK workers, right?

I’m actually curious to hear your take on it - what’s your experience been?

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#384

Post by yodsanklai »

filoleg wrote: post #160
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…

Sure, maybe that's how people in their 30s living in NYC or bay area feel about layoffs. But when you're older, have a family, and live in an area with a less dynamic job market, you may see things differently.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#385

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

no_wizard wrote: post #374
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least for public companies, accounting is FAR from the end all be all. Most of the time, company valuations are completely divorced from valuations. And much of what public companies do these days is try to game their stock price. Government employment is 95% the time completely divorced from reality. That being said, private companies employee a lot of people and this is very relevant.

> Government employment is 95% the time completely divorced from reality This is a pretty big claim to make without any evidence to support it. The government, whether it be state, local, county federal etc. does in have a different pace and certainly like with any big organizations can have issues such as waste, but to say it’s completely divorced from reality , especially in context of somehow private (as in not go…

Private companies generally need to be efficient and make money or go out of business.

VC funded startups are a VERY small percentage of jobs compared to ALL private company employees. But, sure, there is much shenanigans there.

Public companies can play tons of games as well - but the vast majority of people employed at public companies are at relatively efficient and profitable companies.

Government services are under no obligation to be efficient.

Often people vote for them to be LESS efficient, hoping that they'll get similar benefits from their private employers.

Though, hope is a bad strategy, and it rarely works for non-government employees.

But there's enough state employees that you don't have to win over that many private employees to win votes for things that make the services less efficient (like ever juicier retirement benefits).

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#386

Post by danans »

deviantbit wrote: post #334

This is a terrible opinion piece. Layoffs do work. Cutting hours does not work. I am always amazed how few people understand how a business operates. They think its a community organized event where there is unlimited revenue. There are a few basic accounting principles employees need to understand. It all revolves around Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity. If you think otherwise, take a "Cost Accounting" course.…

> If a company has stagnant growth, that means leadership has made bad decisions, and things have to change.

There is a bigger picture.

Developed economies across the globe are experiencing stagnant growth, and the trickle down economics they have engaged in has failed to fix that.

Knowing this, the wealthiest, through their proxies in corporate leadership and government, are cutting back their biggest cost - employees - to maximize their near term returns, which will then be put into relatively fixed-supply assets, rather than risking capital on new ventures, and the employees that traditionally requires.

Corporations are betting that "growth" going forward is going to come from AI-enabled efficiency and productivity gains, not more employees making more product or innovating on product/service development and delivery. While it's too early to say whether they are right, many signs point in that direction.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#388

Post by callc »

ssssvd wrote: post #315

Had been advocating slower hiring & targeted reductions in a mid-sized tech firm for years after COVID, but it happened much faster under a newly appointed CEO. Under new leadership, we executed 1/3 layoffs framed as a "culture refresh" and to briefly lift the stock. It wasn't about survival, we had plenty of cash, okayish growth and fantastic ARR - more about a new corp-backed CEO adopting a "do-it-like-Elon" approa…

> But when it became clear there was no coherent plan, people began leaving.

I see this more any more, to the point of wondering what % of execs and decision makers are actually meaningfully good at the job? When times are good, any exec action will turn out fine. But when times are tough, who is worth their salt?

And if all these decision makers are bad at decision making, what would a better organization look like?

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#389

Post by mock-possum »

sejje wrote: post #49
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.

Why do you lose 10% of your top performers?

I think because - if you fire a poor performer, everyone kind of gets it - they weren’t doing a good job, they’re a drain on company resources, they’ve got it coming, basically.

But lying off isn’t firing someone for performance - it’s admitting “we don’t have enough money to pay you”

And that’s something that should be scary to everybody in the company.

When your shitty coworker gets fired, you shrug and say, yeah, saw that coming. When your shitty coworkers get laid off, you look around nervously and think phew, l lucked out.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#390

Post by throwaway3572 »

ryandrake wrote: post #369
deviantbit wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not a choice we made as a society. It was a choice the shareholders made. You didn't make that choice, you were not part of it.

That's a good point! I never got the chance to vote on whether or not shareholders should get all the votes.

Why should you get a vote? You don’t get a vote on what groceries I buy. What entitles you to a vote on this purchase decision? (In this case “all the votes” means when making decisions on actions a particular corporation is considering, not any vote on anything)
Post reply on HN