Layoffs Don't Work • Hacker News Board

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#491

Post by ghaff » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:26 PM UTC

forty wrote: post #401

ghaff wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You skipped the second part of my comment. Yes, senior execs at large publc companies--assuming they didn't do anything actually criminal or stupid related to their own finances--generally come out the other side OK. But sometimes a company can just reasonably get into a place it's hard to come out from. Kodak is a really good example IMO.

Maybe I'm expecting too much, but for me the only good reason a CEO is paid more than any actually useful employee of the company is to anticipate this kind of thing and use the money from their leadership position in the old tech to invest and not be in a very bad position with the new tech.

Sometimes companies just aren’t in a good position for historical reasons. Returning to Kodak you can’t really say to your investors and employees 90% of our existing business is toast and we’re going to churn everything over the next 5 years.

Sometimes you can do things more incrementally but other times it makes sense to basically close up shop and maybe shop your brand and some assets while keeping the biz afloat at some level with a lot of people still collecting a paycheck.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#492

Post by suzzer99 » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:27 PM UTC

geoka9 wrote: post #470

al_borland wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a lot of people who can tweak code that already exists. However, if they are sitting in front of an empty text editor and given a goal, they don’t know how to break the problem down and build a solution with the tools the language gives them. In a large environment, someone may rarely need to start from nothing, so the interview format throws them. That said, I think being able to break down a problem to solve…

There's another extreme, too: people who can code up an app in a matter of days, but can never learn to navigate and successfully maintain a legacy code base (even their own!).

And there's no easy objective way to screen for this in a job interview. So they pretend it doesn't exist and never ask questions like: "Suppose you're designing a green-field app that you think will grow over time like X, Y, and Z. How would you design and organize your code so that the app stays maintainable and flexible over time?"

I could talk for hours on this subject with concrete examples if anyone ever asked.

I think another problem is that there are so few engineers/architects who really "get it" on this subject. I can only think of a few ex-coworkers with whom I could have the kind of in-depth conversation about app design and organization that I'm picturing.

I've never worked in big tech, always for startups or non-tech corps with a few rock star devs and a lot of decent devs. So maybe it's different at a FAANG. But in my head I'm picturing a bunch of algo-geniuses whose code turns into a big mess over time when requirements take a right-turn and break all their beautiful abstractions. I've worked on a few apps like that and it's not fun.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#493

Post by giantg2 » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:27 PM UTC

suzzer99 wrote: post #480

giantg2 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I make the same adjusted for inflation that I did when I got my last/only promotion 10 years ago. I have grey hair, a disability, and a family that relies on the health insurance. Switching or being laid off is a risky proposition for me. It sounds like all your examples are young, childless people (who else could take a month off to go vacationing?). Life is much harder for some of us.

Yeah, the prospect of layoffs hits a little different when you're in your 50s. I have some non-techie friends in their 50s (sales, project management) who have been looking for a job for years. I've even heard third-hand about some good programmers in their 50s in LA in the same boat, although I don't know them personally. The last time I was looking for a job at age 48, I interviewed at a bunch of startups and only…

Yep. The subliminal message I'm getting from my current managers is that I should just be a good little disabled person and work as a Walmart greeter. It's turning into harassment at this point. Just all sorts of BS. Like telling me they are doing so much for me, when my ADA accommodation is weekly 1-on-1s with the manager and my tech lead. Is that really a lot? There are people without disabilities getting weekly 1-on-1s with their managers. Maybe the weekly tech lead meeting is more than others get, but it doesn't seem that hard. I got told my productivity looked bad. I asked if he ran the numbers - he didn't. He didn't even look at my productivity before telling me it looked bad. I ran the numbers and I was in line with my peers. I would think that's the definition of bias... nobody gives a fuck. I didn't get my accommodation for 6 months last year and then they gave me a bad rating based on opinon and not metrics. They said me not getting the accommodations wasn't a factor in my performance (how?).

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#494

Post by throwaway3572 » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:28 PM UTC

jjav wrote: post #331

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have done probably 500 to 1000 tech screens for big tech companies (as the interviewer) and this is completely true. I have interviewed many people employed in tech as programmers for their entire career and they can't code. I don't meen leetcode, I mean they get confused trying to write brute force substring search. The nested for loop seems to be too complex for them to keep in their head all at once. I have had…

> I have interviewed many people employed in tech as programmers for their entire career and they can't code. Think about this contradictory statement for a while. Can it actually be true? Or is there something else going on? If the interviewee has nothing but sub-1yr stints on their resume, perpetually getting fired before vesting at any company, then yes, it's very possible they actually can't code and just fake it…

I’m an electrical engineer who does circuit design. I’ve interviewed many electrical engineers over the years and the situation of applicants having “years” of experience while simultaneously not knowing how to design a single circuit is real. In our field it’s usually because although the person’s title is engineer, in practice, they don’t do any engineering. There’s just a ton of peripheral work (basically paperwork related to operations and compliance), which is very important, but is not design.

My guess is computer science has a similar issue.

Lots of people with programming in thier job title but they don’t actually program. And based on ltbarcly3’s empirical measurement, “lots” is above 10%. ;)

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#495

Post by kristianc » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:31 PM UTC

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…

Kind of sucks when you have stock…

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#496

Post by darkwater » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:32 PM UTC

bloomingkales wrote: post #424

yodsanklai wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does it have to be an age thing? Some men and women are players and the game is the game to them. Those who are naturally monogamous would be stressed in a game like that. Constantly uprooting is a stressful lifestyle and can truly be torture (as evidenced by constant anxiety, no way to be). I can promise you people who are job hopping are hopping around other things in life (friends, family, relationships, proje…

> Why does it have to be an age thing? Some men and women are players and the game is the game to them.

Yes, buuut many will be players from 25 to 35 (with some degree of flexibility), that's why it's still an age thing. Yes, there are persons that are players for life, sure. But IME they are a minority.

Or maybe I'm just projecting, who knows?

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#497

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:33 PM UTC

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…

> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?

When I leave a job, I leave on good terms, they're always sad to see me go but understanding, and I always give my employer 6 or more weeks notice with the additional offer that they can still reach out to me for help if they need after that for as long as my memory remains helpful. A couple even took me up on my offer and asked to pay me for my time.

The time I got caught in a layoff I had the door slammed in my face literally minutes later and barely two weeks severance contingent on signing away rights. So, fuck me I guess.

Maybe the workers who complain understand that circumstances are not always equal.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#498

Post by deviantbit » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:33 PM UTC

KerrAvon wrote: post #406

deviantbit wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What’s actually happened is that activist investors have bought their way onto the boards of highly profitable companies with insufficient poison pills and made them fire some percentage of workers under the guise of making the stock price go up. Does worker happiness matter at all, or is it OK to have a net miserable company where the bottom line is slightly higher profit than it would otherwise have been if the env…

Activist investors are a problem. Most recent activist investors have been centered around climate and DEI. Exxon had activist investors try to get on the board. There was a lawsuit over it, I believe it was Arjuna Capital.

Whoever is funding these activist investors, probably a nation/state, is doing it on purpose. Natasha Lamb has to be the dumbest investors to ever live, next to Cathie Wood, IMO. You could invest in an S&P index fund and perform better at 264% for the past 11 years, compared to her 132% realized, and taking far less risk.

I get everyone has their idealistic views of how the world should work, but capitalism dominates every other society, providing better living standards, and security. It is unfortunate we have had leftists in the Democratic party take control of it, and pushing some very strange agendas, that doesn't reflect reality. These strange agendas have been exploited by other nations, like China.

Some activist investors have brought better function management and boards. Carl Icahn is a great example. But he has also brought his fair share of problems.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#499

Post by vunderba » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:34 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #358

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have connections from previous jobs who will vouch for them.

How does this work, though? Every company I've worked for has an HR system, and resumes flow through it, and there's a set process. If I have worked with a candidate in the past and highly recommend them, all I can do is submit their resume into the great void and check a box "Recommend". I don't have any other power. There is no "Skip the interview, I vouch for him!" button that I can push.

It's probably related to the size of the company. Most of the companies I've worked for in the past have been between 50-200 employees across the entire org. The dev teams were usually around a 10-20 people and the director of R&D often encouraged us (the devs) to recommend new hires. They still had to pass through HR but it was more of a formality and the director had the proverbial majority vote.

Smaller teams are also more tight-knit so recommending a new potential dev wasn't a matter of process - it was literally head down a few doors and have a chat with the director.

I'm sure it's significantly different for huge enterprises where even the teams within the R&D department are heavily siloed.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#500

Post by kypro » Sun, Mar 09, 2025, 9:35 PM UTC

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.…

Also I'd argue that a lack of layoffs at a company probably causes stagnation and inefficiency. I don't thin the only good argument for layoffs is that a company has no choice because of cash flows.

I see this in the public sector where you often find people who have been working at the same dept for a decade or more. These people feel very safe and know they don't really need to try that hard. They also know nothing about how things function elsewhere so they'll put up with using spreadsheets and fax machines because that's just how they've always done things.

It seems rather obvious to me that a good economy is one where employers feel some nervousness about losing good employees, so offer pay rises and perks; And where employees feel some nervousness about layoffs so work hard and try to be as productive as they reasonably can be.

If a company is not cutting a few percentage of their least productive workers each year they're probably doing something wrong imo. I think it's far to argue big tech companies built up a lot of these under productive workers over the years.