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

511–520 of 801 posts

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#511

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#513

Post by ltbarcly3 »

acdha wrote: post #337
ezekiel68 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other replies to this comment aren't wrong but I feel they fail to take into account that (especially with startups): having someone watch you code during an interview is one of the the least stressful experiences the person will face with the company - once the job begins. Companies can't take on the risk of dealing with a bunch of passive-aggressive bullcrap once the real code reviews begin after the hire. Most…

> Imagine a person with a pilot's license refusing to fly tandem for an airline interview. That’s not a great comparison since a pilot has already passed substantially harder tests to get that license and a flight is exactly what the job is. If you have a candidate with a pilot’s license you can assume at least a baseline level of capability which you can’t assume for a software engineer. That has pros and cons but i…

Go on youtube and watch NTSB / FAA investigation reports. If you think that a pilot's license demonstrates that someone is a competent pilot you are very very mistaken, and there are scores of counter examples.

Airlines very strictly test pilots and insist on check rides regardless of what official qualifications pilots show up with. They do this because they are professional organizations with decades of experience and it is necessary for safety. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt because they manage to meet the absolute minimum standard that makes operating an airplane legal is insane.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#514

Post by surajrmal »

llm_nerd wrote: post #113
surajrmal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google tenure stat is misleading because it was taken at a time when the company was growing 20% per year. The actual statistic worth looking at was how long a person who is leaving had been with the company on average at the time of leaving or what percentage of the overall headcount leaves per year. While I don't feel comfortable sharing those numbers, I can confidently say they lower than the industry norm.

The industry norm is incredibly short tenures, and often when it starts increasing, it's paradoxically when the company is on the track towards complacency and eventual failure. https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/why-googles-high-turnover-rat... This isn't some Google specific thing. The cargo cult "look at our super exhaustive, endlessly demanding hiring process" is a farce everywhere . It's actually a bit paradoxical b…

Most folks I work with at Google have been there for nearly 10 years.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#515

Post by russellbeattie »

doktorhladnjak wrote: post #488
russellbeattie wrote: post #435

A couple weeks ago Google announced more layoffs in their HR and cloud divisions. They have $100 billion cash on hand, literally more than any other tech company, and much more in longer term investments. In round numbers, that's enough money to cover roughly 10,000 employees for 25 to 50 years (depending on how much you think the salary averages out to). Regardless, the CFO said one of her priorities this year was m…

It's a business, not a jobs program

Did I suggest it was? Apparently you missed the topic of this thread: According to the article, layoffs are bad for business.

I was pointing out that there doesn't seem to be an immediate need for layoffs at Google, based on the fact they have more money on hand than some small countries. Even with horrible future revenue projections, that seems like a reasonably large buffer.

But now that you mentioned it, there's nothing wrong with a corporation looking out for the long term interests of their employees. It would actually be smart for Google to act like a "jobs program" and retrain staff, or find work until the business cycle comes back around.

(Brandolini's law is alive and well.)

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#516

Post by intelVISA »

logsr wrote: post #133
alphazard wrote: post #98

There is a theory about large complex systems which seems to be true in biology and maybe applies here. Intentional downsizing during times of stress works when it preferentially targets defective or dysfunctional components of the larger system. The system improves because the worst parts were removed. Layoffs don't help companies unless they can reliably remove the worst parts. At most large public companies, the c…

Large tech companies are inefficient and have very poor engineering productivity but this is largely for systemic reasons. They definitely do not have any mechanism for identifying high performers. The basic problem they face is that they pay a fixed wage for complete IP ownership (horrible deal) and so they intentionally do not measure and reward actual performance because they do not want to compensate high perform…

Well, it goes both ways: a fixed wage for complete IP ownership is great if your main dev skill is "bringing key stakeholders into conversations at the appropriate time".

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#517

Post by int_19h »

giantg2 wrote: post #493
suzzer99 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

A weekly or bi-weekly 1:1 with your manager has been the standard arrangement in my last two jobs.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#518

Post by PeterStuer »

Most places I've seen could cut 50-80% of people and maintain or even grow output.

Will they cut the right 50-80%? Chances are close to nill.

And the article is right that layoffs curb morale. Then again, what hurts morale even more, especialy for your true performers, is not laying of the incompetent, the 0 net contribution carreer ladder climbers or the pfiepdom pyramid seat fillers and the bloated 'management support' departments.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#519

Post by Retric »

deviantbit wrote: post #512
Retric wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s plenty of studies showing the downsides. It’s expensive, results in dramatic reductions in efficiency, etc. Widespread layoffs are a sign management has majorly fucked up.

[flagged]

Asking who funded it is kind of meaningless when you’re talking thousands of studies, it’s one of those topics that’s quite interesting for everyone from economists to management consultants.

COVID was a mix of turnover, furlough, and layoffs, but the layoffs were generally of the exact type I was referring to. Shutting down a restaurant’s dining service doesn’t get the same kind of pushback as a 15% cut across a division. The company isn’t trying to do the same stuff with fewer employees, it’s no longer serving those customers.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#520

Post by tocs3 »

giantg2 wrote: post #469
tocs3 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not passing any judgements on any life choices here, but occasional months off sounds like a good thing. I would not necessarily need to go anywhere to enjoy (make use of) the time. The notion of getting a month off with pay sounds good.

That sounds good, so long as there is similar employment at the end of it. As a sabbatical it sounds great. As a layoff, the uncertainty sounds crushing. It could take months to find a new position, especially with the disadvantages I have, I would likely need to start looking immediately and wouldn't be able to enjoy it.

Just to be clear, I mean time off and returning to the same job. Shouldn't we be aiming for a future where we do not have to work like dogs to earn enough to struggle at home?
Post reply on HN