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

561–570 of 801 posts

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#561

Post by yallpendantools »

akdor1154 wrote: post #474
DarkContinent wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your interview process require knowing cloud costs off the top of your head? Because that's hard to track tbh

Sounds like it requires knowing them to an order of magnitude or so... Which honestly sounds like a pretty good bar to have your team above?

Honestly, after ~13y in this, I only know a handful of items from the famous latency table, notably those I've used a lot (mutexes cost 25ns, is only 1/4th of main memory reference tho, then disk seek is x100K of that). I'm "DevOps" (and titular variants thereof) in most of my resume.

That said, I'm not above your bar as each cloud provider have their own pricing model. I'm not even above your bar for AWS---which I've used the past six years---just for the sheer diversity of their offerings, not to mention regional variations. I know how EC2 servers are priced relative to each other but when we include ECS, DynamoDB, Lambda, etc., I'm gonna need a cheat sheet.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#562

Post by GarnetFloride »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #200
WalterBright wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm unclear what employers are deriving from this exercise at this point It filters out the complete frauds. Yes, there are people who know all the right things to say in a job interview, but cannot code at all. If you hire one of them, it takes a bit to find out they cannot code, and a bit longer to fire them, so you're out $$$$ paying their salaries for nothing. For example, a recruiter I know will ask a tech can…

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…

It's rather funny, but I wonder if you've ever been a Game Master? One of the most common problems running a game, is making the puzzles simple enough. You have to use kindergarten or back of the cereal box level puzzles or the players will fail. I played with engineers, it's a game, and there is nothing riding on the outcome and we often failed stupid simple puzzles. Interviews have a lot riding on them and yes stress is terrible. Stress eats working memory for breakfast, NASA learned that the hard way.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#563

Post by doktorhladnjak »

hibikir wrote: post #289
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…

What is really crazy about this though is that sometimes it really is the interview setting, as people unused to interviews can, at times, emotionally collapse. I have seen people who are actually good programmers get wrecked by simple questions because of their inability to handle stress, and how the lack of interview practice turns a simple exercise into a hellscape. It's not as if testing for performance under str…

Leetcode performance isn’t going to be representative of 3am incident response though. If that matters, you’re probably better off asking a classic “tell me about a time you responded to a page in the middle of the night” type question.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#564

Post by bsder »

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?

1) Because layoffs are a timeline not in your control.

Leaving a job under my timeline is very different than suddenly being out of a job on somebody else's timeline. On my timeline, I know what my financial situation is and have likely planned around it. Layoffs, on the other hand, can catch people at vulnerable points. Even if you don't get laid off, you will likely have hoarded cash and adjusted major purchases just in case you did.

2) Because most "tech" workers are NOT in a chronic state of job hopping.

Most people working "tech" are in boring businesses doing 8-to-4, have a mortgage, a spouse, and maybe a child or two. They have friends and support networks where they are. They are reasonable at their job, but nothing outstanding that would set them apart from the masses. Moving to another job in the same area is probably not an easy task--either the area has a single big employer or the scattered "tech" jobs are kind of rare. And even if the area has another job, your commute may change from reasonable to absurd. In the worst case, your spouse also gets laid off since tech companies are like sheep and will do layoffs simultaneously for "reasons". Now, you may have to completely leave the area to find a new job.

This all sucks for people who are just getting by day to day.

3) Unless you have really good personal networks right now, job hopping is really difficult.

Sure, senior people can just call up "so-and-so" and wind up with an interview tomorrow. Junior people, not so much.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#565

Post by sieabahlpark »

mykowebhn wrote: post #456
dasil003 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty weird and heartless thing to say. Having children is not a vice that deserves to be judged anymore than not having kids is. I could enumerate why fewer kids is bad for our collective future as a whole, but I won't, because the decision to have kids is a personal choice. Also, having kids is generally not the difference between having to work or not—most people have to work for a living regardless of f…

You can view what I wrote whatever way you want, but I stand by it and don't think it was heartless at all. I think not having children is actually more heartful and caring than having children. Look, out of all the people who come into this world, how many people can we say were a net positive for this planet? I see that you are currently at Airbnb. Great. You are lining your pockets, but I'm not sure what the net b…

[dead]

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#566

Post by walleeee »

roenxi wrote: post #25
fzeroracer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'The research is wrong because I said so' isn't exactly a compelling argument, and certainly not a strong enough one when you've been in the modern workforce long enough to recognize how badly layoffs are conducted at just about every company. I've seen enough 10x engineers get laid off to know that the idea that companies have any idea as to who is actually productive or not is just false.

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…

The trick, of course, is in distinguishing

> THIS MANAGEMENT TEAM DOESN"T KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY AT THE MOMENT

from

> THIS WHOLE INDUSTRY IS FAKE

or, worse,

> YOUR SOCIETY HAS REACHED THE INFLECTION POINT OF A YEARS-, DECADES-, OR PERHAPS CENTURIES-LONG PONZI SCHEME. SO LONG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#567

Post by bdangubic »

dehrmann wrote: post #242
bdangubic wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

twitter is just about the worst example you could have used - by wide margin…

It depends if you mean keeping Twitter the service operational or Twitter the product relevant.

neither can be comparable to what twitter was - not service not product

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#568

Post by musicale »

tocs3 wrote: post #432
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.

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.

If a layoff were actually a real layoff, you could get your job back once business conditions improve.

Tech "layoffs" are something of a euphemism for terminating (rather than pausing) employment for business reasons.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#569

Post by lr4444lr »

Aeolun wrote: post #548
lr4444lr wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I look at it like trying out for an athletic team. Once you're on the team, you are mostly practicing plays, doing clinics, and simulating competition, but to get on the team in the first place you have to prove your general fitness by running, say, a 6 minute mile. You may not be able to do that again easily right away once you've been on the team for a while because you don't practice running for pure…

Unlike, you know, proving that by the fact my previous employer was happy to retain me for 10 plus years?

You've never worked at a place where someone was an incompetent hanger-on who was an expert at self promotion and stealing credit? Or hired someone like that accidentally?

Notwithstanding, I have long argued that a non-profit credentialing body for SWEs offering cerification exams (which also required regular updates) akin to passing the bar or USMLE could go a long way to solving this problem. It would come with other drawbacks, perhaps not worth it, but we have to accept that constant tech interviews is the price we pay for refusal to standardize and professionalize.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#570

Post by musicale »

milesrout wrote: post #533
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…

If you are in your 50s then your recent years of peak lifetime earning potential overlapped with an industry massively overpaying its workforce. You shouldn't need a job. You should have FIREd.

> massively overpaying its workforce

As I understand it, tech employees are typically paid a small fraction of the revenue that they bring into the company.

Outside of tech, employees are underpaid, and wages haven't tracked productivity growth since the 1970s. Profit growth has greatly exceeded wage growth since the early 2000s, with the exception of the 2008 recession.

Post reply on HN