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

641–650 of 801 posts

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#641

Post by absolutelastone »

margalabargala wrote: post #631
absolutelastone wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you took the generous route in publicly shaming them. I think their quibble was with a different item being used as evidence there (i.e., having a family), not necessarily with all that was said.

I didn't publicly shame anyone. I pointed out their clear position of privilege to help them learn to apply empathy. I think helping one another to build empathy is a good thing, and even if the person I replied to is unable to do so, it's possible that observing them tell a disabled person that they don't think their life is any harder will help other third parties such as yourself build that empathy. I did not flag…

Text is a fairly imprecise form of communication. It's pretty common for multiple people to get triggered by misreading a post the same way if such a misread is possible.

In other cases downvoted posts are often the most interesting precisely because they trigger people with points they don't want to consider. I certainly wouldn't cite it as proof of any position.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#642

Post by ltbarcly3 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #633
ltbarcly3 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10% of applicants that make it to a phone screen. I estimate that the number is much lower than 10% overall because incompetent people with good looking resumes tend to do a lot more interviews than good candidates.

Sounds like the resume screening is either non-existent or insufficient then.

Nope, they have solid resumes. Top companies and relevant experience on paper. They claim skills with the right tools. They are just idiots.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#643

Post by johnnyanmac »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #638
johnnyanmac wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but I see now that it takes the interviewer out of the equation. Well yes, that's why I'm against it. A one way "interview" is an audition, not an interview. There's nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on something that ends up with a template rejection letter. That's great for the interviewer, but devastating for the interviewee. They can't even get feedback on how to improve.

Nobody is going to give an interviewee feedback, even if they are interviewed by a human. There is too much legal risk to open the company up to discrimination lawsuits. There is also nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on an in person interview to just have the interviewer flunk you our be unfair to you. I still believe that personal interviews are important, I'm just raising the fact that a large portion of…

Yes, and actions have consequences I'm not going to audition if I have not at least talked to a human first. The game industry in particular does this to abuse Artists and Designers with spec work, so I feel especially strong about the power dynamic here.

>There is also nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on an in person interview to just have the interviewer flunk you our be unfair to you

The interview stage inflation is definitely a problem, but speaking with actual people still has benefits. You get an idea of their culture and you can still network even in such a situation. It's not guaranteed but you get a much higher chance to get advice and feedback on or off the record if you're polite. People are flexible, some standardized exam may never even reach a human.

>'m just raising the fact that a large portion of an interviewee's success is based upon their interviewer.

Indeed. I'm just stating a viewpoint where an interview needs to be personal. An audition in this software space is about as impersonal as you can get.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#644

Post by johnnyanmac »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #642
johnnyanmac wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the resume screening is either non-existent or insufficient then.

Nope, they have solid resumes. Top companies and relevant experience on paper. They claim skills with the right tools. They are just idiots.

"claim" kills? Isn't part of the HR screening about some litmus test to make sure they aren't very obviously lying?

And yes, this is part of why the obsession with FAANG on resume is very overrated. Very few companies require the skillsete FAANG needs. Some of thst FAANG culture is orthogonal to what medium/small sized companies require.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#645

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

karparov wrote: post #96

The article doesn't actually explain why . It claims that they don't work and supplies statistical evidence. But why don't they work? I've only really seen speculation...

i think he is saying that its the stock market, that is stressing the value of short term gains. That's why stocks are rising upon news of layoffs.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#646

Post by hintymad »

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?

I know lots of people hop jobs to get promoted. It's understandable too: promotion has become a prestige. It hurts to see coworkers get promoted yet oneself stays at the same place, let alone promotion is the only way to get a larger package. Personally, I think the promotion culture, especially the one popularized by Meta, is pretty ruinous to the tech companies, as many people exclusively focused on getting promoted. That means first write less code but draw more boxes, then draw fewer boxes and write more docs, and then write fewer docs but go to more meetings. Soon it's hard to distinguish a high-level engineer from a technical PM, from a director (except that the IC does not have direct report), or even from a program manager. The end result is that the company gets more bloated, slows down every day, and produces bullshit systems. When those ICs go out to interview, all they can do is throwing around a few terms and fail miserably on even the most basic questions.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#647

Post by elliotto »

throwaway3572 wrote: post #390
ryandrake wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Because societies in which not everyone gets a vote end up collapsing as those with the vote are eaten by those without

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#648

Post by Dylan16807 »

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…

Is there a reason you didn't quote the next two sentences that directly address that?

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#649

Post by hintymad »

> Nothing kills your company’s culture like layoffs,” Kelleher once said.

Or maybe the culture is already rotten before the layoff. I've seen so many companies in the bay area have become so bloated and bureaucratic. Directors and VPs have very senior engineers who exclusively go to meetings to "align". Directors who report to directors who report to directors who report to VPs who report to VPs who report to VPs. PMs and engineers and managers are all gatekeepers who focus exclusively on ensuring that a project will not fail before it is even conceptualized. Distinguished engineers draw bigger boxes and pass them to Principal Engineers who draw smaller boxes and pass them to Senior Staff Engineers to draw even smaller boxes until a poor E5 or E4 engineers implement the whole thing. We have so many professional box drawers, expert meeting goers, seasoned report writers, fierce gatekeepers, anything but engineers who can implement systems end to end. As a result, a 6-month one-person project gets finished half assed by a team of 60 with 5 layers of report chain. A 3-week project requires 3 months of approval and another three months of PoC.

In such case, what can a company possibly do to at least survive a little longer, even in hope of improving its culture? I guess layoff is not a bad answer.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#650

Post by Dylan16807 »

grandempire wrote: post #551
int_19h wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shareholders don't build anything. Employees do.

I didn’t build my car or house, but I own them. Working on things owned by others is the basic idea of employment - and is a relationship that has existed forever.

And the people that built your car and house had a say in how that process went. A rather big say.
Post reply on HN