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

691–700 of 801 posts

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#691

Post by away271828 »

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…

I reached a point--somewhat older than that--when I didn't have a real job any longer, but nobody seemed in a big hurry to get rid of me, and they were paying me pretty well. I made it through a small layoff though I wouldn't have minded the good severance. I might have hung around in different circumstances but figured I should optimize the payout up to a point and wasn't really interested in heading somewhere new.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#692

Post by away271828 »

jorts wrote: post #547
int_19h wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yea I do weekly 1:1s with all my directs and have done so for the past ~13 years. Pretty standard.

Mostly I had team calls. Theoretically had 1:1s with one former manager but with both of our travel schedules it ended up monthly at best.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#693

Post by timmg »

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…

It's kinda like saying: people who are on chemotherapy are more likely to die from cancer than people who aren't.

Of course: that's why they are on chemotherapy!

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#694

Post by ghaff »

bb88 wrote: post #478
giantg2 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, it's the same problem I have when the 20 somethings use the term "funemployment". If you're single and have no responsibilities, sure. The second you have a mortgage, medical conditions that need health insurance, or need money because you had a family emergency and had to dip into savings, it's not "funemployment" at all.

There was a period in tech when a lot of people had a certain sentiment that they could drop a few emails and have a well-paying job the next week. That's never been the norm for professional work.

During dot-bomb I was relatively lucky if not necessarily super-well compensated but I knew a lot of people who basically dropped out of the professional labor market.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#695

Post by ajuc »

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…

It's not controversial, it's the truth.

BTW I worked for 6 years at one company, then I started job-hopping every 2-3 years. Much better for career.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#696

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

yodsanklai wrote: post #677
TZubiri wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This happens not to reduce cost but to stress out remaining employees. Or to cull the low performers. I personally am less stressed when the competition I outperform gets fired.

In my team, two people who got laid off as "low performers" weren't. One was very good but had a bad luck with a very bad project / manager the previous half. The other picked the wrong topic to work on and they weren't well rewarded. The low performers are usually managed out anyway. The last lay off phase was quite arbitrary. Also note that high performers often do get promoted, and may become low performers at the…

> The low performers are usually managed out anyway.

That may be your experience, and kudos to companies that do this, but particularly in tech I've seen that not be the norm. Egregiously low performers are managed out, but performers who are basically just "low mediocre" can hang on for a long, long time in my experience, and tech companies often use layoffs as an opportunity to get rid of them. To be clear, not everyone who is let go in a layoff is a low performer (a lot of time it's just the luck of whatever business unit you're working in), but companies certainly take advantage of layoffs to get rid of low performers without needing reams and reams of documentation.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#697

Post by eikenberry »

deviantbit wrote: post #504
eikenberry wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a company is bleeding revenue, it cannot sustain the overhead of employees. They have to go. No, they don't. During the dotcom bubble my company gave us 2 choices, layoffs or 20% pay cut. We took the latter. Everyone stayed and we had our pay back to previous levels in a couple years and the company remained profitable. You can, in fact, treat people as people and still run a company. > Employees feelings don't…

Which dot com was that?

The first one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#698

Post by grandempire »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #650
grandempire wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some did. Assembly line workers didn’t. Framers didn’t.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#699

Post by NBJack »

milesrout wrote: post #673
suzzer99 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having FIRE doesn't mean you're ready to retire and build ships in a bottle or whatever. I like programming, it puts me in flow state and keeps my brain young. I want to go out on my own terms. Also good luck with FIRE if you're putting kids through college. And thirdly, for those of us at normal companies the pay has been nice, but not FAANG mid-six-figures nice.

You don't have to "put kids through college". If you're in the US, they can borrow to go somewhere decent and affordable. Harvard has never been for you, it has always been for the children of very rich New Englanders.

You should probably update your personal data on what kind of debt they would be taking on, and how long it takes to pay it off.

https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics

https://research.com/education/average-time-to-repay-student...

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

Even at a relatively average college, debt repayment is often measured in decades.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#700

Post by dharmab »

sejje wrote: post #124
EPWN3D wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top performers have options and value stability. They also know that they rely on their manager to accurately reflect their work up the chain. Some percentage of top performers report to deadbeat managers, so in an environment doing mandatory layoffs, they'll know that it doesn't matter how much they knock it out of the park, their manager will screw them. So of course they'll leave.

If you're a top performer stuck under a deadbeat manager, how are you able to signal to new companies that you're a top performer? I read posts here all the time about how hard it is to hire. How do top performers distinguish themselves as they go out for new jobs? When did this become easy?

I don't know where I fit on the scale but I'm confident I'm in the top 50%. I got only one job (an early one in my career) through the "normal" way of sending lots of applications for public postings. Every other job has come through my network or a targeted recruiting process.

In most cases, someone you worked with before who liked working with you suggests to their employer or someone in their professional network they hire you. Could be an old classmate, coworker, open source collaborator, even someone you know through a hobby.

Post reply on HN