Live data from Hacker News

Layoffs Don't Work

thehustle.co

741–750 of 801 posts

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that too until we had a guy start two years ago that interviewed well and answered questions like he knew what he was talking about but then when he started, one of his first questions was how to figure what endpoint was being called by a website (as obvious as looking at your browser's Network tab, or browsing the website's source to find the endpoint). Not long after that he had to clear a couple more val…

Why would you clear the cache if it's not cached? Or is this ironic?

Sorry got my code blocks swapped around and didn't proof-read carefully enough.

It was utterly mundane code.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#742
post #618

The most direct way that the U.S. government can control inflation is via layoffs of federal workers. Private companies are jumping on the bandwagon to get rid of hires made during more booming times. The fact is that higher interest rates have cooled down investments, which factors into the decisions made by companies to fire staff. Note though that companies which actually build stuff, like Apple, are adding jobs,…

> The most direct way that the U.S. government can control inflation is via layoffs of federal workers. I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Civilian employees are less than 3% of federal spending, so it won't have a measurable effect on spending. Some employees, like IRS employees, bring in revenue.

[deleted]

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#743
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we disagree about what "profitable" means. Posting an authoritative source, so others can decide for themselves. https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/twtr/financials/

I don't have that much of an experience analysing similar reports, but it seems to me to be a healthy and growing company? If you mean a negative cash flow and operating income - it doesn't mean much, as we need to know why. Taking into account the jump in "Revenue", positive "EBIT" and so on, I would imagine that it was because of some sort of "strategic investment", like some acquisitions probably? What am I missin…

The parent only provided financials from before the acquisition.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we discarding the analogy then? Okay. The owner has a bunch of space and equipment they can grant power over, but that's only half a company. They don't naturally start with power over the employees.

> Are we discarding the analogy then It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context. Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management. Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them. > They don't naturally start with power o…

> It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context.

Right, and it shows that ownership isn't the one factor that matters.

> Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management. Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them.

It's not like delegation is optional.

But more importantly, the suggestion had nothing to do with ownership. The suggestion was voting power.

I am glad you seem to have stepped back from the "someone else built" language you originally used.

> The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property.

And sometimes it's good to negotiate parts of employment contracts as a whole society, by putting it into law. It's not "entitlement" in any derogatory sense. It's a very mild limit on which things can be negotiated.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are life's essentials? Do you have the right to a car? To one bedroom per child or should they share? Do you have the right to central heating so you can wear a tshirt indoors or should you be expected to wear a jersey in winter? The minimum wage doesn't make anyone be paid more. It only causes anyone paid less than it to instead be paid $0, and instead be paid an unemployment benefit. How is that reasonable?

A higher minimum wage puts upward pressure on wages at the lower end of the scale, which helps the working class so that they aren't working and on medicare, section 8, food stamps etc. - as many Wal-mart workers currently are. That saves us money in the long run. When Seattle raised the minimum wage to $15/hour, everyone screamed it would lead to mass unemployment. That never happen. Suddenly the lower class had mor…

Higher minimum wage doesn't put upward pressure on other low wages, and even if it did, pushing up the wages of people making $30/hr by taking away jobs from people making $20/hr to put them on benefits earning $15/hr is obscene.

>which helps the working class so that they aren't working and on medicare, section 8, food stamps etc. - as many Wal-mart workers currently are. That saves us money in the long run.

A higher minimum wage leads to lower employment not higher employment.

>When Seattle raised the minimum wage to $15/hour, everyone screamed it would lead to mass unemployment. That never happen.

It has been shown many times that a higher minimum wage causes less employment. It is also obvious from first principles and basic logic. Price controls are a very bad idea, and wages are no exception.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#746
post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as what minimum wage should be "fairly". What is the minimum amount you should be able to pay someone an hour? Surely it is the amount where if you didn't, someone else would pay them more. There are many people who do jobs worth much less than $32/hour. That min wage would just make them illegal to employ. >You can't go off mcdonalds sandwiches, and you can't use the economic indicators that i…

>>There is no such thing as what minimum wage should be "fairly" Nonsense. There most definitely IS a definition of a fair minimum wage -- it is the definition used when it was originally introduced into law: The wage necessary for a full-time (40hr/week) worker head-of-household to support a family of four above the poverty line -- spouse & kids in a house/apartment, food, medical, education, etc.. We have Walmart w…

>The wage necessary for a full-time (40hr/week) worker head-of-household to support a family of four above the poverty line -- spouse & kids in a house/apartment, food, medical, education, etc..

Food of what quality? That available in the 1930s?

Medical of what quality? 1930s medical care?

Education to primary level as most had in the 1930s or more than that?

You don't have a natural right to receive the fruits of the labour of others.

>We have Walmart workers collecting $6 Billion in benefits per year to stay above the poverty line while the Waltons sit on a $250Billion fortune, it is clear we are subsidizing the rich by failing to set an above-poverty minimum wage.

Then stop giving benefits to people that have jobs.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#747
post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Many companies rotate the bottom N percent to dump the bad performers I have never seen this actually happen in practice. It's always specific teams and projects that get fired because some C-Level fucked up and pushed for some ego project, or over-hired and placed those poor souls in useless projects.

Wasn't Ballmer Microsoft infamous for this?

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#748
post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labour theory of value that you allude to here makes no sense. People are paid at the market price based on supply and demand, just like other goods and services. Tech employees don't "bring in" the company's revenue. That makes the mistake of attributing the products and services of a business to its workers. >wages haven't tracked productivity growth since the 1970s. Propaganda. Productivity growth literally is…

>>Productivity growth is literally just wage growth, by definition. No, it is the opposite, whether you are measuring Units Per Worker Hour or especially Units Per Worker Dollar. You have a dozen $25/hr workers in a factory producing 50 widgets/hour, and you now introduce new tools, techniques, and/or materials and they now produce 80 widgets per hour, productivity per hour and per dollar has risen, but worker pay is…

>No, it is the opposite, whether you are measuring Units Per Worker Hour or especially Units Per Worker Dollar.

That is precisely how it is measured: by measuring wages.

>You have a dozen $25/hr workers in a factory producing 50 widgets/hour, and you now introduce new tools, techniques, and/or materials and they now produce 80 widgets per hour, productivity per hour and per dollar has risen, but worker pay is exactly the same.

As is unlikely to surprise you, productivity as a macroeconomic indicator is not measured by lookikg at factories and the tools and techniques they use.

96% of the gap can be explained by the fact that these figures compare productivity growth of the whole economy with wage growth of some workers (the lowest 80% of them - leaving out... the most productive workers), count the productivity growth of the self employed but not their wages, dont take into account overtime, bonuses, or health insurance benefits, and intentionally use different means of measuring inflation across the two figures in an attempt to inflate the numbers.

At the end of the day they track very closely because they are both measures of wages. Productivity is just net output by hour worked and wages is just net output by hour worked. If you use different methods for calculating each you can make either look higher but it is pure methodology.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#749
post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labour theory of value that you allude to here makes no sense. People are paid at the market price based on supply and demand, just like other goods and services. Tech employees don't "bring in" the company's revenue. That makes the mistake of attributing the products and services of a business to its workers. >wages haven't tracked productivity growth since the 1970s. Propaganda. Productivity growth literally is…

> Tech employees don't "bring in" the company's revenue. Sure they do. Every employee contributes to the revenue a company brings in. If they don't, then they should be fired. > Productivity growth literally is just wage growth, by definition. Completely false. You accuse a commenter in a sibling thread of not having a good grasp of economics, but that feels like the pot calling the kettle black, here.

You don't "bring revenue in". You are paid for providing a service to your employer. Your employer brings revenue in by providing quite different goods and services to its customers.

By your logic, "cost centres" (like IT, HR, and office management) within a business are bad because they don't bring in any revenue. Except of course in reality they are the same: they provide a service to the business that the business makes use of in providing goods and services to its customers.

I am being pedantic but for good reason: there is no a priori reason why your pay should go up just because your employer has become more profitable, except that it is in the interests of employers to make use of resources efficiently. If they are profitable then hiring more people so they can make more money is good. But it isn't a matter of "deserving" to be paid more or something. Pay isn't based on what you deserve for many reasons, including that you can't attribute the business's profits to its workers and ignore, for example, the investment in capital resources (including IP) required to enable the workers to work effectively. Mainly though because of supply and demand.

If an improvement in productivity makes you more efficient then there should be higher demand for you and you should be paid more. And indeed that is exactly what happens: people in industries that have productivity improvements are paid more afterwards than before.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you clear the cache if it's not cached? Or is this ironic?

Sorry got my code blocks swapped around and didn't proof-read carefully enough. It was utterly mundane code.

i spent too much time on thedailywtf.
Post reply on HN