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

771–780 of 801 posts

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#771

Post by screye »

modo_mario wrote: post #753
screye wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, it's common for folks to sell a house with a partially paid loan. Makes real-estate a liquid asset and that reduces risk. Further, it's low risk for the bank because they can always repossess the house if something goes wrong. A resident who falls on hard times can missa lot of payments before repossession can be forced. An H1b on hard times has 2 months to leave the country. This means at worst, they'll m…

>H1b Indians are on 30-50 yr queues for green card. What do you mean by this? Surely they don't have to stay and work 30-40yrs before they can expect permanent residency?

Unfortunately yes. That is exactly how it works. Most Indians on H1b will never get a green card despite having an approved green card application. (the I140)

Indian wait-times are expected to be between 20-60 years. It is ~10 years of the Chinese & Mexicans. Everyone else gets a green card within 1-2 years.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#772

Post by toss1 »

milesrout wrote: post #748
toss1 wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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…

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

Again, NO.

Just go to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics and their description of how productivity is measured [0]:

>>"For a single business producing only one good, output would simply be the number of units of that good produced in each time period, such as a month or a year."

Notice not a single mention of wages

It then goes on describing how they measure aggregate output in sectors of the economy. Wages is only mentioned ONCE, for charities and government organizations (since their output is not sold).

>>Government services and the output of nonprofits are not sold in the marketplace, so these types of output can be difficult to measure. For example, what is the output of a charity? Often these outputs are measured by the wages and benefits - compensation - paid to workers producing these outputs.

and then they point out:

>>

Since productivity compares output to input, if the output is measured by the input, any time the input grows, the output grows by the same amount.

>>Measuring output by labor input is similar to including the same amount in the numerator as in the denominator of the labor productivity ratio.

>>This implies no productivity growth for that group of workers, dampening productivity change for the industry and sector. For this reason, BLS productivity measures exclude government, nonprofits, and private household production.

So the ONLY mention of wages is specifically EXCLUDED from measures of productivity.

Then the summary: Output is measured primarily as an index of product revenues, adjusted for price changes. Adjustments are made to ensure that output that is sold to another business within the same measuring unit (industry or sector) is excluded to prevent counting it more than once.

Again, no mention of wages.

I have no idea where you get your misconceptions, but you really need to study some actual economics before posting pages of obviously wrong nonsense.

[0] https://www.bls.gov/k12/productivity-101/content/how-is-prod...

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#773

Post by guappa »

bbqfog wrote: post #762
guappa wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your definition for "best engineer in the world" is "hired by you"… sure. I'm just not sure anyone else in the world would agree with this definition :)

My definition of "best engineers in the world" are people that have wildly successful GitHub accounts. I'm very glad I'm in an industry with losers that don't know how to compete. It's like playing on easy mode!

Lol. Don't worry "losers that don't know how to compete" have better things to do than to work with jackasses like you. :)

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#774

Post by ftwynn »

gjm11 wrote: post #525

Does anyone here understand the "The consistency of layoffs" graphic? The best guess I have is that the number of layoffs in each year is indicated by some sort of measure of the "overall height" of that slice of the image, so e.g. somewhere around 2020 the number is very large. But it's not at all clear, and it's especially not clear which if any of the various small-scale ups and downs we are supposed to take serio…

Thank you.

It's gotta be the worst graph I've seen in multiple years. Like someone just overlayed some axes on a desk.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#775

Post by toss1 »

me-vs-cat wrote: post #770
toss1 wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say yes, it is reasonable to have an exception for lower wages for teenage part-time entry-level workers, and maybe some partially-disabled workers. Of course there would need to be provisions that it not be abused and just used for all positions. E.g., it cannot be used for workers 21 years old or older, etc. And the rules against abuse need to be solid, as we can guarantee that whatever rules are made, empl…

"Doctor, I need you to declare me disabled or else I'll lose my job when I turn 21. I need this job, and I don't know if I can find another one at the 21yo minimum wage." I really want to like what you're saying, but I see too many problems. I don't have answers.

>>Of course there would need to be provisions that it not be abused ... And the rules against abuse need to be solid, ...

Exactly that sort of scenario is why I included those phrases.

ANY large system will have imperfections, inadvertent waste, and openings for abuse. Of course these should be minimized, but that shouldn't stop us from making a system. Better a few people benefit undeservedly than many who deserve and need the benefits go hungry.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#776

Post by musicale »

kelnos wrote: post #716
musicale wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That seems unrealistic. Laid-off workers need to find a new job long before their former employer could hire them back.

If you are unable to obtain a satisfactory replacement position after that time, it might be very desirable to have the option to get your old job back.

Some businesses are seasonal, so it might make sense there as well.

"Originally, layoff referred exclusively to a temporary interruption in work, or employment"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layoff

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#777

Post by saghm »

carlob wrote: post #685
saghm wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the macro sense? Possibly, if everyone is doing what I'm doing. In my experience though, the opposite is more common; I've heard of people absolutely refusing to tip out of "principle", and then workers making sub-minimum wage don't actually get paid what they're legally "mandated". In the micro sense, I find it pretty unlikely that I'm single-handedly making much difference personally in the New York economy. Whi…

I didn't say don't tip, I said don't use Uber and use a taxi instead (and keep tipping if you want). I don't know what the situation is in NYC, but the last time I visited the US in Illinois, my taxi driver told me he also used Uber when he finished the hours he could legally drive a taxi for. To me that's scary on so many levels: both from the point of view of exploitation, but also personal safety.

I guess I misunderstood. Honestly, a big part of why I use Uber is that there aren't nearly as many taxis in Brooklyn, and the few times I've tried to take them from Manhattan into Brooklyn, it seemed to frustrate the drivers. Within Manhattan, it's not hard to flag a taxi since there are dozen driving by every minute, but the experience is very different outside of there.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#778

Post by int_19h »

Izkata wrote: post #616
int_19h wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at Microsoft 2009-2024 and I've seen it a lot. It's rather telling when your own manager tells you that if you want fast promos and raises, the best way to do so is to switch companies every few years. And I've had more than one manager say that. I know many people who did several rounds of Microsoft -> Google -> Amazon -> Microsoft or the like. That said, I don't think one can blame the devs for it, since i…

> It's rather telling when your own manager tells you that if you want fast promos and raises, the best way to do so is to switch companies every few years. This is different than what GP asked, it excludes anyone who might prefer stability over fast raises. Are the job-hoppers the majority, or are they just more visible because they're always interviewing?

I would say that they are the majority once you get to a certain level.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#779

Post by int_19h »

bonoboTP wrote: post #605
int_19h wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at Microsoft 2009-2024 and I've seen it a lot. It's rather telling when your own manager tells you that if you want fast promos and raises, the best way to do so is to switch companies every few years. And I've had more than one manager say that. I know many people who did several rounds of Microsoft -> Google -> Amazon -> Microsoft or the like. That said, I don't think one can blame the devs for it, since i…

> I never understood why - intuitively, it doesn't make sense for the company to underpay its devs to the point where they leave for a competitor, and then come back and get rehired at a much higher salary anyway. But it is what it is, and the workforce has caught on. It's because they are unable to tell who is worth what. So they outsource it to the market. If you managed to pass the interviews and get hired at the…

Internal politics is the proximal reason - raises come with levels, and have to be justified accordingly given the current level. A new hire has more flexibility wrt which level they end up in. But the point is that, if this system obviously translates to problem with retention, why is it in place? That is the policy that I'm questioning.

Regarding this:

> It's because they are unable to tell who is worth what. So they outsource it to the market. If you managed to pass the interviews and get hired at the other big tech company, that's proof of value.

They still hire people who do not come from other big tech, though, so there is a process in place that at least claims to tell who is worth what.

The other problem is that the filter is in practice not for competence but for tolerance of risk.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#780

Post by mym1990 »

andrewlgood wrote: post #701
mym1990 wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh totally! I don't have that perspective from the manager as I am very much an IC, and I have 0 experience job hopping as well as I have basically been with the same company for most of my career. I would say, naively, that part of that difference comes down to job description. If its in a manager's job description to: "make sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hire the right peo…

Interestingly, I have never had a job description that actually said "make sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hire the right people to complement the team, fight for bonuses and pay raises." Rather they say something like 'effectively lead team to do...." To effectively lead the team, IMHO, one needs to "make sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better care…

It may be true for all good managers and leaders but alas that is not the world we live in. Effectively leading a team to some people means walking behind them with a switch and cracking them every time they make a mistake. Managers
Post reply on HN