Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Layoffs at Block

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Layoffs at Block

#181

Post by simianwords »

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #117
rxyz wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dorsey is in AI psychosis. He required every employee to send him an email weekly which then he had summarized by AI because of course he aint reading it himself.

Even in "AI psychosis" I don't see how firing people is a logical response to advances in AI. If AI tools really are a significant multiplier to productivity, companies should be hiring more people to take advantage of that multiplier. If you suddenly have the ability to get more output per dollar spent, a healthy business should respond by spending more dollars, not spending less to keep output the same.

at every productivity point there's an optimal number of employees needed.

at the previous productivity it was 10,000 employees. not 10,001 nor 9,999.

at the current productivity it is 6,000.

why are you so sure that the 6,001th employee can increase profits but not the 10,001th employee before AI?

Re: Layoffs at Block

#182

Post by just-the-wrk »

varjag wrote: post #40

i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. i chose the latter. repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead. Come on now, it's not going to be the only round.

recently there has been a consistent drip of layoffs each day. they kind of chose all of the options

Re: Layoffs at Block

#183

Post by retinaros »

bananamogul wrote: post #131
KittenInABox wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the idea that X doesn't owe you Y is fundamentally at odds with the fact that humans are a cooperative species and survive the best when they are cooperating. A choir can hold a note together because individuals can stop singing to breathe, safely covered by peers who will take their turn to breathe later. What is the point of organizing socially if not for the benefit of all society members? I know we ha…

"humans are a cooperative species" Humans are violent, self-centered tribalists. What species are you referring to? Not homo sapiens.

outside of the west yes.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#184

Post by VBprogrammer »

Swizec wrote: post #119
davidw wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this hiring people to dig ditches for data center infrastructure or something? Because it doesn't sound like software.

Just the current reality in SFBA. People have spilled some 2 trillion dollars onto the area in the past 2 years. A lot of that is going to software engineers as everyone tries to shove AI down consumers' throats.

Not being obtuse, I even googled it, but I have no idea what SFBA is in this context. I'm assuming it's not to do with windsurfing in the San Francisco Bay Area or some kind of insulation. Could you elaborate?

Re: Layoffs at Block

#185

Post by mgfist »

overfeed wrote: post #116

> i'd rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome. I hope this gets drilled into the heads of everyone who sells their labor. The company is profitable, and Jack could have kept 4000 people employed with no difference in outcome, instead, he chose this.

Block isn't a jobs program, and employees cost money. Layoffs suck (I got laid off last year) but the reality is that it's a business and regardless of profitability, if you're not worth more than your salary you're a liability. The severance given is quite generous and fair. My biggest issue is that Block should never have grown so big in the first place.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#186

Post by 33MHz-i486 »

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #117
rxyz wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dorsey is in AI psychosis. He required every employee to send him an email weekly which then he had summarized by AI because of course he aint reading it himself.

Even in "AI psychosis" I don't see how firing people is a logical response to advances in AI. If AI tools really are a significant multiplier to productivity, companies should be hiring more people to take advantage of that multiplier. If you suddenly have the ability to get more output per dollar spent, a healthy business should respond by spending more dollars, not spending less to keep output the same.

because demand is weak and the product markets are saturated. there are dimishing returns to increasing investment. so these companies switch to managing their earnings ratio. if you cant grow revenue, then cut costs.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#187

Post by nailer »

torben-friis wrote: post #120

>we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. In my country, this action would be literally illegal. Even in countries where it isn’t, it feels highly immoral. “I’m not in any kind of pressure to do this but I’m choosing to shed the people who created my wealth for greater…

What government makes it illegal for management to manage their company?

Re: Layoffs at Block

#188

Post by retinaros »

simianwords wrote: post #163
MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #102

I don't understand anyone who says layoffs are due to improvements in AI tooling. "Thanks to LLMs, each worker can do twice the work they could before. Naturally we are firing half the company because ... business is good and ... too much productivity is bad?"

> Thanks to LLMs, each worker can do twice the work they could before. Naturally we are firing half the company because ... business is good and ... too much productivity is bad this is an incorrect take. The company needs a certain amount of productivity at each point. If not, how would you explain that they had only 10,000 employees and not 20,000? They could still remain profitable. LLM's increased productivity an…

it does not work like that except in a berkeley mba mind

Re: Layoffs at Block

#189

Post by overfeed »

simianwords wrote: post #141
overfeed wrote: post #116

> i'd rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome. I hope this gets drilled into the heads of everyone who sells their labor. The company is profitable, and Jack could have kept 4000 people employed with no difference in outcome, instead, he chose this.

i don't think this is true. assuming $150,000 average salary thats around $600,000 totally so that increases the yearly profit by about 30%.

I directly quoted jack - take it up with him.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#190

Post by brap »

t-writescode wrote: post #28

Nice severance; but in this job market, holy shit. Yeah, you get 5 months of severance and a bunch of devices and such; but, does this CEO really think these employees will find new work in that time? In this job market? If the profits are still up and growing, why on earth would you evict 40% of the company, to send them into this job market? Why not … try new industries, play around, try to become the next Mitsubis…

Because they’re not running a charity
Post reply on HN