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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Layoffs at Block

#631

Post by lucas_the_human »

tombert wrote: post #285
Swizec wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nice severance; but in this job market, holy shit. I just talked to a bunch of recruiters (we're hiring) and their main piece of advice was: The market is crazy. Move fast . We're seeing people getting jobs within days of starting to look, bailing on offers after signing because they got a better offer somewhere else, etc. 24 hours is the longest you can leave a candidate waiting. You have been warned edit: I am in…

I'm in NYC which I think has similar demographics to SF in this regard; I found my job in August of last year, after about five months of searching, and I found it because a friend of mine referred me. It's a good job, and I like it, I'm grateful for that friend. Regardless, it's not like that was the only job I applied to. I had a policy of applying to at least ten jobs a day, so I applied to about ~1500 jobs, and l…

I think it's starting to turn around. My sense is there's still a ton of devs on the market but there's a lot of jobs opening recently. Here's the data from the st luis fed: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IHLIDXUSTPSOFTDEVE

Re: Layoffs at Block

#632

Post by coffeebeqn »

mixdup wrote: post #350
jcmontx wrote: post #312

I don’t think we’ll ever return to the glory days (2007-2023). Software engineering in the next few years will become as cool as accounting or HR (as in not cool at all). Just a generic white collar profession like it was maybe in the 80s.

it's already there in a large part of the country. being a swe in SF or NY is way different than being a swe in Birmingham, Alabama or Tampa, Florida or even a truly large city like Houston where you're writing internal software for a bank, or an oil company, or a hospital system. Most software jobs are not sexy startups or working for Netflix

There hasn’t been anything sexy about working in big tech in over a decade

Re: Layoffs at Block

#633

Post by rlt »

leoqa wrote: post #445
daxfohl wrote: post #48

We'll see how much the AI aspect is true by whether they're thinning out teams equally, or just axing whole initiatives. My impression of Block was that it was mostly a one-trick pony (okay, two if you include CashApp) with a bunch of side initiatives that never seemed to pan out, so I'm expecting it to be more of the latter, with this being more of an admission that they're now in "maintenance mode". Either way, I t…

I’m in big tech and use AI extensively, namely to do the same amount of output but in 1-2 hours a day. Been spending a ton of time on my side projects though.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#634

Post by consp »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #567
alephnerd wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm convinced that these "AI Layoffs" are these companies trying to save face from the absurd overhiring that they did in 2022 and 2023 because apparently they thought that these no-interest loans/free money would just last forever. Partially. The first nail in the coffin was the change in assumptions around output. Before 2023, there was an assumption that more bodies means more output. After the massive X/Twitter…

This is the recommendation I have heard peers, both technical and managerial, echo for years in one form or another: 4. Upskill professionally. We're not hiring code monkeys for $200K-400K TC. We want Engineers who can communicate business problems into technical requirements. This means also understanding the industry your company is in, how to manage up to leadership, and what are the revenue drivers and cost cente…

You seem to have forgotten politics, since at the managerial level that is the most effective tool at hand. Engineers with their arguments and rethoric be damned.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#635

Post by jacobsenscott »

com2kid wrote: post #507
hirsin wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Twitter layoffs being used as proof of _anything_ is misguided no matter what you're trying to say. If success is losing half their revenue, reverting to revenue numbers from a decade ago, I gotta know what failure looks like. You might argue that the revenue losses aren't correlated to their headcount changes and probably make a good argument, but I mean... It's not a great one

Everyone predicted twitter would crash and burn within months of the layoffs. It didn't. Anyone who has worked at a large company knows that 1/2 the staff there is stuck keeping the lights on because it is easier to hire a warm body than fix tech debt. I've worked at companies that are literally 10x more effective than other competitors in the market purely due to good engineering practices. Even within large compani…

I don't know if I've seen "tech debt" do serious damage to any company, and I've been around a long time. I've definitely seen whole teams grind to a halt in pursuit of someone's idealized vision of the "perfect way to organize code" though. They always couch it in the language of tech debt, but really it's just the loudest person's preferred way to shuffle files around - and usually in the direction of more complexity and not less.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#636

Post by salviati »

tombert wrote: post #270
daxfohl wrote: post #48

We'll see how much the AI aspect is true by whether they're thinning out teams equally, or just axing whole initiatives. My impression of Block was that it was mostly a one-trick pony (okay, two if you include CashApp) with a bunch of side initiatives that never seemed to pan out, so I'm expecting it to be more of the latter, with this being more of an admission that they're now in "maintenance mode". Either way, I t…

I'm convinced that these "AI Layoffs" are these companies trying to save face from the absurd overhiring that they did in 2022 and 2023 because apparently they thought that these no-interest loans/free money would just last forever. No one really "knows" how to grow businesses so the easiest way to spend a lot of money quickly is hiring lots of people, whether or not they are "necessary". Then this free money dries u…

It might actually be that they mean what they say.

If you look at the numbers, this doesn’t resemble a company cutting because it’s in trouble. Block is profitable, gross profit has been growing double-digits year over year, and they’re guiding roughly ~18% gross profit growth into 2026 with strong expected expansion in adjusted operating income and EPS. That’s not a balance-sheet emergency.

You can argue they overhired in 2020–2022 and are normalizing. That’s plausible. But the financials don’t suggest a company scrambling to survive. Cutting that aggressively while guiding strong forward growth is unusual if the only goal were short-term margin repair.

So while “it’s AI” can sound like PR, the numbers at least make it credible that this is a structural efficiency move rather than a distress signal.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#637

Post by matsemann »

arzke wrote: post #595
senko wrote: post #254

This is one of the best (if not the best) layoff letters I've seen online (no affiliation, don't know anyone working there, purely outsider perspective). * Severance packages upfront because realistically that's what everyone worries about first. * Reasoning second. I appreciate the one clean cut vs prolonged bleeding. * Owning the decision and respecting the people that got you there. Opting for an awkward allhands…

I wonder if the lack of capital letters is a clever trick to make this whole annoucement look more humane and natural. Surely it's intentional: only "U.S" deserves capitals, not even his own name in the signature.

Why does he write i’m at some sentences but i'm at others (different ')?

Re: Layoffs at Block

#638

Post by agnishom »

PunchTornado wrote: post #626
agnishom wrote: post #611

> 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. Sounds like a false dichotomy. The third option is that he could have kept them around. It would be financially feasible given that "our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving.".

On shareholder money? No thank you. If 1 person can do the job, why keep 2?

I am just saying that the decision was not some kind of inevitable result of forces beyond their control. They just made a business decision to line their pockets better.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#639

Post by hiddencost »

mgfist wrote: post #185
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.

I'd encourage anyone wondering where this perspective comes from to read "Capitalist Realism" by Mark Fisher.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#640

Post by bartread »

Ah, no, come on, man: at least make it y2k. I need to be able to play UT99 and Q3A at (at least) 1024 x 768 and 24-bit colour with no frame drops.

But, otherwise, I'm onboard with the principle.

Post reply on HN