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

Elastic lays off 7% of employees

elastic.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 251 posts

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#241

Post by smsm42 »

dh2022 wrote: post #232
infecto wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really depends on the type of job. Software? You are making bank in the US and partly because companies in the US can move quick because of their labor laws.

Are you aware that you are saying US devs are making bank in a thread about US devs being laid off >

They are laid off (with severance) not permanently disabled. They most likely will find other jobs (linkedin is already full of recruiting messages). I don't intend to make light of it - getting fired sucks, a lot. It's a terrible experience. But it should be also kept in perspective - software engineers, especially in the US, are very well paid, even in comparison with most other US employees. Compared to, say, Belgium, probably 2x and more. You can say living in a welfare state makes up to it, that's a matter of opinion and preference, but if you look just at the numbers, even with layoffs taken into account, I think US software engineers are quite well paid.

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#242

Post by smsm42 »

callmeal wrote: post #179
yamillove wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now compare your cousin’s yearly salary in Belgium with the average salary of a US employee doing the same job.

>Now compare your cousin’s yearly salary in Belgium with the average salary of a US employee doing the same job. Take home is about the same after including health insurance and all the myriad taxes that US employees are subject to.

No, that's not true. Most companies offer at least HDHP plans either fully covered or at minimal cost. HDHP plans, by nature, have high deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, but usually well under $10k per year. So for a typical case, unless there's some catastrophic expense not covered by any insurance, the difference can't be more than $10k per year. The difference between typical compensation for a seasoned SW engineer is much more than that, even before taking options & stock into account. In the US $150-200k is pretty common for a seasoned engineer. In Belgium, you'd look at around E100-110k from what I could find online. And I don't think Belgium has lower tax burden overall. So the health insurance alone doesn't come close to covering the gap.

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#243

Post by smsm42 »

callmeal wrote: post #180
matchbok3 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather they never hire those people? Because that is one option.

>Would you rather they never hire those people? Because that is one option. Yup, and that way those people should be hired by companies who are in it for the long term and not looking just at the next quarter (and using hiring as a way to deny employees to competitors).

I don't think there exists a company (at least in the US, in Asia they do have "lifetime employment" system even though that gets eroded too) that can promise it will never have a layoff. Did you know any such company that when it hires you it would tell you "we're here for the long term so you will never laid off, no matter what"?

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#244

Post by smsm42 »

darth_avocado wrote: post #228
meerita wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When that happened, AI wasn’t even at today’s level. Elon clearly didn’t fire those people because AI would replace them. They were laid off because the company could run pretty well without them. And that’s exactly what happened.

You’re missing the point. You’re still holding on to the notion that somehow getting rid of people was fine because the company could run well without them (that’s debatable but it’s a tangent). The same logic is being applied now with AI. Doesn’t matter there was no AI back then or how good/bad AI is. People are being laid off and the companies are doing fine. You can’t cheer one and then complain about the other.

> You’re still holding on to the notion that somehow getting rid of people was fine because the company could run well without them

Yes? It's not an adult daycare. It's a commercial company. The premise is you are employed because you contribute to the functioning and the profitability of the company. If it's not the case, well, it sucks but you can't expect to be paid just for warming your seat. I mean, I wouldn't object somebody giving me six figures just for existing, but I hardly can expect and feel entitled for that to happen?

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#245

Post by smsm42 »

darth_avocado wrote: post #226
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that surprising there wasn’t much empathy when there was so much bragging about how much people were earning and that it would go on forever. For what it’s worth I was one of the people questioning why they needed so many people although I never said those let go deserved it.

> I was one of the people questioning why they needed so many people Unfortunately that’s what managers, executives and investors are doing everywhere now. Everyone Should’ve been more careful with the reactions when the status quo was upended.

"We all know people are overpaid for doing nothing, but if we don't talk about it somehow it would continue forever"? Doesn't sound like a smart strategy to be honest. The truth will come out.

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#246

Post by slantedview »

chopete3 wrote: post #157

Unfortunately Elastic lost -60.54% market value in the last 5 years. Negative net income every year since going public. The underlying message is a lot clear - they are a public company. They have to do this and more show to net positive income to keep the market value from falling further. Companies can keep the employees with market value drop but it gets hard with negative income. Salesforce also lost ~37% value i…

Am I misunderstanding their current finances? On yahoo finance, I don't see net negative income for ESTC.

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#247

Post by matchbok3 »

callmeal wrote: post #180
matchbok3 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather they never hire those people? Because that is one option.

>Would you rather they never hire those people? Because that is one option. Yup, and that way those people should be hired by companies who are in it for the long term and not looking just at the next quarter (and using hiring as a way to deny employees to competitors).

I too was young and idealistic at one point.

You should start that company and guarantee that you will never lay anyone off.

Will you do it? Why not? Please don't make excuses. If it's easy, you should be able to!

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#248

Post by yamillove »

lovich wrote: post #181
yamillove wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the government cannot compel you to buy a product for your own protection. What’s next? Forcing you to use protection during intimate activities?

> Well, the government cannot compel you to buy a product for your own protection. They can, hence the mandates for healthcare. > What’s next? Forcing you to use protection during intimate activities? If you start creating negative externalities for everyone else, then yea. If you are arguing from a libertarian perspective of you can do whatever you want, then I would demand you get a tattoo saying “do not give me me…

[dead]

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#249

Post by meerita »

darth_avocado wrote: post #228
meerita wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When that happened, AI wasn’t even at today’s level. Elon clearly didn’t fire those people because AI would replace them. They were laid off because the company could run pretty well without them. And that’s exactly what happened.

You’re missing the point. You’re still holding on to the notion that somehow getting rid of people was fine because the company could run well without them (that’s debatable but it’s a tangent). The same logic is being applied now with AI. Doesn’t matter there was no AI back then or how good/bad AI is. People are being laid off and the companies are doing fine. You can’t cheer one and then complain about the other.

AI, without supervision, will not be able to match the same degree of quality as AI with a true engineer behind the scenes. Twitter had another clear and non IA related problem: it was a adult daycare company.

Re: Elastic lays off 7% of employees

#250

Post by callmeal »

matchbok3 wrote: post #247
callmeal wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Would you rather they never hire those people? Because that is one option. Yup, and that way those people should be hired by companies who are in it for the long term and not looking just at the next quarter (and using hiring as a way to deny employees to competitors).

I too was young and idealistic at one point. You should start that company and guarantee that you will never lay anyone off. Will you do it? Why not? Please don't make excuses. If it's easy, you should be able to!

>You should start that company and guarantee that you will never lay anyone off.

Long term does not mean "never". It just means looking beyond the next quarter and/or hiring based on business needs and not based on hype or a target eps.

Post reply on HN