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

Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 102 posts

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#3

Post by eganist »

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads.

The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership of headcount and the fate of their companies etc.

I'm not seeing a clear solution for this culture of toying with thousands of peoples' lives for a quick buck... well, aside from the (sadly) politically loaded move to unionize more white collar work and thus provide actual accountability. Why unions are a political matter is beyond me; IATSE uses their strength to ensure excellent benefits for their members in media/entertainment.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#5

Post by cj »

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

How do mass layoffs work in places like the EU?

I know it's much more difficult to fire people in the EU, but is there an exception if it's done as part of a layoff?

The only real solution I can think of is regulatory in nature (e.g. requiring paying out 6 months pay during a layoff, which might make companies think twice before "hiring ahead of growth")

Because let's face it, "hiring ahead of growth" is the real problem. These companies aren't firing people because they are making less money. They're firing people because they hired people before they actually needed them, in anticipation of future growth that didn't materialize.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#7

Post by jjtheblunt »

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

Your comment made me wonder something i don’t remember being discussed in these terms, but what about our markets and laws makes liquidity in employers and employees work poorly?

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#8

Post by brookst »

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#10

Post by ZiiS »

brookst wrote: post #8
eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years. Even if they cannot manage to make a cent off their work work and completely fail to train them or at least give them experience; they can very easily just write down the salaries till they do need them.
Post reply on HN