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

Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 329 posts

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#101

Post by rtkwe »

deeg wrote: post #93
mcv wrote: post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

Is there any chance that we're dealing with a form of confirmation bias? In an economy as large as the US's there will always be companies laying off workers. Current unemployment is low so I'm not sure if there's any major, new trend other than reporting it on HN.

I don't think so there's been a string of tech layoff's right here in a row totaling 40,000+ just from the ones at Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google. These are companies that don't generally shed huge numbers of employees all at once.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#102

Post by eweise »

jay-barronville wrote: post #72
mcv wrote: post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

To quote HN user @badhombres from the original thread: > Not surprising. Every company is going to take the opportunity to trim costs when it doesn't affect their PR as much as it would any other time. I'm pretty sure this is really what's going on here. These CEO's are killing all of these jobs while they can (seemingly without any repercussions). I was talking with my dad about these layoffs and one of the interest…

Yep. Vest and move on.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#103

Post by PuppyTailWags »

andsoitis wrote: post #66
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

should be able to save enough to weather a brief storm is a huge assumption. What do you do if you have dependents or complex medical needs personally? What happens if you have a personal emergency during your job search? What do you do if you have existing debt from a previous emergency, medical crisis, etc?

While what you describe are serious problems and would be very anxiety inducing for many (most?), the truth remains that it isn't someone else's problem or responsibility.

I'm not ascribing anything but to say that people who are laid off deserve sympathy because you cannot assume their personal circumstances surrounding the layoff. I have no dependents so it doesn't matter to me. My friend's wife is only able to work because of his healthcare, and if she loses his healthcare even if he finds a new job quickly his new health insurance will force the wife into a nightmare of proving she's sick enough to get her medicine again, putting her out of work.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#104

Post by danwee »

criley2 wrote: post #68
slantedview wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that the market will punish you less. Companies are hoping that the market will actually reward them for layoffs. Unfortunately, these moves can and will be damaging to long term prospects at some companies. But long term thinking isn't something markets generally care about. It's up to companies to push back against market pressure to maintain long term progress, but it's a tough balancing act to do th…

Honestly, I don't think these layoffs (broadly speaking) are dangerous long term. In fact, and this may be unpopular, I think they will be greatly beneficial long term. Consider: - These companies grew at greatly-expanded rates over the past few years. Google notoriously added 20% per year for 7 years straight, doubling their staff from 2017-2023. After layoffs, Google will still be right near ALL-TIME-HIGHS in staff…

> The real damage to their long term prospects was over-hiring the past 3 years and saddling their businesses with a major problem.

So, the real damage was the people who ordered to over hire (usually top-level executives). If any, they should be lay off to actually mitigate long-term damage.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#105

Post by pjc50 »

WhatsName wrote: post #49
mtnygard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t comment on whether this is blind following or not. But it’s a real fact that the market will punish you less for layoffs when others are doing it too. It’s like how the best time to reveal a scandal is after someone else has revealed a bigger scandal.

That's wrong. If everyone is doing something irrational that is a big inefficiency in the market and whoever does the opposite eg. hiring will get better outcomes as opposed doing it when all do.

Market values aren't driven by outcomes, those are in the future; they're driven by beliefs about outcomes.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#106

Post by dangerboysteve »

mcv wrote: post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

I don't think this is the case at all. Companies are rethinking the future a bit and forecasting a downward trend more than initially thought. This means preserving cash and reducing burn. This has a trickle-down effect with other tech companies, as they will cut back on saas subscriptions.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#107

Post by halgir »

aliqot wrote: post #97
halgir wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that CEOs don't get punished. The problem is when they virtue signal with "I'm sowwy " and claim responsibility without accepting accountability.

That's the defined procedure though, without that, you draw more attention. There is a clearly defined playbook at this point, and it WORKS, so why go making up your own words when they just wanna hear the song?

When the playbook has become a meme, I think there's a case to be made for updating it.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#108

Post by PuppyTailWags »

scarface74 wrote: post #95
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

should be able to save enough to weather a brief storm is a huge assumption. What do you do if you have dependents or complex medical needs personally? What happens if you have a personal emergency during your job search? What do you do if you have existing debt from a previous emergency, medical crisis, etc?

> What do you do if you have dependents or complex medical needs personally You get COBRA through your former employer. Been there done that. I had a pre-existing condition that I couldn’t get health insurance individually (pre-ACA) > What happens if you have a personal emergency during your job search? What do you do if you have existing debt from a previous emergency, medical crisis, etc? You talk to the people and…

> How do you think people making much less than tech workers handle it?

They don't. That doesn't make being laid off not worth sympathy, though! You don't know someone's personal life circumstances. It's not helpful to just presume they'll be okay and therefore it isn't worth advocating for better treatment.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#109

Post by poszlem »

toxican wrote: post #53
f6v wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it’s a funny joke. But this attitude only upsets people who thought jobs were not transactional. Kind of reminds me of stories by people who paid for sex and found out the sex worker didn’t want to cuddle afterwards.

I mean it's not like the sex worker spends the entire session talking about how they're all in it together and they're a team and then at the end releases a public statement about how difficult the decision not to cuddle was for them.

Except the sex workers often literally offer the girlfriend experience, which is, arguably, exactly that, a "make believe" relationship for some agreed time.
Post reply on HN