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

Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 284 posts

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#111

Post by vikingerik »

notch656c wrote: post #55
rcme wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HHS disagrees with you: https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co... > Health insurers can no longer charge more or deny coverage to you or your child because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer, as well as pregnancy. They cannot limit benefits for that condition either. Once you have insurance, they can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition…

Doesn't this create a huge incentive for people to buy rolling "temporary" insurance plans which can consider pre-existing conditions, and then switch to subsidizing off the healthy once they actually get a condition and buy the regular ACA plans?

Yes, and that's one reason why costs have ballooned so much, the need to subsidize people who didn't pay while they didn't have a condition and now do. The temporary plans aren't even necessary, if you can wait until the next regular enrollment period.

The ACA originally tried to hide that vulnerability by making insurance mandatory, then it appeared when that forcible mandate was repealed.

Edit to reply to the reply: Right, it's not insurance. Insurance is pooling risk. If you wait until the risk event has already happened, it's not insurance, it's just paying your own costs with extra steps.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#112

Post by thr0w4w4ymsft »

photonbeam wrote: post #30
thr0w4w4ymsft wrote: post #2

MSFT manager of 25+ person team here with no actual heads up on this. The writing has been on the wall for months though from internal comms so this should come as a surprise to no one. No one on my team has any information about this beyond the Satya email, so this is either a "no news is good news" situation (assuming you don't actually want to be laid off), or a poorly executed process. I'm hoping for the former f…

> The writing has been on the wall for months though from internal comms What did the hints look like?

People asking VPs about layoffs in public AMAs and getting answers to the effect of "it's our responsibility to make sure that we're right-sized for the upcoming year."

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#114

Post by ActionHank »

ketchupdebugger wrote: post #113

All the news is saying that its a mild recession but layoffs is a longer term solution in cost reduction. Basically Big Tech isn't optimistic about the industry for at least 2023. Is the recession going to be worse than we expect?

It seems like tech companies are being more severe with their layoffs because they were over aggressive with hiring during the pandemic. Many went through a massive surge in demand which they either thought was going to be permanent or had to hire to keep the machine moving.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#115

Post by jonathankoren »

_huayra_ wrote: post #66
habosa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scale of benefits generally looks like: Average US worker << Average EU worker < US Big Tech Worker

I wonder where EU tech workers (big or not) fit in this. Certainly pay is less than US, but when I worked in Europe, everyone took all of their vacation time and generally did not work beyond regular business hours. Where I work today in the US, even junior devs (i.e. no on-call or general need to fight fires outside of regular hours) are grinding away on nights and weekends. The only way I can basically take a half-…

> The only way I can basically take a half-day here and there during the week to ski is because my team would be screwed without me

lol. No. Your team will do just fine if you dropped dead today. Trust m. Teams are always fine.

Take the time off and get down off the cross.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#116

Post by mynameishere »

galdosdi wrote: post #90
Karunamon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entirely serious question: is COBRA actually of any use to anyone? From where I sit it's always been pretty aspirational since it requires you to also pay the employer side of the insurance which is colossally more expensive than the employee side, and you are expected to do this while being out of work?

It's useful for 60 days, since for 60 days (or maybe it's 90 or 30, I forget -- look it up yourself if you need it, don't listen to me) you can elect it retroactively. So you can go without insurance, and as long as you haven't hit the 60 days, you can retroactively pay for it if a devastating emergency happens. Actually dealing with this would be a huge logistical hassle, and god help you if you're hospitalized, unc…

Just to be clear. Employees ARE paying that full amount while employed. It is part of their benefits. They don't feel the cost, but it is there all the same.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#117

Post by pjc50 »

winReInstall wrote: post #105
thr0w4w4ymsft wrote: post #2

MSFT manager of 25+ person team here with no actual heads up on this. The writing has been on the wall for months though from internal comms so this should come as a surprise to no one. No one on my team has any information about this beyond the Satya email, so this is either a "no news is good news" situation (assuming you don't actually want to be laid off), or a poorly executed process. I'm hoping for the former f…

How can you actually signal you want to be laid off? Is that something you say when the news goes out? Loads of "NoFuture" cooperate punk in the FAMG. Monopoly does not make the work interesting.

In places where a "consultation process" is legally mandated, that's one of the things you get to discuss. In UK redundancies I have been asked "do you want to take voluntary redundancy?"

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#118

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

roflyear wrote: post #110
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why make a profit when you can pay your employees >100% of your revenue and just go into debt instead? It's not how business works. You hire people if you need people, and you pay them the least you can get away with, so you maximize profits - because long ago, you raised money with the promise to the people you raised the money from that you would do this, and you have a Fiduciary obligation to do so...

Lots of companies do take no profit and pay out entirely to their employees, and there are some famous examples of that.

Lots of co-ops and private companies...

Please show me one public company that has said - sorry shareholders - we're returning 100%+ of profits to our employees forever.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#119

Post by refurb »

whatever1 wrote: post #5

Families will get torn apart, people with health issues will be on their own, immigrants will get booted. C-suite will get a raise from the stock price bump. Congrats on our system.

I mean you could change the laws so that you get a job for life.

Of course the countries with those laws have never created a company like MS in the first place, so..

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#120

Post by notch656c »

vikingerik wrote: post #111
notch656c wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this create a huge incentive for people to buy rolling "temporary" insurance plans which can consider pre-existing conditions, and then switch to subsidizing off the healthy once they actually get a condition and buy the regular ACA plans?

Yes, and that's one reason why costs have ballooned so much, the need to subsidize people who didn't pay while they didn't have a condition and now do. The temporary plans aren't even necessary, if you can wait until the next regular enrollment period. The ACA originally tried to hide that vulnerability by making insurance mandatory, then it appeared when that forcible mandate was repealed. Edit to reply to the reply…

... so we have the worst of both worlds. Insurers are forced to take pre-existing conditions, but you can wait until you have a condition before buying it.

I don't think that's even "insurance" at that point....

America may quite possible have the absolute dumbest system humanly possible.

Post reply on HN