Live data from Hacker News

“Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

gsb.stanford.edu

171–180 of 310 posts

Re: “Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

#171
post #154
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we have any evidence that the over-hiring was a mistake? Could companies not have seen the free money and decided to beef up their staff for short term gains in their roadmap, with the knowledge and intention that they will likely be cutting later while getting to keep all that intellectual output? I don't see why we put this past them.

Interesting way to look at it. It certainly makes sense that companies hire to capture intellectual output when money is cheap and then tighten spending when access to easy money goes away even if they are making money hand-over-fist in their business.

I think by and large it comes down to appeasing shareholders.

If there is a chance that predicted quarterly metrics are impacted, this type bloodletting acts as a hedge. The whole "we understand we're not where we said we'd be at and as a result we're cutting costs".

The issue of course is this is short-sighted thinking.

Re: “Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

#172

In the US layoffs are a method of getting rid of people who are normally untouchable because they fall into the EEOC protected classifications. As long as the group laid off is statistically diverse you can let them go without getting into individual situations - Bob’s performance was acceptable but we had to let go of X people in every division for economic reasons. Whereas otherwise Bob might sue saying poor review…

I would add to this that the people laid off are usually ones that are hard to quantify in terms of performance reviews, but that management doesn't want to keep. People that do just enough not to get fired, for example, or people who require much more management time, even if they are good performers, than others.

Re: “Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

#173
post #14

> instead of laying off 10% of their workforce, they had everybody take a 10% wage cut except for senior management, which took a larger cut. So instead of giving 100% of the pain to 10% of the people, they give 100% of the people 10% of the pain. This doesn't seem like a good strategy for tech. Cutting everyone's salary will dislodge your top performers who can get a better position even in poor market conditions.

I don’t think the math checks out: Salary isn’t the only expense, so you might be looking at a 15% wage cut to keep 10% of the workforce. With stock performance, I’ve already taken a 10% wage cut. Cut another 15% in cash and I’m gonna be super unhappy about my comp.

>"Cut another 15% in cash and I’m gonna be super unhappy about my comp."

In case of Google they already "overpaid" by more than that percentage wise. Sundar can just say take your unhappiness and shove it up the place. What you gonna do? Quit when every other FAANG is laying off in hope to find something better? I do not think Sundar would give a flying fuck about this kind of unhappiness.

Re: “Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

#174
post #31

The professor recommends across the board pay cuts as an alternative to layoffs. > One thing that Lincoln Electric, which is a famous manufacturer of arc welding equipment, did well is instead of laying off 10% of their workforce, they had everybody take a 10% wage cut except for senior management, which took a larger cut. So instead of giving 100% of the pain to 10% of the people, they give 100% of the people 10% of…

I think the first stage of cutting should be management taking a cut. That's what I've always done (3 times in the last 20+ years). Then all employees. Then layoffs.

Re: “Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with this strategy is that it causes the wrong people to leave. If you're a top performer, you're going to feel like a 10% pay cut is very unfair, and you're going to be able to get another job elsewhere fairly easily, even in this environment. If you're not performing particularly well, it probably doesn't feel as unreasonable, and even if you don't like it, it's tough to leave. When done correct…

Also, in some countries it is illegal to do a paycut.

Yea, constructive dismissal is a thing and some courts may determine that you have to pay out severance after somebody has their pay cut and then leaves.

Re: “Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would you go in this environment? Most of the top-name companies have had layoffs themselves, or at the very least are at the hiring freeze stage of the layoff routine.

There’s tons of very profitable companies hiring right now - the “top-name” companies doing layoffs were all “growth-first, profit-never” types. We’re not in an industry-wide downturn and there’s a hell of a lot more out there than FAANG or MANGA or whatever we’re calling it now.

> the “top-name” companies doing layoffs were all “growth-first, profit-never” types

What companies specifically are you referring to? In the last few months we've seen layoffs from Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Amazon. These rank among the most profitable tech companies in the world. https://companiesmarketcap.com/tech/most-profitable-tech-com...

Re: “Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I’m a bit confused on how an article on layoffs misses the massive increase in cost of capital. The entire market has changed.

How is the 'massive' increase in cost of capital affecting Google, a company making 60bln profit a year from mostly services?

I will assume you are asking in good faith, so here goes.

What you think of as "profit" -- e.g. just some random, arbitrary, completely free bonus that Google should be grateful to have at all -- is actually the cost of capital for Google. It is a payment to equity, and the amount of the payment is determined by the interest rate as well as the time path of expected future earnings, adjustment for risk, and other factors. The presence of these other confounding factors often confuse people and make them think profits are arbitrary. They are not. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it is random.

Now when the interest rate increases, that required payment goes up, because investors always have a choice of buying a share of google or buying a bond, and if the bond pays 7%, then buying a share of google should also give you 7%. Now, that 7% could be taken as future growth, as a number of things, but it still needs to be competitive with the bond, which is itself set by government policy in setting interest rates for the economy in such a way as to limit inflation. So we see that companies paying employees a lot of money without actually generating profits is related to inflation. Stop and think about it.

Recently, the government has not been doing a very good job of this and has set the rates -- the payments -- too low, causing inflation to be too high. It's now trying to correct, raise the rates, and so the required cost of capital -- the required profits of companies like Google -- have to increase.

Now suppose Google doesn't do that, e.g. it says "these profits are enough and you should be glad to have them". What investors do is say "well, I'd rather buy the bond" and so they sell their google shares and buy bonds, and in this way the value of Google falls up until the profit rate (profits divided by market price) is compatible with the bond. Well, so what? If Google shares sell for a dollar, who cares, since all that matters is that there be no layoffs, right? Well, when the market share falls below the liquidation value of the company, investors buy up the outstanding shares and liquidate the company. But long before that, there are lot of mechanisms -- e.g. stock options, voting on the corporate board -- that are designed to encourage decision makers to be aligned with the interests of shareholders so that you generally do not see companies trading for less than their scrap value for very long. And this does not need to happen to the whole company, most will scrap unprofitable divisions and projects and not stick their heads in the sand and wait for the whole company to be scrapped. What's an example of a company that has a ton of unprofitable projects? Hmm, one such name comes to mind.

So now we see why, when interest rates go up, businesses struggle to increase their profit margins -- and those that do not go out of business. It is no different for the farmer that needs to earn a higher return on his crop when interest rates rise, so the business needs to earn higher margins when interest rates rise as well. The higher interest rates cause a reduction in investment, which generates a reduction in spending and they incentivize more savings (deferral of spending), and in this way they reduce inflation, which everyone is complaining about as it hurts workers' standard of living.

Re: “Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

#178
post #7

This misses the main driver. Valuations are no longer based on growth. The entire market has shifted to profitability over growth. Companies with a stronger balance sheet coming out of the recession will be better positioned for the long term. Seems that companies that gained their valuations through growth weren't sustainable in the long run. And at a macro level, economic policy has largely deferred recessions sinc…

> This misses the main driver. Valuations are no longer based on growth. The entire market has shifted to profitability over growth.

Could have written this in 2001 or 2008 and it wasn't true then, and it probably isn't true now.

Re: “Copycat” layoffs won’t help tech companies or their employees

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re a top performer you bail as soon as there are layoffs anyways. I certainly do. It’s rarely a sign that anything good is in your future, they’re often performed poorly, and the work environment post-layoffs is incredibly bleak and disheartening. If you have options there’s no good reason to stay.

Where would you go in this environment? Most of the top-name companies have had layoffs themselves, or at the very least are at the hiring freeze stage of the layoff routine.

You’ll laugh but bear with me,

Meta recruiter just reached out to me this week, so even parts of Facebook are hiring, and my relevant skill set. Of course I don’t care about VR goggles, but you just had large layoffs, why would I work for you? (Plus ok Zuck is ruining your core business, but that aside)

Layoffs hurt inside and outside too.

Post reply on HN