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

LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 294 posts

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#171

Post by 6D794163636F756 »

runako wrote: post #156
slg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly like the entertainment industry and it is the whole reason the Hollywood unions have fought so hard to get and maintain ongoing compensation via residuals. An actor usually spends a few weeks working on a movie and then the studio profits in perpetuity off that work. Tom Cruise finished filming Top Gun: Maverick years ago, but people are still streaming, renting, and purchasing that movie bringing in…

> Tom Cruise finished filming Top Gun: Maverick years ago, but people are still streaming, renting, and purchasing that movie bringing in massive profit for the studio. This is also true of the original Top Gun, released ~37 years ago. Very little software has that kind of long-term earning power, further supporting the idea that software work is not all that unique as work goes.

It is as of yet unclear if software will reach that long term profitability. Video games certainly can have it though. I've purchased copies of games which were coded before I was born. Tech is still a young and growing industry where we find new use cases every day. As this slows and as software is perfected this may change. If someone designs the perfect email app it may just be able to run in steady state for decades. We haven't seen that but it may be a reality at some point in the next two decades.

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#172

Post by hackernewds »

berdario wrote: post #113
jihadjihad wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the more perplexing takes I've seen, assuming this isn't satire

Yeah, I agree that the trend is pretty bad... And little will fundamentally prevent things to get as bad as the parent describes But construction and retail? Really? We are paid multiples of what people working in those sectors are being paid :/

for spinning on a chair no less

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#173

Post by pandaman »

slg wrote: post #163
pandaman wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make, had LeBron James and Tom Cruise made a choice to join a union? Was the not joining an option for either of them? From what I know you cannot play in NBA nor you can play in Hollywood w/o being a union member. From what I can imagine each of them would do much better w/o being a union member if they are as good as you described them.

>had LeBron James and Tom Cruise made a choice to join a union? Yes >Was the not joining an option for either of them? Yes > From what I know you cannot play in NBA nor you can play in Hollywood w/o being a union member. That isn't true. It is much harder in Hollywood than in the NBA, but some people decide to not join or leave the union. Jon Voight is the most famous example that comes to mind. He continues to work…

>It is much harder in Hollywood than in the NBA

Can you expand on this, what is "harder" exactly? They don't enjoy the benefits of the union or they cannot get high paying roles? Also, are you implying Jon Voight is not a SAG member, if so, I'd like to see your sources because from what I can find he is a member while being in dispute with it (also shows how great the unions are).

And as far as NBA goes, not being a member is irrelevant as you are still paying dues and obey union regulations, fun fact I've found looking for this: Michael Jordan was not a member of the union and does seem to do better than LeBron James, e.g. there are those "Jordan" shoes which seem to do much stronger than "LeBrons".

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#174

Post by paxys »

bluGill wrote: post #166
paxys wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need to go to the office once every 3 months you can fly in from anywhere in the country. No need to live within commuting distance for that.

I cannot fly and be there with 2 hours notice though. Sometimes flights are full and you can't get there at all with less than a few weeks notice. Often you can, but the cost for same day tickets can be very high. Planning months in advance is done all the time, but it is hard. It is always easier to plan if you can look at the current most urgent project list and pick the top item. if you have to plan what will be o…

To me the biggest advantage of WFH is that I can choose to live in an area that fits my lifestyle and needs. If a company says "you can work from home but be near the office so that we can call you in whenever we want with zero notice" then that isn't really a remote job. In fact it is the worst of both worlds, because you lose the flexibility of being remote as well as the community and perks of an office.

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#175

Post by cryptonector »

WalterBright wrote: post #102
tannedNerd wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like if US companies are proven to off shore jobs they should take a massive tax hit the same year. Like you are required to pay 5 years worth of the salary of the job you off shored into unemployment or retraining funds.

Protectionism doesn't make an economy more prosperous. Quite the reverse, it makes an economy uncompetitive.

I used to think so, before I understood that we live in a mercantilist world economy. I still think protectionism would be bad in a less distorted economy, and I think it's bad in as-distorted an economy as ours (because people who are subjected to pressure are more likely to be adaptive and dynamic), but it's harder to make the case, don't you think?

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#176

Post by slg »

pandaman wrote: post #173
slg wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>had LeBron James and Tom Cruise made a choice to join a union? Yes >Was the not joining an option for either of them? Yes > From what I know you cannot play in NBA nor you can play in Hollywood w/o being a union member. That isn't true. It is much harder in Hollywood than in the NBA, but some people decide to not join or leave the union. Jon Voight is the most famous example that comes to mind. He continues to work…

>It is much harder in Hollywood than in the NBA Can you expand on this, what is "harder" exactly? They don't enjoy the benefits of the union or they cannot get high paying roles? Also, are you implying Jon Voight is not a SAG member, if so, I'd like to see your sources because from what I can find he is a member while being in dispute with it (also shows how great the unions are). And as far as NBA goes, not being a…

The unions have power in the industry and they work to maintain that power. That includes trying to establish rules making it difficult for union members to work non-union gigs and vice versa. This gives incentives for studios to make their productions union jobs which strengthens the union.

An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work because people generally don't want to deal with these headaches. However, actors can certainly have careers without being in the union. This is easier in places like Chicago or Atlanta were there is still a decent amount movie/TV production, but a lower percentage of the work is union work.

Jon Voight is a "fees-paying non-member". He is not part of the union. He has to pay dues whenever he wants to work union jobs.[1] Same as your NBA example.

I think you are mistaken about Michael Jordan. He opted out of union's shared licensing agreement[2] which is just one of the many benefits of the union. Have you found something that says he completely left the union?

[1] - https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/voight-gets-nom-i...

[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/01/sports/sports-of-the-time...

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#177

Post by bee_rider »

monero-xmr wrote: post #87
gabyar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first job was at a tech company with a union. Boeing. It was ridiculously bad. I've never worked with less talented people. One of my coworkers did nothing, at all, for 2 years. But with 17 years of experience, he couldn't be fired. I carried the team, but they couldn't pay me what I was worth or promote me. I left as soon as I could.

People love simple answers to complex problems. Unions are such an example. The core idea behind a union makes sense - it's legalised extortion. Unions have codified in the law the ability for everyone in the union to hold the owner of property at ransom until they meet the union's demands. The only counterweight is the threat of bankruptcy, which ruins everything for everyone, but because the ideology of labor is ve…

Unions are extortion in the same sense that a utility company or something like Amazon is extortion; I need to agree to some terms and conditions and pay up, or they’ll stop providing service.

Which is to say, most ongoing services in a capitalist country are provided under the “threat” that if you break the deal you agreed to, you’ll have to look elsewhere to get that service going forward.

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#178

Post by nojito »

g00gler wrote: post #158
nojito wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Are you implying that those developers can’t compete with US developers?

How about US developers can’t compete with offshore developers? Average Indian earns $571/mo. Even if devs earn 2x average you’d be able to hire at least 3 for just the average SF/NYC rent a developer in the US has to pay let alone taxes, benefits, etc. Not particularly good for the country or economy long term; is the end game to destroy the US and start over paying people here $571/mo?

Why isn’t it good for the country?

Are you implying not having access to semiconductors built elsewhere or goods built elsewhere wasn’t a net positive for the US?

The idea that software development was immune to this inevitable change is nonsensical.

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#180

Post by JumpCrisscross »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #45
coldpie wrote: post #4

Good news for those 700: because we don't have tech worker unions, they are able to individually bargain the terms of their layoff! ...right?

Don’t you know? We 10x engineers are so special that we are waving off offer after offer and that will never end. Not only will that never end, but luckily I’m so perfect that I’ll never experience a disability or need any accommodation that I can’t just code or build myself. I mean even then, certainly you had a good enough exit at your first company (like anyone good) that you could basically retire whenever. I mea…

It’s difficult to see unions as anything but a failed model. What they advocate for, workers’ rights, is noble. But the divisiveness they employ makes them a political distraction. We need workers’ rights in law for everyone. Not just those who are in a union.
Post reply on HN