Google to reduce workforce by 12k • Hacker News Board

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#181

Post by dzonga » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:27 AM UTC

iLoveOncall wrote: post #53

dzonga wrote: post #30

I blame companies for blaming with people's lives like this: not market dynamics. companies are the ones that decided to overhire, overpay - based on covid demand, cheap money that was floating around. companies not the market, resulted in a war over talent. now it's a war on talent. and of course everyone and their grandma will want to work at these tech companies where life is laid back and you get all the benefits…

> companies are the ones that decided to overhire, overpay - based on covid demand, cheap money that was floating around But this concept of over-hiring and overpaying doesn't make sense. There is no way to predict whether a positive economy will last 10 years or 10 months, and if you don't follow the economic growth you will lose bigger than if you follow it and have to make cuts later. Everyone is quick to blame co…

overpaying makes sense, over-hiring makes sense.

for two comparable companies, with comparable products look at Asana vs Basecamp.

How much does Basecamp pay for a senior engineer ? they pay top end of SF salary regardless of location. However, you can best that Asana is paying at least 1.5x what Basecamp pays + RSU's etc.

Yet Basecamp is printing money and yet Asana is bleeding money.

How many engineers does Basecamp have ? How many does Asana have ?

so yeah the concept of overpaying and over-hiring exists and not just a fallacy.

if it was market driven, then the laws of the market would dictate Asana not to pay a premium over Basecamp for talent.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#182

Post by lessname » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:27 AM UTC

This leaves only Apple as a tech giant that has not announced layoffs yet. I wonder if they are going to follow this "trend".

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#183

Post by coredog64 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:28 AM UTC

bsaul wrote: post #157

eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

I agree with others here pointing that firing people isn't necessary a sign of having mismanaged the company. However, i think a good gesture as a CEO when acknowledging your company is going through rough times would be things like postponing your bonus, or diminishing your payroll. That would be classy. Note that the same could be said for politicians in charge. You want people in the country to make sacrifice and…

Tim Cook did this explicitly, while Jassy’s comp (99.999% RSU) had it managed for him by Wall Street.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#184

Post by astrange » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:28 AM UTC

Silverback_VII wrote: post #13

Well, developing AI systems which are able to replace you and your abilities was not the best idea I guess.

Since Google employees don't do any revenue-generating work, an AI doesn't need any skills in order to also not do any of that.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#185

Post by dom96 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:29 AM UTC

eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

Guess that means Apple layoffs are next

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#186

Post by kkoncevicius » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:30 AM UTC

I don't understand some of the comments here, maybe someone can explain.

Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed? As far as I am aware working for a company is not a life-long situation.

And further - why don't we invert it and praise these companies for supplying thousands of six figure jobs for years. Surely being employed for several years is better than never being hired at all?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#187

Post by yodsanklai » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:31 AM UTC

eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

> I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

As long as they pay well, I don't think it will. And it's not like alternatives are safer.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#188

Post by refurb » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:31 AM UTC

MonkeyClub wrote: post #92

eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

> It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups I’m becoming more and more convinced that they’re preparing for a global recession. I posed such an Ask HN a while ago, before the Microsoft layoffs, where the general takeaway was that there’s no indication for a recession. However, after the 10+12K layoffs by the giants, and constant news about smaller layoffs by smaller companies (in the 100s per…

I keep getting reminded of that scene from the movie Margin Call about the 2008 financial crisis (great movie by the way):

There are three ways to make a living in this business: be first; be smarter; or cheat. Now, I don't cheat. And although I like to think we have some pretty smart people in this building, it sure is a hell of a lot easier to just be first.

The recession might not be here yet, but it’s a lot easier to reduce costs before it hits.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#189

Post by pocket_cheese » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:31 AM UTC

jatins wrote: post #100

I wonder if 6% really moves the needle in terms of cost. Coupled with the fact they are still hiring it feels like succumbing to investor pressure rather than a real cost cutting measure.

If the average cost of those employees is 150k usd, then it's 1.8 billion. I imagine it's probably much higher than 150k depending on how many were US based engineers. If they make 55ish billion this year, I think it makes a pretty decent impact.

I 100% support siphoning as much money as possible while doing as little work as possible (a.k.a coasting). However, from a capitalist perspective, it makes sense to try to weed those people out. Gone are the days of a 26 year old making as much as a neurosurgeon while working 20 hours a week.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#190

Post by ritzaco » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:32 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #99

This 'I take full responsibility' thing is getting really tiresome. Of course you take full responsibility, you're the f'ing CEO, and in case on account of this someone loses their house I'm sure you'll make good on it, because it's your responsibility, right?

It's an over-compensation for the earlier responses that blamed things on "unforeseeable market conditions" or something in a "we did everything perfectly and this is just the way the world is" kind of excuse.

It doesn't really help the people who are out of a job, but I think it's a nice gesture at least to say "this one is on us, we'll reflect on what went wrong and try to do things differently next time" even though I have around 0 faith that any of these leaders would hire less in another Covid-like scenario where funding was cheap and demand for their services was growing.