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

Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#191

Post by mysterydip »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #76
mysterydip wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I once got a call out of the blue that I was being laid off. I had always associated stability with success: as long as I was doing a good job, my job would be secure. That was not the case. It was purely a business decision for them, but I left dazed and wondering what to do. I had always planned job changes on my terms. But it was also freeing in that I now could find opportunities I would've missed. I'm mu…

Perhaps your last employers were dazed when you left.

I would always give at least two weeks notice, and in one case interview my replacement. So while it may have been a shock, they always had time to adjust, and I didn't leave loose ends.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#192

Post by baud147258 »

coldtea wrote: post #188
derekp7 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put this in a slightly different perspective. Let's say you had hired a babysitter so you could go out for the evening. At the last minute, the babysitter cancels, and it is too late to get another one. Now you are either scrambling (calling relatives, etc) or you cancel your evening plans. Now let's add to this that your kids really like this particular babysitter, who has quit the babysitting business permanentl…

> Which is why it is critical to live within 75% of your paycheck, so that every year you can survive 3 months unemployment. And then you get sudden medical bills or more months unemployment or some other sudden expense :-(

But if you're not living paycheck to paycheck, unexpected expense are easier to survive.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#193

Post by pm90 »

bb88 wrote: post #187
ericd wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The culture difference is huge. I would venture to say that Silicon Valley is probably closer to NYC culturally (at least nowadays) than it is to LA. But the reason I mentioned it was that you were talking about SV in the context of this article, and I just wanted to make sure that you knew he wasn't actually in SV. But yeah, I guess that's mostly relevant because they're very different areas.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I will avoid the LA area when finding my next gig.

Well hold on now :).

I was recently job hunting and got a great job offer from a startup in Culver City. Their compensation was competitive (for LA at least) and my impression of the team was extremely good. I also liked LA the last time I was there (strangely enough, for an Onsite at SNAP) so was really excited about it.

I chose a competing offer from an SF based company in the end. But It wasn't an easy decision. So don't rule out LA without at least giving it a chance.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#194

Post by candiodari »

bengale wrote: post #89
fjsolwmv wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps your last employers were dazed when you left.

Most employers are aware of how business engagements work.

And the reason you see "starter-level" next to important jobs is that most employers are aware ...

that starters don't have a clue.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#195

Post by bumblebritches5 »

mywittyname wrote: post #141
toephu2 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Steve Jobs is disposable. How many here remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard Steve Jobs passed away? Almost like being able to recall where you were when 9/11 happened. When I heard of his death I was shocked, I wondered how Apple would survive, how the world for that matter would move on? But sure enough the next day the sun still rose and and the earth still rotated. Today Apple is…

> Almost like being able to recall where you were when 9/11 happened. Is this sarcasm that I'm not picking up on? I literally can't remember what year SJ died. I can't even remember what generation iPhone was his last.

2011, and the iPhone 4s was released a few days after he died.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#196

Post by allannienhuis »

benatkin wrote: post #128
allannienhuis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea might work better for products than departments. I worked for an employer who did exactly that when one of the new product/business they'd built wasn't growing (enough?) to warrant more investment. So he set up a couple of the developers working on the product with the rights to the product and helped work out new contracts with the existing handful of clients (it was large enterprise software). There was en…

Sounds like they should have shut down the product but kept the developers. If they were able to run the business on their own, they were probably 10x developers. Even if they lost half of their momentum by being switched to a new team, they still would have been great for the company.

Shutting down the product is exactly what they were trying to avoid. As a business owner, he made commitments to his customers to support the software he sold them. Walking away from those commitments would have compromised his reputation and hurt his ability to sell in other new markets. I think it was primarily a personal obligation he felt towards his clients, and a matter of integrity.

In the B2B space, the costs of switching vendors/products is often a really big deal. Spinning the product off released him from the obligation (allowing him to focus on more promising products), and avoided (most of?) the pain for his clients.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#197

Post by bb88 »

candiodari wrote: post #190
bb88 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remind myself and others that they wouldn't have a "Human Resources" department if companies didn't believe that humans were resources. It's not "feelings management" or "people support", it is HR for a reason.

I'm sure that if there's too many posts like this they'll rename it. Probably to something they perceive as better like your suggestion "people support". But of course, it's function, to protect the firm from it's employees, won't change.

> But of course, it's function, to protect the firm from it's employees, won't change.

That's part of the problem right there:

"We only hire the best".

"We need to protect the company from the employees."

It seems like if you really did the first statement, there wouldn't be a need for the second. If you find yourself using the second statement to justify a management action, then your management (you or your company) has failed.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#198

Post by twodave »

outworlder wrote: post #63
twodave wrote: post #37

I don't get why people ever thought a job was anything other than a strictly professional relationship. Your employer is not your family, and if they say you are then that's a red flag because it means your employer will want you to give them more than they deserve. If you are relying on a business to pay your living expenses indefinitely because you've been loyal or whatever other nonsense, that is lunacy. If you're…

> If you're not producing some kind of value then you are dragging your company down, and you should be let go. Have you worked at big companies? This has nothing to do with producing value. It has to do with whatever "strategic direction" the company wants to take. You can be profitable, but your whole division will be cut off if there is a conflict with whatever a more powerful exec is doing. Layoffs are different…

This actually explains excellently my own averseness to working at big companies.
Post reply on HN