Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

news.ycombinator.com

191–200 of 329 posts

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#191
post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

People where hiring because their valuations were large. All the organisations now had to grow into that valuation. Expansion and contraction of head count is a normal thing in an orgs life-cycle that reflects the economy. CEO's job is to think about the stakeholders first and then employees. There are not many levers to play with to adjust the net revenue, growth and valuations. Growth have become stagnant or even lower, revenues are impacted and valuations are down. Only lever that is in control is head count others are dictated by external forces.

PS. No one employee was complaining when these companies were in a hiring spree and could see it was not sustainable. Startup had a hard time competing with the salaries offered by these orgs.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#192
post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

I disagree that CEOs aren't thinking for themselves. In many cases, they are thinking perfectly rationally. Companies don't live in a vacuum. If everyone else is raising salaries, it's to attract and retail talent. If you don't do the same, you will lose current employees and not attract new ones. If everyone else is doing layoffs, then it's a good time to do layoffs that perhaps you were considering anyway.

Say you've been wanting to close down an unproductive division and let go of low-performing employees in other divisions for a few years now. You sure as hell weren't going to do that in early 2022, when you'd risk a lot of other employees jumping ship at the first signs of cracks in the house. But in 2023, you can do layoffs and get away with it.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#193
post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

A financial stampede

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#194

Oh my sweet summer child.... As someone who lived through the .COM crash and implosion and then 2008, any company with "strong cash reserves" and "trajectory to profitability" is not making more money than they are spending. They are, to use the SV term - losing runway. This is catastrophic because it's infeasible to raise money right now to extend the runway. If the plane is not airborne (making significantly more m…

> almost every company could handle this by simply not rehiring after attrition

The problem is that there's a selection bias for attrition. It's possible that your worst employees are the ones who stick around the longest.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#195
post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

There exists a contingent of people who insist that whenever a big company does something it is because they have gotten all the smartest people to do all the research and run all the numbers and they have determined with absolute confidence that it is the most profitable thing to do. I think about those people sometimes.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google hasn’t really demonstrated a good track record of revolutionary launches. Doing so requires risk and long term investment and vision. Bigger companies have more to lose with risk and thus take much “safer” risks because CEO and middle management are incentivized to do that - risky bets might cause you to be on the losing side of a bet and end up regressing from where you are now. Risky bets are also how you ca…

> Google hasn’t really demonstrated a good track record of revolutionary launches. I disagree. Search was the original product, and since then, Google has launched the following other products/technologies that I would also describe as revolutionary: Gmail, Maps, Android, Chrome, Ads/AdSense, YouTube (depending on who you give credit to), MapReduce, Kubernetes, TPUs, TensorFlow, and I'm sure I'm missing some. The tra…

I'm not familiar with all of those but if the ones I am none are revolutionary. They are mostly just a large company using their vast resources to capture market share. Gmail, Android and Chrome aren't revolutionary in the least bit. They are just Google taking over existing segments to sell ads more effectively. Same for maps, perhaps street view was at the least innovative.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I work for a company with "strong cash reserves" and "trajectory to profitability", and I was a child in 2008. We haven't done any layoffs yet, but it's definitely possible. Any advice for someone in my position with no recession experience?

Study up for technical interviews. Do some real interviews for practice. Update your resume. Network. Build a larger emergency fund. Check your budget and plan through how you could lower your expenses if the hammer falls. Think through alternative income you could build.

This, but with one twist: "... plan through how you could lower your expenses if the hammer falls."

Don't just plan - implement that plan now. You won't be any worse off, and will be much better prepared if the hammer actually falls.

If the hammer does NOT fall, then the money you saved while in this mode is just a nice little problem to have - pay down other debt, save it, etc...

I went through the 2000 .com bust and learned this lesson in time for the 2008 slowdown. It really helped and also allowed me to trim some unwanted expenses long term.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#198
Has anyone at an unprofitable company ever been told that they "were NOT on a trajectory to profitability"???

I feel like that the statement that you are on a path to breakeven, means absolutely nothing. And that you should ALWAYS consider yourself to be in a high risk situation if your company is losing money.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#199
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's very reasonable for the board to at least ask: "Why do we think we're so special?" Which may have a good answer. But also may not.

What if the answer was "There's data to show layoffs are counter productive, not just for us but for most of these companies. They're jumping off a cliff and we don't have to follow" ?

Presumably some number of companies arrived at that answer and thus won't do layoffs, while others dispute the data or think that they're in the minority of companies where layoffs are good.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#200

Oh my sweet summer child.... As someone who lived through the .COM crash and implosion and then 2008, any company with "strong cash reserves" and "trajectory to profitability" is not making more money than they are spending. They are, to use the SV term - losing runway. This is catastrophic because it's infeasible to raise money right now to extend the runway. If the plane is not airborne (making significantly more m…

> almost every company could handle this by simply not rehiring after attrition The problem is that there's a selection bias for attrition. It's possible that your worst employees are the ones who stick around the longest.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN