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

191–200 of 294 posts

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

#191

Post by addicted »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #180
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. It’s pretty much only in the US that there are union workers and non union workers in the same field. If you haven’t already guessed, this is entirely a ploy by corporations, and the US govt to weaken unions by creating differences where none exist.

2. Unions rarely, if ever, negotiate rights only for their own workers. The massive union protests prior to COVID asking for minimum wage increases didn’t ask for minimum wage increases only for union workers. They asked for federal and in some cases statewide increases in minimum wage which would affect all workers.

3. A lot of the research shows that higher union salaries also translate into higher non-union salaries, so union efforts also very directly help non union workers.

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

#192

Post by WalterBright »

cryptonector wrote: post #175
WalterBright wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Protectionism means you're protecting inefficient industries. In a global marketplace, this means industries in other countries will out-compete yours.

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

#193

Post by CSMastermind »

The older I get the less enthusiastic I get about government regulations with a few exceptions. First, ones that balance the cost of negative externalities, clearly not being accounted for in the behavior of market participants.

Second, ones that increase the information about a market (transparency) so that all participants can make better decisions.

To that second end I would really love to see governments force companies to report headcount on a per role basis and anonymized compensation data about each of these roles on a monthly basis.

That way would could more easily contextualize posts like this one.

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

#195

Post by LapsangGuzzler »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #180
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

And how do you propose we align around such things? It seems like you’d need to organize your labor pool and possibly position yourself to bargain collectively, perhaps?

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

#196

Post by catlover76 »

fullshark wrote: post #184
slg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is said in jest, but I just want to remind people there is no such thing as being too valuable to be a member of a union. LeBron James is in a union. Tom Cruise is literally striking right now as part of the SAG-AFTRA union strike. Unless John Carmack happens to be reading this, I guarantee you are not close to being as valuable an engineer as LeBron is a basketball player or Cruise is an actor.

LeBron James is also underpaid, at least his NBA salary. That's why he chose his team based on whatever would be best for his "brand" so he could make real money.

> LeBron James is also underpaid, at least his NBA salary.

By what logic?

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

#197

Post by lotsofpulp »

tannedNerd wrote: post #5
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #3

> LinkedIn is now ramping up hiring in India, according the person familiar. So, laying off people in the US and hiring in India?

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.

Should California impose massive tax hits to businesses that move jobs to other states?

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

#198

Post by pandaman »

slg wrote: post #176
pandaman wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

>An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work

This does not make membership an option, does it then? This is exactly the reason programmers like myself oppose the unions. Bringing up SAG in this context seems to be counter-productive to me but you can do that if you think this increases union's support somehow.

So I was wrong on the Jordan's membership, then who was playing in NBA without being a member if you say it's possible?

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

#199

Post by nerdbert »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #180
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only divisiveness I see (after many years in many different union shops) is planted by corporate flaks in an attempt to divide and conquer the other side of the negotiating table.
Post reply on HN