Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

inc.com

201–210 of 250 posts

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#201
post #86

The real problem that author doesn’t call out is that at the end of the day, the people in charge don’t get hurt from these irresponsible boom and bust hiring practices. These companies knew the growth wouldn’t last, nothing lasts forever. They all maintain control while the little people suffer. The dream is to become insulated from the economic storms like they are.

Yeah; the thing that kind of triggered me on this was the Google CEO saying in December or January that he "takes full responsibility" for all these layoffs. "Full responsibiliyt"? Really? How are you doing that exactly? By still getting your full paycheck and bonus while you fired twelve thousand humans because you didn't consider that the economy after years of a pandemic might be volatile?

One is tempted to contrast this with a similar move made by Nintendo some years ago:

>Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata will slash his pay in half for the next five months, following disappointing financial results for the Wii U and 3DS maker.

>Other members of the Nintendo board will take a pay cut ranging between 20 and 30 percent of their salary.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-ceo-slashes-salar...

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And every CEO makes empty statements. Do you also believe the “we are family” bullshit? The DI&E initiatives? Did you believe the “Do no evil” motto they use to have? Why would I believe anything my CEO says in that regard who I am 7 levels removed from and I’m one of only 1 million+ employees at the 2nd largest employer in the US? I know I’m just a number. > Their next job might not pay as well As hinted above, I al…

I'm sorry, but how does me pointing out that a CEO's statement is a hollow meaningless platitude imply that I believed any corporate bullshit? Doesn't that suggest the opposite, that I don't believe it and I am pointing out that it's a frustrating meaningless gesture? And because I don't believe it, and because I think it's an outright lie, it's more frustrating. Are you suggesting that just because a lie is common,…

I’m not complaining about “having it worse”. I had two 3000 square foot houses built in the burbs, off of my corp dev compensation over the years, went on plenty of vacations and had a good middle class life.

I’m saying I don’t spend energy being “frustrated” about what a CEO says who doesn’t know me from Adam. My energy is better spent reading between the bullshit and preparing myself.

Do you also get frustrated by politicians lies?

Again, cry me a river for people who can’t live off of 3x+ the median wage in the US instead of 7x+ Yes I’m in the latter group.

I’ve changed jobs 8 times in my career not counting two or three contract jobs. I have it down to science now. It would be harder for me in this hiring environment admittedly.

I made damn sure I didn’t suffer from lifestyle inflation when my compensation went from working at a 60 person startup in corp dev to BigTech. For me it’s more like “it was fun while it lasted” and I used the money to increase my financial stability.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but how does me pointing out that a CEO's statement is a hollow meaningless platitude imply that I believed any corporate bullshit? Doesn't that suggest the opposite, that I don't believe it and I am pointing out that it's a frustrating meaningless gesture? And because I don't believe it, and because I think it's an outright lie, it's more frustrating. Are you suggesting that just because a lie is common,…

I’m not complaining about “having it worse”. I had two 3000 square foot houses built in the burbs, off of my corp dev compensation over the years, went on plenty of vacations and had a good middle class life. I’m saying I don’t spend energy being “frustrated” about what a CEO says who doesn’t know me from Adam. My energy is better spent reading between the bullshit and preparing myself. Do you also get frustrated by…

> Do you also get frustrated by politicians lies?

Of course I do. I don't enjoy being lied to, even if I know they're lying to me. I also do think that lies should be called out when exposed, even if they were obvious.

I never claimed that they "couldn't afford" to live off "3x+ the median wage", and this is now the second time that you've claimed I have. I said it's frustrating to have a negative pay delta, no matter how much the before and after is. This really should not be controversial or difficult to understand, which makes me think you do understand it and are conveniently playing ignorant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at any of the messages in this thread, I don't think anyone is "worried" about the ex-Googlers, despite your insistence to the contrary. Of course they will probably be fine, engineering is a pretty cushy gig. No one asked you to pity them, I just mentioned that a negative pay delta sucks and you've repeatedly gone off on some moral high-horse about how you're good about saving money.

That's fucking great, but please don't take this the wrong way, I really do not care about your spending habits, so I do not know why you keep bringing them up, other to do the "badass lack of empathy" thing I mentioned before.

ETA:

Also, is someone impersonating you? I see scarface_74 and scarface74; is this some way of laundering dislikes so they don't pollute your main account?

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And every CEO makes empty statements. Do you also believe the “we are family” bullshit? The DI&E initiatives? Did you believe the “Do no evil” motto they use to have? Why would I believe anything my CEO says in that regard who I am 7 levels removed from and I’m one of only 1 million+ employees at the 2nd largest employer in the US? I know I’m just a number. > Their next job might not pay as well As hinted above, I al…

I'm sorry, but how does me pointing out that a CEO's statement is a hollow meaningless platitude imply that I believed any corporate bullshit? Doesn't that suggest the opposite, that I don't believe it and I am pointing out that it's a frustrating meaningless gesture? And because I don't believe it, and because I think it's an outright lie, it's more frustrating. Are you suggesting that just because a lie is common,…

[deleted]

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the CEO also just a worker who must seek employment to earn a salary to live? Why or why not?

In some sense yes, if they couldn't live only from the return on their investments, they are technically a worker. That would be the Marxist definition but it's obviously more of a spectrum than a binary. CEOs in most large companies of course have enough wealth that they could live on that alone and they are only working as CEOs in order to increase that wealth. Their work also plays an anti-labour role in collabora…

I suspect there are quite a few software engineers who have been making $250K+ for some years who could live on the return on their investments alone.

I mean, I guess it also depends on live at what standard of living. At the standard of living they are "accustomed to", or at the standard of living of someone making $50K a year? Some larger number of software engineers who have been making $250K could live on their investment income alone for equiv of $50K/year after taxes.

So, right, more of a spectrum than a binary -- you see why some people are dubious of whether a software engineer making $250K a year is really in the same class as a retail worker making $50K a year (or less; federal minimum wage is still $7.25; my state's minimum wage is $13.25, less than $30k/year, a shockingly small amount to many of us, that many people actually make)

On other conversations, people have suggested that whether you are a "boss" and can hire and fire is determinative. But again, a fast food "manager" might be making only $50K a year, while a software engineer who does not manage people might be making $250K or more. The software engineer is a "worker" who definitely has the same class interests as a walmart worker, but the fast food manager is definitely not? Doesn't really check out.

You say "the Marxist definition", but I think that's actually a huge over-simplification of a Marxist analysis. Your class position and interests have to do with your income, your "relationship to the means of production" (role in the economy), your wealth, and other things. And it's probably useful to consider more than 2 or even 3 classes, and sub-classes within classes.

I think it's a huge over-simplification to claim that every software engineer making $250K surely is in the same class and has the same class interests as every fast food worker making $12/hour. That's not in fact a good Marxist analysis at all.

The pandemic made it pretty clear to me that there is definitely a class divide between the people in jobs where they paid to work from home (or in many cases, especially at first, stay home and not work); and the people who had to come in to get paid and/or who were were told not to come/laid off because there was no work to do.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not complaining about “having it worse”. I had two 3000 square foot houses built in the burbs, off of my corp dev compensation over the years, went on plenty of vacations and had a good middle class life. I’m saying I don’t spend energy being “frustrated” about what a CEO says who doesn’t know me from Adam. My energy is better spent reading between the bullshit and preparing myself. Do you also get frustrated by…

> Do you also get frustrated by politicians lies? Of course I do. I don't enjoy being lied to, even if I know they're lying to me. I also do think that lies should be called out when exposed, even if they were obvious. I never claimed that they "couldn't afford" to live off "3x+ the median wage", and this is now the second time that you've claimed I have. I said it's frustrating to have a negative pay delta, no matte…

> That's fucking great, but please don't take this the wrong way, I really do not care about your spending habits, so I do not know why you keep bringing them up, other to do the "badass lack of empathy" thing I mentioned before

Yet you care about a CEO and calling them out on a random internet site that they will never see?

My advice is a lot more actionable than worrying about a CEO or politician’s lies - save money, live below your means, don’t be a victim of lifestyle inflation and always be prepared to get another job.

Both accounts are mine and neither are getting negative votes. I just noticed that I’m logged into one from my phone and the other from my computer. At one point I made a mistake of setting the “noprocast” to a month and locked myself out. I created the other account with a similar name specifically because I didn’t want to be accused of astroturfing - ie having two separate accounts to seem like I’m agreeing with myself

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#207
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are presupposing that boom and bust hiring is bad, and worse than a more steady state approach. If one assumes perfection is impossible, it seems you suggest erring on the side of perpetually under-hiring as opposed to ever over-hiring. Why is that better?

A boom/bust cycle is over-hiring to the point that you need to lay people off. You can over-hire or under-hire in moderation.

To use an even more reasonable framing, absent some small numbers effect or some really high-impact shock, it's incredibly stupid to almost double the size of a company in one year.

That's how you lose your culture and throw the dice again on market fitness. (Well, that and randomly firing people.) Knowledge work just can't scale that fast, and nowadays every work is knowledge work.

What those companies did is bad from every possible point of view.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you also get frustrated by politicians lies? Of course I do. I don't enjoy being lied to, even if I know they're lying to me. I also do think that lies should be called out when exposed, even if they were obvious. I never claimed that they "couldn't afford" to live off "3x+ the median wage", and this is now the second time that you've claimed I have. I said it's frustrating to have a negative pay delta, no matte…

> That's fucking great, but please don't take this the wrong way, I really do not care about your spending habits, so I do not know why you keep bringing them up, other to do the "badass lack of empathy" thing I mentioned before Yet you care about a CEO and calling them out on a random internet site that they will never see? My advice is a lot more actionable than worrying about a CEO or politician’s lies - save mone…

> Yet you care about a CEO and calling them out on a random internet site that they will never see?

Google's CEO's decisions are far more consequential to me than your spending habits, so yes I think it's more prudent to call it out than worrying about how you save money.

Based on the numbers you provided a few posts up, I've had more jobs than you (14 in the last 11 eyars, and currently unemployed), so I'm well aware of how fragile a job can be, and I do save money pretty aggressively as a result of that.

And yet, having been fired and laid off multiple times, you know what? It still always sucks, and I can have sympathy for any human going through that, even if I know most of them will land on their feet.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how I can provide evidence without access to JSTOR. I don't feel like spending $30/paper to come up with statistics and studies for you.

I have access to JSTOR; which paper you want?

* https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quar...

* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-6486.0...

Thanks.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can over-hire or under-hire in moderation. It's unclear whether that would be better. In control theory, underdamped systems are generally preferred as it allows you to reach the desired value rapidly even though you often overshoot. Overdamped systems (IE hire in moderation) can be very slow to respond and often spend the majority of their time in the un-desired regime. It's quite possible that tech over-hiring…

He's advocating that the powers-that-be should consider targeting a slightly underdamped hiring system. Where they over-hire, and as they're overshooting the goal then reduce the rate of hiring, allowing the normal low rate of attrition to bring the PV back down to the SP. e.g. a one-half critically-damped system. something following a standard first-order ODE like: \frac{dh}{dt} = K_p (h^\* - h) - K_i \int (h^\* - h…

Right, I was advocating for underdamped. Yes you overshoot, but you generally spend more time near your setpoint (optimal value).
Post reply on HN