201–210 of 249 posts
Trump, who betrays everyone for personal benefit, there's a sociopath. Mullenwag's just got some personality vices that served him as underdog, and didn't adapt to when he gained power
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been there and done that. One startup I was at instituted a 50% pay cut for senior execs, 25% for the level below that and no cut below that. The CEO took a 100% pay cut. This let us get through a short rough patch without layoffs.
I worked at middle-sized company that instituted a pay cuts, cutting all bonuses and stopping raises. After year, company lost almost every person in tech managenent and most of team leaders, their clients actively executing forking rights and no one believes in company future now. I once heard wise words from some CEO. In harsh times, clients do not want cheaper and worse services from us. They want less services. S…
From where I am standing, leeches that are only there for fat bonuses left. Where's the loss?
And the measure you described also doesn't follow. Bad times always end and then you have a worse product. Will the execs pick up the new tech work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've spent any time in business at all, you know it's always the tea lady who gets fired first and the managers last. Many commenters here seem to live in some kind of fantasy world.
>the people running the business should fire themselves first? You were questioning whether they should , not whether they will. That's what people are responding to. They understand perfectly well who will get fired first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm of the mindset that any time a company does layoffs, they should start from the top And work down. Oh, to be young and idealistic again! So in your world, the people running the business should fire themselves first?
An honest question: why is this being downvoted? I thought that downvoting is meant to be used when someone is trolling or bringing the level of discussion down, not when you simply disagree with someone's point. I mean sure, it's stated a bit sarcastically, but my gosh if we're going to downvote every sarcastic comment, that would include a good portion of HN comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Financially your best bet is to be in the 1st round of layoffs. Ego-wise, it's best to be in the second round. First round there's still some money and a lot of guilt, so the severance tends to be good. By the time they lay off truly essential people, you're burnt out, and you're lucky if you don't have to sue to get what you're owed by law, let alone whatever policy they had for paying out vacation time or what have…
IMO, if there is any talk of "loyalty" in that first round of voluntary layoffs, you should always leave. Even if you were previously loyal, the company is changing and you won't like the results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the people running the business should fire themselves first? You were questioning whether they should , not whether they will. That's what people are responding to. They understand perfectly well who will get fired first.
I was questioning the idealism actually. There’s not much to be achieved by wishing the world was a certain way, it’s generally more useful to deal with the world as it is.
Its really important to discuss idealism for that reason alone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How infuriating for anyone recently hired caught in this trap. It seems to me the obvious, from both a business & human perspective, is to stop hiring at first signs of trouble, before layoffs. To do so otherwise is cruel. I doubt Matt had zero idea about this possibility two months ago.
The business world changes direction faster than companies can adapt. That was my biggest lesson as an entrepreneur: entrepreneurs don't really pivot into product-market fit, the market pivots into them . The reason capitalism works is because there's this huge sea of dream-chasers out there, most of whom will go bankrupt, so that when the market's needs change there is somebody out there to service them, and everybo…
You know what I absolutely hate about this take? It ignores my shared experience I've had with others (IE, its not just me). I've worked in this industry a long time. So I've inevitably worked for places that ran into financial trouble. In multiple of those cases, it could have been prevented if upper management actually listened to what those of us developing the product had to say about shifting customer behaviors and expectations, that what we were seeing was different from what they were trying to sell and have us develop. It always ended in disaster.
They refused to listen, but never paid the price for that failure, my colleagues did and in one instance, I was on the receiving end of a layoff along with others as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was questioning the idealism actually. There’s not much to be achieved by wishing the world was a certain way, it’s generally more useful to deal with the world as it is.
If we don't talk about what we feel is ideal, we can never strive to achieve it. Its really important to discuss idealism for that reason alone
What you say is true in some cases, but not in all cases.
Huh. >> There are no layoffs plans at Automattic, in fact we're hiring fairly aggressively and have done a number of acquisitions since this whole thing started, and have several more in the pipeline. https://old.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1hxnh73/automatt...
How infuriating for anyone recently hired caught in this trap. It seems to me the obvious, from both a business & human perspective, is to stop hiring at first signs of trouble, before layoffs. To do so otherwise is cruel. I doubt Matt had zero idea about this possibility two months ago.
We might argue about the parameters in this situation, but structurally there's a bias towards the low-pass average.