LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide • Hacker News Board

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#211

Post by markkanof » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:09 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #187

notyourwork wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're there to make more money than they cost. This is the key most people ignore. If each employee generates revenue greater than their cost of employment, why not keep them around? The goal isn't keeping the lights on, its making money.

To pull in a side topic on this very idea -- it's crazy that Congress chooses to defund and target the IRS, their own tool for revenue generation. Can you imagine how much money each IRS employee can bring in? I know there's stealth doctrinal reasons for engaging in the shenanigans, but at a practical level, cmon, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

But it's not like the IRS is having sales people cold call Americans and convince them to send more money. Even if you take the most charitable interpretation of what taxes are (ie. you think they are legitimate and necessary at their current level), it still makes most sense to automate as much of the IRS process as possible. Otherwise those IRS employees are eating up tax resources that could be applied to other things.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#212

Post by TulliusCicero » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

varjag wrote: post #128

kube-system wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seemingly no consequence This is the same fallacious statement in reverse. You couldn't build LinkedIn in a weekend because they do a lot of things you don't see. Also, when they fire a bunch of people, it will affect a lot of things you also don't see. Could someone compare today's and yesterday's Wayback Machine results for your company's website and demonstrate the value everyone at your company generated today?

The GP post was a wall of text basically explaining how you can't run a large website without tens thousands of staff. Surely it would fall apart if you suddenly cull 10% one fine Friday?

That is, in fact, not what it said.

It didn't say that you absolutely needed tens of thousands of staff, but that tens of thousands of staff often made sense to hire.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#213

Post by MagnumPIG » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:13 PM UTC

jiofih wrote: post #163

Wow, this means linkedIn has ~16k employees? What on earth are all those people working on?

Ads.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#214

Post by habosa » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:13 PM UTC

I find it a little disappointing how when any large company reduces staffing it always makes the news.

I'm not at all saying these people at LinkedIn deserve this, I bet they're smart people and I hope they find new employment very soon.

But speaking generally ... many of us have worked at or worked with big bloated companies. We all know that many of them could be improved by slimming down. But we report on it like its a sign of the downfall.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#215

Post by prawn » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:23 PM UTC

habosa wrote: post #214

I find it a little disappointing how when any large company reduces staffing it always makes the news. I'm not at all saying these people at LinkedIn deserve this, I bet they're smart people and I hope they find new employment very soon. But speaking generally ... many of us have worked at or worked with big bloated companies. We all know that many of them could be improved by slimming down. But we report on it like…

I always think "Those 960 people had jobs there for a while - that's a positive". I've worked for myself the last 20 years so I'm occasionally jealous of anyone who's had even a year of stable, predictable income.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#216

Post by beachy » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

> "Our Talent Solutions business continues to be impacted as fewer companies, including ours, need to hire at the same volume they did previously."

We're in a recruitment-related field (online background checking) and we can clearly see that recruitment activity has dropped way off, even in sectors that are largely unaffected by the pandemic.

My theory is that people are clinging on to their jobs tightly as unemployment rises, so discretionary turnover is way down.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#217

Post by supernova87a » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

markkanof wrote: post #211

supernova87a wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To pull in a side topic on this very idea -- it's crazy that Congress chooses to defund and target the IRS, their own tool for revenue generation. Can you imagine how much money each IRS employee can bring in? I know there's stealth doctrinal reasons for engaging in the shenanigans, but at a practical level, cmon, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

But it's not like the IRS is having sales people cold call Americans and convince them to send more money. Even if you take the most charitable interpretation of what taxes are (ie. you think they are legitimate and necessary at their current level), it still makes most sense to automate as much of the IRS process as possible. Otherwise those IRS employees are eating up tax resources that could be applied to other th…

You may not know there is a huge job the IRS needs people to do: audits and reviews, which are not automated. And take cases to court.

Every IRS employee who is available to review tax filings can probably bring in multiple (probably dozens of) millions of $ of incorrectly or improperly filed taxes. Tell me that's not worth paying a person's annual salary for?

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#218

Post by cosmodisk » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

curiousllama wrote: post #8

Companies commonly use layoffs as an easy way to get rid of under-performing staff, realize cost savings from previous investments (e.g., automation) ahead of schedule, or efficiently reorganize divisions whose execs fall out of favor. Not going to say this is good, but a However callous it is, roles on the margin get cut when prospects for growth dim.

Having dealt with LinkedIn, I honestly think there's another 10-15% of people who wouldn't probably have their jobs if LI had better systems in place.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#219

Post by Leherenn » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

drchopchop wrote: post #61

Nextgrid wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm baffled by that number given how bad the product is. It has a lot of potential, but is completely ruined by the social media aspect and their attempt at making it yet another cesspool like Twitter or Instagram, all the way down to the algorithmic feed, likes and reactions. They should step away from the nonsense and make the tool (because yes it should be seen as a tool and not a lifestyle) easier to use, not har…

I think at this point, for most people, LinkedIn just serves as a repository for formatted resumes. Connections add a bit of value, as you can see where co-workers end up in the future. The real problem is that for anyone with decent-sounding title, the amount of inbound spam is incredibly high. Endless outsourced development companies, recruiters, and random people wanting to connect for no discernible reason. Add t…

Does anyone have insight on those random connections?

I'm at the bottom of the pile in terms of job title, and I think my profile is open to everyone, so I struggle to understand why a wood worker from half way across the globe would like to connect with me.

And it's not like they even try to talk to you or anything, so it feels like I'm missing something.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#220

Post by jsjohnst » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #94

blocked_again wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If these laid-off employees have an average fully-loaded cost of $400,000 (which probably isn't too far off), I highly doubt that. Most of the folks who were let go are from HR/Sales. Plus a portion of the folks are located in India and all.

Fine. Even if they average $200,000, you are still looking at a quarter billion dollars a year. That will still show up in your quarterly results.

> Even if they average $200,000

You’re still way high. It might help to step outside the software engineering bubble once in a while and learn what folks outside your field are paid.

LinkedIn probably has >1,000 employees who make around US$50,000 a year or less.