Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is every layoff 10-15%?

blog.eladgil.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 263 posts

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#211

Post by xtracto »

1letterunixname wrote: post #198

I just survived a round of layoffs at someplace mentioned. I think this is overthinking it or looking for a conspiracy theory. Layoffs aren't deeply calculated or hand-wrung over in advance. They're somewhat arbitrary and ambiguous but purposeful: to stop the hemorrhaging of cash. There's no clean or perfect way to do a layoff precisely in limited time, so they happen in discrete units of reduction in particular area…

I've had to do layoffs in my team (as head of Engineering, I had all visibility).

It was pretty straightforward and un-conspiranoic: The CEO got us all execs together and showed us the P&L which showed that we had 10 month runway. It also showed that (as in most companies) the highest burn rate was from payroll. Then he mentioned that we had to expand our runway to 18 months. Which meant cutting in various places (including no free sodas). Finally we agreed to cut payroll in 10%-15% , which would have a strong impact on the runway.

And that was it... pretty straightforward.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#212

Post by tester756 »

sys_64738 wrote: post #205
tsuujin wrote: post #200

> MAMA (Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Apple) This is such a lost opportunity for MAGMA (Meta, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple)

Is Meta still part of this now that they're struggling? The big four remaining allow for other combinations.

holy shit, isn't Apple 10 times bigger (valued) than Meta right now?

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#213

Post by fbdab103 »

irrational wrote: post #123
spamizbad wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEOs are also going to face significant budget scrutiny and will have to really justify signing a 10 year lease (which won't be cheap) instead of investing in things that are proven to drive growth. Class A office space outside of super expensive cities runs about $35/sqft on average. Employees need about 175 square feet each. So every employee is $6125 more expensive -- but that's only assuming you're renting somepl…

I’d really like to know what the numbers are for the company I work for. Even if they rent a building in a business park (because there is not enough room on campus for a group), they will completely revamp the building from top to bottom and make it completely bespoke. The last time I worked in one of these buildings, they brought in artists who spent a week stenciling words and artwork over a concrete wall. How muc…

But, don't you feel engaged to come to a place with such inspirational artwork? Truly, a company that cares.

/s

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#214

Post by fbdab103 »

randomsearch wrote: post #185
TexanFeller wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but many CEOs will tend to believe that things will go better with everyone back in the office Many of us SWEs believe the same!

I think on remote it’s worth reframing the argument a little. If you’re totally pro-remote, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this formulation. Consider an early stage startup of six employees. Working full remote - everyone at home, communicating via slack and zoom, working hours roughly the same. Vs 9-6 ish hours, some flexibility, where they all come into an office. That office is a small, modern, comfortable offi…

It was not clear to me from your description, but it sounds like all of the developers are crammed into a shared space? For me, that is a huge differentiator of WFH - so many companies have trash working environments. Open office or similar which look pleasant, but are horrible for concentration.

I want a private space where I can close the door and have minimal visual and auditory disruptions. It does not have to be large, enough space for my monitors + chair. If I need to talk to someone else, we can do it in a different location.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#215

Post by fbdab103 »

rsj_hn wrote: post #126
quelltext wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a great employer. I only have anecdotal data but from recent discussions with friends who got laid off, they all lost trust in their company's leadership and losing arbitrary team mates has made them unhappy and reduced morale. I don't know if it's something special this time but if great teammates you worked with since before the pandemic are cut off while ones joining after and never having achieve…

Higher management doesn't know who is productive and who isn't. The good lower-level managers have that visibility, and let's say the poor (or mediocre) managers don't. But whoever has that visibility, they would have already taken steps to get rid of underperformers and replace them with good performers. Therefore good managers have disproportionately good people. So when the senior management says "everyone lay 10%…

>But whoever has that visibility, they would have already taken steps to get rid of underperformers and replace them with good performers.

Putting a lot of faith in management to cull weak performers. Depending on the organization, it can take a lot of effort and political capital to get rid of someone ("What do you mean you want to fire the guy you just hired?"). Significantly easier to just coast and let them hang around without any boat rocking.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#216

Post by porb121 »

bruce511 wrote: post #11

Fortunately I've never had to invoke blanket headcount cuts. But, as an employer, I've been given the advice "cut once, cut deep" many times. The theory (which I understand) is that employees get skittish once you get to a second or third cut. The author suggests some companies could stand a 50% cut if that is what is needed. This month though we've seen twitter cull 50% and twitter users, and customers (advertisers)…

> Maybe twitter is a unique case because of other factors - Elon?

really, you think that a rapid change of leadership preceded by an extended legal battle is MAYBE a unique situation? Elon is very clearly one of the most erratic ceos of a 10b+ public company right now

customers and employees are uncertain about the future because the ceo and controlling shareholder seems to change his mind every day about twitter's product, company culture, and general philosophy every single day. if he laid off nobody it would still be mayhem.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#217

Post by avemuri »

bruce511 wrote: post #11

Fortunately I've never had to invoke blanket headcount cuts. But, as an employer, I've been given the advice "cut once, cut deep" many times. The theory (which I understand) is that employees get skittish once you get to a second or third cut. The author suggests some companies could stand a 50% cut if that is what is needed. This month though we've seen twitter cull 50% and twitter users, and customers (advertisers)…

I doubt they feel safe, and twitter is a unique case.

In general the cut once advice is not to make people less skittish immediately, it's to avoid the long term mistrust that comes from cutting repeatedly. When you do that, the message is you are either incompetent or you hid information from them the first time. A bigger one time cut is more shocking, but things settle down after and you have an opportunity to start building trust back up and put the company on an upward trajectory people will want to stay on.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#218

Post by scarface74 »

randomsearch wrote: post #185
TexanFeller wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but many CEOs will tend to believe that things will go better with everyone back in the office Many of us SWEs believe the same!

I think on remote it’s worth reframing the argument a little. If you’re totally pro-remote, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this formulation. Consider an early stage startup of six employees. Working full remote - everyone at home, communicating via slack and zoom, working hours roughly the same. Vs 9-6 ish hours, some flexibility, where they all come into an office. That office is a small, modern, comfortable offi…

> Consider an early stage startup of six employees

A small company is then going to have to lose the flexibility of hiring from anywhere in the country and have to compete for local talent. On top of that, one competitive advantage could be over larger better paying companies (especially now that hopefully most people have wises up enough to know that “equity” in a private company is statistically meaningless)

> The office has a closed door, and only the team are allowed in the office. The team chat amongst themselves as needed during the day.

That doesn’t alleviate the chief complaint about in office work - loud open offices - if I still have to listen to other people talk while I’m doing deep work.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#219

Post by scarface74 »

TexanFeller wrote: post #42
bbreier wrote: post #13

> Remote work > Anticipate more mid-size and smaller companies will go back more fully into the office as times get tougher. This will not be one size fits all, but will be an increasing trend. Up to this point in the article, whether you agree or disagree with the points, the author offers some arguments and reasoning supporting each. Here, they simply assert that small and mid-size companies will go into the office…

Companies will require RTO because it makes employees more productive. I've worked at one small and one large company during the pandemic involuntary WFH. In both cases productivity was noticeably worse, most especially for new employees onboarding remotely. I think WFH a couple days a week makes me more productive due to focus, but I'm unproductive and miserable now when none of my teammates ever come in. We're laug…

> In both cases productivity was noticeably worse, most especially for new employees onboarding remotely

Then that means your company doesn’t have a proper onboarding procedure. I was hired at $BigTech in June 2020 and didn’t meet any of my coworkers in person until 9/2021. I had a complete organized onboarding experience including all of the prerequisite indoctrination.

Re: Why is every layoff 10-15%?

#220

Post by scarface74 »

nickstinemates wrote: post #95
bbreier wrote: post #13

> Remote work > Anticipate more mid-size and smaller companies will go back more fully into the office as times get tougher. This will not be one size fits all, but will be an increasing trend. Up to this point in the article, whether you agree or disagree with the points, the author offers some arguments and reasoning supporting each. Here, they simply assert that small and mid-size companies will go into the office…

For our ~200 person company, remote has been more expensive than an office in the financial district, sf, fwiw. Cost of travel for team get togethers/offsites for a distributed team is expensive.

How much more expensive would salaries have to be to convince those same 200 people to work in SFO?

Ironically enough, I was just at a team meeting in the SFO financial district. They would have to pay me at least $100K more for me to even consider moving to San Francisco - and that’s only because my kids are grown and we could give up our nice big house in the burbs in a much lower cost area.

Post reply on HN