Layoffs Are Cruel and Don't Work

Post by robryan » Sat, Feb 04, 2023, 6:42 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #151

jeffwask wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two different contexts around layoffs. 1) The company is struggling, losing money, etc and needs to tackle corrective action before everyone loses their jobs. 2) The company is generating record revenues, profits are high, but growth will be 4% instead of 5% so we need layoffs. There seem to be a staggering number of layoffs from camp two. > But it's weird to see all of these think pieces implying that once…

> Investors are pulling their hair out because Apple only made $117 billion. Is anyone really going to miss that $4 billion? You'll hear investors and talking heads calling for corrective layoffs when in reality nothing needs to be done. They are still ridiculously profitable and will continue to be. I feel like this is hitting on something that hasn't been given enough attention: what happens when a company doesn't…

Post by solatic » Sat, Feb 04, 2023, 6:44 AM UTC

fsociety wrote: post #66

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #31

Nobody likes getting laid off. But it's weird to see all of these think pieces implying that once someone is hired into a job, that job should exist forever. Things change. Company growth isn't monotonically increasing. Not all positions will exist forever. Joining a company was never a guarantee that you'd have a paycheck and work to do until you decided to leave. Also, pointing out that companies that did layoffs h…

No one is saying you should have 100% job security, or never be let go / fired. People are saying that these mass layoffs and the way they are conducted are harmful to society and not as beneficial to the business as CEOs and investors want to believe. Layoffs are not always a result of declining performance. We have seen several now where quarterly results point to increased performance but layoffs still occur as an…

Post by langsoul-com » Sat, Feb 04, 2023, 6:46 AM UTC

oconnore wrote: post #17

This is incredibly dumb. > The downsized companies, however, were outperformed consistently by the nondownsized ones during the initial two years following the downsizing. Can you think of any confounding factors in this analysis? How do you control for important factors like, say: whether the board is in enough financial trouble to downsize ?

Post by langsoul-com » Sat, Feb 04, 2023, 6:51 AM UTC

zwkrt wrote: post #40

coliveira wrote: post #20

I think Amazon, Google, and Meta workers should band together and get funding to start competitors to these companies. If there were some smart investors, that would be a great way to start a new company.

I've worked for Amazon and have friends that work for Meta. As much as it pains me to say it, I don't think that as a whole those who were laid off would make a very good company. There are exceptions, like I think Amazon made such heavy reductions in the Alexa org that there were probably some very competent engineers let go. But mostly the layoffs affected (1) HR and product, (2) low performers, and (3) people with…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 04, 2023, 6:54 AM UTC

ramphastidae wrote: post #192

juve1996 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At a lower average compensation rate too, most likely. highly doubt it. The labor force is shrinking. There's already a dearth of talented software devs. And then there will be huge upward pressure on wages from lower level jobs that now have to pay 20$ an hour to get workers.

People have been saying that for 50 years and it hasn’t happened in the US. Upward pressure on wages will result in interest rate increases to manufacture unemployment and keep wages down.