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

Cisco workforce reductions

blogs.cisco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 351 posts

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#221

Post by vrganj »

passive wrote: post #46

My extremely cynical, but not yet proven wrong view: Tech, more or less, has a group of investors centered around Silicon Valley. Not the only ones, but especially now, the most active. Generally, these folk have a lot of exposure to AI, and probably mostly believe the hype around it. Which means they believe companies using AI should produce better results, which in the current market means short-term cash. So if a…

It's simpler than that.

It is in their class interest to try and beat workers that have gotten too uppity down and AI is a tool they see fit for purpose.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#222

Post by api »

pjc50 wrote: post #210
ranguna wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. Putting myself in the shoes of a tech CEO, I see other companies laying off and saying that their AI strategy made them so productive that they don't need 20% of their employees anymore, I see investors flocking to that company, I look at my company and feel investor FOMO, I layoff as well. It's nothing personal, it's just how the US works. If this were to happen in Europe, your company would burn t…

Meanwhile in Korea: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/south-korean-offi... https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/sk-hynix-employee... SK Hynix is making an absurd amount of money from the RAM shortage, and the employees are not unreasonably demanding their cut from it.

People forget that all the training data to make these things was harvested with little concern for copyright or proper licensing.

A dividend or basic income or something funded by a tax on this stuff is not at all unreasonable.

The technology is cool but it’s basically mass piracy.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#223

Post by dgb23 »

simianwords wrote: post #62
banach wrote: post #37

This is why corporations need to be owned and operated by the employees.

these corporations would never work because they would optimise for the wrong thing - they would get their face eaten by other more efficient and ruthless corporations

These corporations exist and do work. Worker owned companies have their own challenges and their own advantages.

For example they tend to be more stable during crisis, because workers tend to vote for lowering salaries/benefits temporarily rather than doing layoffs. So they retain talent better. But they also tend to have difficulty to grow quickly, for obvious reasons.

Besides full on coops, there are also plenty of examples that are hybrids (partially worker owned).

> they would get their face eaten by other more efficient and ruthless corporations

You're possibly of assuming that a company needs to have an adversarial relationship to their workers in order to be competitive. I don't think that's generally true. This approach has advantages in specific situations, but disadvantages in others.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#224

Post by simianwords »

dgb23 wrote: post #223
simianwords wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

these corporations would never work because they would optimise for the wrong thing - they would get their face eaten by other more efficient and ruthless corporations

These corporations exist and do work. Worker owned companies have their own challenges and their own advantages. For example they tend to be more stable during crisis, because workers tend to vote for lowering salaries/benefits temporarily rather than doing layoffs. So they retain talent better. But they also tend to have difficulty to grow quickly, for obvious reasons. Besides full on coops, there are also plenty of…

Im literally saying the opposite that no adversarial relationship needs to exist.

That’s exactly why you don’t need worker owned companies

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#226

Post by suddenlybananas »

intended wrote: post #198
suddenlybananas wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's essentially colonialism. You can't go into other countries and change their labour laws, it's a violation of their sovereignty. Obviously there's a huge problem with uneven development across the world that makes outsourcing possible and difficult for workers in the developed world, but I'm not sure such a solution would be politically feasible.

Eh? That’s such a stretched definition of colonialism that it ceases to have meaning. Firstly, This is how things are being done now - post colonialism. America has many laws and drives to avoid labour from sweatshops. This was a whole thing, it may not have been the most effective, but it was a political force that drove change. Foxconn factories having workers commit suicide and place safety nets around buildings w…

>You don’t need political will in other nations.

Yes you do if you want to change their labour laws.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#227

Post by acdha »

lbreakjai wrote: post #218
banach wrote: post #37

This is why corporations need to be owned and operated by the employees.

If 51% of the employees would benefit from firing the other 49%, you'd be as good as gone anyway. Not saying it would be worse, but the same incentives are at play.

No, because the average employee has both a lot more in common with their peers and because the gains are lower for people whose stock shares are orders of magnitude lower. Joe from accounting isn’t laying off a department so he can sell shares worth the price of a Corolla before taxes.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#228

Post by epolanski »

I have a question.

If so many companies out there are doing layoffs, ignoring whether they are right/wrong or the motives being real or investor signaling, who's gonna benefit from it?

I would tend to think that talent being freed would imply that newcomers have a wider pool to find great contributors, but is it really happening?

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#229

Post by mathverse »

pjc50 wrote: post #210
ranguna wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. Putting myself in the shoes of a tech CEO, I see other companies laying off and saying that their AI strategy made them so productive that they don't need 20% of their employees anymore, I see investors flocking to that company, I look at my company and feel investor FOMO, I layoff as well. It's nothing personal, it's just how the US works. If this were to happen in Europe, your company would burn t…

Meanwhile in Korea: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/south-korean-offi... https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/sk-hynix-employee... SK Hynix is making an absurd amount of money from the RAM shortage, and the employees are not unreasonably demanding their cut from it.

Yeah but when you get old enough you get sacked and cant get employed anywhere and have to start frying chicken. So..

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#230

Post by monooso »

mathverse wrote: post #229
pjc50 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in Korea: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/south-korean-offi... https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/sk-hynix-employee... SK Hynix is making an absurd amount of money from the RAM shortage, and the employees are not unreasonably demanding their cut from it.

Yeah but when you get old enough you get sacked and cant get employed anywhere and have to start frying chicken. So..

As opposed to what happens in the US, you mean?
Post reply on HN