231–240 of 1001 posts
The severance package is great! I don’t think I would be upset (unless I was extremely passionate about a project I was working on)
I dunno. It may take 1-2 months to prepare for Leetcode style interviews, and this can be pretty mentally exhausting. Every time you fail to solve a leetcode question, it feeds your imposter syndrome, which is probably even worse due to getting fired.
For context, Drew Houston's total compensation for the year in 2023 was $1.5M: > According to our data, Dropbox, Inc. ... paid its CEO total annual compensation worth US$1.5m over the year to December 2023. That's a notable increase of 34% on last year via https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-why-dropbox-inc-nasdaq-... Even if Drew took minimum wage, that would save ~15 jobs assuming $100K all-in comp (which seems lo…
[flagged]
That's like 2 L7 jobs at Facebook.
How much do you think he should make? $100k?
He's worth $2B because he co-founded the company and the value of the company has sky-rocketed.
Not because he paid himself $2B of corporate profits.
$1.5M for a CEO is actually not much - because why get paid that much when you're already worth $2B?
The median for a Fortune 500 is $17M.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But what would that even look like? > Iwata ran the Kyoto, Japan-based video game company [Nintendo] from 2002 until his death in 2015. To avoid layoffs, Iwata took a 50% pay cut to help pay for employee salaries, saying a fully-staffed Nintendo would have a better chance of rebounding. [0] [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/13/nintendo-ceo-once-halved-sal...
By taking that pay cut, how many employees could Nintendo keep that would otherwise have been fired? 5? 20? Certainly not in the hundreds or thousands. This just seems like virtue signalling. Edit: to expand on my point re virtue signalling: the article states the CEO took a salary cut, not total compensation (and it doesn’t elaborate on the value of the cut). Salary is a small fraction of CEO total compensation - th…
What would someone need to do in order to avoid being reduced to a virtue signaller?
TIL that nobody knows what they're doing. Jokes aside, how do you end up having more than 500 excess people than what you need? What is management exactly doing during the time they went from 1 excess person to 500? Did they just hope the "macroeconomic headwinds" would become tailwinds? Didn't they at some point see that they have more people than valuable work, and maybe we should deal with that problem instead of…
> Jokes aside, how do you end up having more than 500 excess people than what you need? There never is an excess amount of workers (sure, there probably are 4-5 exceptions). What happens is that they need those employees, but instead are going to demand that the employees that are left pick up the slack. Which they will because they need a roof over their head. Those companies are merely cutting costs, they don't act…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more fun now though, because instead of being tied to individual performance, you need to make sure you're on a product team that is going to survive the cuts.
That was actually the norm prior to 2010. Tech was never supposed to be a stable career due to inherent innovation risk
This is a great severance plan. 1. 4 months pay + 1 week per year of tenure. 2. Receive Q4 vests. 3. Upcoming approved leaves paid in cash. 4. Year-end bonuses paid. 5. Keep company devices.
Industry standard is to offer 18 months of COBRA, not 6. Job searches frequently take way longer than that.
COBRA is a huge deal for departing employees. My single largest expense is health insurance for my partner and I, more so than even rent.
I'm always a bit confused by profitable companies with (presumably) large reserves laying off lots of people. I get that they want to remain profitable. But sure 500ish people could be put to some use? A new product, a new market, a spinoff. Whatever? Are you telling me that no one in such a big, wealthy company of clever engineers has any use for a bunch of talented people?
If the marginal product of labor is lower than the marginal cost of labor, the company should reduce headcount. If higher, the company should increase headcount.
"As CEO, I take full responsibility for this decision" Oh hey another one that takes responsibility by taking on 0 consequences.
Unpopular opinion, but I don't understand this type of comment. It sounds like people want executives to get some kind of punishment or pain as a consequence of laying people off. But what would that even look like? A fine? That would probably make no practical difference, and would discourage them from making changes that need to be made. Fire them? Then you would probably get a worse decision maker in the driver se…
The other two options: blame employees(someone not you), or take some form of punishment as an individual.
I too do it sometimes, and I feel bad each time. I at least tell people what it is and that it's just the reality of the situation. I'm not gonna commit career suicide and jeopardize my family's livelihood but I also won't blame them. So I follow the meaningless middle road where the status quo mostly stays and we all at least learn from it.
TIL that nobody knows what they're doing. Jokes aside, how do you end up having more than 500 excess people than what you need? What is management exactly doing during the time they went from 1 excess person to 500? Did they just hope the "macroeconomic headwinds" would become tailwinds? Didn't they at some point see that they have more people than valuable work, and maybe we should deal with that problem instead of…
Well, part of the overhire spree was to prevent other companies from hiring the talent.
IMHO, that's both disgusting and abusive.