I wonder if the shrinking of Tesla business translates to others in the electric car industry.
Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
241–250 of 613 posts
Re: Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
#242Doesn't these company fire the low 10% ranked employer like every year? Maybe it's news this year because it stopped the during covid, but it's a pretty standard modus operandi.
That's an IBM-ism that has a lot of mind-share but is far from the standard operating procedure of most tech cos.
Re: Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure that's the case. But personally I wouldn't want to be a SWE in that kind of scenario. Dumpster fire all around you and company as a whole pivoting to austerity while at the same time hiring 20+ software engineers? When I see that many open postings at once, alarm bells go off.
> When I see that many open postings at once, alarm bells go off. It all depends on context though - for a company as massive as Tesla, 20+ open postings for SWE is nothing. It certainly doesn't warrant alarm bells, I think.
I would expect much more than that just for _normal_ attrition. People leave for any number a reasonable scenarios and you need to backfill. At the scale of a big company, NOT hiring 20-100 people at all times means you are _shrinking_.
Re: Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
#244So.. Did I get this right now? In order to avoid effects of a hypothetical recession, Tesla will cut 10% of the jobs and by doing that, Tesla will be one of the bigger causes of that recession to actually take place?
I really don't think Tesla employment count has that big an effect on the broader US economy. Do you?
Re: Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
#245All that huffing and puffing about remote workers having to return to office was just more of his immature bluster hiding the fact that he was eliminating positions anyway.
Re: Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a "broken window" fallacy.
I think it's not the broken windows fallacy when it increases many remote workers' savings rate. That's different from the parable of paying a glazier for the window instead of a tailor for a suit, but rather having less money circulating in the economy when 20 days a month, I don't burn $5 of gasoline, eat a $2 lunch instead of a $15 lunch, and wear sweat pants instead of office clothes. That could be $3000 of spend…
> it increases many remote workers' savings rate
I think that was true during lock-outs, for obvious reasons, but now? On the contrary, people have more money to spend and the opportunity to spend it.
Re: Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
#247A couple of days ago somebody posted this Reddit thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/v2lpdw/e... "Tesla expanded massively during Covid, as of now half of the dev team(including me) don’t have parking space or desk. It’s physically impossible for everyone to return to office. "Should I ignore the email, or should I drive to the office and sit under the stairs?" Commenters' general feeling was…
Parking space? Ride your bike or take public transport, individual cars are not the best option. Electric buses and trains and bikes (for moving people) and electric trucks (for moving goods) are really where the future is going to be.
LOL he literally works for a company that makes expensive electric cars and markets that as the future.
Re: Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remote work is bad for the economy. I've seen this claim a few times now. Are we actually sure it's true? Or does it just shift long-term spending trends? For example maybe people don't go to lots of inner city coffee bars in business districts any more but local cafes near residential areas are thriving. Maybe people don't stop in big stores on their way home from work but home delivery services are thriving. Maybe…
> For example maybe people don't go to lots of inner city coffee bars in business districts any more but local cafes near residential areas are thriving. People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches. People don't go…
> People don't buy coffee on the way to work, people don't buy coffee on the way home, people don't buy sandwiches and snacks, people don't spend money on commuting, people don't spend money at resturants for launch, companies stop having team lunches.
> People don't go to cafes locally because they have a coffee machine at home. Most people buy coffee and drinks on the way to work out of ease not that they taste better.
This is the broken window fallacy. Just like you can't improve the economy by breaking people's windows to get them to spend money on window repair, you can't improve the economy by forcing people to go to work to get them to spend money on coffee and gas
Re: Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
I yet have to see a wealthy individual working 80h/week, in an environment as physically and mentally demanding as their employees. Musk is not exception.
Given how terminally online and meme-aware he is, there is no way he doesn't spend a significant part of his waking day just browsing shitposts.
I understand the desire of people to hate others just because others a richer but I’ve seen a bit too much assumption about how he runs his company from people and how he should be spending his time in their opinion, and it’s not just Elon Musk that gets this. Which CEO would be better, one that gets on the assembly line of the product and spends 80 hours a week helping employees put together the product, or a CEO that in two hours a week thinks of improvements that cut employees time needed to spend on assembly by 50% and increase quality of the product so that sales go up by 10 fold? Obviously productivity measures made in hours spent are ridiculous for both you, me, and CEOs.
Re: Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not defending Tesla or Musk specifically here, but this happens all the time. Until you're ready to announce to internal staff (and publicly, if you're large enough) that you're in a hiring freeze and/or doing layoffs, you need to keep up appearances that things are operating normally, even if that means keeping up the recruiting pipeline for positions that you have no intention of hiring. The absolute worst thing yo…
While this may be true from the perspective of upper management, it is a very shitty way to treat the people who work for you, or would like to.
What's the alternative? Telling all of your employees "hey we're thinking about layoffs that may or may not happen, and we don't know who will be affected" would be a massive morale hit and make people leave. Until the final decision is made -- and this is a hard decision that everyone, including upper management, wants to avoid making until absolutely necessary -- it's best to keep it close to the chest. Just because you've planned for it doesn't mean you'll execute on it.
Look at this situation, even. Elon says he's going to cut 10% of Tesla's jobs. You're a Tesla employee. Is your job on the chopping block? Should you start looking? Nearly every person at Tesla is now living with fear that they might not have a steady paycheck in a month. To me this is a way shittier situation because you're stuck in limbo for a month or more. Isn't it a lot better to have a single all-hands meeting where you announce layoffs, the people who are affected will be contacted by their manager with severance information, and the plan going forward? Rather than just having this stuff linger for months?