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

Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 284 posts

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#251

Post by notch656c »

notfromhere wrote: post #250
notch656c wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it; but is interesting in the context that I have purchased ACA plans on the open market comparable to my company insurance, and they were far far below the cobra price. For reference a basically identical ACA healthcare.gov plan I bought for ~1k when COBRA charged something around $3k.

ACA is subsidized, COBRA is not. That's where the huge price difference comes from.

I was paying the full unsubsidized rate. Not the one for the poors where you earn less than X and you get a deal where taxes pay for part of it.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#252

Post by LadyCailin »

roflyear wrote: post #109
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to popular belief, at a company the size of MSFT - the execs could drop all their wages to $0 - and it would not be able to save 5% of the workforce from getting fired. The execs get paid a lot - but there's not that many of them, and there's 200k people at MSFT making an average salary (with benefits) >$200k. That's >$40B per year. The execs don't take home >$2B per year. Satya made <$60M last year. There's…

MS c-suite makes a total of roughly ~$135,244,086, the board of directors make a total of about $4m (gates takes no salary at all, btw). This 10k layoff, at an average salary of 190,302, is about $2b a year. So yeah not quite - but for them to suffer no consequences is still pretty gross.

> gates takes no salary at all, btw

This is in part, due to the fact that he has nothing to do with Microsoft anymore.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#253

Post by sangnoir »

petilon wrote: post #236
pyuser583 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All employees get 60 days notice, so it seems like there will be 30 days of uncertainty. Maybe I'm optimistic.

That's not how it works. You won't be told 60 days before you are let go. You will be let go and then given pay for 60 days.

You are not disagreeing with gp: they are saying Microsoft will inform the people in 30 days, that's when they'll get a 60-day paid notice and the uncertainty ends. Hence the "30 days of uncertainty"

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#255

Post by rcme »

chimeracoder wrote: post #243
rcme wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence that the plans aren't sufficient? Others in the thread have mentioned they have gotten nearly identical plans to their old employer plans. People I know who buy their own health insurance have totally adequate coverage, and this is in a "blue northeast state" that, according to you, has inadequate options.

> Others in the thread have mentioned they have gotten nearly identical plans to their old employer plans. One person said this, without mentioning either their state or any details of their previous plan. > a "blue northeast state" that, according to you, has inadequate options. I did not say that every "blue, northeast state" has "inadequate options". I said that many states have terrible options, and that, contrar…

Wow, a lot of words and not a shred of evidence that some blue northeast states have inadequate coverage. Yes, some blue states having adequate coverage does not mean all such states have adequate coverage. However, you have provided absolutely no evidence of inadequate coverage in a blue northeast state. So what do we know? At least some blue northeast states, and maybe all blue northeast states, definitely have adequate coverage.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#256

Post by chimeracoder »

rcme wrote: post #255
chimeracoder wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Others in the thread have mentioned they have gotten nearly identical plans to their old employer plans. One person said this, without mentioning either their state or any details of their previous plan. > a "blue northeast state" that, according to you, has inadequate options. I did not say that every "blue, northeast state" has "inadequate options". I said that many states have terrible options, and that, contrar…

Wow, a lot of words and not a shred of evidence that some blue northeast states have inadequate coverage. Yes, some blue states having adequate coverage does not mean all such states have adequate coverage. However, you have provided absolutely no evidence of inadequate coverage in a blue northeast state. So what do we know? At least some blue northeast states, and maybe all blue northeast states, definitely have ade…

Let's be clear: you made a bold claim without evidence. I responded with an explanation of why your claim is incorrect, based on the actual text of the law which defines the terms. I also provided specific examples of the differences, which are in the post you just responded to.

At no point have you provided any actual evidence, other than an unsourced offhand anecdote (which I addressed), to support your bold initial claim.

I've taken the time to provide much more in the way of both evidence and explication than you have presented. If you'd like more, then perhaps first you can provide some concrete evidence to support the scope of your original, claim, and also address the specific examples that I revealed which refute the premise of your claim.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#258

Post by rcme »

chimeracoder wrote: post #256
rcme wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, a lot of words and not a shred of evidence that some blue northeast states have inadequate coverage. Yes, some blue states having adequate coverage does not mean all such states have adequate coverage. However, you have provided absolutely no evidence of inadequate coverage in a blue northeast state. So what do we know? At least some blue northeast states, and maybe all blue northeast states, definitely have ade…

Let's be clear: you made a bold claim without evidence. I responded with an explanation of why your claim is incorrect, based on the actual text of the law which defines the terms. I also provided specific examples of the differences, which are in the post you just responded to. At no point have you provided any actual evidence, other than an unsourced offhand anecdote (which I addressed), to support your bold initia…

The only who has made a claim here is you: your claim is that the ACA's guarantee of pre-existing condition coverage doesn't matter because there exists places that only have inadequate healthcare options available for purchase. You have provided no evidence for this claim.

Others here have provided first-hand accounts of acquiring adequate coverage on exchanges.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#259

Post by what_ever »

irrational wrote: post #174
pixl97 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commonly called the Dead Sea Effect. You evaporate out your water and you're just left with salt.

How does that analogy work? Traditionally salt is very valuable. It was even used as payment/money at times (worth your salt). You can preserve food with it. It gives food flavor (if you've ever accidentally omitted salt from baked goods, like bread and cookies, you know how terrible things taste without salt).

There is plenty of salt in the world but not enough water.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#260

Post by cocoland2 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #37
malcolmgreaves wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could all take massive pay cuts to preserve jobs. They have agency and they have chosen to enrich their stock price at the expense of people’s lives and well being.

Contrary to popular belief, at a company the size of MSFT - the execs could drop all their wages to $0 - and it would not be able to save 5% of the workforce from getting fired. The execs get paid a lot - but there's not that many of them, and there's 200k people at MSFT making an average salary (with benefits) >$200k. That's >$40B per year. The execs don't take home >$2B per year. Satya made <$60M last year. There's…

Out of curiosity, Did you mean 20k people making more than 200k. The overall strength is 220k at MS isn't it
Post reply on HN