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

Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 329 posts

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#251

Post by [deleted] »

chipgap98 wrote: post #113
folkrav wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very idea of separating humanity from the system we live in will never sit right with me. Jobs are purely transactional on paper, sure, but in the end, we're not _just_ dealing with jobs, but people and their livelihoods. We're simply lucky enough to be in a field where saving up and building a financial security cushion is doable. In practice, accountability only seems to go up so far. I shortly did consulting f…

I think it could be a bit easier to think of things this way if there were a stronger social safety net, especially in the USA. Also I think the scale of the company you work at has an impact on this. The larger the company, the less personal treatment I would expect.

[deleted]

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#252

Post by bombcar »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #204
bombcar wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CEO answers to the board, and the board is usually of the type to at least ask the question "Everyone is jumping off a bridge, why aren't we?" And sadly the easiest answer is "we ARE jumping off the bridge, see?"

Interesting that everyone is so certain that we're jumping off a bridge now with layoffs, instead of that we jumped off a bridge before with the hiring spree based on Covid-stimulus.

Overhiring doesn't affect the common people (except positively) - overfiring of course affects those fired.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#253

Post by nxmnxm99 »

mcv wrote: post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

To be honest, most executives wish they could fire 10% of their staff. Once you get to even 30-40 people, 10% of your staff are almost inevitably dead weight. Unfortunately you can't mass cull without causing morale issues.

This period is just giving us a chance to shed those people without cultural ramifications.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#254

Post by neon_electro »

cowsup wrote: post #80
neon_electro wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't a company do offense on the IR front with literally any action other than cutting workforce? "Our products are better than ever" "Our revenue per employee is better than ever" Why does cutting costs have to be the only way to please investors?

Because most investors are investing in more than one company. If someone has a stake in Google, Microsoft, and Confluent, and their ROI for the first two are great this quarter, but Confluent is lukewarm or even in the red, they're going to want an explanation. They can be told that products are great, or employees are producing a lot, but the only thing that matters to investors is the money. And so, when you're un…

This needs to be a video game, not the way we organize humanity :(

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#255

Post by ccn0p »

mcv wrote: post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

0) Macroeconomics is macro. Everything is connected.

1) we just came out of a very long period of "easy money" that inflated valuations and gave founders/boards a sense that money would always be there

2) when your customers are laying off / reducing spend, your revenues usually go down

3) the future is very uncertain

Take all of these things together and boards are asking teams to be as prudent as possible which unfortunately means, bringing costs down.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#256

Post by snotrockets »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #131
mcv wrote: post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

Do you actually believe that CEOs are seeing other companies doing layoffs and sending off emails to someone saying hey we need to do layoffs too? It seems much more likely to me that many companies over hired and/or have 2-4% of their staff they were planning on letting go anyway and now that so many other companies are doing layoffs it allowed them to cut other low performers without being the only company in the n…

> Do you actually believe that CEOs are seeing other companies doing layoffs and sending off emails to someone saying hey we need to do layoffs too?

that would be illegal.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#257

Post by mathverse »

ccn0p wrote: post #255
mcv wrote: post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

0) Macroeconomics is macro. Everything is connected. 1) we just came out of a very long period of "easy money" that inflated valuations and gave founders/boards a sense that money would always be there 2) when your customers are laying off / reducing spend, your revenues usually go down 3) the future is very uncertain Take all of these things together and boards are asking teams to be as prudent as possible which unf…

Bunch of horse…excrements. You are trying to find logical explanation where there is none. My company laid off hundreds of people during corona while knowing the business will recover and receiving incredible amount of money. 5 months after the lay offs they bought bunch of companies and restarted hiring in different locations.

These companies dont know more than you and I. They are acting in panic and in a bad faith towards their employees.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#258

Post by andsoitis »

willcipriano wrote: post #225
andsoitis wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the board is breaking their fiduciary duty and the shareholders will sue them into oblivion.

How would you prove it? "We thought that these stock buybacks we put on the company credit card were for the good of the shareholders long term, it's a coinsidance that it happened to increase our compensation as well, sorry it didn't work out as we thought."

If you're curious to learn more then instead of debating in the abstract, it is worth learning more about:

a) how board members are compensated

b) what type of people are appointed to boards

A good start is https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/0404...

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#260

Post by taeric »

EMM_386 wrote: post #232
BizarreByte wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. A social contagion if you will. It doesn’t seem rational at all at this point. Hopefully some of the more naive people in the industry learn something from this. Your employer would happily kill your if it were legal and they made a cent more doing so, let alone something less like fire you.

> It doesn’t seem rational at all at this point. Layoffs are rational and are common in downward cycles. I get the feeling that a lot of the shock and awe here is due to age and a lot of people starting their careers during an extended boom period, particularly in tech which was getting absurd. The last few years in particular were far from rational. Now the Fed is raising interest rates, housing is cooling, cheap mo…

I'm curious why you are calling them rational? They will lead to reduced morale. And will lead to more attrition afterwards. And probably won't lead to any sort of increased income. So, what makes them any more rational than going straight to bankruptcy?
Post reply on HN