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

LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 312 posts

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#281

Post by weka »

gregjor wrote: post #252
sillysaurusx wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconding this question. It'd be fascinating to hear a detailed perspective from someone who has spent 20 years working for themselves, without also reaching traditional "success" (i.e. getting rich). It's starting to feel like getting rich is overrated when it requires so much of your life to make it happen. Hearing from someone who ended up with similar freedoms (working for yourself is no small one!) would be cool…

Full freelance since 2013. I traveled and lived abroad for six years. I wrote some articles about my experience on typicalprogrammer.com. I make more than many salaried programmers I know, less than quite a few. I work 4 hrs/day, 5 days/wk on average, so by hourly income I do about as well as my friends at Google and Apple.

what is your tech stack? I am interested.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#282

Post by ramblenode »

kjeetgill wrote: post #127
Nextgrid wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience you can opt-out of the bullshit with no ill effects, at least in the software industry. My activity is completely empty, no posts, no likes, etc and that doesn't seem to hurt me. I mostly use the tool as a rolodex to keep in touch with professional connections and be reachable by recruiters. The problem of course is that the platform doesn't seem to understand that and desperately tries to encourag…

Posts like this baffle me. This tool seems to function perfectly well as a rolodex and as a recruiter contact for you (its primary function for myself and most others) but somehow it's problematic for to have other functions for other users. > The problem of course is that the platform doesn't seem to understand that and desperately tries to encourage me to participate which seems pathetic at this point. They have 2…

OP is just voicing annoyance at a nag feature, nothing personal, just a UX critique. I'm not sure why it would matter to them if the feature increases engagement for others.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#283

Post by weka »

oneoff1777711 wrote: post #230
sillysaurusx wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconding this question. It'd be fascinating to hear a detailed perspective from someone who has spent 20 years working for themselves, without also reaching traditional "success" (i.e. getting rich). It's starting to feel like getting rich is overrated when it requires so much of your life to make it happen. Hearing from someone who ended up with similar freedoms (working for yourself is no small one!) would be cool…

5 years experience web development/full stack/mobile here. 29 years old. I’ve never had a salaried job in my life. I’m able to pull down $150/hr for a couple months a year (8 hour days), $125/hr for another 6 months full time, then take a couple months off and I’m making a decent salary when it all shakes out. That’s fully remote and working for friends or friends of friends, occasionally taking a contract with a meg…

so, where exactly did you start? surely not on freelancing websites... but rather your network, yes?

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#284

Post by joegahona »

Guthur wrote: post #270
projektfu wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please add your photo so creepy people can check you out and potential employers can determine if you are ugly, wrong color, wrong sex, uncool, or other discrimination.

If you really believe it has that much impact get it photoshop'ed. Game the system if you think that you LinkedIn picture has an effect. Pick your preferred pronoun or what ever.

Would be pretty awkward once you started interviewing, I'd imagine. I wonder how long one could keep it up though... perhaps during COVID it'd be possible to fake your race/gender all the way through the offer letter? I'd read that Medium article.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#285

Post by localhost3000 »

dmoy wrote: post #248
prawn wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I have an offset account against my mortgage and stockpile funds there. Then live well within my means so I can handle tax when it arrives. Someone who doesn't naturally live within their means could estimate in advance and push money to a separate account to isolate it.

Don't you have to pay estimated taxes anyways? Or do you just mean within the quarter between estimated tax payments? (I am salaried and already just budget by quarter for everything)

You don’t _have_ to pay estimated taxes. If you choose not to you just pay a penalty at tax time (essentially interest on what you didn’t pay throughout the year). It’s up to you to decide if it’s worth it. I freelanced for a few years and just paid the penalty because I didn’t want to spend time thinking about taxes more than once a year. For how much I was making at the time I was fine with this trade off.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#286

Post by waitwhatt »

projektfu wrote: post #268
Nextgrid wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm baffled by that number given how bad the product is. It has a lot of potential, but is completely ruined by the social media aspect and their attempt at making it yet another cesspool like Twitter or Instagram, all the way down to the algorithmic feed, likes and reactions. They should step away from the nonsense and make the tool (because yes it should be seen as a tool and not a lifestyle) easier to use, not har…

Please add your photo so creepy people can check you out and potential employers can determine if you are ugly, wrong color, wrong sex, uncool, or other discrimination.

Oh, is it better to have an entirely text-based service like a phone book? Surely that will help with retention.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#287

Post by smabie »

irjustin wrote: post #276
smabie wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to fire so many people at once, it means you've fucked up. They should have never been hired, or individually fired a while back, or whatever. It means the company is making a dramatic shift in how they do things. While this could be good (mass layoffs often mean that the company has finally realized they have a problem), what is definitely means is that they've made a lot of mistakes. It's essentially ad…

To say you've fucked up in the face of a global pandemic seems a bit obtuse. The current state of normal is not the same way to operate when there is no COVID. Sort of like saying we should have always operated like the bubonic plague never went away even after it did. Treating the situations the same is too dogmatic.

A company should be responding to new information as it comes in and immediately act. People should have been gradually been fired since the start of covid, not all at once months later.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#288

Post by diogenescynic »

projektfu wrote: post #267
habosa wrote: post #214

I find it a little disappointing how when any large company reduces staffing it always makes the news. I'm not at all saying these people at LinkedIn deserve this, I bet they're smart people and I hope they find new employment very soon. But speaking generally ... many of us have worked at or worked with big bloated companies. We all know that many of them could be improved by slimming down. But we report on it like…

If a company like LinkedIn is doing a lay-off, that’s different from business as usual. They’re supposed to be growing. When they grow they fire people along the way. But a lay-off means they have run out of work or can’t employ people profitably. This can mean: 1. LinkedIn has its own special problems. (Maybe I’ll sell and follow another company or sector). 2. The economy is in recession. (Should have gotten into bo…

Other companies just do layoffs less obviously. For instance, PayPal has been laying people off in the Bay Area even though they are doing really well to shift those jobs to Austin or Omaha or Chandler. They just don't do it all at once and often give people anywhere from several weeks or months to start looking for a job before their actual termination date, depending on how long they've been with the company and pay grade. Companies are super sneaky.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#289

Post by amonteiro »

smabie wrote: post #274
habosa wrote: post #214

I find it a little disappointing how when any large company reduces staffing it always makes the news. I'm not at all saying these people at LinkedIn deserve this, I bet they're smart people and I hope they find new employment very soon. But speaking generally ... many of us have worked at or worked with big bloated companies. We all know that many of them could be improved by slimming down. But we report on it like…

If you have to fire so many people at once, it means you've fucked up. They should have never been hired, or individually fired a while back, or whatever. It means the company is making a dramatic shift in how they do things. While this could be good (mass layoffs often mean that the company has finally realized they have a problem), what is definitely means is that they've made a lot of mistakes. It's essentially ad…

Business is all about calculated risks. You can't tell the future, so you make decisions based on your best guess on how the future will play out.

The covid downturn happened over 3 months (feb - april). To start laying off people you have be sure there's no recovery happening around the corner. For example, you may bet that business will improve in may, june, july that will save their jobs and your business outlook. I'm obviously over simplifying since projects, release dates, projected ad revenue and a 100 other factors play into it.

It's easy to sit on the side lines and judge it with the history behind us, but reality is more complicated.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#290

Post by realusername »

joegahona wrote: post #280
SkyPuncher wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm baffled by that number given how bad the product is. That's because the "product" isn't the social network. The "product" is insight and access to much of the professional workforce. Sales and HR use it extensively. The social network aspect is likely to keep people semi-engaged with the platform and voluntarily disclosing things that Sales and HR can use as signals.

Indeed, "talent solutions" and "marketing solutions" are Linkedin's biggest revenue drivers. Subscriptions come after that.

That's kind of a chicken and egg problem though, Linkedin never developed much features outside of recruiting activities so that's the revenue they have.

Linkedin has a much bigger potential than that though, just the social aspect and networking impact could be pretty significant.

Post reply on HN