Microsoft to lay off 10k workers • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#281

Post by sebazzz » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 9:32 PM UTC

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #153

jsiepkes wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only honest thing he could have said would be: "Look, in the end this about shareholder value and we need to sacrifice some people in order to create shareholder value. I know, it sucks, but let's not kid ourselves, we all knew that's the game we are playing here at Microsoft (or any publicly traded company). We got some nice perks while it lasted but unfortunately the party is over now. We will do our best to en…

To be honest, it's more like: "Look, investors have low confidence in the market right now and all our competitors are doing it. I need to send a signal or the stock is going to keep going down and I wont get my full yearly bonus. In the end it's all about the quaterly share price. I know, it sucks, but let's not kid ourselves, we all knew that's the game we are playing here: go work for a small company if you want l…

"Also, we're Microsoft so just like any FAANGM the hires will just keep coming anyway, so not like we have to worry that no one will work for us. We will just trim the bottom X% performing people and anyone determined to be too difficult to work with."

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#282

Post by roflyear » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 10:13 PM UTC

LadyCailin wrote: post #252

roflyear wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, I thought he was still on the board. One website listing salaries lists gates. Weird.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#283

Post by incrudible » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

projectazorian wrote: post #264

incrudible wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the evidence suggested that periodic layoffs are good for company longevity and profit margins, you can bet that none of these academics would shout it from the rooftops. Moreover, none of the evidence was collected under the current economic environment, where a decade of cheap money and growth fantasies have fueled an unsustainable hiring frenzy.

> If the evidence suggested that periodic layoffs are good for company longevity and profit margins, you can bet that none of these academics would shout it from the rooftops. Have you ever taken an economics class? Plenty of economists take a perverse glee in claiming that things like the minimum wage and child labor laws are detrimental, I don’t think that “sometimes layoffs are good” is a taboo point. And that’s b…

I'm not saying it's taboo to the point of not being discussed at all, but when have you last seen anyone come out strongly against child labor laws in some news outlet? It may well be true that child labor laws can effectively worsen the situation of children in third world countries, regardless of how good the intentions of the lawmakers are. Minimum wage laws do price out the lowest-value workers from the job market - whether that's a net detriment to society or any individual is debatable, of course. As for the "perverse glee" that you see, it's probably the satisfaction you may get from disabusing others of their foolish idealism.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#284

Post by incrudible » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

notfromhere wrote: post #248

incrudible wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the evidence suggested that periodic layoffs are good for company longevity and profit margins, you can bet that none of these academics would shout it from the rooftops. Moreover, none of the evidence was collected under the current economic environment, where a decade of cheap money and growth fantasies have fueled an unsustainable hiring frenzy.

It's a social exercise at companies like Microsoft. You lay people off because you are expected to lay people off, hell you'll look irresponsible for not laying people off. We're gonna sit here and pretend that Microsoft, a company that printed $72B in net income last fiscal year somehow needs to lay off 10k workers to survive?

Microsoft is not a welfare agency. Of course they don't need to lay off people, but they are obligated to improve the bottom line. If they have excess workers, they shouldn't have hired them in the first place. The question now is merely whether laying them off is worth it. From a societal standpoint, the layoffs may well be advantageous, because that labor is now free to join leaner companies that struggle to find workers.