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

Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

mcsweeneys.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 414 posts

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#281

Post by hospadar »

gorgoiler wrote: post #7

I grind away at our codebase day in day out causing me immense personal anxiety and burnout risk and all for what? Well! The honest answer is because software engineering is an incredibly satisfying intellectual pursuit. So satisfying that outside of work in my spare time I literally do it for free , giving away my work to strangers as free / open source software. Why draw a salary then? Or stock? Well obviously I ha…

> Would they get it if the other top engineers and I all downed tools or walked out as a group? No. So why is their exit equivalent to several mansions and mine is around about a year’s worth of salary?

Unionize baby!

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#282

Post by azinman2 »

berniedurfee wrote: post #193
gavinmckenzie wrote: post #172

Amazing. There was a time, nearly 20 years ago, that I was let go from Adobe. My colleagues assumed that because of my position/tenure/knowledge that I was layoff-proof. I told them that I was just a number in a large organization, and that orgs of a certain scale don’t do layoffs in a way that looks at each individual. Sure enough I was let go and after 16 years at the same company, that was acquired by Adobe where…

Yes, large companies execute layoffs en masse by location, function or group, regardless of individual qualifications, in order to avoid discrimination lawsuits. Though, there are always workarounds when managers want to keep their highest performers off the list.

Until they’re part of the layoffs too.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#283

Post by IX-103 »

mshake2 wrote: post #45
arrrg wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves. A hiring freeze and marking obsolete positions as obsolete (meaning if someone switches teams or quits that specific position will not be replaced) should be a workable model for all profitable companies with some cash reserves. Sure, it takes a bit longer and probably costs a bit more (though probably not tons and lay offs also have…

>Is it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves. That's not the relevant question. The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them. Nobody is stopping you.

Why would it not be any of our business? Corporations only exist because they received the explicit blessing of the government. This gives them and their owners extra rights (limited liability for example) and tax benefits.

Originally corporate charters were hard to get because they were only issued by the Crown. Nowadays you can get one for a few dollars. We need to ask ourselves if they are still serving the public purpose we intend, and if not how we need to adjust things.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#284

Post by travisgriggs »

danaris wrote: post #153
safety1st wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I've lost my heart but it's hard for me to find fault with the way Nadella communicated MSFT's layoffs. They're a business, they need to reallocate capital and headcount, he doesn't shed any crocodile tears, but they are providing above market severance benefits, end of transmission. If I have to be laid off I want it to go something like this.

Clear away all the words, and you're left with a massively profitable company putting thousands of people out of work just so that they can boost their stock price.

You are telling the truth, half the truth, and nothing but half the truth.

“A massively profitable company putting thousands of people out of work so that they can boost their stock price which millions of people own (directly or indirectly).”

A dumber variant: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You thousand gotta go so us millions can get richer.

My comment should not imply that I endorse this “fuller” point of view.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#285

Post by akkartik »

carapace wrote: post #227
LBJsPNS wrote: post #149

But you don't understand! These people who were laid off are important ! So much so they didn't need a union, because the company couldn't possibly let them go. Unions are for all those other people who aren't important ! Perhaps some of you are beginning to understand the term Solidarity Forever.

I used to think programmers didn't need unions. Then that massive no-poaching collusion amongst dozens of the top tech companies in the US surfaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... It wasn't just "Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay", the practice spread to "dozens" of other companies: > Confidential internal Google and Apple memos, buried within piles o…

How would unions help against such no-poaching collusion?

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#286

Post by cactusplant7374 »

jjk166 wrote: post #250
binarymax wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even harsher is that on the same day Microsoft laid off their staff, they announced a 10B investment in OpenAI.

Where do you think they got the money for the investment?

Embarrassment if Google and other companies have something better than OpenAI.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#287

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

ebiester wrote: post #3

The part I thought was the best was this: "This was not an easy decision to make. It’s weighed heavily on me for the past month, keeping me up at night and nearly causing me to cancel the exec team’s offsite, even though Bad Bunny’s appearance fee was only 50 percent refundable. Let’s not mince words, though; the accountability for this decision rests with me. The consequences, on the other hand, rest with you, but s…

> so does a pretty generous COBRA package

I had to look that up, it appears to be a USA thing that "gives workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by their group health plan for limited periods of time" (1)

Nothing to do with "Cabinet Office Briefing Room A".

Ugh. Health care that is contingent upon employment, is a social ill.

1) https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#288

Post by rurp »

ebiester wrote: post #3

The part I thought was the best was this: "This was not an easy decision to make. It’s weighed heavily on me for the past month, keeping me up at night and nearly causing me to cancel the exec team’s offsite, even though Bad Bunny’s appearance fee was only 50 percent refundable. Let’s not mince words, though; the accountability for this decision rests with me. The consequences, on the other hand, rest with you, but s…

Same here. I can't believe the cringy, "I take full responsibility (but no consequences)" line has become a standard part of the CEO layoff announcement. Saying you take responsibility, without actually sacrificing anything or really facing any consequences at all is so obviously slimy and patronizing, I don't know why anyone thinks it's a good thing to say.

Actually it's even worse than no consequences; often times these layoffs give the CEO more money. Their compensation is typically heavily in stock and these layoffs often raise the stock price, directly increasing the CEO's net worth. Taking "full responsibility" indeed.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#289

Post by brookst »

t-writescode wrote: post #266
brookst wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couple days apart, and they announced an investment, but the $10B figure is rumors. Could be right, could be wrong. But so what? There’s no gotcha here; it’s not like Microsoft or Google or Amazon claimed they were cash poor and could t afford to pay people. They are changing the areas they spend money in. Would it be better if they were only cutting back and not also investing in new areas?

The comment thread you're responding to is reflecting on how painful it is to be laid off when: * showing profits * showing multi-billion in investments in new companies * when the money saved is tiny compared to the increased year-over-year profits on a topic that's a short story in the form of a letter written by someone pretending to be a CEO and telling the story's real truth about a layoff: that they don't feel…

Apologies if I sounded like I was unsympathetic to the people. I’ve been laid off, I know it hurts.

But I guess I don’t see how empathizing with that means. . . What? Microsoft should cancel an investment they think is strategic? Microsoft should keep job roles they no longer things are important?

Highly profitable companies like Microsoft are not zero sum. Nobody said “let’s lay people off so that we can invest in openAI”. Each decision is made independently, for its own ROI. If they believed that keeping these people and making the investment was the best approach, they have the funds to do so, easily.

I love the McSweeney’s piece, and I’m sympathetic to those laid off, I just don’t get the innuendo that a company should do something differently.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#290

Post by moe091 »

brookst wrote: post #232
binarymax wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even harsher is that on the same day Microsoft laid off their staff, they announced a 10B investment in OpenAI.

Couple days apart, and they announced an investment, but the $10B figure is rumors. Could be right, could be wrong. But so what? There’s no gotcha here; it’s not like Microsoft or Google or Amazon claimed they were cash poor and could t afford to pay people. They are changing the areas they spend money in. Would it be better if they were only cutting back and not also investing in new areas?

Just because they don't hypocritically claim they care about their employees and only laid them off because they HAD to, doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize them and (if possible) use our leverage as workers to influence them to make better decisions. Just because we know corporations only value profit, to the detriment of human quality of life in general, doesn't mean we should accept it
Post reply on HN