Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by potsandpans » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 8:23 PM UTC

2devnull wrote: post #239

No sympathy for the average American worker, who is impacted even more so by inflation, which robs them of their life savings and job security at their min wage job. Over-entitled and over payed young tech workers who have displaced poorer people and haven’t been astute enough to save their extravagant salaries, spending it instead on $30 door dashed organic salads now want to bleat about how “boo hoo life isn’t fair…

such incredibly devisive rhetoric. it's very clever: tech workers aren't "average" american workers and therefore deserve punishment. the generous interpretation is that you've been so sufficiently propagandized that you can't even realize the absurdity of this dichotomy: that skilled labor is a separate irresponsible class of people, so we should not concern ourselves with their plight.

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

#322

Post by berniedurfee » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 8:25 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #282

berniedurfee wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There by the grace of my boss go I.

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

#323

Post by creativenolo » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 8:25 PM UTC

NhanH wrote: post #174

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.

Union does not protect you from layoff. They will be able to negotiate for severance package, but seeing the way big techs are handling it, I highly doubt unions can negotiate a better one.

A union’s function is to protect you from layoffs. They stand to protect you from layoffs through collective bargaining.

The difference in how layoffs are handled between the US & parts of Europe is astounding, where big tech could be bothered to face the fight against union influenced legislation and works rights.

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

#324

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 8:27 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #50

Aeolun wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their job is to increase value for investors Is their job to increase it in the short or the long term? These “I know we’ve been doing great for 3 years, but the past 3 months haven’t been so hot, so we’re going to cut jobs.” Messages seem incredibly shortsighted.

Do investors sell if they company income falls for a quarter? I'm guessing yes, and that answers the question of whether the company looks to the short term when seeking only to satisfy investors. The whole system is wrong.

investors care about long term profits. If they magically knew that income would fall this quarter and 2X next quarter, the price would go up.

The challenge is that they dont have magic powers to see into the future. If a company income is falls this quarter without a compelling reason such as investment, this data indicates that the company will not do good next quarter.

The are tons of examples of company stock prices increasing due to a acquisition, despite a lower quarterly profit.

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

#325

Post by malfist » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 8:28 PM UTC

chewz wrote: post #265

wmeredith wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's average salary is $124k/ year and its revenue per employee is $1.365 million. Show me a t-bill with that 1100% annual return.

But Google is irreparable and sinking fast. The goal is to return as much as possible to shareholders during 5 years window Google still has so shareholders can better allocate capital themselves. Every 124k/year is appreciated.

> But Google is irreparable and sinking fast

So you've invested all your money on shorting GOOG?

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

#326

Post by berniedurfee » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 8:28 PM UTC

andai wrote: post #244

berniedurfee wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve considered independent contracting many times in my career. But I just could never get past the possibility of the stress of being in between gigs.

Did you read the article? What about the stress of being in between jobs? You have a single point of failure that's outside your control. With contracting, you can take as many clients as you can handle, and you'd have to lose all your clients simultaneously to end up in an equivalent position.

That’s still a greater risk though. If you end up in the position where you do lose all your clients simultaneously, it can be catastrophic.

I suppose it’s also the hustle of finding new clients that never interested me much.

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

#327

Post by ShroudedNight » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 8:29 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #294

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…

> So why is their exit equivalent to several mansions and mine is around about a year’s worth of salary? Because their decisions make or break the company, and your's do not. For a well known example, Steve Jobs took over Apple when it was 90 days from bankruptcy. With the same group of workers, he took it to the biggest company in the world. Just by making different leadership decisions. That's why he made the big b…

It's clear that Jobs was critical to Apple financial success. The abnormal clarity of his contributions would actually obscure the argument, though.

There are many more Ginni Romettys than Steve Jobs, how does one successfully apply this analysis in less obvious scenarios?

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

#328

Post by turdprincess » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 8:57 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #291

turdprincess wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

contacted for many years as well. All my contracts always ran a year or longer. In the end, it felt very similar to full time employment - it was 9 - 5, regular meetings, coworkers, etc.. At the same time, I didn’t get any benefits, health insurance or paid holidays. I am not sure I want to contract like that again. It has most of the downsides of regular employment but none of the benefits. I think in the USA it wou…

When I worked at Boeing in 1980 or so, there were a lot of contract engineers there. We did the same work. The difference was: 1. full time employees got benefits, contractors did not 2. full time employees got notice before layoffs, contractors could get dismissed at a moment's notice 3. contractors got paid double what full time employees did

The pay is an unequal comparison though. A W2 job gives you:

* 5 - 10 paid holidays like Labor Day, 4th of July, etc...

* another 10 - 20 paid days off for PTO

* 7% less taxes for social security, medicare

* 401k match

* health insurance

So actually, getting paid twice as much hourly might not be too much extra at the end of the day.

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

#329

Post by danaris » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 9:01 PM UTC

travisgriggs wrote: post #284

danaris wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 “ful…

The number of people gaining any significant amount of wealth due to the increase in MS's quarterly stock price is minuscule.

Just because "millions of people" have, through some indirect means, some small investment in MS doesn't mean there's anywhere near a proportionate gain as compared to the loss being suffered. This is especially true if those people don't sell their MS stock during that period to realize the gain, as there's plenty of chance that the price will fall again later.

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

#330

Post by WalterBright » Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

ShroudedNight wrote: post #327

WalterBright wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why is their exit equivalent to several mansions and mine is around about a year’s worth of salary? Because their decisions make or break the company, and your's do not. For a well known example, Steve Jobs took over Apple when it was 90 days from bankruptcy. With the same group of workers, he took it to the biggest company in the world. Just by making different leadership decisions. That's why he made the big b…

It's clear that Jobs was critical to Apple financial success. The abnormal clarity of his contributions would actually obscure the argument, though. There are many more Ginni Romettys than Steve Jobs, how does one successfully apply this analysis in less obvious scenarios?

It's abundantly clear that CEO decisions make or break a company. That's why one doesn't want to scrimp in compensation offers to them. It costs you an extra million in compensation, but the CEO making the right decisions is worth far more than that.

Apple churned through several CEOs who did not make a difference.

How does one make an analysis? That's the game, indeed.