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

Cisco workforce reductions

blogs.cisco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 351 posts

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#341

Post by Kadecgos »

asdfsa32 wrote: post #178
Kadecgos wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - the answer is that the cost to deliver a service from my local government is a lot cheaper than it is when it's coming from the private sector. People meme on 'lol government efficiency', but actually sit down and calculate your marginal cost for the services you pay for that are funded by taxation. It's not even close - the cost to operate these services per person is crazy low. In fact, you don't even have t…

You're making it sound like I am not already paying taxes for those "absorbing of costs".

That is where the income is coming from, of course. That is also exactly what I'm saying. The tax cost of paying for a public service tends to be, nearly universally, less than the cost of paying for the same service in the private sector.

While there are some pretty easy examples here, the easiest one is probably health care: The country that pays the most - by far - for 'average-ish' health care is the one where the system is privatized.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#342

Post by AlexeyBelov »

wayeq wrote: post #316
bigtex88 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how we got Luigi and it's why no one was really too upset with what he "allegedly" did.

speak for yourself, i'm not a big fan of murder

Me too. I'm upset, but not _too_ upset. I'm not a big fan of other things as well, for example things CEOs do.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#343

Post by solatic »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #257
senordevnyc wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always viewed them as future comp that was locked at a certain rate (in terms of number of shares per quarter). I got four years of unvested stock on day 1 when I joined a tech company, why on earth would I think I'm entitled to all that if I leave before it's vested?

If you see it as dangling future compensation in front of you then you wouldn't, obviously. But then why is it structured in that manner? What's the purpose? If you view it as a signing bonus it makes perfect sense. They want to get you in the door but also don't want you to take advantage of them by quitting immediately. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to it if you left voluntarily or were fired for cause but…

> But then why is it structured in that manner? What's the purpose?

This is bizarre. When you agree to take a $100k base salary, you don't get all $100k on the first day; your salary is split into pay periods, and if you leave earlier (voluntary or not) then you don't get the rest of the year's salary by default (severance aside).

I'll agree with you that RSUs for public companies should not have cliffs. But the idea that you agree to a large amount of compensation up-front (so that re-negotiation is infrequent) which is then paid out in portions on a regular basis is very standard, for both cash and equity.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#345

Post by asdfsa32 »

Kadecgos wrote: post #341
asdfsa32 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making it sound like I am not already paying taxes for those "absorbing of costs".

That is where the income is coming from, of course. That is also exactly what I'm saying. The tax cost of paying for a public service tends to be, nearly universally, less than the cost of paying for the same service in the private sector. While there are some pretty easy examples here, the easiest one is probably health care: The country that pays the most - by far - for 'average-ish' health care is the one where th…

Healthcare is an exception because it is insurance in disguise and it is one of those things where a monopoly can be cost effective.

This works because the actual service is not monopolised by the state but rather a large pool of providers.

This doesn't apply to other services.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#346

Post by Kadecgos »

asdfsa32 wrote: post #345
Kadecgos wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is where the income is coming from, of course. That is also exactly what I'm saying. The tax cost of paying for a public service tends to be, nearly universally, less than the cost of paying for the same service in the private sector. While there are some pretty easy examples here, the easiest one is probably health care: The country that pays the most - by far - for 'average-ish' health care is the one where th…

Healthcare is an exception because it is insurance in disguise and it is one of those things where a monopoly can be cost effective. This works because the actual service is not monopolised by the state but rather a large pool of providers. This doesn't apply to other services.

Except that public and Co-Op utilities are also noticeably cheaper to operate than private sector utilities. And also, public roads are basically universally cheaper than private roads (as rare as they are).

And public schools. And public communication infra. The list just goes on and on. It's not 'just healthcare' and the amount of data on this is so staggering that to suggest that the private sector running things somehow results in an efficiency gain of some kind is borderline brainwashed rhetoric from Fox News more than it is any kind of defensible position.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#347

Post by ranguna »

pjc50 wrote: post #210
ranguna wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. Putting myself in the shoes of a tech CEO, I see other companies laying off and saying that their AI strategy made them so productive that they don't need 20% of their employees anymore, I see investors flocking to that company, I look at my company and feel investor FOMO, I layoff as well. It's nothing personal, it's just how the US works. If this were to happen in Europe, your company would burn t…

Meanwhile in Korea: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/south-korean-offi... https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/sk-hynix-employee... SK Hynix is making an absurd amount of money from the RAM shortage, and the employees are not unreasonably demanding their cut from it.

Meanwhile in what does that have to do with what I said?

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#348

Post by throwaway7783 »

passive wrote: post #264
throwaway7783 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We use GitLab. They are no way in an incredible position to moonshot anything. They are yet another git provider with a management plane around it.

I've built a developer platform around GitLab, and it's got some nice stuff, but it's not revolutionary. But that's not all that relevant to the opportunity in front of them. The opportunity, generally, exists because of their place in an industry that most folk believe will be very different a decade from now. That belief is going to lead a lot of CTOs to try new things. When a company tries something new, it almost…

I agree they probably have the opportunity (next biggest brand after GitHub), but nothing they are doing is looking like they are taking it. Duo seems to be their best effort so far to ride the AI wave, which everyone and their mother does already.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#349

Post by eurekahalting »

alistairSH wrote: post #255
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #3

The casualness of mentioning record revenues in the same PR statement as laying off 4,000 people is fucked up on a new level. It used to be you were supposed to at least pretend you were forced into a layoff. But now it's like "Hey guys! It's time for our regularly scheduled layoff to juice profits! I got an extra $5M bonus for this!"

It's 100% normal these days. My employer did the same thing in January.

Normalized, but not normal

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#350

Post by asdfsa32 »

Kadecgos wrote: post #346
asdfsa32 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare is an exception because it is insurance in disguise and it is one of those things where a monopoly can be cost effective. This works because the actual service is not monopolised by the state but rather a large pool of providers. This doesn't apply to other services.

Except that public and Co-Op utilities are also noticeably cheaper to operate than private sector utilities. And also, public roads are basically universally cheaper than private roads (as rare as they are). And public schools. And public communication infra. The list just goes on and on. It's not 'just healthcare' and the amount of data on this is so staggering that to suggest that the private sector running things…

> public roads are basically universally cheaper than private roads (as rare as they are).

Do you have any numbers to support this? Governments spending stupidly higher than private sector for this, I know this as a matter of fact.

Same for the other claims about "public schools. And public communication infra." Per unit of service provided, governments spend upwards of 2 to 5x in major western countries.

Post reply on HN