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

Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#41

Post by throwaway9191aa »

bestouff wrote: post #13
brookst wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

Maybe for some. The illusion they had of a nice job, especially with lots of money promised, made them take too big a credit for their house or whatever. And now they're doomed. You can always say this is their fault for not having foreseen that, but it probably wouldn't have happened to them if they had another, more regular job.

Nobody "made" them do anything. I never graduated college, I barely made it out of high school. Where did I acquire this knowledge to save money and live reasonably, while these other software developers are "made" to obtain these lifestyles requiring $300k a year?

My guess is that these people, who are "doomed", don't actually exist. I have a strong suspicion that, over the last few years, most folks got in while it was good, and are happy they were around while it lasted.

Saying they would have been better off with a "regular job" is pretty presumptuous. What if these folks are actually smart people who just saved up while FAANGs were offering huge salaries? What if this isn't actually a big deal? What if it was a good thing that ICs were getting paid a lot of money for a bit, instead of having wages suppressed by investors to prevent situations like "probably wouldn't have happened to them if they had another, more regular job."

Give me the money. Let me choose how I spend it. Don't pretend you know what is best for me.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#43

Post by hardware2win »

gdsdfe wrote: post #42
hardware2win wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad. Should I care? After all it is about my salary

sounds like you've never been layed off ... yet

I were talking about companies who couldnt compete, you?

Why should I care about those companies? I wish them good, but unless theyre an outlier then I would rather accept better salary

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#44

Post by lp4vn »

Nobody can convince me that big corps are not taking part this "trend" of firing people with the purpose of rehiring them later and keep the compensation of the workforce in check.

As many comments have already pointed out, all these companies are sitting on a huge cushion of money, and if you have money the best moment to invest is during a crisis. Companies realized a long time ago that they should find ways of lowering salaries, now the big moment finally came it seems.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#45

Post by ProAm »

For the company that spent decades putting mom and pop shops out of business it is very hard to feel sad for layoffs. It's just their own bed these folks now have to sleep in. As an investor I am also happy. For the workers, it's sad maybe unfair but such is life.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#46

Post by ballenf »

lp4vn wrote: post #44

Nobody can convince me that big corps are not taking part this "trend" of firing people with the purpose of rehiring them later and keep the compensation of the workforce in check. As many comments have already pointed out, all these companies are sitting on a huge cushion of money, and if you have money the best moment to invest is during a crisis. Companies realized a long time ago that they should find ways of low…

> the best moment to invest is during a crisis

Are we at the beginning, middle or end of it? Investing broadly at the beginning of a crisis that has the signs of being deep is less advised.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#48

Post by jen20 »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #7
eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

Your comment made me wonder something i don’t remember being discussed in these terms, but what about our markets and laws makes liquidity in employers and employees work poorly?

> but what about our markets and laws makes liquidity in employers and employees work poorly

1. The utter insanity of family medical insurance being tied to employment.

2. Non-compete agreements without full (or higher) compensation being valid.

I’m sure there are others, but those two are a good start.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#49

Post by notyourwork »

ljm wrote: post #39
brookst wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

From Amazon's point of view, this doesn't seem too far removed from their annual firing quotas which I think is already an onerous practice. From the hyper-scale startup point of view, it's blatantly unsustainable and frankly irresponsible to play fast-and-loose with people's careers by hiring them and then making the position redundant, sometimes within less than a year; even six months in some cases that I've known…

Irresponsible for who? Corporations are in the business of their own interests. Employees are a resource to furthering a businesses goals. They aren’t a charity that owes individuals anything. If you think that you’re being naive about what we call at-will employment.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#50

Post by DangitBobby »

notyourwork wrote: post #49
ljm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Amazon's point of view, this doesn't seem too far removed from their annual firing quotas which I think is already an onerous practice. From the hyper-scale startup point of view, it's blatantly unsustainable and frankly irresponsible to play fast-and-loose with people's careers by hiring them and then making the position redundant, sometimes within less than a year; even six months in some cases that I've known…

Irresponsible for who? Corporations are in the business of their own interests. Employees are a resource to furthering a businesses goals. They aren’t a charity that owes individuals anything. If you think that you’re being naive about what we call at-will employment.

You have decided they don't have a responsibility to their employees, but that doesn't make it true.
Post reply on HN