Live data from Hacker News

Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

cnn.com

41–50 of 128 posts

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gervais Principle

The problem with reading that is that it is, I find, almost impossible to stop classifying people into sociopath, clueless or losers....

80% of the time, we all fit into one or more of those categories don't we? The problem is we move between those categories constantly.

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#42

Culture of importing cheaper labor that they can manipulate. The H1B program is broken and ripe for abuse.

> Culture of importing cheaper labor that they can manipulate. > The H1B program is broken and ripe for abuse. Offshoring is a much bigger problem. These abusive companies can "save" way more money by exporting the job than importing a worker to fill it, and pandemic-era changes have accelerated that.

I'm starting to think offshoring is better for America. Because house prices are unaffordable. Should a simple house really be $2 million ?

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#43
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The culture is "I want another yacht".

To be fair, I would like another yacht too. Especially considering my first yacht is really better described as a kayak.

I would like another kayak too. Especially considering my first kayak is better described as a shower cap.

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#45
post #11

> “We are committed to operating like the world’s largest startup, and … that means removing layers.” I learned a long time ago that behaving like a startup is not a good thing, and I've specifically oriented my career towards working at companies that don't even want to pretend to imitate startup culture. I'm very happy in enterprise-land.

I have worked at both and... well they're just very different. It's mostly trade offs. What specifically for y'all?

There's dysfunction in both, it's just different types of dysfunction.

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Culture of importing cheaper labor that they can manipulate. > The H1B program is broken and ripe for abuse. Offshoring is a much bigger problem. These abusive companies can "save" way more money by exporting the job than importing a worker to fill it, and pandemic-era changes have accelerated that.

I'm starting to think offshoring is better for America. Because house prices are unaffordable. Should a simple house really be $2 million ?

Depends on its location and how many dual earner high income households want to buy it. There is no reason a specific lot should not be worth an arbitrary $x.

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#48
post #11

> “We are committed to operating like the world’s largest startup, and … that means removing layers.” I learned a long time ago that behaving like a startup is not a good thing, and I've specifically oriented my career towards working at companies that don't even want to pretend to imitate startup culture. I'm very happy in enterprise-land.

It's hard to beat the authority and responsibility one personally has at a startup.

Do we have any write ups or post mortems from WhatsApp employees prior to the acquisition and the massive buy out?

I want to (artificially perhaps) peg my projects to a smaller cohort of employees if it means the stress to them is worth it if they have the autonomy to ship stuff on their own accord, for a general feeling of having a successful and useful career.

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to think offshoring is better for America. Because house prices are unaffordable. Should a simple house really be $2 million ?

Depends on its location and how many dual earner high income households want to buy it. There is no reason a specific lot should not be worth an arbitrary $x.

Is such gross inequality really good for America?
Post reply on HN