SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#401

Post by aristophenes » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #398

russellbeattie wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That 4% number is complete crap, and you know it. Even if it was accurate, which it isn't, 48% of the U.S. earn less than $30k a year [1] with few benefits. Corporations need to be flexible, but they also need to provide stable long-term employment so our society can grow and prosper. When Henry Ford launched the Model T, he made sure to pay his workers $5 a day so they could actually afford to buy the cars. It was a…

> That 4% number is complete crap, and you know it. Could you explain it please? Even U6 is below 8 percent. https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate the part time part is big of course ( https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2015/05/the-many-flavors-of-... ) but that's how it was for decades since BLS started tracking it. With regards to ethical wages, SpaceX should pay well, so people don't depend on them (t…

Article says 8 weeks of pay minimum, so that’s two months. USA has 6 months of unemployment benefits at half pay, which the employer pays for. Not sure if the severance pay comes with an agreement to not use that...

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#402

Post by nickthemagicman » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:24 PM UTC

wcoenen wrote: post #381

ginko wrote: post #330

Not sure if this is still the case but didn't SpaceX make a point to stick to trade secrets instead of patents[1] for fear of Chinese rocket agencies copying them anyways? If they lay off 10% of their workforce, how do they ensure that their trade secrets are kept safe? Lay off only low-risk employees? NDAs? It was my understanding that the degree to which those can be enforced in California is limited. [1] https://w…

If those employees go to China with trade secrets, they might be violating ITAR. ITAR is enforced with big fines and prison time.

Not easy to catch though.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#403

Post by zaroth » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:24 PM UTC

russellbeattie wrote: post #377

aristophenes wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points in rebuttal. First, companies can expand more confidently if they know they can reduce more easily if they need to. It is more efficient for companies to be able to right-size themselves. Bolstering this point of view is that the USA has a 4% unemployment rate, which is about as low as you can get without things starting to break down. The US economy has been outperforming almost everyone too, creating mor…

That 4% number is complete crap, and you know it. Even if it was accurate, which it isn't, 48% of the U.S. earn less than $30k a year [1] with few benefits. Corporations need to be flexible, but they also need to provide stable long-term employment so our society can grow and prosper. When Henry Ford launched the Model T, he made sure to pay his workers $5 a day so they could actually afford to buy the cars. It was a…

Wage growth in the US has stalled out for many years, but just recently since the unemployment rate has gotten so low (and this is with the participation rate rising) we are seeing wage growth in excess of inflation.

Wages will not rise if the labor supply exceeds demand. You need more jobs and/or fewer people in the labor force before wages will rise.

The American approach is to provide business friendly regulations and tax policy which incentivize companies to invest and take risks. The “social contract” is not vested with the company, but rather a free flow of employees between companies based on who will hire whom, who will pay the most competitive salary and benefits, and which companies are the most attractive.

The state/Federal government then provides programs that basically provide umbrella protection for all workers like unemployment insurance, short term disability, marketplace health plans, etc.

It’s not efficient for individual companies to be providing welfare to employees they don’t want or need. It’s a drain in the entire economy because the employee is doing less valuable work than they could do elsewhere, and the company has less money to hire workers they actually need.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#404

Post by adwn » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

Rainymood wrote: post #373

antpls wrote: post #265

I don't understand how anyone in the world accept such social contract of being laid off anytime for arbitrary reasons. If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. If you have to cut expenses because the company needs to be "leaner" then you cut the salaries starting from the top executives. Eventually you fire management, because the state of the company is in part the result of their decisi…

>laid off anytime for arbitrary reasons. You can also leave for any arbitrary reason, anything else is slavery, simply put. This goes both ways. >If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. If you create a company, you have a fiduciary duty towards your shareholders. A company only exist when it is profitable (either now or in the future) and it can only continue to exist if it can do so prof…

> You can also leave for any arbitrary reason, anything else is slavery, simply put.

Being a slave entails more than just having to fulfill your voluntarily agreed-to, contractual obligations. Using the term "slavery" for this trivializes actual slavery – i.e., ownership over a human being.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#405

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

tasssko wrote: post #311

thefounder wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the said companies are funded by government I don't understand why there would be a problem. As a CEO your job is to maximize the profit not to create a socialist enterprise. Why should I pay you if I no longer need your services? That being said I believe things could be done to make the transition easier for workers without hurting the company. For example announcing the layoffs in advance(i.e give a 4 month…

The problem here is you said I. Personally if anyone in my company fires someone because “I no longer need your services” will be fired for hiring someone permanent that needed firing. Also if they follow our hiring criteria we want them in other places. This across the board lay-off is a sign of some kind of corporate correction. My advice is to think of it that the people you manage work for the company not for you…

If you fire a permanent hire for doing that, presumably you then also need firing for making a permanent hire that needed firing...

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#406

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

soapboxrocket wrote: post #177

abalone wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree. What would be more cruel is to keep people guessing for weeks, or to do several smaller layoffs. That's how it's usually done No it's not and you're presenting a false dichotomy. They made the decision who to fire (to "cut once"). The question is email vs. having managers meet with their impacted direct reports which can definitely and is regularly done inside of one day.

You are correct about the false dichotomy, but the correct way of doing it would have been to let everyone know who was being let go before they made the announcement. No reason to leave people wondering for any period of time.

> No reason to leave people wondering for any period of time.

Play that out a bit. Is the notification a scheduled slack message or email for those terminated? Or do you want each employee being let go to be notified in a face-to-face conversation with their manager and where the details of financial arrangements, healthcare continuity, and other aspects are prepared and with a chance for the employee to ask questions, and for HR and leadership to assess if they appear in a condition to commute home and offer other transport or acute support arrangements if needed?

I think the latter is more appropriate, but a series of those things takes time to execute [longer if managers or layers of managers are being eliminated], and the time between when the first such meeting ends and the last such meeting begins, people are left wondering.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#407

Post by marcinzm » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

ginko wrote: post #330

Not sure if this is still the case but didn't SpaceX make a point to stick to trade secrets instead of patents[1] for fear of Chinese rocket agencies copying them anyways? If they lay off 10% of their workforce, how do they ensure that their trade secrets are kept safe? Lay off only low-risk employees? NDAs? It was my understanding that the degree to which those can be enforced in California is limited. [1] https://w…

>It was my understanding that the degree to which those can be enforced in California is limited.

California limits non-compete agreements and anti-moonlighting clauses however, as far as I know, does not limit NDAs.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#408

Post by jon-wood » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

rb666 wrote: post #185

sonnyblarney wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10% is huge by any measure.

Really? Look around you next time you're in the office, could you really not lose at least 1 of those 9 slackers around you?

You must be fun to work with. I’ve worked in 10 person companies, and it’s the sort of place where there’s nowhere to hide. By extension you generally won’t find slackers in a small company.

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#409

Post by roenxi » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:51 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #372

fma wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for GM (for now). 15% layoffs were announced before Christmas... No one knows when the ax will drop. Rumor is Monday or Tuesday. Moral is low and the office has been pretty damn quiet. Meanwhile we just raises earnings forecast today...

Which is kinda just how capitalism "works". In certain circumstances, once the means of production are created [most of] the workers are no longer needed, but the means being privately held (by a narrow group of owners) means they alone can benefit going forward. You can make a feast together and share it; or you can make a feast together, kick out most of the helpers and gorge yourself. Capitalism says the second op…

Strictly speaking, Capitalism says that the Capitalists get to choose which option they go with.

In a system with healthy incentives, we might expect Option 1 to be the sensible capitalist equilibrium, because capital needs to be maintained and the builders/maintainers become the same people.

Don't forget that, in theory, the workers can become capitalists themselves if they aren't getting a good share of the benefits. In my view usually when they don't it is because of government interference (eg, the pre-Uber situation in taxis, or how regulation tends to entrench existing players).

Re: SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

#410

Post by syntaxing » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 1:53 PM UTC

It's not unsual to layoff 10% of your workforce in hardware companies but it is unusual for a "growing" company. To put in perspective Pratt and Whitney laid off about 10-15% a couple years ago when they were in between the phasing out of the old engine and ramping up the new engine. Sometimes companies are unlucky because there is a drought where the demand for the new stuff is lower than the demand of old stuff but you have to phase it out to maintain product lifecycles for sustainable growth.