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

Layoffs Don't Work

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 801 posts

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#431

Post by al_borland »

jjav wrote: post #331
ltbarcly3 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have done probably 500 to 1000 tech screens for big tech companies (as the interviewer) and this is completely true. I have interviewed many people employed in tech as programmers for their entire career and they can't code. I don't meen leetcode, I mean they get confused trying to write brute force substring search. The nested for loop seems to be too complex for them to keep in their head all at once. I have had…

> I have interviewed many people employed in tech as programmers for their entire career and they can't code. Think about this contradictory statement for a while. Can it actually be true? Or is there something else going on? If the interviewee has nothing but sub-1yr stints on their resume, perpetually getting fired before vesting at any company, then yes, it's very possible they actually can't code and just fake it…

I know a lot of people who can tweak code that already exists. However, if they are sitting in front of an empty text editor and given a goal, they don’t know how to break the problem down and build a solution with the tools the language gives them.

In a large environment, someone may rarely need to start from nothing, so the interview format throws them.

That said, I think being able to break down a problem to solve it with code is a really important skill. Without it, the person will always have to lean on others to fill that skill gap.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#432

Post by tocs3 »

giantg2 wrote: post #225
filoleg wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot speak for layoffs in all industries ever, but I agree with your assessment of layoffs in big tech from personal experiences. I have way too many “lifer” friends in big tech who are deadly scared of layoffs and job hopping. They are also the ones who rarely got promoted and havent had a significant pay bump pretty much ever. On another hand, half my team at a big tech company got laid off back at the start of…

Yeah, I make the same adjusted for inflation that I did when I got my last/only promotion 10 years ago. I have grey hair, a disability, and a family that relies on the health insurance. Switching or being laid off is a risky proposition for me. It sounds like all your examples are young, childless people (who else could take a month off to go vacationing?). Life is much harder for some of us.

Not passing any judgements on any life choices here, but occasional months off sounds like a good thing. I would not necessarily need to go anywhere to enjoy (make use of) the time. The notion of getting a month off with pay sounds good.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#433

Post by jagraff »

al_borland wrote: post #419
Workaccount2 wrote: post #150

Real talk here, and I'm sorry for being "that guy" Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping? I know multiple people who have worked their entire career thus far without ever staying at a place for more than 3 or 4 years. Some no more than two. Tech job culture is practically a mono culture with "hop jobs" being a hallmark. From an employ…

I’ve been at my company working in tech for 19 years and I hate the pushing of job hopping as a norm. Job hoppers have no skin in the game. They don’t need support what they build, they don’t get to see where it fell short… they really can’t learn from their experiences and mistakes. What they do isn’t in the best interest of the company, it’s just enough (an MVP if you will) to add to the resume so they can leverage…

I think the solution for this would be for companies to proactively raise wages in order to keep up with the market.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#434

Post by paulryanrogers »

andrewlgood wrote: post #231
giantg2 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I make the same adjusted for inflation that I did when I got my last/only promotion 10 years ago. I have grey hair, a disability, and a family that relies on the health insurance. Switching or being laid off is a risky proposition for me. It sounds like all your examples are young, childless people (who else could take a month off to go vacationing?). Life is much harder for some of us.

I understand the trade offs you mention. I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.” You have chosen a different payoff - your family, certainty of health insurance, etc. You get the benefits that children bring and the joy of being a parent. The “young, childless people” have made a different choice - more freedom in employment decisions but no joy from children. Everyone has their o…

People don't chose the abilities or disabilities they're born with, nor those they receive at the hands of others.

Many also don't have the choice to start a family, no matter how badly they want it.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#435

Post by russellbeattie »

A couple weeks ago Google announced more layoffs in their HR and cloud divisions. They have $100 billion cash on hand, literally more than any other tech company, and much more in longer term investments.

In round numbers, that's enough money to cover roughly 10,000 employees for 25 to 50 years (depending on how much you think the salary averages out to).

Regardless, the CFO said one of her priorities this year was more cost cutting.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#436

Post by s1artibartfast »

Barracoon wrote: post #395
s1artibartfast wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that an average time given a 12 month vesting schedule? edit: Actually curious about the dead comment. What companies have multi year 401(k) vesting? Every company I have worked at or seen does a match on a 12 month schedule or less. Are they thinking of stock options?

IIRC Amazon has a 2 years 401k match vesting period.

Interesting.

per this article, Amazon 401k has a cliff vesting on matched funds at 3 years of employment. After reading around, it seems like 3 years is the legal maximum for 401k cliff vesting, with 6 years permitted for incremental vesting.

https://www.consiliowealth.com/insights/breaking-down-amazon...

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#437

Post by deviantbit »

tdb7893 wrote: post #397
deviantbit wrote: post #334

This is a terrible opinion piece. Layoffs do work. Cutting hours does not work. I am always amazed how few people understand how a business operates. They think its a community organized event where there is unlimited revenue. There are a few basic accounting principles employees need to understand. It all revolves around Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity. If you think otherwise, take a "Cost Accounting" course.…

A good friend of mine has a PhD in labor economics and is now a senior management consultant for a big firm and I've been told that in general just cutting people is bad for businesses and most businesses will be worse off by just cutting people, especially without changing any of the underlying systems that got the company to the position it's in. Next time I'll have to ask him about the studies on it but there defi…

[flagged]

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#438

Post by homefree »

This blog post is wrong, it also just doesn't matter in practice. Nobody who is making this sort of decision is going to give this kind of obviously false argument a second thought. When you're the one that actually has to make decisions that matter you're going to be better at ignoring bullshit. The audience for this is just people wanting something to upvote that sounds good to them - driven by motivated reasoning.

> “You could blame the workforce,” he says, “or the managers and leaders who are leading that workforce.”

They often do fire large swaths of middle managers - when Musk bought Twitter cutting out the middle of the hierarchy and the orgs that didn't need to exist was a big part of it. It's the same with DOGE. After the twitter layoffs they've shipped more features, faster, with better margins (and he fired the CEO). Meta and Coinbase over hired during the covid 'zero interest rate phenomena' and had to fix it. Reducing hours instead is a joke - I find it hard to believe anyone being honest takes that seriously.

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#439

Post by [deleted] »

tdb7893 wrote: post #397
deviantbit wrote: post #334

This is a terrible opinion piece. Layoffs do work. Cutting hours does not work. I am always amazed how few people understand how a business operates. They think its a community organized event where there is unlimited revenue. There are a few basic accounting principles employees need to understand. It all revolves around Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity. If you think otherwise, take a "Cost Accounting" course.…

A good friend of mine has a PhD in labor economics and is now a senior management consultant for a big firm and I've been told that in general just cutting people is bad for businesses and most businesses will be worse off by just cutting people, especially without changing any of the underlying systems that got the company to the position it's in. Next time I'll have to ask him about the studies on it but there defi…

[deleted]

Re: Layoffs Don't Work

#440

Post by conductr »

culi wrote: post #426
deviantbit wrote: post #334

This is a terrible opinion piece. Layoffs do work. Cutting hours does not work. I am always amazed how few people understand how a business operates. They think its a community organized event where there is unlimited revenue. There are a few basic accounting principles employees need to understand. It all revolves around Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity. If you think otherwise, take a "Cost Accounting" course.…

The article cited actual statistics and data comparing companies that enacted layoffs vs those that didn't. It showed very clear evidence, even within the same industry, that those that enacted layoffs fared MUCH worse Also many of these layoffs are NOT coming when companies are "bleeding revenue". E.g. Meta and Twitter enacted massive layoffs after posting their most profitable quarters yet

That’s what should be expected. A company in a stronger position can more confidently avoid laying off people and “ride out” the painful market conditions. Not every company’s revenue is composed of similar risk items even within similar industries. Some companies are already knee deep in some new strategy and need everyone on board to roll it out. The other company is just a bunch of variable labor that can be culled when volume shrinks. It also means they’re not investing in the future and going to get beat by a more strategic competitor. So many other riffs to take on this, but short term minded financials are absolutely improved by layoffs and that’s usually all the action is trying to effect.
Post reply on HN