Live data from Hacker News

Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

newsroom.spotify.com

491–495 of 495 posts

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Company A is going to get rid of 28,000 employees, while Company B is instead going to cut CEO compensation by 40%? How can you be sure whether you're joining Alphabet or Apple? As a recently ex-alphabet employee: apple never went on a hiring spree. They had restraint the last few years, with a significantly smaller workforce, and the result is (hopefully) no layoffs. Fast money moves quickly and it might move away…

I'm sorry for you losing your job, since it sounds like it wasn't voluntary. I understand why Apple hasn't done mass layoffs, but I'm still stuck on how you know that during the recruiting process. If Apple tries to hire you in January 2020, how do you know they are going to be more circumspect about hiring over the next three years? Apple hired a large number of people during the last three years, just as Google did…

> I understand why Apple hasn't done mass layoffs, but I'm still stuck on how you know that during the recruiting process.

You can't truly know. But you can vaguely see how many employees there are from news/earnings reports/etc. There's a lot of data in the moment, but you can never know how to process it until after-the-fact.

That said, it may not matter. Like you said, you can't blame anyone for taking a job, and they pay well, and part of that money is "boom/bust" cycles. Its part of the industry IMO.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who benefitted from the mass hirings? Stock holders, and also workers. Did the workers complain when the job market (esp in tech) was on fire and wages were increasing? No. Did they blame the people at the top for their new job and wages? No. But, now they want to blame leaders when there are mass layoffs. I think the blame is misplaced. The root cause was the stock market, and better yet blame the fed. The incentive…

All of these companies laying people off are claiming that they "over hired" or "over extended" themselves during the pandemic and now they need to tighten their belts. Who made the decision to hire more workers than the company needed? Leadership. Who made the decisions to put the company in a position where it would need to lay people off? Leadership. Who bears the consequences of those decisions? It's not the peop…

Another point that is missed, is that many of these tech companies are now still net positive when comparing new headcount added during pandemic VS the 2013 layoffs.

You can see the data here for MSFT, Google, Amazon, Meta and Spotify. Yes, other companies did not exhibit the same pattern, but the point remains.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#493
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m assuming that with the major tech companies all laying off it becomes difficult to find another gig.

Mid size companies in the b2b space are still hiring. Companies that consumers will never have heard of.

Are they paying FAANG salaries at $300k+?

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mid size companies in the b2b space are still hiring. Companies that consumers will never have heard of.

Are they paying FAANG salaries at $300k+?

No, which is why I'm not yet too worried about them flooding the space and taking all the jobs away. I've never seen it happen before.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#495
post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but then one questions the need of these extremely-well renumerated CEOs. If they are guided purely by quarterly numbers, stock market trends and industry groupthink, then why not save a fortune and replace them wholesale with an AI.

Never said purely. In any case, it's a proxy. When they're presented an easy win, they're going to take it. Most of these cuts are happening in unprofitable business areas. Before with cheap cash and a strong economy, it made sense to keep these people on. The market valued investment. Now it no longer does - now profit matters, and that means cutting costs. There's not a single person on here who wouldn't be making…

> There's not a single person on here who wouldn't be making these decisions right now.

What about Tim Cook?

Post reply on HN