Live data from Hacker News

IBM says 'several thousand' layoffs on the way

cbc.ca

51–60 of 107 posts

Re: IBM says 'several thousand' layoffs on the way

#51
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

their stockprice would make a big jump if they could manage to lay off 110k people. I think it would be a good thing, to streamline their operation.

You do realize you're talking about 110k people losing their income? Including dependents (averaging 2.4 / wage earner) that means this would affect ~ 250K people plus those laid off so 350K people. Funny definition of a 'good thing', there is more to life than stocks.

I hear what you are saying but if it means than 330k people still with IBM can keep their jobs (as opposed to the whole thing going under) it could be a good thing.

Re: IBM says 'several thousand' layoffs on the way

#53
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

their stockprice would make a big jump if they could manage to lay off 110k people. I think it would be a good thing, to streamline their operation.

You do realize you're talking about 110k people losing their income? Including dependents (averaging 2.4 / wage earner) that means this would affect ~ 250K people plus those laid off so 350K people. Funny definition of a 'good thing', there is more to life than stocks.

It would be a good thing because following the principal of maximizing profits is what is most socially beneficial, in the absence of externalities. And jobs are not an externality.

You have only calculated one side of the equation. You haven't considered how investors would have reinvested that money, and the jobs that this would have created. We can and should develop a theoretical framework that allows us to predict both sides of the equation. Such a framework exists and is called general equilibrium theory, which predicts that profit maximizing companies maximize social utility.

Re: IBM says 'several thousand' layoffs on the way

#54
post #2

So does that mean we can finally stop listening to Cringely altogether? I am an IBM employee and I can tell you a lot of my fellow IBMers had a really bad week-end because of his ridiculous claims. For context see previous discussion on the 110000 employee layoff that won't happen: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8944637

It would be naive to think IBM upper management didn't run simulations of letting go 100,000 employees in order to optimize profits or focus operations . Letting go not in the sense of actually firing people but also by selling divisions or splitting up the company. It doesn't mean they will do it (right away), but it's not as ridiculous as you would like it to be. One thing's for sure: more than 11 consecutive quarters revenue losses will have a drastic effect on the workforce of IBM.

Re: IBM says 'several thousand' layoffs on the way

#55
post #8
post #2

So does that mean we can finally stop listening to Cringely altogether? I am an IBM employee and I can tell you a lot of my fellow IBMers had a really bad week-end because of his ridiculous claims. For context see previous discussion on the 110000 employee layoff that won't happen: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8944637

I feel lucky like yourself of being in one of the divisions with massive growth. I don't think people appreciate the size and breadth of IT IBM does, my "tiny" division of security if an independent company would be the 3rd biggest Security vendor in the market.

Saw the 100k number and thought "surely a typo" - only to learn that IBM has 400k+ employees

I had completely failed to realize just how massive IBM truly is as a company.

Re: IBM says 'several thousand' layoffs on the way

#56
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize you're talking about 110k people losing their income? Including dependents (averaging 2.4 / wage earner) that means this would affect ~ 250K people plus those laid off so 350K people. Funny definition of a 'good thing', there is more to life than stocks.

It would be a good thing because following the principal of maximizing profits is what is most socially beneficial, in the absence of externalities. And jobs are not an externality. You have only calculated one side of the equation. You haven't considered how investors would have reinvested that money, and the jobs that this would have created. We can and should develop a theoretical framework that allows us to predi…

Does the framework predict monotonic utility growth? Does profit maximization occur instantaneously? Does it provide any guarantees on the timeframe required to experience maximal social utility?

Re: IBM says 'several thousand' layoffs on the way

#58
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize you're talking about 110k people losing their income? Including dependents (averaging 2.4 / wage earner) that means this would affect ~ 250K people plus those laid off so 350K people. Funny definition of a 'good thing', there is more to life than stocks.

It would be a good thing because following the principal of maximizing profits is what is most socially beneficial, in the absence of externalities. And jobs are not an externality. You have only calculated one side of the equation. You haven't considered how investors would have reinvested that money, and the jobs that this would have created. We can and should develop a theoretical framework that allows us to predi…

> It would be a good thing because following the principal of maximizing profits is what is most socially beneficial, in the absence of externalities.

"In the absence of externalities" is a pretty enormous qualifications -- very few real world exchanges have no externalities.

> Such a framework exists and is called general equilibrium theory, which predicts that profit maximizing companies maximize social utility.

It predicts that, in a market with rational actors (as defined in the rational choice model -- utility maximizers with perfect information) and no externalities, a Pareto efficient equilibrium will be achieved. But Pareto efficiency means that for anyone to do better, someone would have to do worse. This is not the same as maximizing social utility (while it seems obvious that the point of maximum social utility must be a pareto efficient point, it is not clear that all pareto efficient points maximize social utility.)

And, of course, the conditions in which it makes those predictions (both the perfect information part of the rationality condition, and the no-externalities condition) don't reflect real world decisions very well.

Re: IBM says 'several thousand' layoffs on the way

#59
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a good thing because following the principal of maximizing profits is what is most socially beneficial, in the absence of externalities. And jobs are not an externality. You have only calculated one side of the equation. You haven't considered how investors would have reinvested that money, and the jobs that this would have created. We can and should develop a theoretical framework that allows us to predi…

Does the framework predict monotonic utility growth? Does profit maximization occur instantaneously? Does it provide any guarantees on the timeframe required to experience maximal social utility?

>Does the framework predict monotonic utility growth?

I don't understand that question. I know the language of economics very well, but you're not using the terms in way that has an obvious meaning.

>Does profit maximization occur instantaneously?

Time is not really an issue in general equilibrium theory. E.g. the assumptions can be interpreted as saying that all companies make the decision that, at that time, given all information available, maximizes the expected value of the companies future time discounted dividends.

>Does it provide any guarantees on the timeframe required to experience maximal social utility?

Social utility is timeless. E.g. it can be restated to say that if you were to make a plan (where plan can include contingencies, e.g. if X happens, do Y) to maximize the (time discounted) total social welfare over all future time periods, then this plan would involve instructing all companies to maximize profit (in the sense of my answer above).

Basically, general equilibrium theory takes into account time, by adding dynamic programming. But this augmented theory is fundamentally the same as the theory when all consumption, production and trade occurs in one instant.

Minus all the econ jargon, I think you may have been hinting at the adjustment costs for the workers involved. There are indeed adjustment costs, but you can't speak about these costs in the same terms as the actual value of having a job. It's like comparing the cost of moving from one home to another, to losing one's home entirely.

Re: IBM says 'several thousand' layoffs on the way

#60
post #49
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the most interesting revelation in Cringely's rumor was that IBM made software. Let's be honest: An big IT product is about 25 programmers and 25 diverse people (incl marketers, designers, accountants) working for 3-10 years. With this you make a GitHub, a Word, an IE. IBM could be owning the planet today. But no, they're in the business of hotels, golf, and conferences.

I think you have an incredibly short-sighted view of the difficulties associated with software engineering. In particular, your view of how hard it is to write large pieces of software seems to be way, way off.

Please provide your own estimates on how many people are required to make great software. Not talking about Word in particular.

I've worked in large companies, now I make a living off my own company, so I must know something about software teams, complexity and feature creep. I didn't provide these estimates in the void.

Post reply on HN