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

Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

blog.dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#511

Post by duped »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #406
duped wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Layoffs suck and no one wants to do it, but sometimes it's needed to save the ship. Layoffs are the trolley problem but you get to pick how many people are lying down on each side of the track and if you want yourself to be one of them. That said, if one reaches the conclusion that under their leadership they were forced to downsize by 20% (either due to over hiring, failure to reach revenue/growth targets, whateve…

>that should make that person one of the people on proverbial track That's a satisfying thing to say, but as practical advice it's absolutely terrible . Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them. And that's the question -- what will make the company most likely to be the most successful going forward? Even if…

I didn't say which track they were on in the problem, just that they're on one of them.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#512

Post by DrillShopper »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #492
pixelatedindex wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem Then what is the problem? Ultimately you’re paid the big bucks for being held responsible. Why isn’t it never something like the CEO doesn’t get any stocks that year. I’m not saying he needs to leave the company but maybe he should take a substantial hit to his pay. He has enough money to put food on the table for many years, unlike the people who are let go where i…

>Why isn’t it never something like the CEO doesn’t get any stocks that year. Performance based compensation is absolutely standard for CEOs- Both in terms of options and stock grants.

Do those metrics count "number of people laid off" explicitly?

We know they do implicitly because laying off people makes the company more profitable, but is there any penalty for killing jobs?

If not, shouldn't there be?

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#513

Post by DrillShopper »

teitoklien wrote: post #488
pixelatedindex wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem Then what is the problem? Ultimately you’re paid the big bucks for being held responsible. Why isn’t it never something like the CEO doesn’t get any stocks that year. I’m not saying he needs to leave the company but maybe he should take a substantial hit to his pay. He has enough money to put food on the table for many years, unlike the people who are let go where i…

The ones out of job can join a different company, america’s unemployment rate especially in the tech sector tends to be low. Them doing layoffs doesnt mean the people become destitute. It is better to layoff people who are not adding value to a company, so that those newly unemployed folks can join a different company and build great products and add more value to the economy. Ofcourse this only applies to US tech se…

[flagged]

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#514

Post by anon291 »

elric wrote: post #90

I'm always a bit confused by profitable companies with (presumably) large reserves laying off lots of people. I get that they want to remain profitable. But sure 500ish people could be put to some use? A new product, a new market, a spinoff. Whatever? Are you telling me that no one in such a big, wealthy company of clever engineers has any use for a bunch of talented people?

The company could put them to some use, or they could get capital and launch their own ventures. It's equivalent from a market perspective, except the one you suggest requires unnecessary coercion (forcing the employees to work on something they may not have signed up for).

At the end of the day, the american market place is distinguished in that venture capital, especially in tech, is very accessible. Being laid off seems to be a bonus in the hunt for VC money.

It's the same reason companies return dividends. Sure, they could use the money for R&D and launching a new product, or they could send the money to investors so that they can scour the marketplace for a new technology of their own choosing for investment. The first one unnecessarily takes investor money for a project they may not have signed up for, whereas the former maximizes their freedom to invest in what they find interesting

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#515

Post by sangnoir »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #406
duped wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Layoffs suck and no one wants to do it, but sometimes it's needed to save the ship. Layoffs are the trolley problem but you get to pick how many people are lying down on each side of the track and if you want yourself to be one of them. That said, if one reaches the conclusion that under their leadership they were forced to downsize by 20% (either due to over hiring, failure to reach revenue/growth targets, whateve…

>that should make that person one of the people on proverbial track That's a satisfying thing to say, but as practical advice it's absolutely terrible . Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them. And that's the question -- what will make the company most likely to be the most successful going forward? Even if…

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them

How convenient (for them)! When the company is doing well, they get millions in bonuses because their irreplaceable leadership skills - which make them 2000x more valuable than the least paid worker - were instrumental to the organization's success.

When the chips are down, it wasn't their fault per se, and the company still would be allegedly worse off without them, so laying-off waves of those who don't have decision-making power is the correct remedy, until the good times roll again, and senior leadership is ready to claim responsibility.

It must be nice to claim "macro-economic headwinds" as justification for poor performance and poor planning, but still get paid bonuses for the never-mentioned "macro-economic tailwinds"

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#518

Post by [deleted] »

andygcook wrote: post #208

For context, Drew Houston's total compensation for the year in 2023 was $1.5M: > According to our data, Dropbox, Inc. ... paid its CEO total annual compensation worth US$1.5m over the year to December 2023. That's a notable increase of 34% on last year via https://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-why-dropbox-inc-nasdaq-... Even if Drew took minimum wage, that would save ~15 jobs assuming $100K all-in comp (which seems lo…

[deleted]

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#519

Post by benced »

pjmlp wrote: post #495
otteromkram wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, people still vie from all over to work at US companies and we still draw the best talent. There's also unemployment benefits for US workers. Haters gonna hate, I guess.

No need to be in US to work for US companies, and still get a nice severance package. Not everyone is looking forward to US working conditions.

And it leads directly into the US being richer than all but tiny petro-states and growing faster than all of its peers. Fair enough if that's not what you want but there are tradeoffs.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#520

Post by SoftTalker »

pjmlp wrote: post #462
ericmcer wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, that severance is awesome. Of all the tech workers struggling, the ones from companies big enough to throw 4+ mo severance packages are not the ones I am worried about. Any smaller company your severance is a pat on the back.

In many countries severance package is guaranteed by law.

What happens if there isn't enough money left to fund the legally-required severance? Do the taxpayers pick up the cost?
Post reply on HN