Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17% • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#541

Post by nyokodo » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:21 PM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #512

jmarchello wrote: post #495

Anytime I see layoffs like this, All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth', But now reality has set in and we need our employees to serve a purpose beyond simply headcount". In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but…

What's the consequence for doing your employees a disservice? Maybe a few of the best and most important employees get jaded and quit. Morale company wide takes a hit. These companies don't seem to care and I guess I'm not sure they should. For me, it's not just morale that's gone to shit, but I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I s…

> we ARE human resources, and it's very likely none of us are irreplaceable, none of us matter really all that much to our employers

Now, remember this the next time you’re tempted to lose sleep, sacrifice family time or leisure for your employer and then act accordingly.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#542

Post by vkou » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:21 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #528

jmarchello wrote: post #495

Anytime I see layoffs like this, All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth', But now reality has set in and we need our employees to serve a purpose beyond simply headcount". In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but…

Who is "they"? Spotify executives who assumed the money printer would never run out of ink? The managers who hired and hired to expand their own empire? The software engineers who engaged in "resume driven development" by stacking abstractions on top of abstractions so they could play with cool new tech at work? There is a lot of opportunism out there.

Top blame is on middle-management (100+ reports), because they set the rules-in-practice for how the organization actually operates, and second blame goes to top management (C-level), because their job is to keep the middle-management in check.

The line employees are just responding to the incentives that these two groups create, they aren't the ones steering the ship into the ground.

Any significant layoff that doesn't have a disproportionate number of people from those two groups thrown overboard is ass-covering. They are the ones who screwed up.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#543

Post by querez » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:22 PM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #512

jmarchello wrote: post #495

Anytime I see layoffs like this, All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth', But now reality has set in and we need our employees to serve a purpose beyond simply headcount". In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but…

What's the consequence for doing your employees a disservice? Maybe a few of the best and most important employees get jaded and quit. Morale company wide takes a hit. These companies don't seem to care and I guess I'm not sure they should. For me, it's not just morale that's gone to shit, but I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I s…

> I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I see, we ARE human resources

I think that's just a normal process of growing older. Also: yes, of course you are a resource to your employer. An annoying one (stell or laptops don't usually talk back and has demands). I also don't think there's anything wrong with companies behaving this way. By all intents, purposes and employment contracts, it was always meant to be a "work for payment" type deals, nothing more. Of course, ideally your interests and the companies' align beyond that narrow scope; e.g. you're both interested in you becoming an expert in X, or in solving problems in area Y. But it really comes down to you being a resource for the company to produce stuff. Thinking back I realized that my elders and mentors and everyone worth listening to always tries to tell me that (e.g. by telling me "you're not your job", "look out for your WLB, noone else will", "a job is just a means to an end", "HR protects the company, not you", "always keep in mind that you're disposable"...). And yet it seems to be a lesion that everyone needs to rediscover for themselves eventually.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#544

Post by apwell23 » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:23 PM UTC

rorroe53 wrote: post #532

lettergram wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor today are the middle class of 15-20 years ago and the kings of 300 years ago. It’s not perfect but a rising tide does raise all ships. Regarding the ultra wealthy, the disparity was actually greater in the past. All that said, you distribute wealth by reducing taxes on the poor and increasing it on wealthy. Alternatively, shifting the growth differential such that the poor grow faster than the wealthy (hard…

Middle class 15-20 years ago was able to buy, or even finance building of their own houses. How many poor you know who do that? Only thing that has really improved is access to cheap Made in China goods, and perhaps plane tickets. But actual necessities like housing are becoming more and more unaffordable.

> But actual necessities like housing are becoming more and more unaffordable.

That has to do with supply restrictions with NIMBY and environmet regulatory capture by nimbies. Blame your local boomer neighbor not a billionaire.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#545

Post by freedomben » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:23 PM UTC

gusgus01 wrote: post #514

lettergram wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor today are the middle class of 15-20 years ago and the kings of 300 years ago. It’s not perfect but a rising tide does raise all ships. Regarding the ultra wealthy, the disparity was actually greater in the past. All that said, you distribute wealth by reducing taxes on the poor and increasing it on wealthy. Alternatively, shifting the growth differential such that the poor grow faster than the wealthy (hard…

The poor of today (2023) are the middle class of 2003-2008? That's a hard comparison with the housing crash of 2008, but I don't think the tide has risen enough for that comparison to be accurate.

Yeah I agree, I don't think that's true overall.

Maybe in some very small senses, like many of the poor today have iPhones, which are way more capable than even the middle class phones of mid 00s. But yeah middle class in the mid 00s owned a decent house. Most of those houses haven't changed much since then.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#546

Post by toss1 » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:23 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #518

maxehmookau wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly agree. It's about time governments started signalling to employers that this sort of behaviour will not go unpunished. After all, it's the state that will have to pick up the tab for the rampant over-hiring in the form of social security and healthcare.

What should the punishment be? Fines for layoffs?

Sure. There are all kinds of things that could be done to increase their consideration of moves like this and simultaneously benefit the people affected.

E.g., rather than considering only percentages of unemployed/employed to set rates for Unemployment Insurance, they could also add a "capriciousness" factor for events like this. Or, they could also require funds be provided for continuing education for those laid off. Heck, they could also just make a basic adjustment for the inherent bias in the Unemployment Insurance rates against small biz, where a single layoff/firing has a huge negative effect on your rates, more than firing 100 people for a medium-sized company.

But of course, for the "libertarians", this is evil regulation.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#547

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:23 PM UTC

svarcoe wrote: post #516

jmarchello wrote: post #495

Anytime I see layoffs like this, All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth', But now reality has set in and we need our employees to serve a purpose beyond simply headcount". In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but…

And they were still hiring too! My first day was last Monday haha, last day today

That's so messed up when companies do that. Curious what your separation package was?

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#548

Post by thinkingtoilet » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:23 PM UTC

weebull wrote: post #522

fullshark wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the consequence for doing your employees a disservice? Maybe a few of the best and most important employees get jaded and quit. Morale company wide takes a hit. These companies don't seem to care and I guess I'm not sure they should. For me, it's not just morale that's gone to shit, but I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I s…

The flip side is that these people had a good job for a few years, and can hopefully springboard on. The alternative is that they weren't hired by Spotify, or potentially at all. As long as they were hired in good faith, and not to just see which people worked out, I don't have a problem.

>As long as they were hired in good faith

I think that's the OP's point. They were not hired in good faith and I agree. This mass hiring/firing cycle is playing games with people's lives and, as always, the people at the top are unaffected by it, and in fact maybe rewarded for it. This isn't a game, this is people's lives. It's a little less horrible if it's a remote position but people upend their lives and move for jobs all the time.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#549

Post by hx8 » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:23 PM UTC

weebull wrote: post #522

fullshark wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the consequence for doing your employees a disservice? Maybe a few of the best and most important employees get jaded and quit. Morale company wide takes a hit. These companies don't seem to care and I guess I'm not sure they should. For me, it's not just morale that's gone to shit, but I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I s…

The flip side is that these people had a good job for a few years, and can hopefully springboard on. The alternative is that they weren't hired by Spotify, or potentially at all. As long as they were hired in good faith, and not to just see which people worked out, I don't have a problem.

I agree. The employees got a lot out of the trade. Money, experience, connections. In addition, anyone participating in the tech economy should be aware of the boom/bust cycles that have plagued its history. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that a tech company had a large round of layoffs. The employees should have been aware of the risks when they signed on.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#550

Post by iamflimflam1 » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 3:24 PM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #512

jmarchello wrote: post #495

Anytime I see layoffs like this, All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth', But now reality has set in and we need our employees to serve a purpose beyond simply headcount". In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but…

What's the consequence for doing your employees a disservice? Maybe a few of the best and most important employees get jaded and quit. Morale company wide takes a hit. These companies don't seem to care and I guess I'm not sure they should. For me, it's not just morale that's gone to shit, but I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I s…

“The graveyards are full of indispensable men(/women)”

It doesn’t matter how important or irreplaceable you think you might be - life/businesses/people will carry on without you.