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

Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#61

Post by bodiekane »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #40
thih9 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sane workload, work hours and vacation days for a start. It’s 2025 and I still see “unlimited PTO” in many places.

That comes with high profit margin and moat (for your specific labor, not just the business's moat). If you don't have leverage, you won't get those things regardless of enterprise or small business.

And yet, millions of people work 40 hour weeks and take a couple vacations per year while working in razor-thin margin industries like grocery stores and low margin restaurants, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, retail, trucking and services ranging from hair stylists to accounting.

Sane working hours and vacation time should be taken as a given in the modern economy. Unusually long work hours should be reserved for unusually highly paid professions like investment banking and surgeons.

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#63

Post by ghaff »

LargeWu wrote: post #45
josefritzishere wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked at both and... well they're just very different. It's mostly trade offs. What specifically for y'all?

There's dysfunction in both, it's just different types of dysfunction.

As companies grow (and it's not binary), a lot of things (have to) change which may be to your taste--or may not be.

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#64

Post by legitster »

From Jassy's blog post in September:

>It’s created artifacts that we’d like to change (e.g., pre-meetings for the pre-meetings for the decision meetings, a longer line of managers feeling like they need to review a topic before it moves forward, owners of initiatives feeling less like they should make recommendations because the decision will be made elsewhere, etc.) [...] So, we’re asking each s-team organization to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025. Having fewer managers will remove layers and flatten organizations more than they are today.

Amazon is a meatgrinder on its workforce, but I will give credit where it's due - I think thinning out management is a noble goal and endeavor. If it's true that these layoffs don't impact as many IC roles, it's probably worth calling that out.

(It's just awful convenient that the timing of this is also when everyone is staring down a rough economy)

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#65

Post by linguae »

supportengineer wrote: post #42
palmotea wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Culture of importing cheaper labor that they can manipulate. > The H1B program is broken and ripe for abuse. Offshoring is a much bigger problem. These abusive companies can "save" way more money by exporting the job than importing a worker to fill it, and pandemic-era changes have accelerated that.

I'm starting to think offshoring is better for America. Because house prices are unaffordable. Should a simple house really be $2 million ?

Be careful what you wish for. We could end up in a situation where we have unremarkable homes for $2 million and no local jobs capable of making the mortgage payments.

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#66

Post by B-Con »

mingus88 wrote: post #18
amyjess wrote: post #11

> “We are committed to operating like the world’s largest startup, and … that means removing layers.” I learned a long time ago that behaving like a startup is not a good thing, and I've specifically oriented my career towards working at companies that don't even want to pretend to imitate startup culture. I'm very happy in enterprise-land.

At that scale, it’s the worst of both worlds. You set the expectation that you can deliver at the pace of a lean startup, but every step of the way you are slowed down by a process or internal dependency that is operating like a fortune 100 company. Large companies should just fund startups and acquire them when the product has shipped than try to create a culture where teams are expected to operate a speedboat that…

> Large companies should just fund startups and acquire them when the product has shipped

I mean, that's basically what big tech has been doing for the left 15 years., not then people get upset that "Foo Corp doesn't innovate, it only acquires".

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#68

Post by lotsofpulp »

bodiekane wrote: post #61
lotsofpulp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comes with high profit margin and moat (for your specific labor, not just the business's moat). If you don't have leverage, you won't get those things regardless of enterprise or small business.

And yet, millions of people work 40 hour weeks and take a couple vacations per year while working in razor-thin margin industries like grocery stores and low margin restaurants, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, retail, trucking and services ranging from hair stylists to accounting. Sane working hours and vacation time should be taken as a given in the modern economy. Unusually long work hours should be reser…

In the US, that might be true if you don't have kids, and/or don't aim to buy a home in a major metro. Otherwise, a lot of those people are going to be working multiple jobs, or relying on a higher earning spouse. Especially retail and restaurant workers. Most won't even get subsidized health insurance from their employer, and if they do, they are not going to be able to afford the deductibles with their income from one 40 hour per week job.

Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'

#69

Post by legitster »

amyjess wrote: post #11

> “We are committed to operating like the world’s largest startup, and … that means removing layers.” I learned a long time ago that behaving like a startup is not a good thing, and I've specifically oriented my career towards working at companies that don't even want to pretend to imitate startup culture. I'm very happy in enterprise-land.

Kinda. The sweet spot is working at a "mid-cap" company. The company is growing and you have resources and freedom to do things, but not so big that you are in a bureaucratic nightmare.

I tell people that the best size of company to work at is one that's just barely big enough to have an HR department.

Post reply on HN