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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#671

Post by sgerenser »

beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #437
ramraj07 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often they target the lowest performers for such layoff. Of course they rarely succeed in doing that, but the idea is that these people should have been let go anyway but weren’t for various reasons.

> Often they target the lowest performers for such layoff. In my experience, this is often an after-the-fact rationalization by people who "survive" layoffs to explain them, and a convenient justification by leadership for layoffs. If you've ever been in the room when layoffs are planned or discussed, the actual process is way more focused on blunt cost, personality of the people involved or on the chopping block, an…

In many cases it can actually be inversely proportional to performance, since the one factor they can count in black and white is how much the person costs. Laying off someone making a TC of $500K probably feels like you're saving the company a lot of money, but its also possible the reason they were making that much is because they were more than twice as productive/valuable as the person making $250K. But salary and benefits are easy to quantify, and performance is not.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#672

Post by muffinman26 »

mrthrowaway999 wrote: post #599
Goronmon wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A manager doesn't care that you leave because he still gets to bring home a salary, all they have to do is hire another person and maybe cut back on scope for a little while. Yeah, I'm curious how someone can have an opinions on workplaces and workers and not seem to have personal experience with the subject, especially in a community like this. Do they just come from a wealthy family so the stance is "Getting fired…

Don't people have savings? Don't people see what's happening in the industry and make sure to have 6+ months of savings? Don't people think that putting away a small portion of their immense tech salary would be a healthy thing to do?

If you grew up with even the slightest feeling of financial insecurity, dipping in to savings can already feel like the end of the world.

I can't imagine living with only 6 months of savings. There's no guarantee that I could find another job in 6 months, and unexpected expenses (medical, car trouble, housing repairs) can easily wipe out a month of savings anyway. In fact, given that a layoff means likely also an economic downturn, finding a job at the same salary within 6 months seems highly unlikely.

I have probably 3 years of no-risk savings at this point, have managed to reduce my living expenses to the point where I could work a 40-hour minimum wage job and still pay for my expenses, and have multiple back-up careers, and I'm only now starting to feel that taking money out of savings is an acceptable risk. That took years of frugal living on a high tech salary. People in their first few years at a tech job or with families will probably never achieve that.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#674

Post by stevenAthompson »

coldpie wrote: post #610
stevenAthompson wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive my ignorance, but why would very low interest rates ("almost free" money) be a bad thing we want to avoid? Isn't it for best if society keeps interest gathering, rent seeking, behavior to a minimum and instead encourages that more of the available capital is put to good use?

Because having a functional business model is what defines whether the use of capital is good or not. Bad outcomes from low interest rates are all these layoffs from overstaffing, all the wasted human-years on blockchain & NFT garbage during 2021, VCs blowing money on obvious failures like Juicero, etc. These are not good uses of capital, and if they had to have a real business plan to get capital in the first place,…

> These are not good uses of capital

I suppose it depends on what the alternative was for that capital. Sitting in an index fund wasn't really doing anything useful for society, but providing high paying tech jobs to dropbox employees was probably very useful to society. Especially when you consider all of the downstream impacts of those employees spending.

Similarly, I would ask if society gets more good out of transferring the wealth to crypto-bro's or from it sitting in relatively low yield investment vehicles? I would wager that the crypto bro's buying lambo's acted as a better economic stimulus than non-productive interest gathering.

Now if the choice had been between investing in "good" businesses vs "bad" businesses I would agree, but I don't think it was.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#675

Post by timeon »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #348
stonemetal12 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop saying "take responsibility" if they aren't actually. If you knock a girl up and you "take responsibility" it means you getting married. If you are in a car wreck and you "take responsibility" it means you are paying for repairs. If you commit a crime and "take responsibility" you are going to jail. So if a CEO is "taking responsibility" it should be something like that second case, dollars from their own pocket…

GP asked what should CEO say instead. Not what should they not say.

Absence is also part of the content.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#676

Post by lazide »

njtransit wrote: post #561
tschellenbach wrote: post #551

The same forces that enable high tech salaries, also make layoffs more likely. - The market for talent is competitive. So companies bid up to the absolute max they can - The market for managers is also competitive. Creating dynamics that lead to larger teams and raises for team members - Companies allow things like remote work, which is a perk, but also has a lot of abuse in terms of how much work gets done The end r…

A somewhat sensible take, but the issue isn’t just healthcare. A lot of your life is based off of long-term, fixed cost cash flow. E.g. you can’t pay less on your mortgage just because you got fired. Even with savings, getting laid off is highly disruptive, and, if done as part of a broader downturn in the market, you may never recover the required cash flow to enable your lifestyle.

Just wait until you have to deal with child support and imputed income.

Getting fired/laid off is about the only thing that can save you.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#677

Post by xeromal »

mvdtnz wrote: post #669
xeromal wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make a decent salary as a programmer (150k) but my house only cost 250k and my mortgage is about 1400. How I see it, if I have to flip burgers to keep my house, I can pull it off. I can't imagine have a mortgage that's 10gs a month.

For a lot of people this isn't possible. You won't find a liveable home in my country for under 600k.

For sure but that would mean saving for it is even more impossible.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#678

Post by vel0city »

cruffle_duffle wrote: post #664
vel0city wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's pretty much no way they'd qualify for Medicaid if they were a dev at Dropbox. The income limit for Medi-Cal is $20,783 for a single adult, $28,208 for a household of two adults. Chances are they were past that income limit the first few months of the year. You don't just immediately qualify after making $140k annualized for the first 10 months and then hit $0 one day. Plus, they're getting 16 weeks of salary.…

True but even making $140k/year does qualify you for tax credits on ACA marketplace health insurance plans. COBRA is kind of obsolete, honestly. You should be switching over to a insurance plan purchased through your state's health insurance marketplace.

Totally agree there. Chances are they'll be better served with a marketplace plan unless they've got a complicated health situation/very specific care that might be questionablly covered without thoroughly shopping around.

I'm just pushing back at the idea someone can go from making six figures and turn around and hop on Medicaid. It's not that simple. It should be IMO, but it isn't.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#679

Post by vundercind »

RivieraKid wrote: post #238
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?

Those employees were costing more than the value they were creating. If the marginal product of labor is lower than the marginal cost of labor, the company should reduce headcount. If higher, the company should increase headcount.

That is the current orthodoxy, yes.

Whether in the long term this is net-beneficial for a given actor in the typical case, is at best unclear. This marginal-labor-cost/benefit-in-a-given-moment accounting misses a large proportion of the harmful effects of a layoff.

When a bunch of companies in one sector do it, it does lower wages and reduce labor power to e.g. demand better working conditions. That part, is a benefit for companies. But it's not the result of one company doing what's best for their particular situation—it's a result of coordination, even if only by the understanding that "this is what you do, when there's an excuse to, and especially when you see others doing it". It's merely best practice then, not... collusion.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#680

Post by wolvesechoes »

otteromkram wrote: post #540
pjmlp wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, MBAs have to learn exponential growth is impossible to accomplish forever. Companies should be managed to be profitable, while paying employees and business expenses. Anything other is a pipe dream that eventually blows up, but since only employees suffer while the MBA guys go to become CEO of yet another adventure, who cares. /s

I have an MBA and am not a CEO. I'm probably better at developing software than you, too. But, I do get a chuckle out of what you believe is a "diss," when you're actually stating that MBA holders will not only do better in life, but they'll also control your fate. Keep that narrative alive; I love it!

"But, I do get a chuckle out of what you believe is a "diss," when you're actually stating that MBA holders will not only do better in life, but they'll also control your fate."

This doesn't mean it is not a diss - most parasites fare quite well, and definitely determine fates of their hosts.

Post reply on HN