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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#681

Post by marcosdumay »

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…

> Your manager doesn't get upset when you leave, bit weird how people feel so differently when they get fired.

That's because people have a single employer, while companies have several employees.

That's also why employees are protected, while companies are mostly not. And yeah, the US doubles down on the problem by linking health insurance with the job.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#682

Post by smileson2 »

ericmcer wrote: post #376
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?

It always seemed common sense to me that once a piece of software became stable and profitable you would need a much smaller engineering staff than when it was being built. The opposite seems to happens and orgs 10X their engineer headcount once they start making money. It makes sense to keep some high performers and a few redundancies to stabilize/modernize it and make small improvements, but it feels like tech got…

For real, at some point running development and product teams cracking on features for no reason is a real negative

software can generally be 'done' in the same way building a skyscraper can be

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#683

Post by mulmen »

xeromal wrote: post #652
mulmen wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the most obvious approach would be to pay cash. The more fiscally conservative option is to only borrow money if you have capital which is earning income at a higher rate than the mortgage. This probably necessitates having more capital than the house costs.

The problem with that is that unless you have an extremely well paying job or rich parents, you have to outsave inflation and rising house prices. You may never own. Getting a loan just locks you into an inflation proof price as a "forced" savings. I don't think it's realistic at all for 85% of Americans to save for a new house.

Yes, it’s a tragedy of the commons. That doesn’t make taking on a loan you can’t afford less of a bad idea.

House prices are unaffordable because people take on loans they can’t afford. This reinforces the unaffordable prices. If milk was $40.00 a gallon you’d just stop putting it on cereal and eventually farmers get the message. Houses are the same thing.

If you can’t comfortably afford a house then don’t buy it. You’re stuck renting or buying something more modest. This isn’t complicated.

The idea that house prices can only go up is delusional. Nothing about a house is uniquely inflation proof or even inflation resistant. This isn’t the only investment vehicle available to you.

This idea that houses are an important part of financial security is putting the cart in front of the horse. It leads to the NIMBYism that prevents additional supply from being built because prices must always go up.

We all exist in the same economy and no action happens in a vacuum. When you buy something you have reduced supply and applied upward pressure on price. Individually this effect is so small it is immeasurable. In aggregate it isn’t.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#684

Post by mulmen »

itsoktocry wrote: post #658
mulmen wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Do you have any evidence of this? There are unfounded claims of “productivity metrics” but I have never actually seen one. E: I realize this is a poor choice of words after saying productivity metrics don’t exist. What I mean is my tasks are easier to complete in a WFH environment than they are…

> I have been far more productive from home. Same. It's been a boon for me, and I genuinely enjoy my work, so it's win win. But anecdotally, I know people who abuse it. On net, remote work is a plus: less commute, less pollution etc etc. And even the abusers, it's not like those people were highly productive in the office, I'm sure.

Ok but how do you know they are abusers? And what is the net effect?

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#685

Post by jjnoakes »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #391
kraig911 wrote: post #183

Dropbox my one critique is can you please make it affordable again. I just can't justify the cost as there are cheaper services out there. I don't care about PDF signing etc. I fear OneDrive/Google Drive are eating you lunch because it's a hard sell to be competitive against them price wise.

I left Dropbox when they added (and preemptively enabled) a checkbox that shared your data with them for AI training. I refuse to do business with a company that will just unilaterally invade my privacy like that. They can make it as cheap as they want, I'll never go back.

Citation please, about Dropbox training models with customer data?

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#686

Post by ironmagma »

desbo wrote: post #601
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…

The idea that someone's response to being fired should be the same as a manager's response to one of their reports quitting is hilariously out of touch.

It kind of ignores the core asymmetry of capitalism, that those with the capital are the ones with the power. Nobody can do a background check on a company to see who they laid off or fired before they work there.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#687

Post by FirmwareBurner »

my_berner wrote: post #457
skwee357 wrote: post #6

Being sorry - check Takes full responsibility - check Layoffs are still there

I think we'd all collectively blow our minds if a CEO said "I take full responsibility for the bad decisions and overhiring, so I'm resigning"

Would the CEO resigning or getting laid off, make your situation any better if you were one of those laid off?

Feels like a weird hill to die on, and more like a crabs in the bucket mentality that doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things. In the end I'm still unemployed and whatever happens to my ex-CEO doesn't change my situation one bit.

As I grew older and experienced my share of layoffs, I stopped caring about what happens to those responsible for me getting laid off, as my energy is better spent on improving my situation and my life instead of ruminating how Krama vengeance would make me feel better.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#688

Post by deeviant »

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…

> 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

Do you mind expanding on this? How does remote work change the standards of how much work somebody has to get down?

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#689

Post by Powdering7082 »

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…

Being able to stay in the country is also tied to employment for plenty of people

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#690

Post by Workaccount2 »

JohnMakin wrote: post #279
Workaccount2 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public company CEO pay is almost always paid by shareholders not by the company itself. It's so misleading that these "CEO compensation is 100x employee pay" stats always get kicked around like it is an apples to apples comparison. It's not. CEO's get paid in stock which they need to redeem from shareholders. Employees get paid with cash which them redeem from the company's checking account. They are different source…

Yes, but we can all agree that stock/$ is pretty fungible and can be exchanged for goods and services in pretty much the same way. So effectively, it is apples to apples.

Stock/cash is not fungible for the company itself. Using shareholders as an ATM is a surefire way to tank a stock, and companies tend to use it as an absolute last resort.
Post reply on HN