71–80 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you arguing that productivity, however defined, isn't down at these companies?
I think you have missed most of blinkingled's point, and I encourage you to address it fully.
I always wondered if high profile CEOs and shareholders know something substantial of the upcoming future that us leaf nodes are just clueless about. Is it just copy cat or deep info for privileged clubs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would need more than 10 percent pay cut to offset 10 percent in personnel spend. Health insurance/benefits is a significant source of spending
This probably is less true in tech where the salaries are higher.
It's also possible to optimize costs on the benefits themselves to avoid needing to do that, at times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you can't study an unprecedented situation for decades Because rules derived over the last decades or whatever don't necessarily apply to an unprecedented situation Because pretty much all the CEOs and employees say that productivity is in the toilet Because I don't see 20% or whatever more useful products/features coming out of any of these companies
So because of a situation you claim is unprecedented, you are advocating for doing the same old sweeping layoffs CEOs have done for decades? Personally, I think the situation is an entirely precedented change in growth expectations that comes around a tightening of monetary policy and a possible recession. But assuming that you're right, on what basis are you claiming that the standard playbook will get new and bette…
I claim? Do you remember any other global pandemics that reshaped the tech industry?
This misses the main driver. Valuations are no longer based on growth. The entire market has shifted to profitability over growth. Companies with a stronger balance sheet coming out of the recession will be better positioned for the long term. Seems that companies that gained their valuations through growth weren't sustainable in the long run. And at a macro level, economic policy has largely deferred recessions sinc…
The market shifting to profitability over growth was the motive, absolutely. But Elon's decimation of Twitter was the means and opportunity. And I think that copycatting those means of executing layoffs - 7am email notifications for 20-year employees, minimal consultation with lower-level management about who should be retained - will have significant ramifications on the morale of the remaining workforce. Perhaps so…
It seems that many of these articles would apply just as well to the excessive hiring that was going on ~2 years ago. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situations.
> From its fiscal year-end in September 2019 to September 2022, Apple’s workforce grew by about 20% to approximately 164,000 full-time employees. Meanwhile, over roughly the same period, the employee count at Amazon doubled, Microsoft’s rose 53%, Google parent Alphabet Inc.’s increased 57% and Facebook owner Meta’s ballooned 94%.
[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-apple-has-so-far-avoided-la...
I love this point: "The tech industry layoffs are basically an instance of social contagion, in which companies imitate what others are doing." I really wish for a less supine tech press. I've not seen any of these titans of industry being held accountable for the apparent major mistakes of overhiring. And I'm not even talking actual consequences here; these people will surely get bonuses for this. I'd just like to s…
Do we have any evidence that the over-hiring was a mistake? Could companies not have seen the free money and decided to beef up their staff for short term gains in their roadmap, with the knowledge and intention that they will likely be cutting later while getting to keep all that intellectual output? I don't see why we put this past them.
Workers are getting blamed by many for (claimed) low productivity. But why isn't that seen as a managerial failure? Isn't it better to have the same number of people and use them much better than a smaller number of people that are just as poorly used?
This misses the main driver. Valuations are no longer based on growth. The entire market has shifted to profitability over growth. Companies with a stronger balance sheet coming out of the recession will be better positioned for the long term. Seems that companies that gained their valuations through growth weren't sustainable in the long run. And at a macro level, economic policy has largely deferred recessions sinc…
Google? Microsoft? Amazon?
Those companies are in no danger of dying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have missed most of blinkingled's point, and I encourage you to address it fully.
There's no point in debating the meaning of productivity unless someone claims it's neutral or up. If they're willing to make that claim then it might be worth that debate. Otherwise, it's a pointless side track.
The professor recommends across the board pay cuts as an alternative to layoffs. > One thing that Lincoln Electric, which is a famous manufacturer of arc welding equipment, did well is instead of laying off 10% of their workforce, they had everybody take a 10% wage cut except for senior management, which took a larger cut. So instead of giving 100% of the pain to 10% of the people, they give 100% of the people 10% of…
I think the problem with this strategy is that it causes the wrong people to leave. If you're a top performer, you're going to feel like a 10% pay cut is very unfair, and you're going to be able to get another job elsewhere fairly easily, even in this environment. If you're not performing particularly well, it probably doesn't feel as unreasonable, and even if you don't like it, it's tough to leave. When done correct…
This is also different too, in that, there was almost deflation at thst time.
Now, there has been great inflation!
So a 10% cut hurt less then, where as now, all workers should be pushing for a 10%, almost yearly pay increase.
Even if inflation is less than 10%, you have a year of extra experience.
Right now, I'd say most workers are 25% behind on 3 years of raises.
So in a sense, everyone already has had a 10% pay cut this year.
edit:
You know, just a thought, all of these companies were caught colluding to suppress wages in the past.
Whether tracking, or any form of behaviour punished by the courts, it never stops.
So if you are looking at inflation, at high increases coming at 25% over three years due to that inflation, why not all lay off people together, even if profits don't require it?
Why not put fear into people during contract renegotiation, during hiring? Why not, over return to office orders?