71–80 of 329 posts
Goal is to cut costs, projections are likely decreasing / stagnant revenue.
I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.
> Not surprising. Every company is going to take the opportunity to trim costs when it doesn't affect their PR as much as it would any other time.
I'm pretty sure this is really what's going on here. These CEO's are killing all of these jobs while they can (seemingly without any repercussions).
I was talking with my dad about these layoffs and one of the interesting things we talked about is how different the loyalty formula is nowadays. My dad grew up during a time when folks happily worked for, and were loyal to, one company sometimes for decades. Nowadays, sadly, it's not smart to trust any of these companies for more than a few years. These layoffs prove that. Whether it's companies laying off folks who've been at the company for 20 years (see: Google) or companies laying off new hires, any loyalty seems to be one-sided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, it’s a funny joke. But this attitude only upsets people who thought jobs were not transactional. Kind of reminds me of stories by people who paid for sex and found out the sex worker didn’t want to cuddle afterwards.
> But this attitude only upsets people who thought jobs were not transactional It's entirely possible to believe your job is transactional while expecting accountability for all underperforming colleagues, at all levels. Rather than just the rank-and-file.
I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.
The CEO answers to the board, and the board is usually of the type to at least ask the question "Everyone is jumping off a bridge, why aren't we?" And sadly the easiest answer is "we ARE jumping off the bridge, see?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get this mentality. From a meta level, Confluent isn’t profitable. In this environment, what would you have Confluent to do? The second point, a job is always transactional, you exchange labor for money and at any given time, either party can stop that transaction Also, if you are a tech person in any major city in the US, you are more than likely making at least twice the median wage in that city. If others…
Based on the people I know who work at Confluent, the messaging at all hands meetings has been that the market conditions didn't affect staffing plans. Employees make decisions based on the expectation of ongoing employment - if the CEO keeps says "we won't do layoffs" and then you buy a house and get laid off, that seems like detrimental reliance. It's also worth noting many places enshrine in law protections for la…
Then again outside of visa holders they are naive.
I’ve been working professionally for 25+ years and there isn’t a day after my first year after I built up savings that I depended on my employer instead of my employability to support my addiction to food and shelter.
In the case of Confluent, who depends on a non profitable company to be a sustainable place of unemployment? You go in knowing that any given day that you are going to be laid off and save accordingly.
And no when I graduated from college I wasn’t making an above average salary. I started out making $30K and found the cheapest apartment I could until I saved money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get this mentality. From a meta level, Confluent isn’t profitable. In this environment, what would you have Confluent to do? The second point, a job is always transactional, you exchange labor for money and at any given time, either party can stop that transaction Also, if you are a tech person in any major city in the US, you are more than likely making at least twice the median wage in that city. If others…
I make a mistake, I get fired. CEO makes a mistake, I get laid off. CEO takes full responsibility.
I have no idea if Confluent overstaffed. I admit I'm surprised to hear they aren't profitable though.
I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.
A social contagion if you will. It doesn’t seem rational at all at this point.
Hopefully some of the more naive people in the industry learn something from this. Your employer would happily kill your if it were legal and they made a cent more doing so, let alone something less like fire you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get this mentality. From a meta level, Confluent isn’t profitable. In this environment, what would you have Confluent to do? The second point, a job is always transactional, you exchange labor for money and at any given time, either party can stop that transaction Also, if you are a tech person in any major city in the US, you are more than likely making at least twice the median wage in that city. If others…
I make a mistake, I get fired. CEO makes a mistake, I get laid off. CEO takes full responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And not doing so could affect their IR (investor relations) negatively, which is a higher concern than PR to most companies
Why can't a company do offense on the IR front with literally any action other than cutting workforce? "Our products are better than ever" "Our revenue per employee is better than ever" Why does cutting costs have to be the only way to please investors?
They can be told that products are great, or employees are producing a lot, but the only thing that matters to investors is the money. And so, when you're underperforming compared to others in your market, you have to do what appeases the shareholders, and that involves culling employees.