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

Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 198 posts

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#81

Post by davidjhall »

refurb wrote: post #2

Having been laid off due to downsizing, I think everyone should go through it at least once. Sure, the first time will leave you panic stricken, but you'll come out the other side with a lot more clarity about the employee-employer relationship. You are disposable. Even the CEO is disposable (as I've seen many times). Once you realize that, you'll stop the BS about loyalty to your company. It's a business arrangement…

The only person who wants to be at a company is the owner/creator/founder (in whatever role that is). Everyone else is picking up a paycheck to work on what they are skilled at and could just as easily work somewhere else ( from CEO to mailroom person.)

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#82

Post by fjsolwmv »

taurath wrote: post #72
vinceguidry wrote: post #17

The author of the article is misinformed about the true landscape of wealth and income inequality. The middle class is ultimately defined by the ability and need to build your own safety net. The upper middle class is able to do this with plenty of wealth to spare for luxuries like private schooling for their kids, income security is provided by their network. Just tap your network and find another job. The upper mid…

Both the middle class and upper middle class can and frequently do operate with no "real" safety net, especially before age 40. Those people sending their kids to private school and have a nice house can and are leveraged like crazy, and can't afford a big layoff, economic downturn, or huge emergency medical bills. Upper middle class delineation to me isn't about security, its about being able to scrounge better qual…

Small business owner was the original middle class, "bourgeoisie". Ben Franklin was a member of the middle class,and he believed that middle class -- where anyone could take a vacation to run for government office -- was essentially to democt

Im modern world, the working class started being called middle class so they woul stop complaining about their poor lot in life.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#83

Post by kjdndisneinj »

minikites wrote: post #20

>Because you do not have power. Remember that, always. When you get promoted, when you enter management, when you get a stellar performance review, you are simply fulfilling the whims of someone else. I hope the author learns about labor unions some day, hopefully soon.

It's quite telling of HN that this perfectly reasonable comment is the most downvoted.

I also enjoy the ignorant response implying governments are responsible for worker protections, not the organized labour that pushed for those regulations in the first place. The same meager protections that the current anti-labour government would love to roll back.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#84

Post by jcadam »

justherefortart wrote: post #50

Work for yourself. That's the answer. One job means you get fired and you're looking for a new boss. 10 clients means if one fires you, you still have 9 you're hopefully keeping happy. I try to follow what I read about Gates starting Microsoft in some Biography. He tried to keep 2x the salary of all the employees as cash on hand, so if something went bad, they could try to weather the storm as long as possible. So be…

If I knew how to find consulting/contract clients for non-third-world-peasantry rates, I would quit my FT job today. My employer bills me out at ~$150-200/hr, so I know it's possible, I just have no idea how to get started.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#85

Post by ynniv »

vinceguidry wrote: post #17

The author of the article is misinformed about the true landscape of wealth and income inequality. The middle class is ultimately defined by the ability and need to build your own safety net. The upper middle class is able to do this with plenty of wealth to spare for luxuries like private schooling for their kids, income security is provided by their network. Just tap your network and find another job. The upper mid…

This is the difference between American and British usage of "[upper] middle class". Americans use it to mean "[upper] middle income", which unfortunately discards much of the understanding conveyed by the British usage.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#86

Post by redundo_twa »

kemiller wrote: post #53
redundo_twa wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwaway account because I'm currently in the middle of being laid off ("redundancy" in UK). I thought I always had that somewhat-cynical outlook by default, coming from a leftist family; but still, the unfairness of this process (first time for me in 20 years of work) boils my blood. Metrics massaged to target this and that, backstabbing, disrespecting people who built the company... all that will forever scar the…

I'm not sure how that would work. I completely agree that layoffs suck, but when a company is at that point, it's usually because other options have been exhausted. But turning a bunch of people out who have never run a company (presumably) as a spinoff seems pretty cruel in most cases. Edit: most of my experience being laid off has been at startups, where I guess it's a bit different from big companies.

>when a company is at that point, it's usually because other options have been exhausted.

Definitely not the case for me at the moment, but I won't bore you with the details.

I don't think it would be cruel at all. If a company cuts entire chunks of the business (products, departments, what have you), it's because someone made a management call that they don't want to bear the risk and/or losses associated to that particular segment, or they cannot imagine new strategies. That does not mean that such a segment is completely unviable, it might simply be that it's not as profitable as that someone decided it should be, or requires more effort that that someone is willing to invest (money, time, creativity etc).

It might still be a perfectly viable lifestyle business for the people working there, who only want to make a decent living. Giving them a choice and a fighting chance, imho, is a win-win situation: the business offloads risk, knowledge is not dispersed, relationships are kept positive. At worst, the spin-off fails, the company has executed a cheap round of layoffs with no hard feelings; at best, the spin-off succeeds, they get some service for cheap and/or dividends, everybody is happy.

I'm surprised nobody said "well, the laid-off people can still do it themselves, nobody stops them" and that's absolutely true; but doing it in an organised manner, with support from an established "mother" entity, is much easier.

Say I switch to the cloud and don't really need most of my datacentre anymore. Instead of just chucking it all away, people and machines alike, I set them up as a separate hosting company where i'm a minority shareholder, buy from them a small contract for my little bit of legacy stuff, and let them free to go find new customers or do their thing. If they fail, nothing of value is lost and I still have access to their talent pool because no bridge was burnt; if they succeed, my shares are worth something and I keep getting good service for cheap.

In a way, it's similar to what Amazon did when they first introduced AWS: they had internal overcapacity for some services and just turned it into another business. (sure, it was a new system etc etc; but when you boil it down, it's just that: they had more internal resources than they needed, and rather than scaling them down, they started selling excess.)

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#87

Post by dragonwriter »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #82
taurath wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the middle class and upper middle class can and frequently do operate with no "real" safety net, especially before age 40. Those people sending their kids to private school and have a nice house can and are leveraged like crazy, and can't afford a big layoff, economic downturn, or huge emergency medical bills. Upper middle class delineation to me isn't about security, its about being able to scrounge better qual…

Small business owner was the original middle class, "bourgeoisie". Ben Franklin was a member of the middle class,and he believed that middle class -- where anyone could take a vacation to run for government office -- was essentially to democt Im modern world, the working class started being called middle class so they woul stop complaining about their poor lot in life.

> Small business owner was the original middle class, "bourgeoisie".

“Business owner” was the original (well, feudal) middle class named the “bourgeoisie”, they became the capitalist upper class (with the same name.) Small business owners (more particularly, those who live by applying largely their own labor to their own capital) are the middle class (“petit bourgeoisie”) in the original descriptions of capitalist economies.

> Im modern world, the working class started being called middle class so they woul stop complaining about their poor lot in life.

No, the higher income subset of the working class got called the middle class to forestall the development of common working class identity.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#88

Post by scaryspooky »

justherefortart wrote: post #70
trentnix wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own my own business, which is kinda the same thing as working for yourself. Two bits of advice: 1. The first check you don't write is usually the one to yourself. You're the only worker that will show up for free. 2. The problem with being your own boss is that your boss is always around. I've never known stress and uncertainty like being a business owner. But I feel like I've learned a lot and am better for it. An…

Why wouldn't your first check be to yourself? I guess I'm well rounded so that doesn't really apply to me. I hire for roles that consume my time but still provide value (the necessary busy work). I'm a much worse employee as the proud failure of 7 startups (on #8 at the moment). So much bullshit, waste, politics, needless meetings, etc., that working for a company again is one of the most painful things I've ever had…

Your employees will rarely show up if they don't get paid and if they do they won't stick around for long. If you run a business and face a cash flow dilemma the easiest thing to not pay is yourself.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#89

Post by bengale »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #76
mysterydip wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I once got a call out of the blue that I was being laid off. I had always associated stability with success: as long as I was doing a good job, my job would be secure. That was not the case. It was purely a business decision for them, but I left dazed and wondering what to do. I had always planned job changes on my terms. But it was also freeing in that I now could find opportunities I would've missed. I'm mu…

Perhaps your last employers were dazed when you left.

Most employers are aware of how business engagements work.

Re: Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security

#90

Post by dv_dt »

Spooky23 wrote: post #33
rubicon33 wrote: post #10

> Fewer and fewer careers offer a stable path to the financial and personal security that underwrote the Baby Boomers’ “American Dream.” Technology is the one career that has an optimistic future, isn’t beholden by regulation and credential inflation, and actually attempts to create some sort of meritocracy, and so, those that are fortunate enough to be in it want to preserve the one island of paradise left. This rea…

Tech is not a meritocracy. Many of us like to think of it that way, but the reality is that most of the jobs associated with tech are bullshit, and much of tech headcount is IT. The last big place that I worked could easily cut tech headcount in half and hardly notice. A decade from now they can probably reduce headcount 80% in IT and 75% in the business. The impact of global growth won’t impact jobs directly for awh…

> The last big place that I worked could easily cut tech headcount in half and hardly notice.

This is sometimes true, but you have to be careful about myths about occupied capacity (of people and machines). If 100% of the people are occupied, it's very likely that the company is very understaffed and can easily get into trouble too. When xx% of the people are idle, you might look next week, or the next phase of a project and a different slice will be idle, and this may be the fastest, most efficient way to get the work done for large or complex work.

Post reply on HN