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

Google to reduce workforce by 12k

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#871

Post by vt85 »

unity1001 wrote: post #695
raverbashing wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I also wonder how much of the current layoffs are "we need to fire people as to look good on paper for the market"

Its entirely that. A business method that relied on inflated valuations over the anticipated future market domination measured in current growth can only be possible in a market that has practically unlimited money entering the economy and it cannot survive in an environment where the money flow stops. The dollar losing its uncontested dominance as foreign exchange currency due to the results of the sanctions and eco…

[dead]

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#872

Post by jensensbutton »

netheril96 wrote: post #266
jensensbutton wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> diversity programs... Not even remotely comparable to the other things you listed. People such as yourself seemingly can't stop talking about it though, despite it having no effect on your life.

> despite it having no effect on your life. How could it have no effect on our lives? It has effect when you compete against a diversity hire, it has effect when you have to work with a diversity hire, it has effect when your manager has to decide who to lay off when your coworker is a diversity hire.

What is a "diversity hire"? Anyone that's a minority? Or perhaps someone that _you_ believe wouldn't have been hired if they weren't a minority? Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's the latter.

How would you know if a colleague of yours is a "diversity hire" without making assumptions? How do you know that you're just not as good? Because you don't think their work is high quality? Maybe you're a bad judge because your work isn't high quality. Or maybe you only see part of their work? Or maybe your pre-judgement has already doomed you to biased analysis of anything they do.

Or maybe if you're worrying about this you're just not very good.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#873

Post by jensensbutton »

type-r wrote: post #204
jensensbutton wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> diversity programs... Not even remotely comparable to the other things you listed. People such as yourself seemingly can't stop talking about it though, despite it having no effect on your life.

for a period of time, one of my previous employers had an unwritten policy that you couldn't send a job offer to a non diversity applicant at our headquarters. so yeah, these programs can actually have a pretty big impact on my life.

Yeah, google doesn't have that. So it doesn't affect your life.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#874

Post by jimbobimbo »

suzzer99 wrote: post #850
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #699

> Pivoting the company to be AI-first years ago led to groundbreaking advances across our businesses and the whole industry. > Thanks to those early investments, Google’s products are better than ever. Does he really believe this? Maybe I'm just biased towards the parts that are annoying and I end up missing the good parts, but search seems worse every day. I worry about using google products for anything essential d…

I'll believe it when Google Maps stops asking me if I want to get off the highway, drive around in a big square, then get back on at the same exit going the same way. No google. I don't care if it's 8 minutes slower. Still not tempted.

Many such cases. Every major company (FAANGM) talks big about being all-in on AI, but when you use their products in your daily life, stupid stuff like parent's map example is glaring.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#875

Post by hyperbovine »

ok_dad wrote: post #863
outworlder wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here That's a meaningless statement. They never face any consequences. A CEO taking responsibility for layoffs should add their name to the list too.

No shit, this guy took ~$250mm in stock in each of the last few years from what I can find, and even if that is worth half of what it was before this year he could give each outgoing employee about $10k of that stock (to sell maybe) to make their lives easier. Instead he gave them a few words written by some PR manager. Taking responsibility must mean something different to a CEO than it does to me, a common dude.

"oooh you mean financial responsibility. yeah I take none of that."

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#876

Post by jbay808 »

specialp wrote: post #856
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you'd expect at the very least a post-mortem. "Despite getting paid millions to be good at my job, I did what every other CEO was doing when the Federal Reserve set interest rates low and hired a bunch of staff. I didn't think "hmm... this might change in the next 6-12 months". It changed. I am now doing what every other CEO is doing and jumping on the bandwagon and correcting." Now I don't actually have proof that…

I think this is more of sliding the levers to keep the earnings good. There was a massive amount of money dumped into the economy over the last couple of years. Companies produced record earnings, and their stock prices correspondingly increased. Now to keep "growing" they need to decrease spending to keep earnings at the same or higher levels. It is also an opportunity to cut some cruft. A lot of good people get swe…

I think it's beyond that -- with interest rates rising, companies need to increase earnings or else decrease their expenditures, in order to maintain their valuation.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#877

Post by srveale »

jedberg wrote: post #835
charles_f wrote: post #656

> I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here When an incident occurs in prod and it affects the livelihood of 12.000 people (or more if you include family), you'd expect at the very least a post-mortem. I've never seen a company produce one after that. What was the root cause? crazy hiring, massive wage war Could the current situation be anticipated? hell yeah, out of a pandemic, war raging in Euro…

From the point of view of a CEO of a public company, no post-mortem is necessary because nothing went wrong. Hiring during a soaring economy and then letting people go as the economy cools is just standard operating procedure. Grow when money is cheap, stabilize when it's not. If you don't do that, then you'll get out-competed by the companies that are doing that.

To me the strategy has seemed so backwards the last few years.

You are the CEO of a giant tech company, and your goal is to achieve maximum well-being of the company in, say, 3 years time. You are confident you can weather the short term ups and downs. You could:

1. Follow trends. Go on a hiring frenzy at the same time as everyone else. You have to compete with absurd compensation packages because everybody already has a job or is getting multiple offers.

2. Buck the trend. Hire when others are in the middle of layoffs. Show strength when others are making their sheepish apologies. Pay discounted labour prices for top talent.

To me choice #2 is a no-brainer but obviously nobody will ever put me in a position to decide, and it's easy to be an arm-chair CEO. Is it really that these companies are so short-sighted, and are more worried about next quarter than next year? Could nobody see the interest rate hikes coming? I just can't imagine how executives/boards would overlook the impact on stock price if a company was publicly known to use foresight in their hiring practices. What if the headline was something like "Google hiring continues at same rate during recession," doesn't that send a strong signal to investors?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#878

Post by dimal »

woeirua wrote: post #846
tootie wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. Saying this is a new "era" and the old ways are over is nonsense. We're entering what is likely a mild recessionary period with less flowing capital. It's a market correction. The "era" will last maybe 2 years. Then the upward trajectory will hit again and tech workers will get drone shuttles to work or something by 2030.

Remind me, what happened after the DotCom bubble imploded?

It was the period when people started building real companies that created real value and made money instead of bullshit pump and dump IPO schemes. Some of the talented people being laid off right now could create the next wave of innovation that the MAANGs are too ossified for.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#879

Post by leesec »

Maybe a hot take but 6 months severence is extremely generous, they don't have to give anything. This is basically being spoiled compared to how the rest of the world is treated. I'm sure these talented engineers can find new gigs within 6 months

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#880

Post by rmk »

It is beginning to look like all the large companies that were hiring to deny talent to competitors are now feeling comfortable trimming the fat because they know that the startup fundraising scene has shifted dramatically in their favor (fewer potential competitors being funded), and they can trim costs and regain the initiative as far as having more leverage/bargaining power over current and future employees is concerned.
Post reply on HN