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

Layoffs at Block

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Layoffs at Block

#881

Post by alecbz »

inanutshellus wrote: post #874
beAbU wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take is that if AI really improved productivity, then that makes labour effectively cheaper. Usually, when labour is cheap, then you buy lots and lots of it so that you can get a lot of things done. I think it's called the Law of Demand? Companies over-hired during COVID because the money was free thus making the labour cheap. Why are they not over-hiring now, during a time when workforce productivity is supposed…

> that makes labour effectively cheaper. But it isn't cheaper yet, right? Your current salary was defined pre-AI. Now, though, maybe you're only worth a third of what you were but you can't live on a third, and your employer can't just start giving you less money, so... they lay you off then in a year or three when the tailspin starts to hit bottom, they hire Younger You for ~$X/3.

If AI makes people more productive then labor is cheaper than it was pre-AI, even at pre-AI salaries, because you're getting more done at the same cost.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#882

Post by Nifty3929 »

torben-friis wrote: post #120

>we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. In my country, this action would be literally illegal. Even in countries where it isn’t, it feels highly immoral. “I’m not in any kind of pressure to do this but I’m choosing to shed the people who created my wealth for greater…

Are you glad to have people spending their lives on jobs that don't contribute to society, just because the business is already profitable? Wouldn't it be better to have those people move into whatever job would contribute more to society? Have you considered that allowing people to remain in jobs that contribute less than they could in other jobs is the reason why your per-capita production lags the US?

The goal of the economy should be to move people quickly to where they can do the most good for society. Note that this has little to do with how hard these folks are working, how smart they are, or how 'worthy' they are. The point is just to have people doing the most useful work.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#883

Post by make_it_sure »

agnishom wrote: post #611

> i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. Sounds like a false dichotomy. The third option is that he could have kept them around. It would be financially feasible given that "our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving.".

it's a business, why he should keep people if company doesn't need them? A business is not a charity

Re: Layoffs at Block

#884

Post by make_it_sure »

mempko wrote: post #271
borroka wrote: post #156

Anyone who has worked in the big tech industry knows that probably more than half of the workforce performs tasks that, in essence, are superfluous. But these things happened: 1) Musk has shown that Twitter can operate with 5% (approximately?) of the workforce he inherited; 2) laying off a lot of people was seen as a sign that the company was in trouble, but not now because; 3) artificial intelligence makes point 2)…

Excuse me for making some pretty sharp statements. Twitter is objectively a worse product now. Musk is a deeply uncreative person who doesn't seem to actually like people and attracts people to him that are the same way. This shows in his truly uninspired products. Tesla is way behind the Chinese now. xAI is a copy cat. SpaceX seems to be taking old Soviet ideas. Musk I go on?

your argument becomes equals to 0 once you involve your personal feelings

Re: Layoffs at Block

#885

Post by mbesto »

t-writescode wrote: post #28

Nice severance; but in this job market, holy shit. Yeah, you get 5 months of severance and a bunch of devices and such; but, does this CEO really think these employees will find new work in that time? In this job market? If the profits are still up and growing, why on earth would you evict 40% of the company, to send them into this job market? Why not … try new industries, play around, try to become the next Mitsubis…

I really don't understand the notion that a company owes you a job for work that doesn't produce a financial result for them.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#886

Post by thayne »

Swizec wrote: post #36
t-writescode wrote: post #28

Nice severance; but in this job market, holy shit. Yeah, you get 5 months of severance and a bunch of devices and such; but, does this CEO really think these employees will find new work in that time? In this job market? If the profits are still up and growing, why on earth would you evict 40% of the company, to send them into this job market? Why not … try new industries, play around, try to become the next Mitsubis…

> Nice severance; but in this job market, holy shit. I just talked to a bunch of recruiters (we're hiring) and their main piece of advice was: The market is crazy. Move fast . We're seeing people getting jobs within days of starting to look, bailing on offers after signing because they got a better offer somewhere else, etc. 24 hours is the longest you can leave a candidate waiting. You have been warned edit: I am in…

I'm not actively looking, but what I've noticed from recruiters contacting me (I'm not in SFBA) is:

- I'm contacted less often

- Offered Salaries are lower, despite inflation

- They basically all required being in office, and relocating at my expense

- Most of them are from AI startups that have a decent chance of not lasting more than a few years.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#887

Post by izacus »

mancerayder wrote: post #870
dzonga wrote: post #850

Straight from the horses mouth: >> yes we over-hired during covid because i incorrectly built 2 separate company structures (square & cash app) rather than 1, which we corrected mid 2024. but this misses all the complexity we took on through lending, banking, and BNPL. and that we’re now targeting $2M+ gross profit per person, 4x our pre-covid efficiency, which stayed flat at ~$500k from 2019 until 2024. we have and…

It doesn't matter if the main reason is they over-hired. Financial services is going to eat it up, there are eyes going wide all over the place in the C-suites, I am certain. Companies/Funds that own other companies see an opportunity to reduce input costs (human costs). Even if over-hiring and AI are both explained reasons, the second one is going to win out as it's a narrative that lines up with what their goal is,…

"over-hired" seems like mostly copium of engineers being very afraid that their company will discard them like this and are trying to rationalize why they won't follow.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#888

Post by izacus »

pjmlp wrote: post #655
tombert wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm convinced that these "AI Layoffs" are these companies trying to save face from the absurd overhiring that they did in 2022 and 2023 because apparently they thought that these no-interest loans/free money would just last forever. No one really "knows" how to grow businesses so the easiest way to spend a lot of money quickly is hiring lots of people, whether or not they are "necessary". Then this free money dries u…

Having been through a couple of layoffs and merges, as I approach mid-century, the MBA powered managers are always to blame, because the stupid way to manage every year has to be x% exponential increase over the previous year, always forgetting that it is physically impossible when everyone goes for the same goal. And then when targets aren't met, it is the employees that get shown the door while management gets thei…

Remember that economists think that this process you're talking about is healthy, good and this is how companies should be run. Take massive loans, hire, then discard people when you don't need them.

DOW is at 50.000.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#889

Post by whywhywhywhy »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #583
alephnerd wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm convinced that these "AI Layoffs" are these companies trying to save face from the absurd overhiring that they did in 2022 and 2023 because apparently they thought that these no-interest loans/free money would just last forever. Partially. The first nail in the coffin was the change in assumptions around output. Before 2023, there was an assumption that more bodies means more output. After the massive X/Twitter…

>After the massive X/Twitter layoffs (60-70% headcount culled) with X/Twitter still standing, this assumption was clearly proven false. I agree with your sentiment, but this example is awful. Twitter cut engineering staffed, pissed off advertisers that caused an exodus, had its stock steadily declining under Musk, and eventually decided to go private again. Only to be "aquired" by Musk's AI wing. Maybe there was a la…

Think its a bit absurd to pretend Twitter (content and politics aside) isn't running just fine from technical point of view with 40% of the staff.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#890

Post by bakies »

interestpiqued wrote: post #609
jdross wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you know, this is a subjective take. (I enjoy my experience there more now, for example, with less social politics in my feed.) And their head of product claimed that X only has around 30 FT employees apparently working on it, so it's much more than 80% since then. https://www.ndtv.com/feature/x-head-of-product-claims-compan...

Experience is usually a subjective thing. But it seems pretty clear to me. I’m was huge advocate of free speech and a political moderate but X made me question my priors on content moderation. There was genuinely heinous shit on my feed and i had no good way to filter it.

There was? It's full of nazi shit now? What was it before?
Post reply on HN