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

91–100 of 198 posts

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

#91

Post by redundo_twa »

mseebach wrote: post #55
allannienhuis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea might work better for products than departments. I worked for an employer who did exactly that when one of the new product/business they'd built wasn't growing (enough?) to warrant more investment. So he set up a couple of the developers working on the product with the rights to the product and helped work out new contracts with the existing handful of clients (it was large enterprise software). There was en…

But was the alternative in that case to fire the two employees? It sounds more like the case that they wanted to cut the product. Specifically, in the case of the article, spinning off the redundant employees leaving them in a new firm with no product and no revenue sounds like a cruelly dystopian option. And if the company was willing to put money into it, I'm pretty sure most employees would prefer that as a severa…

> I'm pretty sure most employees would prefer that as a severance package instead.

Possibly, but I think the employee should be given a choice. If even just 1% of laid-off people took the choice and succeeded, the entire economy would clearly benefit.

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

#92

Post by redundo_twa »

mseebach wrote: post #26
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…

Can you elaborate on the idea that companies should spin off departments? On the face of it, I don't see how that could work, but I probably don't understand your idea fully.

See my reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16916590

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

#93

Post by awakeasleep »

wolfspider wrote: post #45
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 so horribly wrong- I've known upper middle class that get there by not spending hardly anything and owning their own business and operating it (e.g. Gas Station + Auto Repair). No leeching there. No accounting for "Luck" here or proximity to resources and opportunity. Do they actually teach this in schools or what nowadays? starting to seem prevalent. Life is what you make it, tomorrow holds no promises, oppo…

You're using a gradational view of class to address points made from a relational analysis.

A gradational view would be looking to sort people into grades, for example based on income. A relational view addresses how groups of people relate to each other, like one class might direct the labor of another.

Neither view is wrong, but to intelligently talk about class you should realize that it's not a two dimensional spectrum, there are probably 4 or 5 dimensions to consider.

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

#94

Post by bb88 »

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…

I remind myself and others that they wouldn't have a "Human Resources" department if companies didn't believe that humans were resources.

It's not "feelings management" or "people support", it is HR for a reason.

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

#95

Post by eeZah7Ux »

taurath wrote: post #68
dugluak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEO is disposable, but often gets a golden parachute.

In those terms, its usually a hit to reputation, though in general its RARE that a "reputation" hit will prevent an ex-CEO from getting another CEO job, but usually means they won't get a "better" CEO/Executive position. Likewise, if you're working at a company (Facebook say) that has a scandal, get laid off, you're probably gonna be able to find another job.

CEO are forgiven by the job market even when they run out of a failing company while taking a big bonus.

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

#96

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> The upper class doesn't need to fool around with a network, they are networks unto themselves. At this level, enough ambient wealth is floating around that you can hire professionals to manage it for you and never have to do anything you don't want to

This is incorrect. Elites in every society are highly politically exposed. Their network is critical to maintain. America's elite also consist of a large number of self-made men and women--they don't stop fighting just because they're billionaires. And those who turn into trust fund kiddies tend to dissipate their wealth within a generation or two.

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

#98

Post by Rafuino »

replicatorblog wrote: post #30

I'd be curious to ask the author, + Have many of your laid off peers had trouble finding work, post-layoff? + Do you think you'd have a difficult time finding another job if you were laid off? Most people in tech, who are willing to live in one of a half dozen specific cities, have job security prior generations could only have dreamed of. Tech skills are far more portable than a skilled line worker at Ford's River R…

I'd be curious to ask you what "tech skills" means. What's demanded by the companies you refer to is likely shifting constantly. If you're not working in the hot stack, you're not going to have job security "prior generations could only have dreamed of."

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

#99

Post by ElysianEagle »

21 wrote: post #32
ForHackernews wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of people on this rock. Even if only a "small portion of the population" can do the work, that means there are tens of millions (literally) around the world who could do your job as well or better than you. You are the lucky beneficiary of restrictive immigration and employment policies.

There are places with less restrictive immigration (Europe) and salaries are still very high. The supply of decent programmers is just not enough to cover demand.

It's my understanding that all the countries in Europe where salaries for software engineers are high, have rather strict immigration policies.

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

#100

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

mseebach wrote: post #41
awat wrote: post #8

To comment on one of the sentiments in the last paragraph. I often find myself wondering about the people doing the bidding above them where they are the last one compensated on a middle-upper class level before the VP or CEO or whoever that makes the 100X worker salary. What motivates that person? I’m sure they are compensated very well but at an exponentially lower rate than the will they are serving.

You seem to imply that those top people receiving these large compensations are obviously unfairly and massively overpaid, and that this is an uncontroversial fact. This clearly isn't the perception at that level. At least some number of people at the board level, as well as presumably these top people themselves, probably don't share that view[1]. This probably extends to the layers immediately beneath them. I know…

It is an uncontroversial fact - or at least it should be, because it's an objective fact that productivity capture has slanted towards the highest pay levels over recent decades, with devastating effects on economic security lower down the ladder.

Why should your personal opinion - "I'm not bothered" - be a political universal? The reality is that there are increasing numbers of people who used to have steady jobs, and now have gig economy pseudo-slavery which barely makes rent, if at all. This is an unstable basis on which to run a large economy.

Market cap is not the only measure of economic effectiveness. If all the rhetoric about "highly paid job creators" doesn't lead to the creation of real jobs, what use is it?

Post reply on HN