Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How are the current layoffs affecting non-US developers?

news.ycombinator.com

91–100 of 143 posts

Re: Ask HN: How are the current layoffs affecting non-US developers?

#91
post #6

Why would they shut down offices in western Europe? That must be the absolute cheapest (western) region to hire for. In Japan it doesn’t seem to have affected much, though our parent US company went through a significant round of layoffs.

Europe is actually "net expensive" because there are high payroll taxes in some countries, and then, of course, in some countries it is virtually impossible to fire.

Oh man, I hear this on every such topic. It is in no way virtually impossible to fire someone, you just can't do it willy nilly because you don't like someone's face. You just have to follow well defined procedures (pip is a thing here too)

Re: Ask HN: How are the current layoffs affecting non-US developers?

#96

Not even sure the US layoffs are really impacting US developers. The US unemployment rate keeps going down month to month despite big tech layoffs. The devs getting laid off are being snagged by other companies almost right away.

All that talent centralization at large tech companies had to come from somewhere - it’s not like 100k devs magically just appeared from college. They finally got what they wanted after 15 years of talent wars and now they were happy to toss it aside.

My guess is small and mid-cap companies have a lot of open positions still from the great resignation.

Re: Ask HN: How are the current layoffs affecting non-US developers?

#99
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's so weird that layoffs have primarily been in the US, the most expensive labor market. It's almost like the layoffs aren't really out of any necessity in most cases but are just an attack on labor and labor costs. I can give my CFO perspective on this having been through it from that position. It's not that you had that plan, but often when faced with questionable shift in business strategy, you look for the…

> Eg. need to trim $x million of cost. Let's start with that: the "need" to reduce costs. In another comment I used Google as an example so I'll do so here too. Google is specatacularly profitable on an overall basis and a per-employee basis. Layoffs as a cost-cutting measure are largely virtue signaling than true cuts in costs, for several reasons: 1. Once you factor in severeance costs, it takes a long time to real…

Time will tell. But it’s possible that this is being treated as a complete transformation/releveling of the business and how work is done. Was the rampant hiring even rational to begin with? Did the projects have any path to value? Profit? Google has had a hard time profiting off most of their portfolio of products over the years, so probably not. That’s not a reflection of the individuals working on those products. It’s also well known that inefficiencies are rampant in these companies. Maybe the intend to reevaluate how decisions are made and work is done so that the 20% productivity gain is from people actually being more productive with the hours they already are working.

You are right that “need” isn’t always a financial need. It’s doesn’t make it less of a need though. If the board told Sundar to trim $x million, and X is significantly large, he can’t do it without trimming headcount.

If you were working on some small product, your job was never guaranteed and likely highly reliant on the success of that product. If they decided to shut down the product, you’re likely laid off. Likewise, if their core/go forward products has reached a “maintenance mode” it makes sense to reduce headcount - Profitability isn’t even part of the equation, sure it’s a secondary effect.

Furthermore, the trend to remote/WFH was always going to accelerate the shift of labor to lower cost. It often makes no sense to pay someone 2-20x more to do the same job as another person in another region. The main reason was because the norm was meetings/collaboration that occurred in person.

Just pointing out how much armchair quarterbacking is being done. We know nothing about these things and their future strategies. But there are a lot of scenarios where these cuts make good and obvious business sense and the management team gets judged on that just like anything else.

I hear a lot of what sounds like rent seeking behavior on this topic. Like because they can afford it they should perpetually employ all these people forever. It’s hard for me to support. I’m aware capitalism isn’t perfect but nobody was complaining when they were making the Google compensation, which were/are inflated like a roughneck’s usually are (to use the oil industry analogy again).

Post reply on HN