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

Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

blog.dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#911

Post by johnnyanmac »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #687
my_berner wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we'd all collectively blow our minds if a CEO said "I take full responsibility for the bad decisions and overhiring, so I'm resigning"

Would the CEO resigning or getting laid off, make your situation any better if you were one of those laid off? Feels like a weird hill to die on, and more like a crabs in the bucket mentality that doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things. In the end I'm still unemployed and whatever happens to my ex-CEO doesn't change my situation one bit. As I grew older and experienced my share of layoffs, I stopped ca…

It wouldn't, but it'd reassure me I wasn't some expendable pawn and they are preteding to be responsible. A company trying to cut back on the highest paid workers who will still survive shows a captain willing to drown with their boat.

but it doesn't work like that in the western world.

>As I grew older and experienced my share of layoffs, I stopped caring about what happens to those responsible for me getting laid off, as my energy is better spent on improving my situation and my life instead of ruminating how Krama vengeance would make me feel better.

The tree remembers. If I have nothing else it's my pride for my craft. I'll probably never have some revenge arc, but I sure will take it personally the next time that company tries to make deals with me later in my career.

Call it cultural; I don't like being treated as a slave. Respect your fellow man, regardless of background or walk of life.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#912

Post by johnnyanmac »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #868
disqard wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really positive attitude, to not fixate on retribution -- kudos to you! I'd like to point out that there are other possible outcomes, like (say) the CEO and entire C-suite cutting their salary to $1 for a year (it's not like this will render any of them homeless). IMHO, that would actually constitute "taking full responsibility", as opposed to parroting words that don't connect to the reality of the situatio…

>like (say) the CEO and entire C-suite cutting their salary to $1 for a year What's the point of being CEO then? Have the stress of running a company while working for free? Who would ever want to do that?

>What's the point of being CEO then?

I don't know. As you said, it's a waste of energy to wonder about other people and their endeavors. Better to focus on me.

And I need the money. CEOs don't. Feels odd to go from "don't spend your energy thinking about other rich people" and then go "but rich people 'want' money" when someone makes a suggestion.

>Have the stress of running a company while working for free? Who would ever want to do that?

Again, don't know. But I suspect that most people at a CEO level are not just in it for money. There's easier, less stressful ways for millionaire to accrue money.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#913

Post by johnnyanmac »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #786
smetj wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would the CEO resigning or getting laid off, make your situation any better if you were one of those laid off? No, of course not. But he is the leader, and he guided the company to a point where certain areas became "over-invested or under-performing." In other words, he didn’t do a good job. So, it should be him stepping down. Nobody ever said being a CEO would be easy.

>and he guided the company to a point where certain areas became "over-invested or under-performing." And now he's fixing it by cutting those under-performing areas. >So, it should be him stepping down. Why? How would that help the company get better? Do you think competent CEOs are like cogs that you can pick a new one from the stack of LinkedIn applications whenever the old one makes a mistake, and then slot him in…

>That's why you don't rush to replace the devil you know with the devil you don't.

It's the same devil with the same playbook. They all know each other at that level.

And yes, they are doing that in some sectors (and some CEO's want that). Less in tech, but I suspect more shakeups once the AI bubble ends.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#914

Post by onion2k »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #902
onion2k wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A feature of what ? Surely Jobs didn't expect a feature of Windows, OSX, Android, Linux, and ChromeOS to all seamlessly interact with one another. I don't doubt that Jobs might have seen Dropbox as a feature that Apple could have implemented across the Apple ecosystem, but that's a pretty limited view of where the value of Dropbox lies.

Why is iCloud different? For the Apple ecosystem, interaction with Mac/iPhone/AppleTV is all that matters. Which is why I don't subscribe to the garden. But it's a reasonable perspective of Jobs that doesn't conflict with this statement.

But it's a reasonable perspective of Jobs that doesn't conflict with this statement.

That's what I'm saying. From Jobs' perspective it was a feature for Apple, because Jobs believed only Apple devices matter. For everyone else that's a pretty limited view of the world that doesn't really apply, and measuring Dropbox (as a company) by that standard is nonsensical. It should be obvious that there's value in sharing files more widely than just within one ecosystem.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#915

Post by johnnyanmac »

SoftTalker wrote: post #548
Clent wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claims to take full responsibility but since he has not resigned he has not taken any responsibility he has just said the words.

That's not what it means. As CEO, it's his responsibility to make/approve the decision to do the layoffs, or not. The buck stops with him. That's all that it means. It doesn't mean he's liable for any hardships.

"Some of you may die, but that is a risk I am willing to take" - Lord Farquaad, Shrek (2001).

Fitting for a movie from a studio made out of spite for another future trillionaire empire.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#916

Post by johnnyanmac »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #625
stonemetal12 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop saying "take responsibility" if they aren't actually. If you knock a girl up and you "take responsibility" it means you getting married. If you are in a car wreck and you "take responsibility" it means you are paying for repairs. If you commit a crime and "take responsibility" you are going to jail. So if a CEO is "taking responsibility" it should be something like that second case, dollars from their own pocket…

Have you considered that not everyone shares your opinion and that this could explain the difference between reality and your expectations.

My insurance companies and government definitely share that opinion of responsibility. So, yes. But my answer remains "take responibility and mean it".

I'd love to hear you explain how I can get out of paying my car insurance of alimony though with this line of reasoning, though. Could be useful one day.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#917

Post by johnnyanmac »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #797
stonemetal12 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop saying "take responsibility" if they aren't actually. If you knock a girl up and you "take responsibility" it means you getting married. If you are in a car wreck and you "take responsibility" it means you are paying for repairs. If you commit a crime and "take responsibility" you are going to jail. So if a CEO is "taking responsibility" it should be something like that second case, dollars from their own pocket…

CEOs are responsible to the board of directors and shareholders. The BoD and shareholders are who choose and remove CEOs and you can bet both are considerably displeased when the company isn't as profitable as they expect.

That's the best part of modern tech markets in a not-recession recession. They are still profitable but will layoff because it's fashionbble or to make more money.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#918

Post by johnnyanmac »

layer8 wrote: post #577
skwee357 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These words mean nothing really. I expect the next CEO to not use meaningless phrases. How does "taking responsibility" works in his case? What does it even mean other than PR fluff?

It means he’s saying people should be mad at him instead of at someone else. It seems to be working.

I mean, it's him and the shareholders who probably pushed for this. There shouldn't be anyone else to be mad at.

I guess the government for not regulating this kind of thing to begin with. but that's a bit out of DBX's purview.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#919

Post by ZephyrBlu »

not_your_vase wrote: post #872
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't really make sense. What is a "researcher" at a law firm? Lawyers at top firms are on fixed pay schedules, starting at 180k as a 1st year going up to something like 450k after 8yrs (?). Tech is high earning. It gets beat out by high finance and partner-level roles in e.g. law though. If someone is earning 450k in their first year it's probably similar to a quant finance role.

I don't work at a law firm, have no idea what they really do. Based on the description, I decyphered some advanced googling, mostly background checks and precendence finding. It was like 2 or 3 weeks ago, I didn't know that it should have saved it for reference lol. But pick your favorite firm, and check the salaries. Junior roles are starting at $200k+, frequently at $300k+. And senior roles get senior salaries. Thi…

You do not understand what you're reading. I told you, lawyers are on fixed pay schedules. The numbers are different from what I thought, but that doesn't really affect anything I said.

The first role is a 2nd-5th year associate. $235k is for a 2nd year associate, $365k is for a 5th year associate. Each year they get a predefined pay bump. Third role is the same kind of thing (3rd-6th year associate), second role it says mid-level so not 1 YOE.

This firm is also a Big Law firm, the equivalent of FAANG, if not harder to get into. Notice how law is not on your list of top paying professions. Most lawyers are not super well paid.

Also, being an associate is not like being fresh into tech. I don't think it's like a tech new grad role. Average TC for an entry level SWE at Google is ~$200k, and you can be making that as a new grad. Average senior comp is ~$400k, and it's possible to reach that level in 5-7yrs.

Entry level: https://www.levels.fyi/companies/google/salaries/software-en...

Senior: https://www.levels.fyi/companies/google/salaries/software-en...

Another thing to consider is hours. You will work so many more hours as a lawyer in Big Law than a SWE at FAANG.

Tech workers have it very good. Relatively high pay with relatively low hours. Higher comp professions have much higher barriers to entry and work much longer hours.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#920

Post by johnnyanmac »

foobarian wrote: post #212
skwee357 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, responsibility is not a word. Responsibility is an action. If I'm on-call, I'm responsible to carry my laptop with me and be available immediately to fix critical issues. I don't just say "I take responsibility of being on-call", and the leave my laptop at home, get drunk and fall asleep in a bar for the weekend. That's called being irresponsible.

I see. But that's still like doing your job. I do my job for being on-call by having my laptop with me and phone on, etc. If do my job badly I get fired. So this CEO is saying, "if I do my job poorly I understand I could get fired." But, did he/she do their job poorly? That's the thing I can't figure out quite yet. It seems it was bad for the laid off people, but maybe not for Dropbox?

>"if I do my job poorly I understand I could get fired."

If I got a million dollar parachute when I do my job badly, I would love to "take responsibility" as well. Fuck the people, I get paid either way here.

> But, did he/she do their job poorly?

in a fiduciary sence short term, no. So shareholders are happy since that's all their care about.

Long term, who knows? I don't see them closing the gap with Google nor Microsoft so this could just accelerate that downfall.

in a spirit of, as some politician say, "creating jobs and stimulating the economy", absolutely awfully. We have 500 more workers out on an awful job market and it's not because DBX wasn't profitable. They simply dropped workers to prepare for a bad time that the US economy doesn't want to admit out loud.

Post reply on HN