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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#931

Post by johnnyanmac »

SoftTalker wrote: post #525
JediPig wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why people should build a huge ass f-u fund and not look back.

Yes, as soon as you have a regular paycheck you should start building an emergency fund. This should be taught to everyone in high school (or earlier) but we don't do it, among many other "life skills" that we do not teach because they aren't on the state standardized tests.

I had 6 months saved . It's been 13 months. School did not prepare me for the fact that my college degree in STEM could still leave me on the market for an entire caledar year

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#932

Post by johnnyanmac »

otteromkram wrote: post #486
dandigangi wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA: lol ok but no

Yet, people still vie from all over to work at US companies and we still draw the best talent. There's also unemployment benefits for US workers. Haters gonna hate, I guess.

>There's also unemployment benefits for US workers.

if you consider a few hundred a week "benefits", sure.

> people still vie from all over to work at US companies and we still draw the best talent.

yes, because like companies, the USD is coasting off of successes from long ago. We corrupted the tech boom, but fell behind on the FEV boom and manufaacturing in general.

USD is great to earn. It's horrible to live in the USD to utilzie it though. That's why companies are trying yet again to outsource.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#933

Post by johnnyanmac »

anon291 wrote: post #475
giancarlostoro wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all the debt you pile up while struggling to get hired.

The average tech worker really should not have to go into any debt for even a year long hiatus from their typically well paying job. All that is required is living like a typical American and saving your salary. I honestly don't see how anyone can claim tech workers are not compensated for the volatility inherent in the industry.

Your assumption here assumes that

1. all tech jobs pay well. Well enough to expect 1 year+ savings. They don't

2. that we all have the same cost of living or family situation. Even living frugally, supporting a spuose and kid on savings is not trival.

>I honestly don't see how anyone can claim tech workers are not compensated for the volatility inherent in the industry.

Come work in the games industry for a while. 30% more hours, maybe 60% of the pay in a "good studio", and near guaranteed layoffs when the proect ends.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#934

Post by johnnyanmac »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #560
DrillShopper wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do those metrics count "number of people laid off" explicitly? We know they do implicitly because laying off people makes the company more profitable, but is there any penalty for killing jobs? If not, shouldn't there be?

No, I dont think there should be a penalty by default. The objective of a company isnt and shouldn't be to run a charity. Some amount of layoffs are desirable just as a matter of housekeeping. Layoffs can be a hard part of doing a good job. I think there are extreme examples and tactics where layoffs cross a moral line but not a legal line. for example, I think the humane thing to do is freeze hiring before layoffs s…

>I dont think there should be a penalty by default.

I do.

>The objective of a company isnt and shouldn't be to run a charity.

Charities pay employees too. 501ks don't mean you run on all volunteers and that it's okay to remove them at your whim. Horrible metaphor.

Anyways, a company has 3 goals

1. serve the customer

2. support your labor to enable efficient production

3. overall stimulate the economy and society

These all help the bottom line of "make profit". Shareholders have little stake here so it's annoying that that is all they prioritize lately. because you then break all 3 rules just for them, who will leave on a whim for some other speculation. And then they wonder why they lose money as workers burnout and leave, as customers get frustrated and move, and the economy gets worse as money is pocketed to the rich instead of the public.

It'a all a horrid death spiral. It needs to stop. It will stop forcefully if not voluntarily.

>It is slow and expensive to hire people and let them go.

And who's fault is that? I don't remember shouting in glee whenever I hear 5 rounds of interviews, including 2 rounds dedicated to trivia.

>Its actually incredibly hard to to figure out which people to cut in an efficient manner.

it is. That's why Hanlon's razor simply tells me they aren't trying very hard. They need to cut numbers, maxiize money and care about next quarter next quarter. efficiency wasn' prioritized before the layoffs, why would it be now?

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#935

Post by Grazester »

Izikiel43 wrote: post #766
xeromal wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make a decent salary as a programmer (150k) but my house only cost 250k and my mortgage is about 1400. How I see it, if I have to flip burgers to keep my house, I can pull it off. I can't imagine have a mortgage that's 10gs a month.

> I make a decent salary as a programmer (150k) but my house only cost 250k I'm guessing remote work, or a high position in the midwest or some other place? In SF/Seattle/NYC, 250K is not enough for a studio apartment.

That is nonsense. That's more than enough to afford a studio in New York City. You can easily afford a luxury studio with a doorman and a pool making half of that!

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#936

Post by johnnyanmac »

teitoklien wrote: post #488
pixelatedindex wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem Then what is the problem? Ultimately you’re paid the big bucks for being held responsible. Why isn’t it never something like the CEO doesn’t get any stocks that year. I’m not saying he needs to leave the company but maybe he should take a substantial hit to his pay. He has enough money to put food on the table for many years, unlike the people who are let go where i…

The ones out of job can join a different company, america’s unemployment rate especially in the tech sector tends to be low. Them doing layoffs doesnt mean the people become destitute. It is better to layoff people who are not adding value to a company, so that those newly unemployed folks can join a different company and build great products and add more value to the economy. Ofcourse this only applies to US tech se…

>The ones out of job can join a different company, america’s unemployment rate especially in the tech sector tends to be low.

>Ofcourse this only applies to US tech sector where hiring is tight.

So, which is it? Will we move on or wont we?

>tend to not even bat a single eye, when average americans who lack the privilege of a tech worker lose their job to automation (with tech) or outsourcing

They keep trying to re-outsource tech every decade and we're in another wave. Why would I not be batting all my eyes at outsourcing?

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#937

Post by johnnyanmac »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #550
sangnoir wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them How convenient (for them)! When the company is doing well, they get millions in bonuses because their irreplaceable leadership skills - which make them 2000x more valuable than the least paid worker - were instrumental to the organization's success. When the chips a…

> must be nice to claim "macro-economic headwinds" as justification for poor performance and poor planning, but still get paid bonuses for the never-mentioned "macro-economic tailwinds" What would you do if you owned a business? Fire leadership every time they make a wrong call? Or ban them from admitting they made a wrong call?

>What would you do if you owned a business?

- Find the issues, the ACTUAL issues. not "the stockholders are unhappy" issues. Not the "we overhired" issues. tangible issues hurting my bottom line. Economic head/tailwins is not a tangible issue for anything (let alone performance related) so much as a means to adjust projected earnings.

- Make an action plan, give tangible, reasonable goals. Not speculation on what appeals to monopoly money. We're a software company; if we can't collect internal data, how are we handling client data with any integrity.

- If anyone in leadership acted maliciously, they are gone. Full stop. Others are corrected. I can correct ignorance or incompetency. I won't stand deception and trickery among what should all be an aligned company with aligned goals.

(note, I won't codify a need to "fire someone" everytime a mistake is made either. a mistake is a managerial failing at best and a company failing at worst. Operate in a “a rising tide lifts all boats” mentality, not blame culture)

- if action plans and projected revenues look dire and we absolutely need to, introduce cuts. Try to cut my (assuming I'm earning anything) salaries first, then other execs. If absolutely necessary after they, we do layoff rounds. Ideally this should not happen because I have a proper savings chest for the worst times, but I'm not 100% opposed to layoffs as a last resort.

now of course, all this is unnecessary because dropbox is in fact not at the point where any of this is needed. Except maybe for Monopoly money. But yes, I have thought quite a bit about this scenario. And I still know this is still a shallow exercise since I'm missing tons of looholes and other scenarios.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#938

Post by johnnyanmac »

flappyeagle wrote: post #532
sangnoir wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them How convenient (for them)! When the company is doing well, they get millions in bonuses because their irreplaceable leadership skills - which make them 2000x more valuable than the least paid worker - were instrumental to the organization's success. When the chips a…

Go start a company already — you’re on YC forums

1. This really shouldn't be advice handily thrown out like "learn how to play guitar". You gotta spend money to make money, and if you're laid off without a plan this is the worst time to spend money.

2. I plan to one day. I very much plan not to rely on a VC for that. The purpose for my company is to not require millions to ship products users want/need and to stay extremely lean. A small team of "full stack" developers, to put it roughly. I should already be in a very solid position by myself before I come to such a crossroad.

3. I will admit I am not this "full stack" dev yet. I will still need some months/years to get to this point myself. So I'm a "student" as of now.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#939

Post by randomdata »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #894
randomdata wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your software product generally has a competitor, and they're busy trying to make theirs better than yours Unless you are selling a commodity. There is a good case to be made that what Dropbox sells is a commodity. > That's capitalism failing. That's government failing. 1. You can't dig the moats necessary to establish a monopoly without regulation to support it. 2. If/when the government screws up, the onus is on…

>There is a good case to be made that what Dropbox sells is a commodity. Is there? I argue Drive and OneDrive surpassed Dropbox a while ago. Box is dirt cheap if you came in early as well (I still have some 50 GB forever deal from like, 2012). And there's a dozen others if you look into it. It's not very hard to drop any one cloud storage solution (or all of them if you invest in a NAS setup).

Is there not? This is a pretty good description of a commoditized environment:

> It's not very hard to drop any one cloud storage solution (or all of them if you invest in a NAS setup).

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#940

Post by leeny »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #859
leeny wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Founder of interviewing.io here. Clarification: Just because companies don't want a 3rd party like us providing them with junior candidates, it doesn't mean they don't want them. Even back in 2017-2019, when the market was booming, we couldn't get employers to take our juniors... because they generally have their own robust pipeline. So the solution is to go to companies directly, rather than relying on a 3rd party s…

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. My point was that the market for talent is not particularly competitive, with the opinion of interviewing.io given as an illustration of that. You seem to be confirming that the market for talent isn't competitive - in your view, companies have more applications than they want. Or maybe you're going for a different point? For the suggestion, my experience is that companies…

Yes, companies do indeed have more applications than they want (I'd argue that means the market IS competitive).

The point I was making is that even though companies don't want to hire juniors through us, they still DO WANT to hire juniors in the absolute. So junior hiring isn't dead.

Post reply on HN