Live data from Hacker News

Layoffs at Block

twitter.com

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Layoffs at Block

#951

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can, easily. Speaking for my country and assuming you are not on a fixed-term contract, you can only get fired for one of the three reasons: 1. Company's in financial trouble and forced to downsize. 2. The position becomes obsolete and there's no option to transition you into some other role. In this case, the company can't hire anyone with a similar-enough skillset to yours for at least a year (or maybe even longe…

>Speaking for my country I like how none of you ever reveal this mysterious country you're from, probably so you don't get called on the claims you're making. Anyway, in my country unemployment is 0% and everyone is rich and there are no problems. Why can't your country achieve the same?

> Anyway, in my country unemployment is 0% and everyone is rich and there are no problems. Why can't your country achieve the same?

Where? I want to move there immediately. I bet you’re lying though.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#952
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If LLMs really multiply productivity, why would you fire people and handicap the boost? I have 100 people that can now do the work of 200 people thanks to a new tool. How is the logical response to fire half of them and bring my productivity back to where it was before?

He explains the rationale, smaller teams work faster. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly.

He’s been building tech companies for 20 years, he sure knew smaller teams move faster when he was hiring thousands of more people during covid

Re: Layoffs at Block

#953
post #655

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…

It is extremely frustrating that the people who actually make these decisions are pretty shielded from the consequences, but I have learned to never take anything a billionaire says at face value.

There's basically no consequences for lying when you get to that level, and many incentives to (let's say) embellishing. Jack Dorsey is looking to make billions of dollars because of this announcement. If we find out that the AI reasoning was a bold faced lie (e.g. a leaked email or voicemail or something), I doubt that the stock price will go below what it was priced a week ago as a consequence.

It bothers me. I know some people who were victims of these cuts. These are really smart, hardworking people, and I don't think they're going to be easily be replaced with Claude or Codex, but Jack Dorsey ostensibly does. It has to feel like a slap in the face to think that your employer thinks that you're replaceable with a $20/month subscription.

Though of course, the reasoning doesn't really make any fucking sense to me; if you're 40+% more productive with AI, isn't that a good reason to keep the workforce and have them make more and cooler stuff and/or improve your infrastructure? If it's more productive couldn't you make a lot more stuff and blow your competitors out of the water? Presumably a good chunk of those who just got laid off are going to go work for your competitors, and presumably the competitors will have access to the same OpenAI or Anthropic subscriptions that you have.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#954

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in NYC which I think has similar demographics to SF in this regard; I found my job in August of last year, after about five months of searching, and I found it because a friend of mine referred me. It's a good job, and I like it, I'm grateful for that friend. Regardless, it's not like that was the only job I applied to. I had a policy of applying to at least ten jobs a day, so I applied to about ~1500 jobs, and l…

The trick to applying these days is to have a contact on the inside that can tell you what the hiring manager is actually looking for, vs what's in the public JD, and then to refer you. That doesn't scale to 10 jobs/day for very long because almost nobody has a network that big. If you don't land something through referral to the hiring manager, it's mostly a crap shoot these days.

Yeah, it wasn't lost on me that a lot of job listings are fake, even at the time (I think I even wrote comments saying as much on this very forum). I did reach out to contacts asking if they had openings but of course that's a finite set and most of them told me they didn't.

What I had tried to do was start randomly requesting connection invites with people on LinkedIn in fields I was interested, and a surprisingly large number of them accepted my requests, but that didn't actually pan out to anything productive, which is a little depressing.

I hope I don't get laid off from my current gig, because now I really don't have a clue on the best way to find a job. Maybe I could try that "CEO at a big corporation" thing, it doesn't look too hard and apparently you can lay off half your staff and still be rewarded.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#955
post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Peak Capitalism was grandmas investing in companies to receive a dividend in retirement. This hunt for unicorns and magic forever growth is ruining everything.

I saw a video recently that talked about something kind of strange and upsetting about the stock market.

With the rise of relatively low-risk ETFs and Index Funds, we get into this kind of strange situation where people who might be able to create value by creating businesses and products will instead just invest into the stock market. On an individual level, this is an objectively good decision; most new businesses fail and most of the ones that don't still don't beat the S&P 500 in growth, and even if you manage to match the S&P that required a lot of effort on your end vs. clicking three buttons on E-Trade. Yes, maybe you'll be one of the happy few who manage to actually grow faster than the S&P, and that's great, if someone in that boat is in that position I wish you all the future success in the world [1].

I'm not judging, I'm no better that the people I'm describing. I don't run a business and I just buy ETFs for that reason; it's relatively low-risk, high-return, and basically zero effort on my end. Now it's created this situation where we a) have an over-reliance on BigCos because all of our money is tied with them, b) a shortage of people who are willing to challenge these BigCos because the risk isn't worth it, and as such we have less diversity and competition in the market.

I have thought about starting a business dozens of times. I have a few projects that I think have a non-zero chance of being something cool that instead just languish in private repos because I am too much of a coward to actually try and make a go of it. I don't really know how to find investors, and even if I knew how I would have to prepare for the (very) high potential of them not funding me, and then I have to determine if it's worth self-funding, and at that point I could just take that same capital I would spend, throw it into VOO or QQQ and likely make more money without any effort.

I doubt I'm unique in this reasoning, especially on this forum. This is a relatively well-educated group (by internet standards) and I suspect a lot of people who frequent this forum are in the same boat that I am; I've seen some very interesting stuff in the "what are you working on?" threads here that I think could become businesses but mostly just end up living on Github accruing 100 stars and then languishing into obscurity.

[1] Unless you've made it to "billionaire" status in which case I doubt you did it in a way that I would describe as "ethical", and I very likely do not wish you any success.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#956
post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voluntary severance/ERO is possible without a bad culture. I’ve seen it done, people love it.

What is the age distribution of employees at Block? I'd guess it skews quite young. You won't have much natural attrition or interest in early retirement. And in this job market, voluntary severance is also not very attractive.

Young people love to be paid to switch jobs too - who would refuse 20 weeks of doubled income? From Squares perspective, this would lead to an adverse selection, because Square would lose the people who can easily get jobs elsewhere.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#957
post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I appreciate the one clean cut vs prolonged bleeding. That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways. There's also no reasoning on product impact. Is the strategy to cut products that aren't making money? Is the strategy to cut 40% across everyone because everyone can go faster? > Owning the decision Does it? It came across to me as an inevitability of AI, not "we ov…

>That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways. I disagree. Slow bleeding just means everyone in the company walks around thinking they are next, never knowing when the next set of cuts are going to happen or when they are finished. Cutting 40% is a quick blow, and everyone that is left knows they are safe.

Attrition by definition implies no cuts: just people leaving for the usual reasons people leave, and not replacing them. Attrition can be accelerated by providing incentives like exit bonuses.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#958

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being let go from a job sucks. So does being dumped from a relationship. You might not be able to find another relationship in 6+ months. But I don't think people would seriously propose that people should therefore not be able to leave a relationship.

You do realize that having a girlfriend actually doesn't pay for your rent, food and medication?

Everybody realises this. That said, a huge number of people around the world are financially dependent on their partner. (One of the main goals of feminism has been to normalise relationships where this is not the case.)

The fundamental question is: Should employers be obligated to employ the people they hire forever?

Re: Layoffs at Block

#959
post #57

We’re reaching “Don’t Look Up” levels of denial about the impact of AI on this site.

Yeah. We are coping. Just today, I had a simple bug where the data received was throwing undefined because it was in 2 alternate formats.

I showed ChatGPT(free-tier) the API response and the part of the code reading it, and it fixed it in 5 seconds. Would've been pretty short either way less than 30-40 mins but it's very good for simple tasks like these. The solution is just correct.

Re: Layoffs at Block

#960

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have had a giant bubble in white collar bullshit jobs the last 15 years and AI is going to pop that bubble incredible fast. Even if they are "bullshit jobs," they are what keeps food on the table for many people. So the question is, what's bullshit about them? Are they bullshit because the capitalists could keep more money to themselves? Or are they bullshit because there are more socially beneficial jobs those…

The despising drug addicts and welfare moms being supported by 'productive people' has now spread to despising working people making six figures. The thought seems to be there are elites/productive types that deserve it all, and the rest are just parasites and fuck 'em.

> The thought seems to be there are elites/productive types that deserve it all, and the rest are just parasites and fuck 'em.

Yeah, the misanthropic individualism is really getting out of hand.

Also, the irony is a lot of people who imagine themselves as "elites/productive types" are going to find out too late that they actually aren't.

Post reply on HN