5 ms·
10% is huge by any measure.
by sonnyblarney 8y ago
10% is huge by any measure.
- fma 8y agoI work for GM (for now). 15% layoffs were announced before Christmas... No one knows when the ax will drop. Rumor is Monday or Tuesday. Moral is low and the office has been pretty damn quiet. Meanwhile we just raises earnings forecast today...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoWhich is kinda just how capitalism "works". In certain circumstances, once the means of production are created [most of] the workers are no longer needed, but the means being privately held (by a narrow group of owners) means they alone can benefit going forward. You can make a feast together and share it; or you can make a feast together, kick out most of the helpers and gorge yourself. Capitalism says the second option is better because you get to have more.
- roenxi 8y agoStrictly speaking, Capitalism says that the Capitalists get to choose which option they go with. In a system with healthy incentives, we might expect Option 1 to be the sensible capitalist equilibrium, because capital needs to be maintained and the builders/maintainers become the same people. Don't forget that, in theory, the workers can become capitalists themselves if they aren't getting a good share of the benefits. In my view usually when they don't it is because of government interference (eg, the pre-Uber situation in taxis, or how regulation tends to entrench existing players).
- ambicapter 8y agoYou don't "become" capitalist, a capitalist has capital, and if you don't have any capital, you're not a capitalist.
- CryptoPunk 8y agoAnyone saving/investing a portion of their income is becoming a capitalist.
- FakeComments 8y agoI disagree. As an example, someone who switches from working as a landscaper to running a landscaping business has switched from a worker role to a capitalist role — even though they likely spent less money doing so than a software engineer worker owns. Being a “capitalist” is defined by capitalizing ventures, not the mere volume of capital. I would argue that the reason society has become so disequitable is that we’ve made it difficult to transition between worker and small capitalist — that is to say, that we’ve undermined small and lifestyle businesses.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago>>but the means being privately held (by a narrow group of owners) means they alone can benefit going forward. No, capital expanding has social benefits in reducing consumer prices, which increases purchasing power.
- tyfon 8y agoThe forecast increase is probably a direct result of the layoff and they needed it to "meet the quarter". I have the quarterly cycle. I find it extremely bad for both the society and companies when nobody takes the long term view.
- fma 8y agoNo... It was part of the 2018 announcement. 2018 was better than expected so they revised 2019 forecast. "Early Friday, GM said 2018 EPS will exceed previous guidance of $5.80-$6.20. It also expects to surpass an earlier view of adjusted automotive free cash flow of $4 billion."
- catmanjan 8y agoBy that logic no company with less than 11 people should ever fire anyone...
- whatshisface 8y agoTo be fair, a firing in an 11-man company can be a pretty big deal.
- hannasanarion 8y agoPretty much, yeah. In an 11 person company, each individual is basically a whole department. That one person might be your only marketer, or your only frontend developer, or your only accountant. That's a really big deal.
- cyberferret 8y agoFiring one person in a 10 person company could mean that you lose your entire accounting/finance skillset in one fell swoop. Or your sole developer. It is a big deal in terms of intellectual property and skill pool within your organisation. Down stream impact of how to cope with that loss is another factor. Fire your book keeper and does your remaining engineering team have to spend 10% of their time doing invoices and reconciling bank accounts?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wongarsu 8y agoIt could also mean firing that one developer who vastly underperforms, but you still have 5 other skilled developers because developing happens to be what your company does.
- rb666 8y agoReally? Look around you next time you're in the office, could you really not lose at least 1 of those 9 slackers around you?
- Fomite 8y agoI mean, if nothing else, 'decimate' has the meaning it has for a reason.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoIts gravitas comes from indiscriminate killing, not from the number.
- mango7283 8y agoAnd if you can't find a slacker, that means you must be the slacker, I suppose!
- jon-wood 8y agoYou must be fun to work with. I’ve worked in 10 person companies, and it’s the sort of place where there’s nowhere to hide. By extension you generally won’t find slackers in a small company.
- RachelF 8y agoGood ol' Roman army strategy of "Decimation", in 1 in 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)
- onetimemanytime 8y ago"SpaceX decimates its WorForce" would have been just as correct but then Swat Teams might have moved in :). On topic, probably just cutting out the fat (I'm sure most companies can fire 10% and a month later very few would notice the difference). But then, why not move them to R&D? I doubt SpaceX has cash problems to fire (more or less) essential workers.
- wolco 8y agoAs long as the company is planning on doing 10% less than most will not notice. 10% usually means 10% to 40% of company productivity is affected shortterm. 10% leave, 5% wanted to get fired but didn't, 25% will think they are next and change how they work (some positive some negative). It is usually a signal for top performers to start moving on. In this case the story is spacex is growing conflicts with the layoffs.
- computerex 8y agoI am not sure why you're getting downvoted. Imagine if Apple/iPhone lost 10% of its growth, people would start panicking. Context is extremely important. 10% of a dollar is not a lot of money, but 10% of a billion USD would be many times what I'd need for the rest of my life.