11 ms·

I find it a little disappointing how when any large company reduces staffing it always makes the news. I'm not at all saying these people at LinkedIn deserve t

• prawn 6y ago
  I always think "Those 960 people had jobs there for a while - that's a positive". I've worked for myself the last 20 years so I'm occasionally jealous of anyone who's had even a year of stable, predictable income.
  • quacked 6y ago
    How does your self-employed career compare to a parallel salaried career in your industry across 20 years? (In terms of year-averaged income, hours worked, etc.)
    • sillysaurusx 6y ago
      Seconding this question. It'd be fascinating to hear a detailed perspective from someone who has spent 20 years working for themselves, without also reaching traditional "success" (i.e. getting rich). It's starting to feel like getting rich is overrated when it requires so much of your life to make it happen. Hearing from someone who ended up with similar freedoms (working for yourself is no small one!) would be cool.
      • oneoff1777711 6y ago
        5 years experience web development/full stack/mobile here. 29 years old. I’ve never had a salaried job in my life. I’m able to pull down $150/hr for a couple months a year (8 hour days), $125/hr for another 6 months full time, then take a couple months off and I’m making a decent salary when it all shakes out. That’s fully remote and working for friends or friends of friends, occasionally taking a contract with a mega FAANG corp for a while, but usually working the contract with a buddy. If you’re savvy, good at networking and self motivated, you can make money which is comparable to most full time jobs. Just gotta be careful about the taxes and make sure you save for the lean times.
        • sillysaurusx 6y ago
          Any tax tips? That's an interesting observation. (Thank you!)
          • prawn 6y ago
            Personally I have an offset account against my mortgage and stockpile funds there. Then live well within my means so I can handle tax when it arrives. Someone who doesn't naturally live within their means could estimate in advance and push money to a separate account to isolate it.
            • dmoy 6y ago
              Don't you have to pay estimated taxes anyways? Or do you just mean within the quarter between estimated tax payments? (I am salaried and already just budget by quarter for everything)
              • prawn 6y ago
                Where I live, a salaried person will have tax automatically withheld and paid to authorities by their employer each week/fortnight. Someone self-employed usually has an estimate they pay quarterly or monthly, and then adjustments at the end of the financial year if the situation has varied from the estimate. I'm just saying I stockpile between tax bills (holding the cash against my mortgage to minimise interest) and my general style of living/spending means I can just redraw from the mortgage to make tax payments.
              • localhost3000 6y ago
                You don’t _have_ to pay estimated taxes. If you choose not to you just pay a penalty at tax time (essentially interest on what you didn’t pay throughout the year). It’s up to you to decide if it’s worth it. I freelanced for a few years and just paid the penalty because I didn’t want to spend time thinking about taxes more than once a year. For how much I was making at the time I was fine with this trade off.
          • 6y ago
      • prawn 6y ago
        It's a complex thing over that sort of timescale. You can get a feel for what I do at my site - http://isaacforman.com.au/ http://isaacforman.com.au/ - I've had a basic web business since 1998 that chews up a lot of time for often-meagre returns, then various side projects beside that along the way. I've often wondered if I would've been better off just having a job all this time, and I worry about guiding my kids from my experience. I am not rich compared to my peers but I wouldn't ever trade my life for any of their lives. I couldn't handle having to ask for leave. I get by with less and travel more (which is something very, very important to me). A lot of the best things in life like being outdoors, hanging out with friends and family, are effectively free. That said, if I were having to buy into the housing market now rather than 15+ years ago, the mortgage stress might be completely different, and doing it without a regular pay cheque could be a serious challenge.
      • jamroom 6y ago
        I'm almost 50 and have been doing my "own thing" full time since 2004. I'm not rich, but have been able to be home while my 3 daughters have grown up. I spent 18 months traveling around the country with my wife and kids (we homeschool). I've been lucky enough to work on the things I want to work on, for the most part when I want to work on them. I have had years where my income has been under $12k and years where I've made over $300k - it's been an absolute roller coaster ride. No doubt if I had stayed employed by 401k would certainly be bigger, but the "cost" to me has been 100% worth it. One thing that really made the decision easier for me when I left my job to do my own thing was that I could have been in many different situations around the world where I would not have even HAD the opportunity to do my own thing - and by NOT doing it I felt it was disrespectful to all those who would take the chance if given the opportunity to be in my place.
      • gregjor 6y ago
        Full freelance since 2013. I traveled and lived abroad for six years. I wrote some articles about my experience on typicalprogrammer.com. I make more than many salaried programmers I know, less than quite a few. I work 4 hrs/day, 5 days/wk on average, so by hourly income I do about as well as my friends at Google and Apple.
        • weka 6y ago
          what is your tech stack? I am interested.
          • gregjor 6y ago
            I don't have a "stack." I've been writing software for 40 years, too many languages, tools, etc. to list. My freelance practice mainly involves taking over web applications that the original developer didn't finish or abandoned, leaving the customer holding the bag. There's plenty of this kind of work, lots of development relationships go sour, but the software is salvageable. Fixing a few problems without complaining that I have to rewrite it from scratch in Rust gives me long-term clients who trust me, and my 40 years of expertise in multiple business domains gives me consulting work. That's my niche now that I'm too old to get hired at a cool company, and too cranky to submit myself to a bullshit interview. Most of the time I work with PHP, MySQL, some WordPress, Zendesk, Shopify, Hubspot. I get some Go, Ruby, Python, other stuff once in a while. I can learn pretty much any "stack" because I have done web dev since web development started (ASP, ColdFusion, Perl back then). I also do a lot of system admin on AWS, Google Cloud, etc.
    • prawn 6y ago
      I imagine I've worked a lot, lot more for a lot, lot less, on average. And all while having greater tax/admin obligations. Which is why I don't have any particular sympathy for the undulations in the job market of a salaried employee - at any point, they can freelance like I have to fill the gaps. 960 people fired means 960 people were employed for a given period, but it's often viewed as a horrible and heartless gesture by the company. I've had flat periods just as others have been looking for a job. Been part of the gig economy for 20 years so I'm quite bemused when stories focus on it with Uber and their ilk like it's a 2020 thing. I've had periods being the sole operator at my company where I've had to work through family holidays and endured extreme stress. My earnings are absolutely famine and feast; had times without paying myself for months and months. However (and it's a massive however), the freedom has been priceless and I suspect I could never work for someone else in a typical job. I had a typical job once when I was about 20 and not since (I'm 43 now); I don't expect I will have a CV or an employer again in my life. I quit uni/college and have no degree. I don't think I'm very good at what I do. I've had years earning less than $15k. But I've also had a year where I went around the world through 20+ countries, and many other years where I travelled 3+ months out of the year. Last year I gutted a bus overseas, renovated it (shubbo.com), and travelled with wife and three kids twice across a continent over three months - it was the greatest experience of my life and I don't think I could've done it as an employee. I currently have a mixture of income streams including one where I photograph/film while travelling (serio.com.au); it barely feels like work. I wouldn't change it for a thing.
      • ilamont 6y ago
        > Which is why I don't have any particular sympathy for the undulations in the job market of a salaried employee - at any point, they can freelance like I have to fill the gaps. Congratulations on your successful gig career that gives you great freedom and the means to support yourself. However, not everyone can freelance. They may have skills which have zero demand right now, they are unable to work remotely, or they have mortgages or health/family situations which prevent them relocating or doing gig work. There's a lot of sentiment on this thread that these people losing their jobs at LinkedIn are deadweight but in my experience the people let go in the midst of a great economic crisis include superstars who have the floor vanish beneath them, through no fault of their own.
  • 0xy 6y ago
    A stable job invariably means you're underpaid -- usually substantially. I might get a 10% raise at a job if I'm amazing at my job, but if I left that job for a new company I might get 30%+ more.
    • jb775 6y ago
      Completely agree, especially in tech. Except most companies will only give a 3-5% raise even if you're amazing. It only makes sense to hire an employee if they create more value than they cost, or if they reduce more expenses than they cost. Most commonly, it's a combination of the two.
• majormajor 6y ago
  I'd ask "why did they decide to try to get more efficient now"? And here the answer is: because there's a big overall downturn. When things are going well, we generally try to find ways to grow. Find new things for people to do if they aren't needed in their current roles. When we have to focus on trimming costs instead, it's usually due to negative factors.
• mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  I disagree pretty strongly. Rather than layoffs, most of these people could be retrained. Cutting costs of < 1k people is not a serious cost cutting effort, it’s juicing short term numbers. Probably most of the cuts are very political, with certain darlings being given freedom to restructure and layoff according to their whim. I think the story that companies do this for efficiency is mostly bullshit. That’s just the excuse.
• projektfu 6y ago
  If a company like LinkedIn is doing a lay-off, that’s different from business as usual. They’re supposed to be growing. When they grow they fire people along the way. But a lay-off means they have run out of work or can’t employ people profitably. This can mean: 1. LinkedIn has its own special problems. (Maybe I’ll sell and follow another company or sector). 2. The economy is in recession. (Should have gotten into bonds 3 months ago, oh well). Companies often try to paint structural problems as competitive adjustments, but we know they rarely do real layoffs during flush times.
  • diogenescynic 6y ago
    Other companies just do layoffs less obviously. For instance, PayPal has been laying people off in the Bay Area even though they are doing really well to shift those jobs to Austin or Omaha or Chandler. They just don't do it all at once and often give people anywhere from several weeks or months to start looking for a job before their actual termination date, depending on how long they've been with the company and pay grade. Companies are super sneaky.
    • Traubenfuchs 6y ago
      > They just don't do it all at once and often give people anywhere from several weeks or months to start looking for a job before their actual termination date, depending on how long they've been with the company and pay grade. Sneaky? This is the nice and humane way. Instead of firing a bunch of people that might directly have to compete for new jobs.
• smabie 6y ago
  If you have to fire so many people at once, it means you've fucked up. They should have never been hired, or individually fired a while back, or whatever. It means the company is making a dramatic shift in how they do things. While this could be good (mass layoffs often mean that the company has finally realized they have a problem), what is definitely means is that they've made a lot of mistakes. It's essentially admitting that they've made suboptimal decisions. That is why it is reported on, not because it's a morally bad thing or whatever.
  • irjustin 6y ago
    To say you've fucked up in the face of a global pandemic seems a bit obtuse. The current state of normal is not the same way to operate when there is no COVID. Sort of like saying we should have always operated like the bubonic plague never went away even after it did. Treating the situations the same is too dogmatic.
    • smabie 6y ago
      A company should be responding to new information as it comes in and immediately act. People should have been gradually been fired since the start of covid, not all at once months later.
      • shap3 6y ago
        Firing people in a continual, drip-feed fashion is devastating to morale of the remaining workers who are fearful they may be next, and sends a message of a slow, rotting decline. Conventional wisdom if you're going to let a large number of people go is to do it once, do it correctly, and act decisively.
        • smabie 6y ago
          You may be right, I hadn't considered the human element. But to clarify, the point of letting go small groups at a time isn't to eventually fire 900 people. It's that you're taking a Bayesian approach and constantly charting a new course for your business. The risk with firing 900 people all at once is what if, in a month, everything is good and they need them all back? By only letting go of small groups of people at a time, you both hedge yourself to future risk while also staying open to future up swings. It's like rebalancing a portfolio: you adjust your allocations gradually as new information comes in. This is better than one day deciding its time to sell everything or buy everything.
• rishav_sharan 6y ago
  I agree with you in general, but the timing is what concerns a lot of people. With the whole Covid situation and considering that many economies are in free fall, its hard not to get a bit worried - Can my company also do this? could I be next?