5 ms·

> As several of these statements blatantly contradict one another, I went back to the data and ran the same sanity check that I did with Facebook above. In othe

by yuan43 4y ago

> As several of these statements blatantly contradict one another, I went back to the data and ran the same sanity check that I did with Facebook above. In other words, what if Google is using the hiring freeze as a smoke screen and only continuing with the strongest candidates, while keeping the rest on the bench? An actual hiring freeze sends a very strong negative signal to employees and investors. To employees it says "the ship is sinking." Layoffs are right around the corner and that is absolute poison to morale. To investors it says "technical or not, we've hit a recession." Brace yourselves for impact. Google and Facebook are both advertising companies, so they are tightly coupled to the business cycle. When business spending starts to falter, they'll feel it first. And they have. So it's not surprising that the companies themselves are far from clear about this, sending mixed messages. I expect them to continue to do so for as long as they possibly can. The bubble has inflated so far for so long, I get the sense that even among cynical young employees and "investors" there's a sense of permanence in the positions of both companies. The thing is, those with fewer than 10 years experience have never seen the ferocity of the other side of the business cycle. When it turns, that mofo turns. Those in top management positions have seen it, and they're going to do everything in their ability to deny and evade it.

nomel 4y ago
> To employees it says "the ship is sinking." Layoffs are right around the corner and that is absolute poison to morale. To investors it says "technical or not, we've hit a recession." Brace yourselves for impact While it’s possibly true in this case, that’s definitely not always true. I’ve been in two companies that had to implement a hiring freeze because growth was too fast. Everyone understood, because nobody new each other, because half the company was just hired.
- unicornmama 4y ago
  Layoffs can be positively received by the market if it cuts the fat to increase profit. No one expects Google or any other company to grow unboundedly.
time_to_smile 4y ago
> the business cycle Just an aside, that this rebranding of Marx's theory of crisis never fails to get a chuckle out of me. In mainstream economics is presented as some magical property of the way economies work, where Marx specifically predicts cyclically economic crisis created by contradictions inherent in the structure of capitalism, the periodically build to a tipping point leading to crisis and ultimately the resolution of these contradictions. For Marx, these crises ultimately culminate in the unavoidable collapse of capitalism. Which is where the fundamental drive to find alternatives to capitalism comes from for Marx, not because it is an ethically questionable system, but because it is one fundamentally headed towards its own destruction. But "business cycle" sounds much better, and leaves off all that spooky "systemic problem" stuff.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > But "business cycle" sounds much better, and leaves off all that spooky "systemic problem" stuff. It all sounds better than his "mass murder/starvation death" systemic problems.
- cloverich 4y ago
  FWIW i first learned of it from a libertarian angle, which equated business cycle with economy wide (mal) investment which was, in practice, usually driven by the fed or some comparable government program. Whether consistent or not it holds at least some truth and was an interesting angle to start learning about economics.
  - smokeypanda 4y ago
    Libertarianism and Austrian economics has a perception of outright rejecting empiricism and other rational thought, so I'd like to add a clarification. Libertarian theory doesn't deny naturally occurring downturns in economies, but that the severity and length of them are lessened without state mismanagement. Potentially, to the point that nation-spanning busts would be a thing of the past.
- alecbz 4y ago
  > For Marx, these crises ultimately culminate in the unavoidable collapse of capitalism. But I mean that's exactly the whole difference, right? Both Marx and others identified this pattern, Marx believes this ultimately will explode, others don't, so it makes sense that others would want to label it in a way that indicates their view that the pattern is "normal" and sustainable. I'm not even saying Marx is wrong, but just because Marx thought something about something he noticed doesn't mean he's right. Others that came after him are allowed to come to different conclusions about the things he noticed.
aksjdhmkjasdof 4y ago
>An actual hiring freeze sends a very strong negative signal to employees and investors. To employees it says "the ship is sinking." Layoffs are right around the corner and that is absolute poison to morale. I don't agree with this analysis. I'd be shocked if Google did any layoffs (though it's always possible) instead of just freezing hiring and letting natural attrition happen for a while. As for the signal to employees, there are so many employees already that I imagine many would be agree that the company is too big. It doesn't mean that the ship is sinking, just that they don't need an infinite number of employees. And Google's products are so dominant that you can't really believe the business is failing. Now, FB on the other hand... I'd feel a lot more antsy, yeah. Their business doesn't feel nearly so stable.
- baby 4y ago
  FB is still printing money so I'm not sure how it's not a stable business
  - pharmakom 4y ago
    zuck will burn cash to the end for the meta verse it seems.
    - Applejinx 4y ago
      That's one of the things, though. If you are in a dire situation, like companies nationalized during wartime, you can't work or function. Certain things like advertising your services are clearly out the window. In WWII, some companies who were turned to serving the war machine continued to advertise the things they couldn't make or sell, anyway. When things came back those folks were on top of the world. If the big FAANG companies can ride out business cycles without acting like they've become vulnerable, they're likely to further cement their positions.
    - baby 4y ago
      It definitely is a long term bet that could end up costing a lot to Meta, but on the other hand if that bet materializes... At the very least we're getting really cool VR development!
ekidd 4y ago
> The thing is, those with fewer than 10 years experience have never seen the ferocity of the other side of the business cycle. When it turns, that mofo turns. I was working as a programmer during both the dotcom crash and the 2007-2008 real estate crash. I would describe these downturns as "bumpy". But neither was catastrophic for most of the programmers I knew. Some of us moved, others found new jobs. Some of the least-skilled, including the "webmasters" who didn't know JavaScript or CSS, did wind up leaving the industry in 2001. If you had a 1-year emergency fund, you would probably have been fine in either crash. The people who were the hardest hit were actually the people living in major tech cities, because they had the biggest concentrations of layoffs. The longest I was on the job market was about 3 months in fall 2001, but I had to move out of Boston. I got a slightly underpaid but really awesome job. Right now, there are tens of thousands of organizations that would be revolutionized by some simple custom software. These organizations can't compete with FAANG salaries. But they'll be happy to absorb quite a few programmers. Some of the jobs will be valuable and interesting work. So like I said, a hard crash can be bumpy. But for most professional programmers, it probably won't be catastrophic.
- spookie 4y ago
  I don't know about the big boys. But at least in Europe, in 2008, the crash wasn't "bumpy". It was survival of the fittest, and most up and coming companies straight up died. It's a matter of perspective, for sure. But I would be careful myself. FAANGs won't vanish, and it won't be catastrophic for the privileged few. But, for the rest of the world, which follows the status quo? This spells doom in various levels.
  - ekidd 4y ago
    > It was survival of the fittest, and most up and coming companies straight up died. Oh, during the dotcom crash, Internet companies failed by the thousands in the US. But many of them were absolute garbage companies, far worse than the average modern startup. Frankly, scam companies were coming out of the woodwork. It was even worse than the later mobile/social/local/GroupOn era. But just because many companies folded, it didn't necessarily mean that competent programmers were out of work indefinitely. There was a period of about 6 months when getting hired was nearly impossible, but after that, things started to turn slowly upward. Honestly, if you're a programmer, I really recommend an emergency fund. Especially if you're being paid ridiculously well, keep your living expenses lower, and put some money aside.
efsavage 4y ago
Two things that I can say with certainty I've heard literally every single one of the ~25 years I've been in this game: 1. "We're in a bubble!, it's only a matter of time before it all comes down" 2. "The market is hot for developers right now!" I've been through hiring sprees and layoffs, I've had startups succeed and fail, and I don't think my experiences are exceptional in any way. Things wax and wane, trends come and go. Keep a bit of savings, live within your means, and do good work and things will most likely work out well for you in the long run.

by yuan43 4y ago

nomel 4y ago

> To employees it says "the ship is sinking." Layoffs are right around the corner and that is absolute poison to morale. To investors it says "technical or not, we've hit a recession." Brace yourselves for impact While it’s possibly true in this case, that’s definitely not always true. I’ve been in two companies that had to implement a hiring freeze because growth was too fast. Everyone understood, because nobody new each other, because half the company was just hired.

unicornmama 4y ago
Layoffs can be positively received by the market if it cuts the fat to increase profit. No one expects Google or any other company to grow unboundedly.

time_to_smile 4y ago

> the business cycle Just an aside, that this rebranding of Marx's theory of crisis never fails to get a chuckle out of me. In mainstream economics is presented as some magical property of the way economies work, where Marx specifically predicts cyclically economic crisis created by contradictions inherent in the structure of capitalism, the periodically build to a tipping point leading to crisis and ultimately the resolution of these contradictions. For Marx, these crises ultimately culminate in the unavoidable collapse of capitalism. Which is where the fundamental drive to find alternatives to capitalism comes from for Marx, not because it is an ethically questionable system, but because it is one fundamentally headed towards its own destruction. But "business cycle" sounds much better, and leaves off all that spooky "systemic problem" stuff.

robertlagrant 4y ago
> But "business cycle" sounds much better, and leaves off all that spooky "systemic problem" stuff. It all sounds better than his "mass murder/starvation death" systemic problems.
cloverich 4y ago
FWIW i first learned of it from a libertarian angle, which equated business cycle with economy wide (mal) investment which was, in practice, usually driven by the fed or some comparable government program. Whether consistent or not it holds at least some truth and was an interesting angle to start learning about economics.
- smokeypanda 4y ago
  Libertarianism and Austrian economics has a perception of outright rejecting empiricism and other rational thought, so I'd like to add a clarification. Libertarian theory doesn't deny naturally occurring downturns in economies, but that the severity and length of them are lessened without state mismanagement. Potentially, to the point that nation-spanning busts would be a thing of the past.
alecbz 4y ago
> For Marx, these crises ultimately culminate in the unavoidable collapse of capitalism. But I mean that's exactly the whole difference, right? Both Marx and others identified this pattern, Marx believes this ultimately will explode, others don't, so it makes sense that others would want to label it in a way that indicates their view that the pattern is "normal" and sustainable. I'm not even saying Marx is wrong, but just because Marx thought something about something he noticed doesn't mean he's right. Others that came after him are allowed to come to different conclusions about the things he noticed.

aksjdhmkjasdof 4y ago

>An actual hiring freeze sends a very strong negative signal to employees and investors. To employees it says "the ship is sinking." Layoffs are right around the corner and that is absolute poison to morale. I don't agree with this analysis. I'd be shocked if Google did any layoffs (though it's always possible) instead of just freezing hiring and letting natural attrition happen for a while. As for the signal to employees, there are so many employees already that I imagine many would be agree that the company is too big. It doesn't mean that the ship is sinking, just that they don't need an infinite number of employees. And Google's products are so dominant that you can't really believe the business is failing. Now, FB on the other hand... I'd feel a lot more antsy, yeah. Their business doesn't feel nearly so stable.

baby 4y ago
FB is still printing money so I'm not sure how it's not a stable business
- pharmakom 4y ago
  zuck will burn cash to the end for the meta verse it seems.
  - Applejinx 4y ago
    That's one of the things, though. If you are in a dire situation, like companies nationalized during wartime, you can't work or function. Certain things like advertising your services are clearly out the window. In WWII, some companies who were turned to serving the war machine continued to advertise the things they couldn't make or sell, anyway. When things came back those folks were on top of the world. If the big FAANG companies can ride out business cycles without acting like they've become vulnerable, they're likely to further cement their positions.
  - baby 4y ago
    It definitely is a long term bet that could end up costing a lot to Meta, but on the other hand if that bet materializes... At the very least we're getting really cool VR development!

ekidd 4y ago

> The thing is, those with fewer than 10 years experience have never seen the ferocity of the other side of the business cycle. When it turns, that mofo turns. I was working as a programmer during both the dotcom crash and the 2007-2008 real estate crash. I would describe these downturns as "bumpy". But neither was catastrophic for most of the programmers I knew. Some of us moved, others found new jobs. Some of the least-skilled, including the "webmasters" who didn't know JavaScript or CSS, did wind up leaving the industry in 2001. If you had a 1-year emergency fund, you would probably have been fine in either crash. The people who were the hardest hit were actually the people living in major tech cities, because they had the biggest concentrations of layoffs. The longest I was on the job market was about 3 months in fall 2001, but I had to move out of Boston. I got a slightly underpaid but really awesome job. Right now, there are tens of thousands of organizations that would be revolutionized by some simple custom software. These organizations can't compete with FAANG salaries. But they'll be happy to absorb quite a few programmers. Some of the jobs will be valuable and interesting work. So like I said, a hard crash can be bumpy. But for most professional programmers, it probably won't be catastrophic.

spookie 4y ago
I don't know about the big boys. But at least in Europe, in 2008, the crash wasn't "bumpy". It was survival of the fittest, and most up and coming companies straight up died. It's a matter of perspective, for sure. But I would be careful myself. FAANGs won't vanish, and it won't be catastrophic for the privileged few. But, for the rest of the world, which follows the status quo? This spells doom in various levels.
- ekidd 4y ago
  > It was survival of the fittest, and most up and coming companies straight up died. Oh, during the dotcom crash, Internet companies failed by the thousands in the US. But many of them were absolute garbage companies, far worse than the average modern startup. Frankly, scam companies were coming out of the woodwork. It was even worse than the later mobile/social/local/GroupOn era. But just because many companies folded, it didn't necessarily mean that competent programmers were out of work indefinitely. There was a period of about 6 months when getting hired was nearly impossible, but after that, things started to turn slowly upward. Honestly, if you're a programmer, I really recommend an emergency fund. Especially if you're being paid ridiculously well, keep your living expenses lower, and put some money aside.

efsavage 4y ago

Two things that I can say with certainty I've heard literally every single one of the ~25 years I've been in this game: 1. "We're in a bubble!, it's only a matter of time before it all comes down" 2. "The market is hot for developers right now!" I've been through hiring sprees and layoffs, I've had startups succeed and fail, and I don't think my experiences are exceptional in any way. Things wax and wane, trends come and go. Keep a bit of savings, live within your means, and do good work and things will most likely work out well for you in the long run.