8 ms·

Wow! $168M/(3800 employee / 100*23 layoff) = $192,219 per layed off employee Not that I am suggesting he should pay the layed off employees from his personal

Wow! $168M/(3800 employee / 100*23 layoff) = $192,219 per layed off employee Not that I am suggesting he should pay the layed off employees from his personal kitty. Just trying to understand the numbers. Edit: OP said CEO and COO each. So $192K x 2 ~= $384,000.

alain94040 4y ago
Your math makes no sense. The fewer the employees laid off, the more the dollar per employee will be. What does that mean? If a company lays off only one employee, then all of the CEO's salary could have gone to one person?
- tedunangst 4y ago
  Obviously they should have laid off more employees until the CEO salary per layoff drops below $1000.
- martin82 4y ago
  I think it just shows that the CEO earned enough to give every laid off employee a whole annual salary, so you could argue that the layoff could have been prevented for at least a year.
  - curious_cat_163 4y ago
    Exactly. Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. What is the cost of making the kind of mistakes this guy did? And who should pay for them?
    - kortilla 4y ago
      > Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. No there isn’t. Wasting money to keep employing people isn’t good for anyone. The labor market is still tight right now so the employees are better off going to a company that actually wants them.
      - curious_cat_163 4y ago
        Ok. I see your point.
  - throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
    And if they'd over hired, their business could still be in the same place (or worse) next year. People should just say they don't think executives should earn that much money (in good times or bad) rather than making moral justifications like this.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Sure, but no doubt a Silicon Valley programmer could take a 50% pay cut, still have plenty to live on, and double the salary of 3 cleaning staff that work at their company. Should we talk about that too?
    - smabie 4y ago
      Nah probably not since so many people on HN are programmers.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
100001_100011 4y ago
Maybe Robinhood wants to use this money to buy the dip.

alain94040 4y ago

Your math makes no sense. The fewer the employees laid off, the more the dollar per employee will be. What does that mean? If a company lays off only one employee, then all of the CEO's salary could have gone to one person?

tedunangst 4y ago
Obviously they should have laid off more employees until the CEO salary per layoff drops below $1000.
martin82 4y ago
I think it just shows that the CEO earned enough to give every laid off employee a whole annual salary, so you could argue that the layoff could have been prevented for at least a year.
- curious_cat_163 4y ago
  Exactly. Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. What is the cost of making the kind of mistakes this guy did? And who should pay for them?
  - kortilla 4y ago
    > Hate to go there on HN but there _is_ a moral side to this. No there isn’t. Wasting money to keep employing people isn’t good for anyone. The labor market is still tight right now so the employees are better off going to a company that actually wants them.
    - curious_cat_163 4y ago
      Ok. I see your point.
- throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
  And if they'd over hired, their business could still be in the same place (or worse) next year. People should just say they don't think executives should earn that much money (in good times or bad) rather than making moral justifications like this.
- refurb 4y ago
  Sure, but no doubt a Silicon Valley programmer could take a 50% pay cut, still have plenty to live on, and double the salary of 3 cleaning staff that work at their company. Should we talk about that too?
  - smabie 4y ago
    Nah probably not since so many people on HN are programmers.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

100001_100011 4y ago

Maybe Robinhood wants to use this money to buy the dip.