4 ms·

There's some things I guess I really don't understand about hiring and employment. What were these employees doing the past 1 or 2 or 5 quarters? What were thei

There's some things I guess I really don't understand about hiring and employment. What were these employees doing the past 1 or 2 or 5 quarters? What were their jobs and responsibilities? Has this economic slowdown really resulted in those responsibilities drying up? One common answer is that they still have work to do, but Walmart will put that work on remaining employees to save a dime. If this is true, why wasn't it being done before? Why is there that much wasted slack in employee productivity potential? Another common answer is that they hired too fast and now need to readjust for future expectations. This makes sense in terms of smaller startups who may have miscalculated market trends and have limited financial runways, but for the largest private employer on the planet? Who is financially profitable and self-sufficient? Really? Does management simply pay zero attention to headcount and payroll until a bad quarter happens and then they start cleaning house?

listenallyall 4y ago
It's pretty much human nature to cut expenses when income or revenue drops. If you lost your job, or just half your income, I bet you'd find a few things to stop spending on.
- ttymck 4y ago
  Yes, I'd stop spending on luxuries. Do corporations ever tout this new department or new project as a luxury? Isn't it always: "this new thing is vital to our continued success and growth!"
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    a) life tip: don't take anything a corporation, or its executives, says literally. Use your own brain. b) congratulations if you could lose 50-100% of your income and only need to drop luxuries. for the majority of the population, it would require sacrificing housing, clothing, healthcare or food to some extent.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    "Opportunity for growth" is the corporate equivalent of "luxury". They can't pursue every possible opportunity for growth, they have to pick and choose. When times are good, they pursue more; when times are bad, they pursue less.
just_boost_it 4y ago
Companies put money into projects when prospects are looking good. They can cut back to just maintenance when things are looking bad.
bluedino 4y ago
> Walmart will put that work on remaining employees to save a dime. If this is true, why wasn't it being done before? You ever make a personal budget, decide you don't need the daily coffee shop trip, cut out buying the newest ____, etc? Why weren't you doing that before?
asanwal 4y ago
Downturns cure prosperity-induced blindness very quickly.
nine_zeros 4y ago
> Does management pay zero attention? You may have seen many posts about bad management. Here's just another example why those posts are abound. Notice how the vast majority of workers laid off will not be the same managers who made those bad choices.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  Why is it "bad management" to eliminate unproductive employees or departments? If you hired an accountant who promised to find tax deductions, but he charged you $1000 to save $500 on taxes, you'd fire him. Likewise, if Wal-Mart has an expensive "corporate analytics" or "data science" team that isn't net positive, why keep them around? If Wal-Mart has an expensive in-house creative agency generating ads and branding, perhaps getting rid of it and going with an external agency is what is needed? Maybe all their digital initiatives have been slow to roll out or underperformed projections, and they decide to stop throwing good money after bad.
  - nine_zeros 4y ago
    When I hire an accountant who promised to find tax deductions, but he didn't, I am firing them for not fulfilling a promise. A new hire, especially at lower levels, has not promised anything except an exchange of skills for money. I would even say that the hiring manager promised the company that hiring more headcount will give some benefits. But those benefits never materialized for the company. So by your own logic, a company should first fire the manager who did not fulfil their promise.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
      > I am firing them for not fulfilling a promise I believe what OP meant was that they fulfilled the promise by finding tax deductions, just not enough to justify the cost of their bill. Likewise firing employees has nothing to do with promises: it's just unprofitable to keep them on. If there is no short to medium-term need for the employees, they have to go. The decision may be unpopular, but necessary.
mgh2 4y ago
Maybe these will help: [1] Amazon layoffs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338354 [2] Walmart's strategy vs. Amazon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx_XGfGB2VE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx_XGfGB2VE [3] Ad industry slowdown: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338444 Hypothesis: Ecommerce and ads boomed during the pandemic, and this fueled Walmart to aggressively compete with Amazon. The extra money during covid was invested in these riskier, more "innovative" efforts. Now that consumer spending and the ad industry is slowing down, the growth prospects on these sectors and the corporate workforce behind them is no longer sustainable. Maybe they over hired and now need to be more conservative.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  > Hypothesis: Ecommerce and ads...Maybe they over hired Article indicates otherwise: > Walmart is still hiring in parts of its business that are growing, including supply chain, e-commerce, health and wellness, and advertising sales.
  - mgh2 4y ago
    Good catch, maybe getting rid of old business model appendices
refurb 4y ago
Headcount changes take time. If you need more workers next week, you need to be hiring a month or more in advance. And hiring/onboarding costs money. So to answer your question, headcount changes have a very long lead time. If you update your forecast and realize you’ll need fewer people 6 months from now, you start laying off people today.

listenallyall 4y ago

It's pretty much human nature to cut expenses when income or revenue drops. If you lost your job, or just half your income, I bet you'd find a few things to stop spending on.

ttymck 4y ago
Yes, I'd stop spending on luxuries. Do corporations ever tout this new department or new project as a luxury? Isn't it always: "this new thing is vital to our continued success and growth!"
- listenallyall 4y ago
  a) life tip: don't take anything a corporation, or its executives, says literally. Use your own brain. b) congratulations if you could lose 50-100% of your income and only need to drop luxuries. for the majority of the population, it would require sacrificing housing, clothing, healthcare or food to some extent.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  "Opportunity for growth" is the corporate equivalent of "luxury". They can't pursue every possible opportunity for growth, they have to pick and choose. When times are good, they pursue more; when times are bad, they pursue less.

just_boost_it 4y ago

Companies put money into projects when prospects are looking good. They can cut back to just maintenance when things are looking bad.

bluedino 4y ago

> Walmart will put that work on remaining employees to save a dime. If this is true, why wasn't it being done before? You ever make a personal budget, decide you don't need the daily coffee shop trip, cut out buying the newest ____, etc? Why weren't you doing that before?

asanwal 4y ago

Downturns cure prosperity-induced blindness very quickly.

nine_zeros 4y ago

> Does management pay zero attention? You may have seen many posts about bad management. Here's just another example why those posts are abound. Notice how the vast majority of workers laid off will not be the same managers who made those bad choices.

listenallyall 4y ago
Why is it "bad management" to eliminate unproductive employees or departments? If you hired an accountant who promised to find tax deductions, but he charged you $1000 to save $500 on taxes, you'd fire him. Likewise, if Wal-Mart has an expensive "corporate analytics" or "data science" team that isn't net positive, why keep them around? If Wal-Mart has an expensive in-house creative agency generating ads and branding, perhaps getting rid of it and going with an external agency is what is needed? Maybe all their digital initiatives have been slow to roll out or underperformed projections, and they decide to stop throwing good money after bad.
- nine_zeros 4y ago
  When I hire an accountant who promised to find tax deductions, but he didn't, I am firing them for not fulfilling a promise. A new hire, especially at lower levels, has not promised anything except an exchange of skills for money. I would even say that the hiring manager promised the company that hiring more headcount will give some benefits. But those benefits never materialized for the company. So by your own logic, a company should first fire the manager who did not fulfil their promise.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    > I am firing them for not fulfilling a promise I believe what OP meant was that they fulfilled the promise by finding tax deductions, just not enough to justify the cost of their bill. Likewise firing employees has nothing to do with promises: it's just unprofitable to keep them on. If there is no short to medium-term need for the employees, they have to go. The decision may be unpopular, but necessary.

mgh2 4y ago

Maybe these will help: [1] Amazon layoffs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338354 [2] Walmart's strategy vs. Amazon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx_XGfGB2VE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx_XGfGB2VE [3] Ad industry slowdown: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338444 Hypothesis: Ecommerce and ads boomed during the pandemic, and this fueled Walmart to aggressively compete with Amazon. The extra money during covid was invested in these riskier, more "innovative" efforts. Now that consumer spending and the ad industry is slowing down, the growth prospects on these sectors and the corporate workforce behind them is no longer sustainable. Maybe they over hired and now need to be more conservative.

listenallyall 4y ago
> Hypothesis: Ecommerce and ads...Maybe they over hired Article indicates otherwise: > Walmart is still hiring in parts of its business that are growing, including supply chain, e-commerce, health and wellness, and advertising sales.
- mgh2 4y ago
  Good catch, maybe getting rid of old business model appendices

refurb 4y ago

Headcount changes take time. If you need more workers next week, you need to be hiring a month or more in advance. And hiring/onboarding costs money. So to answer your question, headcount changes have a very long lead time. If you update your forecast and realize you’ll need fewer people 6 months from now, you start laying off people today.