3 ms·
> I wonder why meta would choose to cut this cost and not some other. For example, why not lay off 20 engineers? It’s likely that meta sees less issue with rem
by IMTDb 4y ago
> I wonder why meta would choose to cut this cost and not some other. For example, why not lay off 20 engineers?
It’s likely that meta sees less issue with removing janitors than engineers. One question they probably asked themselves is: would those missing janitors have any impact on any project or revenue stream ? Would it be hard ton re-hire and re-train them if we need to ?
With engineers, they would probably have to answer « yes » to the impact question and « no » to the re-staff question, while it is really hard to even notice few missing janitors and re-hiring them is trivial.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- caprock 4y agoThat sounds like a reasonable point, from a purist business perspective. I have a tendency to assume the big players like meta have many pockets of inefficiency with respect to engineering headcount, and that many projects aren't very important (or even negative) to the bottom line. Maybe that's not true. It still sounds like they are taking a low friction path, and a little more effort here might result in a decision that has better social outcome. There's not enough info to say that with real certainty though.
- vineyardmike 4y ago> many pockets of inefficiency with respect to engineering headcount, This is assumed. The hard part is finding them.
- jleyank 4y agoUnless the offices are empty, their kitchen areas are going to get rather grody if nobody is cleaning them up. And I can’t see the admins (if any are left) doing this, nor the engineers. Penny wise and pound foolish.
- rightbyte 4y agoSure. That is also why we don't have secretaries no more. So instead Facebook will have programmers fixing shelves and yanky doors.