3 ms·

> If the bet had paid off… There’s the rub. The parent’s suggestion was that, probably, the new hires weren’t told anything along the lines of “Hey, this is a

> If the bet had paid off… There’s the rub. The parent’s suggestion was that, probably, the new hires weren’t told anything along the lines of “Hey, this is a crazy gamble and it might not work out. Sign here to play.” Yes, it’s implied in “startups”. But companies as large as shopify aren’t generally hiring people from the startup scene anymore. People are (were?) leaving good, stable jobs to go there. Only they know what their expectations were.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> "Hey, this is a crazy gamble and it might not work out. Sign here to play." That's a gross mischaracterization, and it weakens your argument. It wasn't a "crazy gamble." It was a calculated risk, one that I think even in hindsight looks like a reasonable one to make at the time. I think the overall question is whether it would have been better for those jobs never to have existed in the first place, rather than having existed for a year or so before being eliminated. And, in truth, I think it's a very fair question - many people might value a higher level of stability, even if it results in overall lower total wages in the long term. For me, though, since I am in an industry that is, overall, growing and not showing any signs of slowing down in the medium-to-long term, I'm fine with taking a job even if I can get laid off at some point in the future. Spotify was very generous with severance IMO, and I don't think I'd have any problem finding another job within 3 months. Again, I totally understand not everyone shares my view, but also other folks should understand that even as an employee I don't think that getting laid off is some sort of unforgivable crime.
- tobyjsullivan 4y ago
  I don't agree that's a gross mischaracterization. For reference, the exact wording from Tobi Lutke is: > Was this surge to be a temporary effect or a new normal? And so, given what we saw, we placed another bet: We bet that the channel mix - the share of dollars that travel through ecommerce rather than physical retail - would permanently leap ahead by 5 or even 10 years. In other words, it was a gamble that an unprecedented leap in global commercial behaviour was happening. Was there some reason to believe it could? Absolutely. Were the chances still extremely small? Also, absolutely. And when you're "thinking in bets", as Shopify clearly is, you only risk what you can afford to lose. Other people's financial security is basically free for Shopify (a bit of severance in the worst case scenario).
  - chii 4y ago
    > Other people's financial security is basically free for Shopify it is the assume responsibility of the individual for their own financial security. If the bet that shopify made turned out to be great, those people that got hired wouldn't have a complaint about how much they've gained. It's always a risk to move jobs, and even more risk to move to a growing company. People who do so would've implicitly accepted the risk - it's not on shopify to spell it out for them.
  - b112 4y ago
    Were the chances still extremely small? Also, absolutely. This is an extreme case of hindsight. You can only say so, definitively, looking back.
    - friendzis 4y ago
      No, period. Pandemic e-commerce boom was direct consequence of people not going out, which comprised three major categories: back office employees going WFH and manufacturing/customer facing jobs getting shut down on one end and people needing some line of work / shops needing revenue on other end. Were the chances that WFH proliferation will remain at pandemic levels high? No. Were the chances that opportunistic eshops will remain once prior corrects high? Debatable.
      - b112 4y ago
        Were the chances that WFH proliferation will remain at pandemic levels high? No. Were the chances that opportunistic eshops will remain once prior corrects high? Debatable. This is just more hindsight being employed. It is so easy, so simple to look back, and proclaim one superior and correct. Did you have these thoughts, and think all these precise things when people were hiring for pandemic booms? Did you proclaim this loudly, put your reputation on the line, emphatically state that everyone was wrong, wrong!? I doubt it. I further doubt you, and the other poster, would have staked capital either way too. And you know why? Because you didn't know with surety. Because this is all hindsight. Heck, I'm willing to bet you had no opinion at all about this specific topic at all a year ago. None. Unless you looked at this, thought about this, you're looking back. Hindsight.
- friendzis 4y ago
  > It wasn't a "crazy gamble." It was a calculated risk The theme of this thread is risk taken by employees. Sure, it can very easily be characterised as "calculated risk" for the company. Was that risk calculated for employees?
  - barrenko 4y ago
    Employees, like capital, are a component of the bet. Work is a lever just like money. Always is, always will be, that's how we have anything in capitalism. We might as well call it capitalaborism.
- finikytou 4y ago
  tbh betting on the fact that you will have explosive growth in the future while you are at the best economical time of your life at an exceptional time where most of the industries but e-commerce are suffering due to a worldwide pandemic and hoping that while millions of people died, countries debts increased, well gamgling that people will buy more after this time is a "Crazy gamble".

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> "Hey, this is a crazy gamble and it might not work out. Sign here to play." That's a gross mischaracterization, and it weakens your argument. It wasn't a "crazy gamble." It was a calculated risk, one that I think even in hindsight looks like a reasonable one to make at the time. I think the overall question is whether it would have been better for those jobs never to have existed in the first place, rather than having existed for a year or so before being eliminated. And, in truth, I think it's a very fair question - many people might value a higher level of stability, even if it results in overall lower total wages in the long term. For me, though, since I am in an industry that is, overall, growing and not showing any signs of slowing down in the medium-to-long term, I'm fine with taking a job even if I can get laid off at some point in the future. Spotify was very generous with severance IMO, and I don't think I'd have any problem finding another job within 3 months. Again, I totally understand not everyone shares my view, but also other folks should understand that even as an employee I don't think that getting laid off is some sort of unforgivable crime.

tobyjsullivan 4y ago
I don't agree that's a gross mischaracterization. For reference, the exact wording from Tobi Lutke is: > Was this surge to be a temporary effect or a new normal? And so, given what we saw, we placed another bet: We bet that the channel mix - the share of dollars that travel through ecommerce rather than physical retail - would permanently leap ahead by 5 or even 10 years. In other words, it was a gamble that an unprecedented leap in global commercial behaviour was happening. Was there some reason to believe it could? Absolutely. Were the chances still extremely small? Also, absolutely. And when you're "thinking in bets", as Shopify clearly is, you only risk what you can afford to lose. Other people's financial security is basically free for Shopify (a bit of severance in the worst case scenario).
- chii 4y ago
  > Other people's financial security is basically free for Shopify it is the assume responsibility of the individual for their own financial security. If the bet that shopify made turned out to be great, those people that got hired wouldn't have a complaint about how much they've gained. It's always a risk to move jobs, and even more risk to move to a growing company. People who do so would've implicitly accepted the risk - it's not on shopify to spell it out for them.
- b112 4y ago
  Were the chances still extremely small? Also, absolutely. This is an extreme case of hindsight. You can only say so, definitively, looking back.
  - friendzis 4y ago
    No, period. Pandemic e-commerce boom was direct consequence of people not going out, which comprised three major categories: back office employees going WFH and manufacturing/customer facing jobs getting shut down on one end and people needing some line of work / shops needing revenue on other end. Were the chances that WFH proliferation will remain at pandemic levels high? No. Were the chances that opportunistic eshops will remain once prior corrects high? Debatable.
    - b112 4y ago
      Were the chances that WFH proliferation will remain at pandemic levels high? No. Were the chances that opportunistic eshops will remain once prior corrects high? Debatable. This is just more hindsight being employed. It is so easy, so simple to look back, and proclaim one superior and correct. Did you have these thoughts, and think all these precise things when people were hiring for pandemic booms? Did you proclaim this loudly, put your reputation on the line, emphatically state that everyone was wrong, wrong!? I doubt it. I further doubt you, and the other poster, would have staked capital either way too. And you know why? Because you didn't know with surety. Because this is all hindsight. Heck, I'm willing to bet you had no opinion at all about this specific topic at all a year ago. None. Unless you looked at this, thought about this, you're looking back. Hindsight.
friendzis 4y ago
> It wasn't a "crazy gamble." It was a calculated risk The theme of this thread is risk taken by employees. Sure, it can very easily be characterised as "calculated risk" for the company. Was that risk calculated for employees?
- barrenko 4y ago
  Employees, like capital, are a component of the bet. Work is a lever just like money. Always is, always will be, that's how we have anything in capitalism. We might as well call it capitalaborism.
finikytou 4y ago
tbh betting on the fact that you will have explosive growth in the future while you are at the best economical time of your life at an exceptional time where most of the industries but e-commerce are suffering due to a worldwide pandemic and hoping that while millions of people died, countries debts increased, well gamgling that people will buy more after this time is a "Crazy gamble".