3 ms·

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 norma

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.

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.