4 ms·

It's not hard for a team at Meta to easily cost more than $10 million/year. Average TC for each IC could reasonably have been in the 500k/year area and that doe

It's not hard for a team at Meta to easily cost more than $10 million/year. Average TC for each IC could reasonably have been in the 500k/year area and that doesn't count other benefits/infra overhead. A few very senior people on the team could easily have pushed the average TC up quite a bit. So if the team was around 20 people that already doesn't make sense.

function_seven 4y ago
This post notes that the savings were net of cost. Maybe Eric is wrong, but assuming his math checks out, cutting a team that delivers net savings can’t be justified on the basis of cost-cutting.
- MengerSponge 4y ago
  It only makes sense if you can make it up in volume. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KodqIPMbyUg&t=53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KodqIPMbyUg&t=53s
- beachy 4y ago
  > a team that delivers net savings can’t be justified on the basis of cost-cutting ..in theory not, but in practice cost-cutting is often less a scientific, data-based project and more a cataclysmic purgative process where factors such as speed of execution are important. e.g. Elon has certainly lost many, many great people and teams who were net positive for Twitter's bottom line in his recent purges. But he probably thinks there is huge value in acting quickly and putting the aggressive cutting behind him and inserting his "hardcore" team. There would be a real cost to the Twitter shareholders in doing a slow and scientific analysis of who to cut - there's a case to be made that a ruthless tearing off of the bandaid would more quickly lead to a profitable place, even if there is collateral damage on the way.
runevault 4y ago
Except he specifically said millions of dollars a year "over the cost of the work". They were a net bonus on the balance sheet.
progbits 4y ago
The article says their _net_ cost savings were $10M. So I would expect that accounts for the costs of the team (salary, and whatever cost they spent building their projects). Either way, not disputing the arguments in this comment chain.

function_seven 4y ago

This post notes that the savings were net of cost. Maybe Eric is wrong, but assuming his math checks out, cutting a team that delivers net savings can’t be justified on the basis of cost-cutting.

MengerSponge 4y ago
It only makes sense if you can make it up in volume. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KodqIPMbyUg&t=53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KodqIPMbyUg&t=53s
beachy 4y ago
> a team that delivers net savings can’t be justified on the basis of cost-cutting ..in theory not, but in practice cost-cutting is often less a scientific, data-based project and more a cataclysmic purgative process where factors such as speed of execution are important. e.g. Elon has certainly lost many, many great people and teams who were net positive for Twitter's bottom line in his recent purges. But he probably thinks there is huge value in acting quickly and putting the aggressive cutting behind him and inserting his "hardcore" team. There would be a real cost to the Twitter shareholders in doing a slow and scientific analysis of who to cut - there's a case to be made that a ruthless tearing off of the bandaid would more quickly lead to a profitable place, even if there is collateral damage on the way.

runevault 4y ago

Except he specifically said millions of dollars a year "over the cost of the work". They were a net bonus on the balance sheet.

progbits 4y ago

The article says their _net_ cost savings were $10M. So I would expect that accounts for the costs of the team (salary, and whatever cost they spent building their projects). Either way, not disputing the arguments in this comment chain.