4 ms·

An employer’s market changes the dynamic, which can be to your benefit if you’re a top engineer. I expect that companies can lay off the bottom 10% and then tur

An employer’s market changes the dynamic, which can be to your benefit if you’re a top engineer. I expect that companies can lay off the bottom 10% and then turn around and hire the top 5% in the market who will replace the laid off 10%. Kind of risky to join a new company though because if they do layoffs, recent hires or more likely to get the axe.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
This sounds like anti-worker sentiment trying to sneak in on people's egos. It doesn't pass the common sense test, for me. It sounds like you're saying that companies are going to lay off (say) half their workforce, and replace them by a handful of "10x engineers" who they pay twice as much. Is there any evidence that this happens? It sounds to me like saying that luxury mansions go up in a housing market crash, or blue chips went up in 1929. I don't think it describes reality.
- devmunchies 4y ago
  I wouldn't say it's "anti-worker", just armchair discussion of supply-demand economics. You can't improve worker conditions without an honest characterization of market dynamics. It pretty straightforward that a decrease of "open positions" (the supply of jobs) and the increase in "candidates looking for work" (the demand for jobs) would afford employers the leverage to change their hiring strategies. Combine that with post-covid environment where employers want to boost productivity to prior levels, and as they see other companies successfully perform layoffs without huge hits to productivity or stock price, and you get a perfect storm. And yes, most companies that have had had layoffs are still hiring, but obviously more selectively. Follow up: > It sounds like you're saying that companies are going to lay off (say) half their workforce, and replace them by a handful of "10x engineers" who they pay twice as much they don't have to be 10x engineers, just perceived as better than their current "hand". Put some card back in the pile, draw some new ones from the deck. And they don't have to pay them twice as much either (unless a really desirable skillset), it's an employers market.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago

This sounds like anti-worker sentiment trying to sneak in on people's egos. It doesn't pass the common sense test, for me. It sounds like you're saying that companies are going to lay off (say) half their workforce, and replace them by a handful of "10x engineers" who they pay twice as much. Is there any evidence that this happens? It sounds to me like saying that luxury mansions go up in a housing market crash, or blue chips went up in 1929. I don't think it describes reality.

devmunchies 4y ago
I wouldn't say it's "anti-worker", just armchair discussion of supply-demand economics. You can't improve worker conditions without an honest characterization of market dynamics. It pretty straightforward that a decrease of "open positions" (the supply of jobs) and the increase in "candidates looking for work" (the demand for jobs) would afford employers the leverage to change their hiring strategies. Combine that with post-covid environment where employers want to boost productivity to prior levels, and as they see other companies successfully perform layoffs without huge hits to productivity or stock price, and you get a perfect storm. And yes, most companies that have had had layoffs are still hiring, but obviously more selectively. Follow up: > It sounds like you're saying that companies are going to lay off (say) half their workforce, and replace them by a handful of "10x engineers" who they pay twice as much they don't have to be 10x engineers, just perceived as better than their current "hand". Put some card back in the pile, draw some new ones from the deck. And they don't have to pay them twice as much either (unless a really desirable skillset), it's an employers market.