4 ms·

> these people weren't top performers Problem is that this is not how this is unravelling. Large lay-offs like that cull entire departments, not the lower perf

> these people weren't top performers Problem is that this is not how this is unravelling. Large lay-offs like that cull entire departments, not the lower performers.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
What I'm hearing from Googlers I know -- the layoffs are not on the whole tied to perf. They're across the board in terms of years of service and seniority and product areas and roles and some people recently promoted have gotten the axe, too. Doesn't seem to be departmental. When Google does that (axe a PA or department or product) they have a process of giving a chunk of time usually to let people move themselves, or be moved; e.g. when they killed Fiber at my site (Waterloo) they moved everyone (including me) into other roles and brought new projects into the office, and people in Mountain View and other places were given a few months to find something else internal.
- charles_f 4y ago
  It's the same at Microsoft and Amazon, I've seen top-tier people with >10y service getting axed in both instances.
  - tgma 4y ago
    I'm not suggesting there aren't top tier people but I know firsthand that just being there for 10yr (specifically the past 10 years at G) does not in any shape or form imply you're top tier. You could have been literally coasting for a decade.
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      Yes, will this is in part the Faustian bargain that is often made to work at Google. People often become mediocre working there, and Google is on the whole frankly fine with this because it keeps those people from going & working at potential competitors. That this is now changing, is interesting. In any case, like I said above, this round of layoffs doesn't seem to be indexed on performance. At least not completely, from what I've heard. It should be interesting to see how many new startups get built out in the next year as a result of this.
      - theGnuMe 4y ago
        There are like 46k Xooglers or something.. +12k Xooglers now. That is like startup gold. So much opportunity if these folks self-organize.
notyourday 4y ago
> Problem is that this is not how this is unravelling. Large lay-offs like that cull entire departments, not the lower performers. Companies like Google are overstaffed by the lazy, entitled Prima Donnas. You can see it all over HN in its advice: "Don't go to a startup! You would need to work. Rather get a job at FAANG, get paid a very large salary, leave on the dot, don't ever be on call. Also, best part, you will get at least a few hours a day to play around on the internet. Also, remember, you have a power of pocket veto! If you do not like something, just don't do it. What are they going to do? Fire you? You will get another job in a jiffy!" With the zero interest rate environment gone the culling is inevitable.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Advice on HN not to go to a startup is because 99% of startups have bullshit equity options these days. They're not worth the risk and stress because the VCs and founders are keeping potential payouts to themselves but pushing a huge amount of the financial risk and work stress onto their staff. Unless you're a cofounder or maybe a founding engineer, payout from a reasonable sale of a startup these days -- if it fluked out and actually happened -- ends up being little more than the annual comp at one of these BigCorps. TLDR, you don't get a job at a FAANG because you're lazy, you get that job because you're looking out for yourself and your family and you'd prefer not to be someone's plaything. That said I got sick of Google and went and shopped around last year and now I'm working at a smaller, series B funded company now and love it. But I ain't hoping to get rich, just job satisfaction. When VCs and founders get their shit together on equity agreements, early stage startups will be more attractive again. EDIT: Also hate to burst your bubble, but on-call rotation is a part of plenty of Google SWE teams, not just SRE. But they do pay a handsome bonus for the time you're on-call.
  - grepfru_it 4y ago
    My buddy and I were just talking about this. A company we were modeling received $4.2M in VC funding and had 20 employees at time of purchase. The purchase price was never advertised, but we assumed a 7x multiple on last known value and assumed the sale price at $25M. $25M turns out to be a little over $1M per employee after 4 years (company started 2012 and was bought in 2016). I asked out loud "why would you do this when you could just go to Microsoft or Apple, do less work, and make the same money in the same amount of time". Now this price is skewed towards the investors and very early employees, but the point still stands. You will very clearly make more money working for an established corp than a startup.

> these people weren't top performers Problem is that this is not how this is unravelling. Large lay-offs like that cull entire departments, not the lower performers.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

What I'm hearing from Googlers I know -- the layoffs are not on the whole tied to perf. They're across the board in terms of years of service and seniority and product areas and roles and some people recently promoted have gotten the axe, too. Doesn't seem to be departmental. When Google does that (axe a PA or department or product) they have a process of giving a chunk of time usually to let people move themselves, or be moved; e.g. when they killed Fiber at my site (Waterloo) they moved everyone (including me) into other roles and brought new projects into the office, and people in Mountain View and other places were given a few months to find something else internal.

charles_f 4y ago
It's the same at Microsoft and Amazon, I've seen top-tier people with >10y service getting axed in both instances.
- tgma 4y ago
  I'm not suggesting there aren't top tier people but I know firsthand that just being there for 10yr (specifically the past 10 years at G) does not in any shape or form imply you're top tier. You could have been literally coasting for a decade.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Yes, will this is in part the Faustian bargain that is often made to work at Google. People often become mediocre working there, and Google is on the whole frankly fine with this because it keeps those people from going & working at potential competitors. That this is now changing, is interesting. In any case, like I said above, this round of layoffs doesn't seem to be indexed on performance. At least not completely, from what I've heard. It should be interesting to see how many new startups get built out in the next year as a result of this.
    - theGnuMe 4y ago
      There are like 46k Xooglers or something.. +12k Xooglers now. That is like startup gold. So much opportunity if these folks self-organize.

notyourday 4y ago

> Problem is that this is not how this is unravelling. Large lay-offs like that cull entire departments, not the lower performers. Companies like Google are overstaffed by the lazy, entitled Prima Donnas. You can see it all over HN in its advice: "Don't go to a startup! You would need to work. Rather get a job at FAANG, get paid a very large salary, leave on the dot, don't ever be on call. Also, best part, you will get at least a few hours a day to play around on the internet. Also, remember, you have a power of pocket veto! If you do not like something, just don't do it. What are they going to do? Fire you? You will get another job in a jiffy!" With the zero interest rate environment gone the culling is inevitable.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Advice on HN not to go to a startup is because 99% of startups have bullshit equity options these days. They're not worth the risk and stress because the VCs and founders are keeping potential payouts to themselves but pushing a huge amount of the financial risk and work stress onto their staff. Unless you're a cofounder or maybe a founding engineer, payout from a reasonable sale of a startup these days -- if it fluked out and actually happened -- ends up being little more than the annual comp at one of these BigCorps. TLDR, you don't get a job at a FAANG because you're lazy, you get that job because you're looking out for yourself and your family and you'd prefer not to be someone's plaything. That said I got sick of Google and went and shopped around last year and now I'm working at a smaller, series B funded company now and love it. But I ain't hoping to get rich, just job satisfaction. When VCs and founders get their shit together on equity agreements, early stage startups will be more attractive again. EDIT: Also hate to burst your bubble, but on-call rotation is a part of plenty of Google SWE teams, not just SRE. But they do pay a handsome bonus for the time you're on-call.
- grepfru_it 4y ago
  My buddy and I were just talking about this. A company we were modeling received $4.2M in VC funding and had 20 employees at time of purchase. The purchase price was never advertised, but we assumed a 7x multiple on last known value and assumed the sale price at $25M. $25M turns out to be a little over $1M per employee after 4 years (company started 2012 and was bought in 2016). I asked out loud "why would you do this when you could just go to Microsoft or Apple, do less work, and make the same money in the same amount of time". Now this price is skewed towards the investors and very early employees, but the point still stands. You will very clearly make more money working for an established corp than a startup.