4 ms·

When you need to cull 28% of the headcount it signifies a huge fail over many many months, not just a one off miscalculation

nibbleshifter 4y ago
In many cases I suspect there isn't any need beyond attempting to show shareholders that you are doing "something". A lot of these layoffs will be net negatives for the companies.
charcircuit 4y ago
One miscalculation can result in them over hiring. Are you suggesting they should have instead every month lay off a few people depending on how the current environment looks instead of 28% at once?
- Retric 4y ago
  Natural attrition can cut headcount. Large layoffs are a sign of incompetence.
  - shepik 4y ago
    FANGM all did layoffs. And many other companies as well. That they are all incompetent can't be the explanation.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Sure it is. Google for example increased headcount by 24% in a year and cut it 6% in the next year, a clear sign they made a bad decision. Further in Google’s case they have plenty of money to pay these people until headcount naturally shrinks, but they don’t have anything useful enough for them to do that waiting and avoiding a large severance package is cheaper.
      - shepik 4y ago
        > avoiding a large severance package is cheaper. it sounds like greed, not incompetence. I just do not believe in a worldview where almost all CEOs of large tech companies are incompetent. Whatever the explanation for layoffs is, incompetence ain't it.
        Retric 4y ago
        Greed would still try and avoid the need for a layoff because they are quite expensive. Google’s 6+ weeks salary + 6 months health insurance isn’t cheap.
- Redsquare 4y ago
  No I am suggesting that they clearly over hired over a long period of time. Surely they recalculated over that period of time...if not then that sums the incompetence up
marcinzm 4y ago
The blunt truth is that layoffs are not really failures from a business perspective. Employees and their employment don't really matter independent of other things. Could be the symptom of a mistake or could just be a failed bet but that's all. It's just a question of risk, reward and cost. Not a question of people. If the layoffs targets low performing employees or departments then it's actually a business win. If you don't like that then consider pushing for unions, government regulations or join an employee co-op. However many people don't like that option because they prefer to not risk the massive compensation packages that big tech gives them. I'm reminded of the Street Fighter quote: "For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me... it was Tuesday."
itronitron 4y ago
Yeah, if I was on one of the core teams I'd be quite annoyed at having given a big chunk of my time bringing coworkers on board just to see them laid off.

nibbleshifter 4y ago

In many cases I suspect there isn't any need beyond attempting to show shareholders that you are doing "something". A lot of these layoffs will be net negatives for the companies.

charcircuit 4y ago

One miscalculation can result in them over hiring. Are you suggesting they should have instead every month lay off a few people depending on how the current environment looks instead of 28% at once?

Retric 4y ago
Natural attrition can cut headcount. Large layoffs are a sign of incompetence.
- shepik 4y ago
  FANGM all did layoffs. And many other companies as well. That they are all incompetent can't be the explanation.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Sure it is. Google for example increased headcount by 24% in a year and cut it 6% in the next year, a clear sign they made a bad decision. Further in Google’s case they have plenty of money to pay these people until headcount naturally shrinks, but they don’t have anything useful enough for them to do that waiting and avoiding a large severance package is cheaper.
    - shepik 4y ago
      > avoiding a large severance package is cheaper. it sounds like greed, not incompetence. I just do not believe in a worldview where almost all CEOs of large tech companies are incompetent. Whatever the explanation for layoffs is, incompetence ain't it.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Greed would still try and avoid the need for a layoff because they are quite expensive. Google’s 6+ weeks salary + 6 months health insurance isn’t cheap.
Redsquare 4y ago
No I am suggesting that they clearly over hired over a long period of time. Surely they recalculated over that period of time...if not then that sums the incompetence up

marcinzm 4y ago

The blunt truth is that layoffs are not really failures from a business perspective. Employees and their employment don't really matter independent of other things. Could be the symptom of a mistake or could just be a failed bet but that's all. It's just a question of risk, reward and cost. Not a question of people. If the layoffs targets low performing employees or departments then it's actually a business win. If you don't like that then consider pushing for unions, government regulations or join an employee co-op. However many people don't like that option because they prefer to not risk the massive compensation packages that big tech gives them. I'm reminded of the Street Fighter quote: "For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me... it was Tuesday."

itronitron 4y ago

Yeah, if I was on one of the core teams I'd be quite annoyed at having given a big chunk of my time bringing coworkers on board just to see them laid off.