3 ms·

On one hand, and I know that this is an unpopular opinion here: Google is a for-profit company. Its goal is to maximize profit. Not to maximize employment. Or

by brap 4y ago

On one hand, and I know that this is an unpopular opinion here: Google is a for-profit company. Its goal is to maximize profit. Not to maximize employment. Or employee happiness. Google is not daycare for adults. It’s not about “making the world a better place”, it never was, it’s all about making money, from day 1. Enough with all the corp-speak bullshit, we need to be honest about this. And making money is a wonderful thing. There’s a reason why people choose to work at Google and not, say, at non-profit orgs or for government. At Google you get to work on cool shit, be compensated very well, be surrounded by super talented and smart people, have great work-life balance, etc., and this only exists because Google is super profitable. So I, for one, welcome this. And let’s not kid ourselves, there’s plenty of fat at Google, more than 10% even. So if you understand the reality of Google only caring about the bottom line (which is great, in my opinion) and if you recognize that there’s some fat to trim, then you accept that layoffs are perfectly rational and even welcomed. Finally, to the people worried about losing their job (or having lost their job), this truly sucks, and I sincerely am sorry, but let me be blunt: Google doesn’t owe you shit. Google is not your friend or family, it’s your employer. You have a contract, and Google is allowed to terminate that contract if they see fit (and guess what, so can you!). /unpopular opinion Having said that... Do investors like this at all consider the impact of firing 12K humans (abruptly, and apparently at random) has on things like morale? This has actual, real world, financial consequences that hurt Google's bottom line: * Damage to productivity * Damage to employee retention * Damage to ability to hire new talent * Damage to PR * Damage to long term planning Google had a reputation of being super stable (no layoffs ever, not even during dotcom), which means the best and the brightest were much more inclined to work (and stay) at Google. This reputation is now gone. And what is Google, if not the talented people working there? How much is this damage to Google's best asset worth? Does it really justify saving a marginal cost? Maybe there are better ways to trim fat? Or maybe some fat is worth having in the grand scheme of things? I understand that an outside investor may not think this way, but from Google execs I would have expected more.

throwaway_43793 4y ago
I understand your unpopular opinion. But here is another unpopular opinion. Behind every for-profit business, and a out-of-touch with reality hedge-fund billionaire -- are the people who actually get shit done. And those people, who get shit done - are humans. And while layoffs suck, and it's inevitable they will happen, the distinction will always be between humane approach and greedy-billionaire approach. This letter, if it's real, is written from a very very very high tree, by someone who belongs to 1% (or even less) of society in terms of the amount of money he makes. And this out-of-touch with reality, hedge-fund billionaire - is not longer seeing anything humane in humans. For him, humans, are an expense in his ledger. The same way as let's say groceries. </unpopular-opinion>
- Jcowell 4y ago
  > This letter, if it's real Just to call out that this is very real. It’s from the tcifund domain itself and there’s a previous letter written in November[1] where they share the same sentiments. [1] https://www.tcifund.com/files/corporateengageement/alphabet/15th%20November%202022.pdf https://www.tcifund.com/files/corporateengageement/alphabet/...
- ashwagary 4y ago
  >And this out-of-touch with reality, hedge-fund billionaire - is not longer seeing anything humane in humans. Yes, his position requires him to distill all the complexities of dealing with masses of humans down to one metric, P&L. I don't think thats an opinion, it's a fact about his role in the larger machine.
brap 4y ago
And while I’m at it let me add another unpopular opinion: I don’t think anyone should be mad at said investor, Christopher Hohn. It’s very easy to hate billionaires. But he invested a lot of money in Google (which allowed it to pay its employees among other things) and he wants to see his investment pay off. He’s doing his job. I just think he’s not particularly good at it. This is where Google execs need to step in and tell him to fuck off.
- naijaboiler 4y ago
  my problem with him is him is his "backseat driving". He doesn't run Google every day. it is one thing for him to express that he thinks Google has too many employees. It's another thing completely for someone to suggest they know more than those running the company day-to-day what the ideal employment numbers ought to be
rvz 4y ago
What you have just said is the harsh truth and the reality that needs to be heard rather than ignored. Good. > And let’s not kid ourselves, there’s plenty of fat at Google, more than 10% even. So if you understand the reality of Google only caring about the bottom line (which is great, in my opinion) and if you recognize that there’s some fat to trim, then you accept that layoffs are perfectly rational and even welcomed. The layoffs had to happen someday and it wasn't sustainable anyway and I said this before that no company is safe and neither is it a day-care. As long as there are institutional investors, VCs etc in the company or the board, you accept the risk of relinquishing control even if it means that layoffs have to be done for the company to remain profitable for the next few years to shift focus on another higher priority product. > Google doesn’t owe you shit. Google is not your friend or family, it’s your employer. You have a contract, and Google is allowed to terminate that contract if they see fit (and guess what, so can you!). Exactly well said. Until many realize this, the better. Enough of the 'We're a family!' bullshit or useless DEI initiatives going on at many companies. Another product of the free money and zero interest rates era that needs to go. > Do investors like this at all consider the impact of firing 12K humans (abruptly, and apparently at random) has on things like morale? This has actual, real world, financial consequences. Awful productivity. Awful employee retention. Awful ability to hire new talent. Awful PR. I don't think they care, as long as Google is making money for shareholders and investors, but your points are also valid
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Its interesting that the idea that a company's sole purpose is 'to make money' is completely accepted as being ok, regardless of what it takes to achieve it. There is no opposition to this at all. There used to be this idea of the social contract, wherein the legitimacy of wealth, power, and authority is tied to a responsibility for the people from whom that wealth is extracted and over whom that power is wielded.
acdha 4y ago
I think your first point is important for workers to remember: never feel more loyal to the company than they are to you. That doesn’t mean you don’t work hard but you shouldn’t assume more compensation than you have a legally-binding arrangement for because the C-suite is always hearing from people like this. This really ties into the first point about profitability: there’s always room for disagreement about the best path, especially over a longer time frame, and that means you want to have some idea of where your upper management stands. It doesn’t help you personally to be working on some long-term project if they’re focused on answering somebody like this.
roncesvalles 4y ago
>from Google execs I would have expected more Reminds me of the saying "everyone's a genius in a bull market." I suspect that the 10 year roaring bull run in tech has added a strong randomizing effect in executive promotions, such that the people in charge today aren't the best that the company could've produced; they were just in charge of projects that succeeded "with the tide" even if executed poorly. Sure explains a lot of Google (and big tech) behavior recently - the massive overhiring during COVID, cancelling projects left and right, now the timid and pointless layoffs that probably do more harm than good.

by brap 4y ago

throwaway_43793 4y ago

I understand your unpopular opinion. But here is another unpopular opinion. Behind every for-profit business, and a out-of-touch with reality hedge-fund billionaire -- are the people who actually get shit done. And those people, who get shit done - are humans. And while layoffs suck, and it's inevitable they will happen, the distinction will always be between humane approach and greedy-billionaire approach. This letter, if it's real, is written from a very very very high tree, by someone who belongs to 1% (or even less) of society in terms of the amount of money he makes. And this out-of-touch with reality, hedge-fund billionaire - is not longer seeing anything humane in humans. For him, humans, are an expense in his ledger. The same way as let's say groceries. </unpopular-opinion>

Jcowell 4y ago
> This letter, if it's real Just to call out that this is very real. It’s from the tcifund domain itself and there’s a previous letter written in November[1] where they share the same sentiments. [1] https://www.tcifund.com/files/corporateengageement/alphabet/15th%20November%202022.pdf https://www.tcifund.com/files/corporateengageement/alphabet/...
ashwagary 4y ago
>And this out-of-touch with reality, hedge-fund billionaire - is not longer seeing anything humane in humans. Yes, his position requires him to distill all the complexities of dealing with masses of humans down to one metric, P&L. I don't think thats an opinion, it's a fact about his role in the larger machine.

brap 4y ago

And while I’m at it let me add another unpopular opinion: I don’t think anyone should be mad at said investor, Christopher Hohn. It’s very easy to hate billionaires. But he invested a lot of money in Google (which allowed it to pay its employees among other things) and he wants to see his investment pay off. He’s doing his job. I just think he’s not particularly good at it. This is where Google execs need to step in and tell him to fuck off.

naijaboiler 4y ago
my problem with him is him is his "backseat driving". He doesn't run Google every day. it is one thing for him to express that he thinks Google has too many employees. It's another thing completely for someone to suggest they know more than those running the company day-to-day what the ideal employment numbers ought to be

rvz 4y ago

What you have just said is the harsh truth and the reality that needs to be heard rather than ignored. Good. > And let’s not kid ourselves, there’s plenty of fat at Google, more than 10% even. So if you understand the reality of Google only caring about the bottom line (which is great, in my opinion) and if you recognize that there’s some fat to trim, then you accept that layoffs are perfectly rational and even welcomed. The layoffs had to happen someday and it wasn't sustainable anyway and I said this before that no company is safe and neither is it a day-care. As long as there are institutional investors, VCs etc in the company or the board, you accept the risk of relinquishing control even if it means that layoffs have to be done for the company to remain profitable for the next few years to shift focus on another higher priority product. > Google doesn’t owe you shit. Google is not your friend or family, it’s your employer. You have a contract, and Google is allowed to terminate that contract if they see fit (and guess what, so can you!). Exactly well said. Until many realize this, the better. Enough of the 'We're a family!' bullshit or useless DEI initiatives going on at many companies. Another product of the free money and zero interest rates era that needs to go. > Do investors like this at all consider the impact of firing 12K humans (abruptly, and apparently at random) has on things like morale? This has actual, real world, financial consequences. Awful productivity. Awful employee retention. Awful ability to hire new talent. Awful PR. I don't think they care, as long as Google is making money for shareholders and investors, but your points are also valid

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

Its interesting that the idea that a company's sole purpose is 'to make money' is completely accepted as being ok, regardless of what it takes to achieve it. There is no opposition to this at all. There used to be this idea of the social contract, wherein the legitimacy of wealth, power, and authority is tied to a responsibility for the people from whom that wealth is extracted and over whom that power is wielded.

acdha 4y ago

I think your first point is important for workers to remember: never feel more loyal to the company than they are to you. That doesn’t mean you don’t work hard but you shouldn’t assume more compensation than you have a legally-binding arrangement for because the C-suite is always hearing from people like this. This really ties into the first point about profitability: there’s always room for disagreement about the best path, especially over a longer time frame, and that means you want to have some idea of where your upper management stands. It doesn’t help you personally to be working on some long-term project if they’re focused on answering somebody like this.

roncesvalles 4y ago

>from Google execs I would have expected more Reminds me of the saying "everyone's a genius in a bull market." I suspect that the 10 year roaring bull run in tech has added a strong randomizing effect in executive promotions, such that the people in charge today aren't the best that the company could've produced; they were just in charge of projects that succeeded "with the tide" even if executed poorly. Sure explains a lot of Google (and big tech) behavior recently - the massive overhiring during COVID, cancelling projects left and right, now the timid and pointless layoffs that probably do more harm than good.