5 ms·

I don't think it is that complex. Who benefits from these mass layoffs? Everyone at the top benefits, and everyone at the bottom suffers. You are spot on when

I don't think it is that complex. Who benefits from these mass layoffs? Everyone at the top benefits, and everyone at the bottom suffers. You are spot on when it comes to impact of layoffs. If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. To your point, I can't take any executive seriously if they're not self reflecting on their own failure. Mass layoffs should equal a new board in my opinion.

chitowneats 4y ago
> If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. Not as sure proof as paying people to do nothing. Or worse, paying people who are actively working against the interests of the company, intentionally or otherwise.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  If I pay someone to do nothing, who is at fault? The person who shows up ready to work everyday or the person who made a bad hiring decision and doesn't have the work for that person? I'm not arguing against layoffs, I'm arguing that the people making the hiring mistakes are not accountable. If I as a CFO give the green light to increase the company's workforce by 10% and two years later make a full reverse, that CFO/Board should be let go too or since they're all about taking "personal responsibility" should step down. Most companies employ a board of narcissists that only care about themselves and their wallet and they get paid the most so I'm not sure your analogy is hitting with me.
  - alldayeveryday 4y ago
    > Most companies employ a board of narcissists that only care about themselves and their wallet My read is a bit different, in that the board optimizes to the stock price above all, which yes they benefit from but that just means their personal interests are in alignment with the interests of stock holders. I do not blame the leaders so much as I blame the model. Leaders who do not optimize the stock price are quickly expelled. When the stock market was flush with covid stimulus cash, and even before that whilst the market was hot, the name of the game was showing growth. Companies were incentivized to show growth even at the cost of burning cash. Companies took on massive debt and in many cases, either did stock buybacks and/or hired rapidly in an effort to scale their organization for growth. When the market fundamentals changed, and money started swinging back towards safer bets (cash flow positive companies), suddenly the game had changed and leaders needed to react accordingly. I guess in summary, hate the game not the player.
    - bastardoperator 4y ago
      I think you can dislike the behaviors being exhibited and the game simultaneously. I hear you, it's the reality of the situation we live in now, but it's not a good system for the vast majority of people.
  - deltree7 4y ago
    This is extremely naive take. No one can predict the future. If I hire a bunch of construction workers expecting to sell 100 homes and suddenly the housing market collapse and I need to only build 50 homes that I have contract for, I need to fire some construction workers. It is as simple as that. No one can predict business cycles and that is the fundamental driver of sales and input costs. If one can successfully predict business cycles, they can be a superior macro investor and make billions. The entire HN crowd talks about as though they never made any bad future decisions. How many of you invested in stocks in 2021 that is down 50%? Did you cut down on subscriptions? Why don't you fire yourself for making stupid decisions?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bluedino 4y ago
      > I need to only build 50 homes that I have contract for, I need to fire some construction workers. Just like during a boom when a carpenter can charge 3x his hourly rate, pick and choose his jobs, and anyone with a pulse can walk onto a construction site and get a paycheck.
    - buffington 4y ago
      Since people predict the future all the time, I'll assume you mean that it's a lot more difficult to make predictions in complicated systems like housing markets. Assuming that's what you meant, let's consider the "I" in "If I hire..." If you're hiring someone, whether it's for your home building business, or your tech company, you're not doing it unaware of the market you're operating in. No real estate developer is ignoring potential futures. Those that do fail fast. That someone is hiring is evidence of that someone is making predictions. They're predicting at least one potential future where the person they hire helps the company achieve their goals. Speaking from experience, when I hire people, I am most definitely thinking of the potential future that person helps steer a company towards. I'm also very aware of what will happen if I can't afford to hire someone. Sometimes it's worth risking potential market effects that'd make it so I can't afford to pay that person, but usually it's not. > No one can predict business cycles Happens all the time, and people frequently make accurate predictions. > they can be a superior macro investor and make billions. Tell me, how did the current crop of billionaires become billionaires? Certainly not by deciding that no one can predict the future.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. In Spotify’s case, the business not making money, and hence not having a stock price that keeps up with the market, is also a way to destroy productivity. Higher productivity people are probably not going to want to work at a charity.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  Have you ever seen some of the heavy hitters, programing game engines for open source? These guys do that, cause they want to recover some sanity after programing crap for companies all day. Sorry to say it, but great works will never flourish in some monpolistic mega cooperation with tribal infighting.
  - WeylandYutani 4y ago
    Spotify problem is that they are not a monopoly. Competition is brutal in music streaming. I have no idea if Apple or Google are more profitable? Maybe someone can give an insight.
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  >Higher productivity people are probably not going to want to work at a charity. Have you seen the things people create in minecraft entirely for free?
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Replace with "higher productivity people in an organization like Spotify", which I doubt many people are "passionate" about like they would be Minecraft.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  So I guess you really dislike people in the OSS space who are considered the most productive of us all and essentially give all their work away for free, kind of like a charity. Spotify is a jukebox. You put money in and music plays. It's not a new concept in the slightest capacity. If they haven't figured out how to turn a profit now will they ever?
alldayeveryday 4y ago
Who benefitted from the mass hirings? Stock holders, and also workers. Did the workers complain when the job market (esp in tech) was on fire and wages were increasing? No. Did they blame the people at the top for their new job and wages? No. But, now they want to blame leaders when there are mass layoffs. I think the blame is misplaced. The root cause was the stock market, and better yet blame the fed. The incentive was to show growth at all costs, even at the expense of burning cash. Leaders who did not optimize to growth were fired in many cases. But the game changed when stimulus and endless money printing stopped.
- f6v 4y ago
  > Did they blame the people at the top for their new job and wages? Companies aren’t very upfront about over-hiring.
  - alldayeveryday 4y ago
    It wasn't over-hiring given the environment at the time. It was over hiring given current environment. It seems clear that companies who took a more conservative approach to hiring have come out better for it. Not all companies could be so lucky. Some had activist investors who aggressively pushed for growth or else pushed out leaders. Messy world we live in.
    - iancmceachern 4y ago
      It was. It's naive to think that a boom economy will last forever.
- sausagefeet 4y ago
  I've been thinking about this question as well. Is it better to have not given these people a job at all rather than to have given a job and then fired? I don't know. There are a lot of ways to look at it that all could be right.
- moonchrome 4y ago
  This - basically both decisions are driven by stock market charades - growth at all costs when interest was low - cost cutting when revenue drops.
ss48 4y ago
In this respect, I think that they're hoping that if they get enough experienced and higher income people laid off, that can compensate for the loss in productivity and the reduced workload with whoever remains.

chitowneats 4y ago

> If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. Not as sure proof as paying people to do nothing. Or worse, paying people who are actively working against the interests of the company, intentionally or otherwise.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bastardoperator 4y ago
If I pay someone to do nothing, who is at fault? The person who shows up ready to work everyday or the person who made a bad hiring decision and doesn't have the work for that person? I'm not arguing against layoffs, I'm arguing that the people making the hiring mistakes are not accountable. If I as a CFO give the green light to increase the company's workforce by 10% and two years later make a full reverse, that CFO/Board should be let go too or since they're all about taking "personal responsibility" should step down. Most companies employ a board of narcissists that only care about themselves and their wallet and they get paid the most so I'm not sure your analogy is hitting with me.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
  > Most companies employ a board of narcissists that only care about themselves and their wallet My read is a bit different, in that the board optimizes to the stock price above all, which yes they benefit from but that just means their personal interests are in alignment with the interests of stock holders. I do not blame the leaders so much as I blame the model. Leaders who do not optimize the stock price are quickly expelled. When the stock market was flush with covid stimulus cash, and even before that whilst the market was hot, the name of the game was showing growth. Companies were incentivized to show growth even at the cost of burning cash. Companies took on massive debt and in many cases, either did stock buybacks and/or hired rapidly in an effort to scale their organization for growth. When the market fundamentals changed, and money started swinging back towards safer bets (cash flow positive companies), suddenly the game had changed and leaders needed to react accordingly. I guess in summary, hate the game not the player.
  - bastardoperator 4y ago
    I think you can dislike the behaviors being exhibited and the game simultaneously. I hear you, it's the reality of the situation we live in now, but it's not a good system for the vast majority of people.
- deltree7 4y ago
  This is extremely naive take. No one can predict the future. If I hire a bunch of construction workers expecting to sell 100 homes and suddenly the housing market collapse and I need to only build 50 homes that I have contract for, I need to fire some construction workers. It is as simple as that. No one can predict business cycles and that is the fundamental driver of sales and input costs. If one can successfully predict business cycles, they can be a superior macro investor and make billions. The entire HN crowd talks about as though they never made any bad future decisions. How many of you invested in stocks in 2021 that is down 50%? Did you cut down on subscriptions? Why don't you fire yourself for making stupid decisions?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bluedino 4y ago
    > I need to only build 50 homes that I have contract for, I need to fire some construction workers. Just like during a boom when a carpenter can charge 3x his hourly rate, pick and choose his jobs, and anyone with a pulse can walk onto a construction site and get a paycheck.
  - buffington 4y ago
    Since people predict the future all the time, I'll assume you mean that it's a lot more difficult to make predictions in complicated systems like housing markets. Assuming that's what you meant, let's consider the "I" in "If I hire..." If you're hiring someone, whether it's for your home building business, or your tech company, you're not doing it unaware of the market you're operating in. No real estate developer is ignoring potential futures. Those that do fail fast. That someone is hiring is evidence of that someone is making predictions. They're predicting at least one potential future where the person they hire helps the company achieve their goals. Speaking from experience, when I hire people, I am most definitely thinking of the potential future that person helps steer a company towards. I'm also very aware of what will happen if I can't afford to hire someone. Sometimes it's worth risking potential market effects that'd make it so I can't afford to pay that person, but usually it's not. > No one can predict business cycles Happens all the time, and people frequently make accurate predictions. > they can be a superior macro investor and make billions. Tell me, how did the current crop of billionaires become billionaires? Certainly not by deciding that no one can predict the future.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. In Spotify’s case, the business not making money, and hence not having a stock price that keeps up with the market, is also a way to destroy productivity. Higher productivity people are probably not going to want to work at a charity.

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Have you ever seen some of the heavy hitters, programing game engines for open source? These guys do that, cause they want to recover some sanity after programing crap for companies all day. Sorry to say it, but great works will never flourish in some monpolistic mega cooperation with tribal infighting.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  Spotify problem is that they are not a monopoly. Competition is brutal in music streaming. I have no idea if Apple or Google are more profitable? Maybe someone can give an insight.
bobkazamakis 4y ago
>Higher productivity people are probably not going to want to work at a charity. Have you seen the things people create in minecraft entirely for free?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Replace with "higher productivity people in an organization like Spotify", which I doubt many people are "passionate" about like they would be Minecraft.
bastardoperator 4y ago
So I guess you really dislike people in the OSS space who are considered the most productive of us all and essentially give all their work away for free, kind of like a charity. Spotify is a jukebox. You put money in and music plays. It's not a new concept in the slightest capacity. If they haven't figured out how to turn a profit now will they ever?

alldayeveryday 4y ago

Who benefitted from the mass hirings? Stock holders, and also workers. Did the workers complain when the job market (esp in tech) was on fire and wages were increasing? No. Did they blame the people at the top for their new job and wages? No. But, now they want to blame leaders when there are mass layoffs. I think the blame is misplaced. The root cause was the stock market, and better yet blame the fed. The incentive was to show growth at all costs, even at the expense of burning cash. Leaders who did not optimize to growth were fired in many cases. But the game changed when stimulus and endless money printing stopped.

f6v 4y ago
> Did they blame the people at the top for their new job and wages? Companies aren’t very upfront about over-hiring.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
  It wasn't over-hiring given the environment at the time. It was over hiring given current environment. It seems clear that companies who took a more conservative approach to hiring have come out better for it. Not all companies could be so lucky. Some had activist investors who aggressively pushed for growth or else pushed out leaders. Messy world we live in.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    It was. It's naive to think that a boom economy will last forever.
sausagefeet 4y ago
I've been thinking about this question as well. Is it better to have not given these people a job at all rather than to have given a job and then fired? I don't know. There are a lot of ways to look at it that all could be right.
moonchrome 4y ago
This - basically both decisions are driven by stock market charades - growth at all costs when interest was low - cost cutting when revenue drops.

ss48 4y ago

In this respect, I think that they're hoping that if they get enough experienced and higher income people laid off, that can compensate for the loss in productivity and the reduced workload with whoever remains.