4 ms·

> 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 peo

> 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.

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.