3 ms·
But it’s absurd. Companies are not supposed to only ever hire. Some things are cyclical and you need more people for some amount of time, and then you find you
by zaroth 4y ago
But it’s absurd. Companies are not supposed to only ever hire.
Some things are cyclical and you need more people for some amount of time, and then you find you need less. It’s not always predictable/seasonal like farming or holiday rush.
Is it wrong for a company to respond to market effects? That there was a layoff isn’t necessarily a sign a company did anything wrong… I think how they actually do the layoff certainly can be done well or poorly.
- DrBazza 4y agoIt’s not hiring though. It’s overhiring. I’ve forgotten which FAANG it is. But one of them still has more employees than last year even after layoffs. It’s offensive.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y agoOffensive? I'm... honestly, baffled. How could one tech company's ability to hire many more people actually offend you?
- usefulcat 4y agoSo if they "under hire", should they step down for that too? Maybe they should step down any time they fail to accurately predict the future?
- icedchai 4y agoWhy is it offensive? Over-hiring has been a thing since at least the first dot-com boom. One's managerial power is directly proportional to how many "reports" they have under them. I worked at one company that raised a decent A round. We immediately rented another office down the street, spent close to 2 million on renovations, then filled it with anyone who could spell HTML. The B round was even larger, so the cycle continued (until late 2001 or so.)
- horsawlarway 4y agoIt's a response to extreme demand during covid. When - you know - online service usage was at all time highs because everyone was stuck inside and doing things online. It was likely the right call to hire then, just like it might be the right call to reduce headcount now.