3 ms·

It's not me that's applying the conspiratorial vibe, it's the OP, and that's what I'm complaining about: > “Controlling labor costs via periodic layoffs is lik

It's not me that's applying the conspiratorial vibe, it's the OP, and that's what I'm complaining about: > “Controlling labor costs via periodic layoffs is like breathing for Silicon Valley: cyclical, necessary for life"... The layoffs, Harris says, have “very little to do with long- or even medium-term strategy except as it pertains to cultivating an insecure workforce.” This article is explicitly claiming that the layoffs are not about stock price, they are about an intentional cultivation of insecurity in the workforce and an attempt to crush unions. I'm aware of the no-poach collusion case, but I'm a bit unclear on exactly how much that impacted wages; do you have any go-to sources supporting your claim 4. that this case had a big impact? A quick search gives https://angel.co/blog/software-engineer-salary https://angel.co/blog/software-engineer-salary for example that doesn't show any appreciable impact in 2011 when the class-action suit was filed. (There is a massive jump in 2020 when everyone started hiring like crazy in the Covid bull market.) I'm not claiming this factor has zero weight in the causal model, but the OP is saying something like "this is mono-causal; it's not stock prices, it's an anti-union/anti-labor conspiracy". If pressed to guesstimate I'd say the anti-union factors can't be more than 10% of the explanation, and I'd be surprised if it's even that high.

bbor 4y ago
I agree that it isn’t mono-casual (cool word!), but I’m still convinced worker sentiment (which I’d classify union membership as a derivative issue of) is the main reason. I have lots of thoughts about where this fits into their priorities in general, but most of my proof is already discussed above, so I’ll focus on this instead: These companies are not anywhere close to laying off enough people to get back to pre-COVID headcount, and if these layoffs were intended to boost the stock price, they don’t seem to have had much of an impact. Google (sorry I think about this one more than the others, for obvious reasons) is up 11% MoM compared to 5% for the S&P 100, which is good, but… idk seems hard to say that’s worth the trade off. Especially considering the huge swings the stock has taken over the past few years and months Re: impacting wages I can try to come back to this once I’m done making ads for the day. My general narrative is “the lawsuit settled, then meta started offering progressively larger packages for experienced devs, which drove up other companies offers for the same devs” but I do not have source on hand.

bbor 4y ago

I agree that it isn’t mono-casual (cool word!), but I’m still convinced worker sentiment (which I’d classify union membership as a derivative issue of) is the main reason. I have lots of thoughts about where this fits into their priorities in general, but most of my proof is already discussed above, so I’ll focus on this instead: These companies are not anywhere close to laying off enough people to get back to pre-COVID headcount, and if these layoffs were intended to boost the stock price, they don’t seem to have had much of an impact. Google (sorry I think about this one more than the others, for obvious reasons) is up 11% MoM compared to 5% for the S&P 100, which is good, but… idk seems hard to say that’s worth the trade off. Especially considering the huge swings the stock has taken over the past few years and months Re: impacting wages I can try to come back to this once I’m done making ads for the day. My general narrative is “the lawsuit settled, then meta started offering progressively larger packages for experienced devs, which drove up other companies offers for the same devs” but I do not have source on hand.