4 ms·

This is based upon the assumption that layoffs are a failure rather than a feature which, while I find it distasteful using people's livelihoods in such a way,

This is based upon the assumption that layoffs are a failure rather than a feature which, while I find it distasteful using people's livelihoods in such a way, doesn't actually seem to be the reckoning for a lot of people. When times are good why wouldn't you hire to maximize profits and then cut people loose when times are getting bad? If you can ignore the human factor it makes sense.

sokoloff 4y ago
It's not even clear to me that tech employees (as a whole) would be better off if such an overall system were in place for the last decade. Instead of (highly-visible) layoffs now, you'd have seen substantially less hiring across the last decade (invisibly) and probably much lower market-clearing compensation levels as a result. You can't have the benefits of go-go-gang-busters hiring sprees without sometimes having layoffs, IMO.
- charles_f 4y ago
  Two things 1) you mostly need your money now, to pay rent or mortgage, food, activities. In that cyclic markets like this are bad for devs. In choosing between a higher salary that comes with a non negligible chance that you won't have a salary at all for a sustained period, or lesser compensation but higher stability, I choose the latter. 2) The crazy increase of salaries was the result of the raise of demand, and got matched by a raise of offer. Offer is by nature much less elastic than demand: it takes years to make a good dev, but we turned from the hottest market ever to layoffs in under 6 months. The problem is that the offer creation machine (education) is not elastic as well. You can't recycle your CS degree into a construction degree very easily. This means that while the market is slow over the next few years, we will see waves of devs freshly minted out of college, in proportions that correspond to a hot market. Assuming that the demand was generated by actual value creation, and that it restarts in a frw years, it will be a long time until we get back to job safety and prosperity
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Cyclic markets are bad for some devs who have tech jobs. Cyclic markets are probably better than staid markets for those many people who would have never landed a tech job in an environment where over-hiring was a career-ending threat to CEOs.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >you mostly need your money now I don't believe this to be true. I imagine the majority of people in tech have their money stored in assets (stocks, house, car) as opposed to cash.
    - charles_f 4y ago
      Stocks as in the thing that's worth half it was 6 months ago? House as in the thing you need to live in, have a mortgage to pay for, and can't liquidate? Car as the thing you need to move and loses value over time?
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        You can still sell stocks now. You can switch to renting a house and renting a car so you have cash now as opposed to later.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        Or, stocks as in the thing worth the same as 2 years ago, 50% more than 3 years ago, or 100% more than 4 years ago...
toiletfuneral 4y ago
[dead]
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
A consulting company I worked for was really strict on how they managed resources on the bench. As a new employee, I was surprised by how many of my co-workers had at one time or another been laid off by our company and came back. The key seemed to be that the company had always been quite open and transparent about how it manages bench resources and that they rarely carry anyone for more than a month. Everyone knew what to expect and if they were on the bench and didn't have any likely projects coming up, they knew to adjust their finances accordingly for the coming layoff.
kerkeslager 4y ago
> When times are good why wouldn't you hire to maximize profits and then cut people loose when times are getting bad? Because you don't want to harm people.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Now That would be a firing offense for a CEO. Most shareholders prioritize returns over headcount, otherwise they would be donating to charity instead of buying stock.
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    It's almost like just relying on the invisible hand of the market to create good results doesn't work. And to be clear: just because you're incentivized to harm people, doesn't exonerate you when you harm people. "I was just following incentives" isn't a defense.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Depends on what you are optimizing for. Seems like tech employees are doing just fine. Enormous compensation, great severance, and entering a low unemployment market. How many tears do you shed when someone with a vast amount of wealth has to take a few months to find a new job?
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Do you think flooding the market with a lot of laid-off people is going to keep tech unemployment low?
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Unemployment rate in Tech and software development is still incredibly low, even lower than the general rate.

sokoloff 4y ago

It's not even clear to me that tech employees (as a whole) would be better off if such an overall system were in place for the last decade. Instead of (highly-visible) layoffs now, you'd have seen substantially less hiring across the last decade (invisibly) and probably much lower market-clearing compensation levels as a result. You can't have the benefits of go-go-gang-busters hiring sprees without sometimes having layoffs, IMO.

charles_f 4y ago
Two things 1) you mostly need your money now, to pay rent or mortgage, food, activities. In that cyclic markets like this are bad for devs. In choosing between a higher salary that comes with a non negligible chance that you won't have a salary at all for a sustained period, or lesser compensation but higher stability, I choose the latter. 2) The crazy increase of salaries was the result of the raise of demand, and got matched by a raise of offer. Offer is by nature much less elastic than demand: it takes years to make a good dev, but we turned from the hottest market ever to layoffs in under 6 months. The problem is that the offer creation machine (education) is not elastic as well. You can't recycle your CS degree into a construction degree very easily. This means that while the market is slow over the next few years, we will see waves of devs freshly minted out of college, in proportions that correspond to a hot market. Assuming that the demand was generated by actual value creation, and that it restarts in a frw years, it will be a long time until we get back to job safety and prosperity
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Cyclic markets are bad for some devs who have tech jobs. Cyclic markets are probably better than staid markets for those many people who would have never landed a tech job in an environment where over-hiring was a career-ending threat to CEOs.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >you mostly need your money now I don't believe this to be true. I imagine the majority of people in tech have their money stored in assets (stocks, house, car) as opposed to cash.
  - charles_f 4y ago
    Stocks as in the thing that's worth half it was 6 months ago? House as in the thing you need to live in, have a mortgage to pay for, and can't liquidate? Car as the thing you need to move and loses value over time?
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      You can still sell stocks now. You can switch to renting a house and renting a car so you have cash now as opposed to later.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      Or, stocks as in the thing worth the same as 2 years ago, 50% more than 3 years ago, or 100% more than 4 years ago...

toiletfuneral 4y ago

[dead]

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

A consulting company I worked for was really strict on how they managed resources on the bench. As a new employee, I was surprised by how many of my co-workers had at one time or another been laid off by our company and came back. The key seemed to be that the company had always been quite open and transparent about how it manages bench resources and that they rarely carry anyone for more than a month. Everyone knew what to expect and if they were on the bench and didn't have any likely projects coming up, they knew to adjust their finances accordingly for the coming layoff.

kerkeslager 4y ago

> When times are good why wouldn't you hire to maximize profits and then cut people loose when times are getting bad? Because you don't want to harm people.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Now That would be a firing offense for a CEO. Most shareholders prioritize returns over headcount, otherwise they would be donating to charity instead of buying stock.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  It's almost like just relying on the invisible hand of the market to create good results doesn't work. And to be clear: just because you're incentivized to harm people, doesn't exonerate you when you harm people. "I was just following incentives" isn't a defense.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Depends on what you are optimizing for. Seems like tech employees are doing just fine. Enormous compensation, great severance, and entering a low unemployment market. How many tears do you shed when someone with a vast amount of wealth has to take a few months to find a new job?
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Do you think flooding the market with a lot of laid-off people is going to keep tech unemployment low?
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Unemployment rate in Tech and software development is still incredibly low, even lower than the general rate.