3 ms·

When there is strong demand for a product, a company should hire more people so that it can keep up with demand. Likewise, a company should hire when it has sh

When there is strong demand for a product, a company should hire more people so that it can keep up with demand. Likewise, a company should hire when it has short-term capital investment plans that require additional staffing. I don't think anyone would argue with that. When demand decreases, or when a capital-intensive buildout is complete, would it be incorrect for the firm to decrease its staffing levels? If leaders expect to be fired if employees are ever laid off, then they will avoid hiring in the first place—with the consequence that fewer opportunities will be pursued and fewer risks taken. Is that what we want? Unemployment today in the US is less than 3.5%! It's good for workers—and good for the economy generally—that managers are willing to hire people they may need to fire later on if things don't work out. Otherwise, those jobs wouldn't even exist in the first place.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
Everything you say makes sense in theory, i.e. if we were in the early industrial world of Adam Smith. How do you define "demand" in the context of SaaS? How many engineers do you need to run Google Search? Or Facebook? Or Spotify? Did the demand increase in the past five years? Have it decreased in the last year or so? Here's the thing. None of these companies (Google, Meta, Spotify) have reported losses, not even a significant decrease in revenue over five years. They took the past year results, they saw a decrease in revenue, and they proceeded to lay off people. Google itself had a Q4 '22 revenue in line with the past years, except for the anomaly in Q4 '21 [0]. > If leaders expect to be fired if employees are ever laid off, then they will avoid hiring in the first place. You are saying that the people appointed as the better at foreseeing market trends, and taking higher risks for higher benefits, will do neither of those? Then why do we need them in the first place? They would be useless. > Unemployment today in the US is less than 3.5%! It's good for workers—and good for the economy generally—that managers are willing to hire people they may need to fire later on if things don't work out. Otherwise, those jobs wouldn't even exist in the first place. You are conflating several things here - unemployment, workers' rights, and economy of scale. They are not necessarily connected, e.g. lower unemployment and higher wages don't push managers to take risks on massive hirings. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267606/quarterly-revenue-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267606/quarterly-revenue...
- legutierr 4y ago
  > You are conflating several things here - unemployment, workers' rights, and economy of scale. They are not necessarily connected, e.g. lower unemployment and higher wages don't push managers to take risks on massive hirings. These things are connected, but you have it backwards. Managers' taking risks on massive hirings leads directly to lower unemployment and higher wages.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > Managers' taking risks on massive hirings leads directly to lower unemployment and higher wages. That's also not true, because it excludes a myriad of parameters, some of which we are able to observe in current trends, like inflation and talent pool size.
    - legutierr 4y ago
      Is there only one explanation for lower unemployment and higher wages? No, and clearly I'm not saying anything like that. But would you seriously argue that when a company hires 100 people it doesn't lower unemployment by 100 people? And that when 100 people receive job offers, their ability to negotiate higher salaries does not also increase?
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        > But would you seriously argue that when a company hires 100 people it doesn't lower unemployment by 100 people? And that when 100 people receive job offers, their ability to negotiate higher salaries does not also increase? There's already a very common scenario where this does not happen: layoffs targeting higher earners.
WirelessGigabit 4y ago
Humans are not just in time resources. And low unemployment in the USA means many people working > 2 jobs, without benefits, just to keep a roof over their heads.

manuelabeledo 4y ago

Everything you say makes sense in theory, i.e. if we were in the early industrial world of Adam Smith. How do you define "demand" in the context of SaaS? How many engineers do you need to run Google Search? Or Facebook? Or Spotify? Did the demand increase in the past five years? Have it decreased in the last year or so? Here's the thing. None of these companies (Google, Meta, Spotify) have reported losses, not even a significant decrease in revenue over five years. They took the past year results, they saw a decrease in revenue, and they proceeded to lay off people. Google itself had a Q4 '22 revenue in line with the past years, except for the anomaly in Q4 '21 [0]. > If leaders expect to be fired if employees are ever laid off, then they will avoid hiring in the first place. You are saying that the people appointed as the better at foreseeing market trends, and taking higher risks for higher benefits, will do neither of those? Then why do we need them in the first place? They would be useless. > Unemployment today in the US is less than 3.5%! It's good for workers—and good for the economy generally—that managers are willing to hire people they may need to fire later on if things don't work out. Otherwise, those jobs wouldn't even exist in the first place. You are conflating several things here - unemployment, workers' rights, and economy of scale. They are not necessarily connected, e.g. lower unemployment and higher wages don't push managers to take risks on massive hirings. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267606/quarterly-revenue-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267606/quarterly-revenue...

legutierr 4y ago
> You are conflating several things here - unemployment, workers' rights, and economy of scale. They are not necessarily connected, e.g. lower unemployment and higher wages don't push managers to take risks on massive hirings. These things are connected, but you have it backwards. Managers' taking risks on massive hirings leads directly to lower unemployment and higher wages.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > Managers' taking risks on massive hirings leads directly to lower unemployment and higher wages. That's also not true, because it excludes a myriad of parameters, some of which we are able to observe in current trends, like inflation and talent pool size.
  - legutierr 4y ago
    Is there only one explanation for lower unemployment and higher wages? No, and clearly I'm not saying anything like that. But would you seriously argue that when a company hires 100 people it doesn't lower unemployment by 100 people? And that when 100 people receive job offers, their ability to negotiate higher salaries does not also increase?
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      > But would you seriously argue that when a company hires 100 people it doesn't lower unemployment by 100 people? And that when 100 people receive job offers, their ability to negotiate higher salaries does not also increase? There's already a very common scenario where this does not happen: layoffs targeting higher earners.

WirelessGigabit 4y ago

Humans are not just in time resources. And low unemployment in the USA means many people working > 2 jobs, without benefits, just to keep a roof over their heads.