3 ms·

Maybe this apply at startups but not to established and cash-rich companies like Google.

• stu2b50 4y ago
  Just because you have money, doesn’t mean you should burn more money than you need to. It’d be one thing if Google had a clear expansion goal that justified the extra headcount and cash burn, but they don’t. In the end, hiring is a transaction. Google does not have obligations beyond that, and neither do employees toward Google when there is a better transaction or when the terms no longer suit their needs.
• colinmorelli 4y ago
  It absolutely applies at cash-rich companies as well. Losing money is losing money, no matter how much you have in the bank. I don't know why folks seem to keep thinking that having money means you can lose it forever, or that out of the kindness of the company's heart they can continue taking investor money it and funneling it back out to non-productive activities. For-profit companies exist to make money. Investors were willing to put that on hold for 5 years because interest rates were low enough to make borrowing cash effectively free, allowing you to trade cash in the short term for growth. That is no longer true, and they're no longer willing to do that. Put more clearly: investors __do not want to invest__ in companies that are burning money right now, no matter their cash balance. Responsible, profitable growth is the goal. Your cash backstop is not relevant.