4 ms·

Meanwhile EA's profits went up 13% in Q3 to $1.3 billion[1]. TLDR of the wall of corp text is basically "Some you you may get laid off, but it's a sacrifice I'm

by theden 4y ago

Meanwhile EA's profits went up 13% in Q3 to $1.3 billion[1]. TLDR of the wall of corp text is basically "Some you you may get laid off, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to take" 1. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ea-profits-up-13-in-q3-to-13-billion https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ea-profits-up-13-in-q3-to-13-b...

yreg 4y ago
I'm sure some companies are making use of the current situation to get rid of people they would like to fire anyway. But some layoffs are still entirely puzzling to me, e.g. Google.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Why puzzling? Does Google not have people they would like to fire? They're fine financially but with Microsoft having made them dance with GPT, the investors have seen Google has become too complacent and their monopoly on search is loosening. Seeing some scapegoats get fired might put the investors are ease.
  - yreg 4y ago
    Because it seems they are firing a ton of skilled, well performing people. At least that's what everyone says on the street.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      Well performing people by what metrics? Plus, how many well performing engineers do you need when you haven't shipped a successful product in nearly a decade while canceling more of your existing products. It's more like Google overhired during the market boom just to starve their competitors for talent and not because they actually had a use for all those people. At one point you reach diminishing returns in terms of headcount and onboarding more well performing people just slows your org down as that just adds more overhead and various fiefdoms start to form that fight to entrench or upgrade their position in the org instead of doing what's good for the company, causing stagnation and complacency while competitors are running circles around you. I've seen this at every single big-corm I've worked at. It makes sense orgs end the overhiring spree from the free fed money bonanza, and are starting to think about efficiency as well.
      - yreg 4y ago
        Well performing people by their performance reviews.
        ChuckNorris89 4y ago
        But that's just the word on the street. We don't have access to Googles performance reviews to judge. Plus, from my experience, performance reviews are pretty meaningless. They just measure how much you conform to the corporate hive mind rather than how good you are as an engineer. And to play the devis advocate, if you don't need those people anymore, why keep them, regardless of their performance reviews? Just to have the most expensive seat warmers in the world?
        candiodari 4y ago
        One might hope Google's performance reviews are not meaningless to Google. I mean if they are, why bother?
        ChuckNorris89 4y ago
        I'm asking again. What good is it performance when you don't need those people because you have no meaningful work to give them due to shifts in market/product development? Keeping expensive seat warmers?
        candiodari 4y ago
        You are just pushing the same pre-existing assumption here. Obviously that company thinks they're useful. Also I would argue that if a company cannot use these people to make profit and grow, that company should probably be ended. If you simplify things, then literally the ONLY point of a (public) company is to invest in the means of production, and have that investment grow over time. If a company cannot use people to grow, it's useless as a company. At best this is a serious management failure.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    > Seeing some scapegoats get fired might put the investors are ease. Instead it makes Google look like an also-Meta in my book: cheapens them. Apple is the one coming away from this looking solid (whether it is illusional or not).
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      Looking how many applications Google gets for job openings in my area, I doubt it. You must be breathing very rare air where you live if you can scoff off Google as an employer. Where I live people kill for a job there. Working at Google for a while and then being let go is still way better for your savings, networking, resume, and future career prospects, than not having worked at Google at all.

by theden 4y ago

yreg 4y ago

I'm sure some companies are making use of the current situation to get rid of people they would like to fire anyway. But some layoffs are still entirely puzzling to me, e.g. Google.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Why puzzling? Does Google not have people they would like to fire? They're fine financially but with Microsoft having made them dance with GPT, the investors have seen Google has become too complacent and their monopoly on search is loosening. Seeing some scapegoats get fired might put the investors are ease.
- yreg 4y ago
  Because it seems they are firing a ton of skilled, well performing people. At least that's what everyone says on the street.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Well performing people by what metrics? Plus, how many well performing engineers do you need when you haven't shipped a successful product in nearly a decade while canceling more of your existing products. It's more like Google overhired during the market boom just to starve their competitors for talent and not because they actually had a use for all those people. At one point you reach diminishing returns in terms of headcount and onboarding more well performing people just slows your org down as that just adds more overhead and various fiefdoms start to form that fight to entrench or upgrade their position in the org instead of doing what's good for the company, causing stagnation and complacency while competitors are running circles around you. I've seen this at every single big-corm I've worked at. It makes sense orgs end the overhiring spree from the free fed money bonanza, and are starting to think about efficiency as well.
    - yreg 4y ago
      Well performing people by their performance reviews.
      - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
        But that's just the word on the street. We don't have access to Googles performance reviews to judge. Plus, from my experience, performance reviews are pretty meaningless. They just measure how much you conform to the corporate hive mind rather than how good you are as an engineer. And to play the devis advocate, if you don't need those people anymore, why keep them, regardless of their performance reviews? Just to have the most expensive seat warmers in the world?
        candiodari 4y ago
        One might hope Google's performance reviews are not meaningless to Google. I mean if they are, why bother?
        ChuckNorris89 4y ago
        I'm asking again. What good is it performance when you don't need those people because you have no meaningful work to give them due to shifts in market/product development? Keeping expensive seat warmers?
        candiodari 4y ago
        You are just pushing the same pre-existing assumption here. Obviously that company thinks they're useful. Also I would argue that if a company cannot use these people to make profit and grow, that company should probably be ended. If you simplify things, then literally the ONLY point of a (public) company is to invest in the means of production, and have that investment grow over time. If a company cannot use people to grow, it's useless as a company. At best this is a serious management failure.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  > Seeing some scapegoats get fired might put the investors are ease. Instead it makes Google look like an also-Meta in my book: cheapens them. Apple is the one coming away from this looking solid (whether it is illusional or not).
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Looking how many applications Google gets for job openings in my area, I doubt it. You must be breathing very rare air where you live if you can scoff off Google as an employer. Where I live people kill for a job there. Working at Google for a while and then being let go is still way better for your savings, networking, resume, and future career prospects, than not having worked at Google at all.