3 ms·

I said this in another thread complaining about Pichai: Google 2019 Net Income - $36B 2022 Net Income - $60B If was part of the workforce I would be even mo

I said this in another thread complaining about Pichai: Google 2019 Net Income - $36B 2022 Net Income - $60B If was part of the workforce I would be even more pissed just at the company itself. Laying off 12k and cuts in perks after $60B in net income.

easytiger 3y ago
Significant portions of companies like google are parallel structures unrelated to revenue and body shops piled high to buy localised political influence.
- roflyear 3y ago
  Also, layoffs fight inflation which fights higher rates. Low rates would mean amazing things for tech stocks.
CobrastanJorji 3y ago
Ah, but Google announced a $70B stock buyback, so in a sense, isn't that a net loss of $10B, requiring belt tightening and layoffs?
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> was part of the workforce I would be even more pissed just at the company itself. Laying off 12k and cuts in perks after $60B in net income. This cuts both ways. How many of those laid off had any connection to that profit?
- justsocrateasin 3y ago
  I don't think this is a good argument. Just because you are at a cost center/not at a profit center doesn't mean you don't have any connection to the profit. Take HR. Total cost center. By this logic they shouldn't get any piece of the pie. But in reality, without *good* HR, a company can be a shitty place to work. HR is just one example. Many others out there.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Not referring to cost centres within profitable units. Much of Google was professional yarn spinning. That doesn’t make the layoffs or pay disparity okay. But I’d squint at someone in a group that shipped a product a week, each with a year’s lifespan, complaining about that profit like it’s relevant to them.
PeterisP 3y ago
You don't lay off people (or avoid doing so) because you have large or small profits, quite the opposite, you have the profits you do because you do (or don't do) lay off people when it makes economic sense to do so. The decision whether laying off those 12000 people improves or hurts the company is the same no matter if you have $60B net income or $6B net loss. Being hugely profitable doesn't make it worth keeping more people than you need, just as having losses doesn't make it worth firing people you do need.
- lancesells 3y ago
  > Being hugely profitable doesn't make it worth keeping more people than you need, just as having losses doesn't make it worth firing people you do need. I understand this is the thinking that runs the economy, and it's very much a shame. With 12k unneeded people you think the work they were doing disappears? No, the people still there (that brought in records profits) now get to shoulder that work. Do you think all 12k of those people were the worst or maybe some were older and more experiences, being paid better than a recent college grad? It's just pure greed and the people there should be pissed off at the CEO and the board.

easytiger 3y ago

Significant portions of companies like google are parallel structures unrelated to revenue and body shops piled high to buy localised political influence.

roflyear 3y ago
Also, layoffs fight inflation which fights higher rates. Low rates would mean amazing things for tech stocks.

CobrastanJorji 3y ago

Ah, but Google announced a $70B stock buyback, so in a sense, isn't that a net loss of $10B, requiring belt tightening and layoffs?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> was part of the workforce I would be even more pissed just at the company itself. Laying off 12k and cuts in perks after $60B in net income. This cuts both ways. How many of those laid off had any connection to that profit?

justsocrateasin 3y ago
I don't think this is a good argument. Just because you are at a cost center/not at a profit center doesn't mean you don't have any connection to the profit. Take HR. Total cost center. By this logic they shouldn't get any piece of the pie. But in reality, without *good* HR, a company can be a shitty place to work. HR is just one example. Many others out there.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Not referring to cost centres within profitable units. Much of Google was professional yarn spinning. That doesn’t make the layoffs or pay disparity okay. But I’d squint at someone in a group that shipped a product a week, each with a year’s lifespan, complaining about that profit like it’s relevant to them.

PeterisP 3y ago

You don't lay off people (or avoid doing so) because you have large or small profits, quite the opposite, you have the profits you do because you do (or don't do) lay off people when it makes economic sense to do so. The decision whether laying off those 12000 people improves or hurts the company is the same no matter if you have $60B net income or $6B net loss. Being hugely profitable doesn't make it worth keeping more people than you need, just as having losses doesn't make it worth firing people you do need.

lancesells 3y ago
> Being hugely profitable doesn't make it worth keeping more people than you need, just as having losses doesn't make it worth firing people you do need. I understand this is the thinking that runs the economy, and it's very much a shame. With 12k unneeded people you think the work they were doing disappears? No, the people still there (that brought in records profits) now get to shoulder that work. Do you think all 12k of those people were the worst or maybe some were older and more experiences, being paid better than a recent college grad? It's just pure greed and the people there should be pissed off at the CEO and the board.