5 ms·

> Why is that better? Because it doesn't create unnecessary suffering for the unfortunate people who find themselves out of a job because some executive over-a

> Why is that better? Because it doesn't create unnecessary suffering for the unfortunate people who find themselves out of a job because some executive over-allocated for a particular role or department. Fundamentally, we want people to still participate in the capitalist system and not reject it because they're constantly treated like cattle.

cbsmith 3y ago
> Because it doesn't create unnecessary suffering for the unfortunate people who find themselves out of a job because some executive over-allocated for a particular role or department. Unnecessary suffering is going to happen either way. Keep in mind, at the time of hiring, there is real demand, and while "forever" is more than a bit ridiculous (and no doubt a misrepresentation of the executives' thinking), the truth is nobody knows exactly how long it will last, so you're getting it wrong no matter what you do. > Fundamentally, we want people to still participate in the capitalist system and not reject it because they're constantly treated like cattle. That some people don't always have a job is part of the capitalist system. What happens to them when they're not employed, that's not about capitalism.
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  > Keep in mind, at the time of hiring, there is real demand, That seems like a big claim for which I haven't seen any evidence.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    > That seems like a big claim for which I haven't seen any evidence. Umm... the entire basis for the article was that there was a belief that market conditions at the time would remain true "forever". That's a very different delusion from thinking there isn't something there. ...and there's plenty of evidence that there was real demand. Real revenue grew significantly during that time. Streaming services saw significant increases in subscriptions. Computer sales were up. In tech in general, sales were up across the board. If you haven't seen any evidence of increases in demand during that time period, I don't think you'll ever see evidence of increases in demand.
    - cbsmith 3y ago
      Sorry, that should read "That's a very different delusion from thinking there is something there that isn't."
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
      Sounds like you're equating 'demand for more engineers' with 'available cash' for any given company. I think you're mistaking demand for ability to purchase.
      - cbsmith 3y ago
        No. You can have dramatic gains in revenue, increased sales, increased subscribers, etc., and less 'available cash'. What you do have is more demand.
        lazyasciiart 3y ago
        Increased sales do not intrinsically require more engineers at most companies. It is possible for some companies to have required increasing engineering resources to cope with scale. But the vast majority of hiring was for people to work on future additional features to attract more customers. Zoom, Rec Room, DocuSign, and some other companies in that direct line of moving work and socializing online, yes. Facebook, Google, Salesforce, almost everyone? No.
        cbsmith 3y ago
        Companies generally don't require more engineers, ever. However, if there is demand for your product, engineers are a good way to make it better. If you don't make it better, that demand will go to a vendor who does. Either way, if you believe these companies never needed the engineers in the first place, it is an entirely separate claim from the claims in this article.
        lazyasciiart 3y ago
        I was addressing the claim that you made. And I'm not presenting some amazing new idea. People have been discussing for years that these companies hire people just to have them, not for business goals. "“They hire everybody, whether they need it or not, just to have a reserve of talent,” he says. “They can afford it.” " https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-tech-workers-say-they-were-hired-to-do-nothing-762ff158?mod=hp_lead_pos3 https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-tech-workers-say-they-wer... ""The worst part of working at Google for me was, as for many others, feeling under-utilized. " (7 years ago) https://www.quora.com/What-can-a-prospective-or-new-Googler-do-to-avoid-being-underutilized-when-joining-Google-Can-new-recruits-influence-the-team-they-will-be-assigned-to-What-is-the-worst-part-about-working-at-Google https://www.quora.com/What-can-a-prospective-or-new-Googler-... "Most people I know of who quit Google did so because they feel they were underutilized" (14 years ago! https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9qeuq/i_quit_my_job_as_a_google_engineer_after_1_year/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9qeuq/i_quit_my_job_a...)
Kinrany 3y ago
If a boom-bust cycle creates an economic surplus, then people suffering is an issue of negative externalities and unfair distribution of resources. The solution is to pay people who got laid off, not under-hire.
- TylerE 3y ago
  How about just not firing them and telling them to go volunteer part time and spend the rest learning new skills?
- Haga 3y ago
  [dead]
scarface_74 3y ago
So who suffered from getting a job at Google for three or four years or any other large tech company?

cbsmith 3y ago

> Because it doesn't create unnecessary suffering for the unfortunate people who find themselves out of a job because some executive over-allocated for a particular role or department. Unnecessary suffering is going to happen either way. Keep in mind, at the time of hiring, there is real demand, and while "forever" is more than a bit ridiculous (and no doubt a misrepresentation of the executives' thinking), the truth is nobody knows exactly how long it will last, so you're getting it wrong no matter what you do. > Fundamentally, we want people to still participate in the capitalist system and not reject it because they're constantly treated like cattle. That some people don't always have a job is part of the capitalist system. What happens to them when they're not employed, that's not about capitalism.

lazyasciiart 3y ago
> Keep in mind, at the time of hiring, there is real demand, That seems like a big claim for which I haven't seen any evidence.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  > That seems like a big claim for which I haven't seen any evidence. Umm... the entire basis for the article was that there was a belief that market conditions at the time would remain true "forever". That's a very different delusion from thinking there isn't something there. ...and there's plenty of evidence that there was real demand. Real revenue grew significantly during that time. Streaming services saw significant increases in subscriptions. Computer sales were up. In tech in general, sales were up across the board. If you haven't seen any evidence of increases in demand during that time period, I don't think you'll ever see evidence of increases in demand.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    Sorry, that should read "That's a very different delusion from thinking there is something there that isn't."
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    Sounds like you're equating 'demand for more engineers' with 'available cash' for any given company. I think you're mistaking demand for ability to purchase.
    - cbsmith 3y ago
      No. You can have dramatic gains in revenue, increased sales, increased subscribers, etc., and less 'available cash'. What you do have is more demand.
      - lazyasciiart 3y ago
        Increased sales do not intrinsically require more engineers at most companies. It is possible for some companies to have required increasing engineering resources to cope with scale. But the vast majority of hiring was for people to work on future additional features to attract more customers. Zoom, Rec Room, DocuSign, and some other companies in that direct line of moving work and socializing online, yes. Facebook, Google, Salesforce, almost everyone? No.
        cbsmith 3y ago
        Companies generally don't require more engineers, ever. However, if there is demand for your product, engineers are a good way to make it better. If you don't make it better, that demand will go to a vendor who does. Either way, if you believe these companies never needed the engineers in the first place, it is an entirely separate claim from the claims in this article.
        lazyasciiart 3y ago
        I was addressing the claim that you made. And I'm not presenting some amazing new idea. People have been discussing for years that these companies hire people just to have them, not for business goals. "“They hire everybody, whether they need it or not, just to have a reserve of talent,” he says. “They can afford it.” " https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-tech-workers-say-they-were-hired-to-do-nothing-762ff158?mod=hp_lead_pos3 https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-tech-workers-say-they-wer... ""The worst part of working at Google for me was, as for many others, feeling under-utilized. " (7 years ago) https://www.quora.com/What-can-a-prospective-or-new-Googler-do-to-avoid-being-underutilized-when-joining-Google-Can-new-recruits-influence-the-team-they-will-be-assigned-to-What-is-the-worst-part-about-working-at-Google https://www.quora.com/What-can-a-prospective-or-new-Googler-... "Most people I know of who quit Google did so because they feel they were underutilized" (14 years ago! https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9qeuq/i_quit_my_job_as_a_google_engineer_after_1_year/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9qeuq/i_quit_my_job_a...)

Kinrany 3y ago

If a boom-bust cycle creates an economic surplus, then people suffering is an issue of negative externalities and unfair distribution of resources. The solution is to pay people who got laid off, not under-hire.

TylerE 3y ago
How about just not firing them and telling them to go volunteer part time and spend the rest learning new skills?
Haga 3y ago
[dead]

scarface_74 3y ago

So who suffered from getting a job at Google for three or four years or any other large tech company?