3 ms·

> Background, I work in diligence for software aquisitions. It shows. I don't see lay-offs from this perspective. Instead, I think about each of the employees

> Background, I work in diligence for software aquisitions. It shows. I don't see lay-offs from this perspective. Instead, I think about each of the employees impacted by the company's reckless behavior. Did the employees have any say in this matter? No? Then who cares if the job they were there to do was unimportant in the first place? That is absolutely the fault of the company. Your stance is not effective when treating human beings like human beings and not some `num_workers` configuration in some kubernetes yaml.

iainctduncan 3y ago
Your calculation falls apart if you are comparing it against no business - which is what happens when a non-sustainable business eventually runs up against economic reality. The whole business of not-profitable companies growing for years and hiring people on imaginary future money is tech industry magic beans shit. It's divorced from the reality of the rest of the world where people have to really work for a living and don't get paid our astronomical salaries. I work as a consultant in tech diligence, but previous to that I worked for many many years for small, profitable, Normal Businesses. And the company I work for is a normal business that watches the bottom line and doesn't over hire because we have to be profitable. If you go work for a magic bean company that doesn't think being a sustainable business matters, you are, unfortunately, part of a ponzi scheme that can fall apart any time.
gen220 3y ago
> I think about each of the employees impacted by the company's reckless behavior. The "reckless behavior" in the above quote was not committed by the acquirer, but by whoever was responsible for leading + growing Bandcamp off this cliff. In the same way you want to treat humans like humans, you need to treat businesses like businesses – i.e., if you're not making money or growing revenue fast enough to justify hiring the marginal employee, as a hiring manager, you're gambling with the prospective hire's career in pursuit of a collective gain. If you're an employee joining an unprofitable company, this is part of the package and should be really clear in the interviewing/onboarding. If it isn't, again, the blame falls at the feet of the CEO, ultimately.
jbm 3y ago
I hated my life when I worked at this style of company. When I worked at (a beverage company), one of the unfortunate realities was that the company did not really compete to make their money. The profit at the entity I worked at was completely based on the price of ingredients that was set by a parent company. We could have reduced complexity and improved efficiency by large margins easily, but it didn't matter because the parent company would have clawed back a larger share and pumped their profits, while our efforts were of no benefit. In this aimless zombie corporate mode, they hired people without much thought, and everyone was busy looking busy (8 hour meetings were common for "developers"). However, if you are doing something for real, people don't see any point in helping you out; so even if you really do want to improve things (in my case, I wanted to help the poor souls on 2ch who had to work on the weekend because of poor internal communication that prevented hand-offs), no one wanted to lend a hand. Since profit is not a big deal, and everyone simulates being busy, no winds up in charge, and the inmates run the asylum. If you are the guy in the unimportant job, you suddenly realize it is a bullshit job and are constantly in fear of your job vanishing. Moreover, since you cannot accomplish anything, it is nearly impossible to find a new job when the company inevitably encounters reality.

iainctduncan 3y ago

Your calculation falls apart if you are comparing it against no business - which is what happens when a non-sustainable business eventually runs up against economic reality. The whole business of not-profitable companies growing for years and hiring people on imaginary future money is tech industry magic beans shit. It's divorced from the reality of the rest of the world where people have to really work for a living and don't get paid our astronomical salaries. I work as a consultant in tech diligence, but previous to that I worked for many many years for small, profitable, Normal Businesses. And the company I work for is a normal business that watches the bottom line and doesn't over hire because we have to be profitable. If you go work for a magic bean company that doesn't think being a sustainable business matters, you are, unfortunately, part of a ponzi scheme that can fall apart any time.

gen220 3y ago

> I think about each of the employees impacted by the company's reckless behavior. The "reckless behavior" in the above quote was not committed by the acquirer, but by whoever was responsible for leading + growing Bandcamp off this cliff. In the same way you want to treat humans like humans, you need to treat businesses like businesses – i.e., if you're not making money or growing revenue fast enough to justify hiring the marginal employee, as a hiring manager, you're gambling with the prospective hire's career in pursuit of a collective gain. If you're an employee joining an unprofitable company, this is part of the package and should be really clear in the interviewing/onboarding. If it isn't, again, the blame falls at the feet of the CEO, ultimately.

jbm 3y ago

I hated my life when I worked at this style of company. When I worked at (a beverage company), one of the unfortunate realities was that the company did not really compete to make their money. The profit at the entity I worked at was completely based on the price of ingredients that was set by a parent company. We could have reduced complexity and improved efficiency by large margins easily, but it didn't matter because the parent company would have clawed back a larger share and pumped their profits, while our efforts were of no benefit. In this aimless zombie corporate mode, they hired people without much thought, and everyone was busy looking busy (8 hour meetings were common for "developers"). However, if you are doing something for real, people don't see any point in helping you out; so even if you really do want to improve things (in my case, I wanted to help the poor souls on 2ch who had to work on the weekend because of poor internal communication that prevented hand-offs), no one wanted to lend a hand. Since profit is not a big deal, and everyone simulates being busy, no winds up in charge, and the inmates run the asylum. If you are the guy in the unimportant job, you suddenly realize it is a bullshit job and are constantly in fear of your job vanishing. Moreover, since you cannot accomplish anything, it is nearly impossible to find a new job when the company inevitably encounters reality.