4 ms·

Meta could probably get by with 30,000 employees let's see if Zuck is that ambitious.

paxys 3y ago
The goal of a company at that scale isn't go "get by" but rather keep growing infinitely. The majority of the workforce at companies like Meta is always working on new, unreleased projects. So yes, you can cut all of them and suffer no immediate consequences (see – Twitter), but then after the revenue numbers stay flat for a few quarters the shareholders aren't going to be too happy.
- rossdavidh 3y ago
  Everything you say is true, but I should point out that compared to nearly any other CEO, Zuckerberg doesn't have to care what shareholders think.
  - gardenhedge 3y ago
    How did Zuck manage to be in such a good position?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - tqi 3y ago
      "Facebook has what’s called a “dual class” structure of “Class A” shares and “Class B” shares. The Class A shares are what everyday investors on the regular stock market have access to, and they’re one vote per share. The Class B shares, however, are controlled by Zuckerberg and just a small group of insiders. And every Class B share gets 10 votes." He still owns almost all of the Class B shares, and so has ~61% of the voting power[2]. [1] https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/11/19/18099011/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-stock-nyt-wsj https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/11/19/18099011/mark-zuck... [2] https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/30303M/20230406/NPS_535694/INDEX.HTML?page=70 https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/30303M/20230406/NPS...
      - gardenhedge 3y ago
        But how did he manage that? If he could do that why don't all other founders/CEOs?
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Because no other founder had the profitably/prospects/timing (market conditions) that Facebook did when it went public.
        tqi 3y ago
        thats covered in the vox article. "Outsize control given to corporate executives isn’t unique to Facebook. As Pisani at CNBC pointed out, Rupert Murdoch and his family have all the voting power at News Corp. At Google, there are three classes of stock, but the B shares controlled by Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt account for some 60 percent of voting shares. Borrus, from CII, told me that about 10 percent of publicly listed companies have a multi-class share setup, but the proportion is growing among newly public companies, especially in tech. Last year, 19 percent of companies that went public on US exchanges had at least two classes of stock with differential voting rights. In 2005, it was just 1 percent, Borrus said. (Snapchat parent Snap was a highly publicized case because the shares it made public didn’t have any voting rights at all.)"
        SpaceManNabs 3y ago
        What Zuckerberg did back then, investors have wised up to since then.
        mensetmanusman 3y ago
        Wised up so they can make sure companies only focus on profit.
        rossdavidh 3y ago
        Essentially, Zuckerberg was forced to IPO. There were too many people who had been granted shares privately, and there is some sort of law that when >500 people have shares it has to be public (IANAL)? Anyway, he showed up to the meeting with bankers wearing a hoody, and generally acted as if he didn't care what the investors thought, because FB was profitable and he didn't need their money. They grumbled a lot, but bought into the IPO anyway. Since Zuckerberg didn't particularly want to IPO anyway, he could make up any rules he felt like (that weren't actually illegal). Then the shares had been priced so high that ordinary purchasers got a better price a couple months after the IPO, than high-powered financial types got in the IPO itself. Financial types hate it when they do not get a better price than the ordinary investor. I'm not particularly a fan of FB or MZ, but I do have to admit to admiring his behavior during that whole episode.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - gmerc 3y ago
    That’s wrong. The elon failure mode like twitter may not exist, but stock in free fall for tech companies is extremely risky due to how it ties to employee retention and many other operative considerations.
huytersd 3y ago
To do the bare minimum maybe. To remain a viable, innovative company for decades absolutely not.

The goal of a company at that scale isn't go "get by" but rather keep growing infinitely. The majority of the workforce at companies like Meta is always working on new, unreleased projects. So yes, you can cut all of them and suffer no immediate consequences (see – Twitter), but then after the revenue numbers stay flat for a few quarters the shareholders aren't going to be too happy.

rossdavidh 3y ago
Everything you say is true, but I should point out that compared to nearly any other CEO, Zuckerberg doesn't have to care what shareholders think.
- gardenhedge 3y ago
  How did Zuck manage to be in such a good position?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tqi 3y ago
    "Facebook has what’s called a “dual class” structure of “Class A” shares and “Class B” shares. The Class A shares are what everyday investors on the regular stock market have access to, and they’re one vote per share. The Class B shares, however, are controlled by Zuckerberg and just a small group of insiders. And every Class B share gets 10 votes." He still owns almost all of the Class B shares, and so has ~61% of the voting power[2]. [1] https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/11/19/18099011/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-stock-nyt-wsj https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/11/19/18099011/mark-zuck... [2] https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/30303M/20230406/NPS_535694/INDEX.HTML?page=70 https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/30303M/20230406/NPS...
    - gardenhedge 3y ago
      But how did he manage that? If he could do that why don't all other founders/CEOs?
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Because no other founder had the profitably/prospects/timing (market conditions) that Facebook did when it went public.
      - tqi 3y ago
        thats covered in the vox article. "Outsize control given to corporate executives isn’t unique to Facebook. As Pisani at CNBC pointed out, Rupert Murdoch and his family have all the voting power at News Corp. At Google, there are three classes of stock, but the B shares controlled by Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt account for some 60 percent of voting shares. Borrus, from CII, told me that about 10 percent of publicly listed companies have a multi-class share setup, but the proportion is growing among newly public companies, especially in tech. Last year, 19 percent of companies that went public on US exchanges had at least two classes of stock with differential voting rights. In 2005, it was just 1 percent, Borrus said. (Snapchat parent Snap was a highly publicized case because the shares it made public didn’t have any voting rights at all.)"
      - SpaceManNabs 3y ago
        What Zuckerberg did back then, investors have wised up to since then.
        mensetmanusman 3y ago
        Wised up so they can make sure companies only focus on profit.
      - rossdavidh 3y ago
        Essentially, Zuckerberg was forced to IPO. There were too many people who had been granted shares privately, and there is some sort of law that when >500 people have shares it has to be public (IANAL)? Anyway, he showed up to the meeting with bankers wearing a hoody, and generally acted as if he didn't care what the investors thought, because FB was profitable and he didn't need their money. They grumbled a lot, but bought into the IPO anyway. Since Zuckerberg didn't particularly want to IPO anyway, he could make up any rules he felt like (that weren't actually illegal). Then the shares had been priced so high that ordinary purchasers got a better price a couple months after the IPO, than high-powered financial types got in the IPO itself. Financial types hate it when they do not get a better price than the ordinary investor. I'm not particularly a fan of FB or MZ, but I do have to admit to admiring his behavior during that whole episode.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- gmerc 3y ago
  That’s wrong. The elon failure mode like twitter may not exist, but stock in free fall for tech companies is extremely risky due to how it ties to employee retention and many other operative considerations.

huytersd 3y ago

To do the bare minimum maybe. To remain a viable, innovative company for decades absolutely not.