3 ms·

Since the article doesn't directly link to the company they reference, its: https://www.frameryacoustics.com https://www.frameryacoustics.com The company is o

Since the article doesn't directly link to the company they reference, its: https://www.frameryacoustics.com https://www.frameryacoustics.com The company is only 12-years old. It should be no surprise that, for a company still in business after a decade but also not a super old company either - that they have hired way more than let go. (Seems a bit of confirmation bias combined with survivor bias going on)

stavros 3y ago
It's not just "let go", it's also "left". That's the surprising bit.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Is it that surprising considering the company went from 0 to 400 people in 12 years? Most of these people will have been onboarded towards the tail end of this and won't have been there that long. The few that were there in the early days are likely in cushy jobs riding a rocket ship that has yet to have a period of pointing back to earth. Neither is particularly surprising.
earnesti 3y ago
It is pretty much a marketing piece, overall. I'm from Finland and there are tons of layoffs all the time. No one wants to do layoffs, sometimes companies just have to do them to survive.
jandrese 3y ago
> The company is only 12-years old. That explains a lot. Not only is it not much time for turnover, but it almost certainly means the original management is still running the show. Trusting in a person is easy, but keeping that company trust for year after year is very hard, especially if the company grows. It only takes one asshole manager to break that trust and once broken it takes many many years to rebuild, if ever. This happened a lot in the US where companies would cultivate loyalty in their employees throughout the 50s and 60s and even into the 70s. Then the old guard retired and new management came in and started abusing the trust in the name of a higher bottom line--doing mass layoffs, cutting pensions, slashing benefits, outsourcing, engaging in huge stock buybacks with the funds instead of investing in R&D, typical 80s and beyond behavior. Then they went all Pikachu face when employee loyalty dried up and their competitiveness faltered and the companies found themselves unable to compete without government assistance.
- a-priori 3y ago
  Just because it's 'not much time for turnover' doesn't mean there's plenty of younger companies with much higher lifetime turnover. In the tech industry, the average annual turnover rate is 13.5%. If I'm doing my math right, that amounts to a lifetime turnover of 77% for an average 10 year tech company assuming flat employee count over the time period, or 51% for the same company with linear growth from zero over the time period. Both are well above the 10% this company is claiming. (The 77% came from 1 - ((1-0.135)*10), and the 51% came from 1.0 - ((1-0.135)*10)0.1 - ((1-0.135)*9)0.1 - ((1-0.135)*8)*0.1 ... to sample even cohorts of 10, 9, 8, etc. years making up equal portions of the population.)

stavros 3y ago

It's not just "let go", it's also "left". That's the surprising bit.

zamadatix 3y ago
Is it that surprising considering the company went from 0 to 400 people in 12 years? Most of these people will have been onboarded towards the tail end of this and won't have been there that long. The few that were there in the early days are likely in cushy jobs riding a rocket ship that has yet to have a period of pointing back to earth. Neither is particularly surprising.

earnesti 3y ago

It is pretty much a marketing piece, overall. I'm from Finland and there are tons of layoffs all the time. No one wants to do layoffs, sometimes companies just have to do them to survive.

jandrese 3y ago

> The company is only 12-years old. That explains a lot. Not only is it not much time for turnover, but it almost certainly means the original management is still running the show. Trusting in a person is easy, but keeping that company trust for year after year is very hard, especially if the company grows. It only takes one asshole manager to break that trust and once broken it takes many many years to rebuild, if ever. This happened a lot in the US where companies would cultivate loyalty in their employees throughout the 50s and 60s and even into the 70s. Then the old guard retired and new management came in and started abusing the trust in the name of a higher bottom line--doing mass layoffs, cutting pensions, slashing benefits, outsourcing, engaging in huge stock buybacks with the funds instead of investing in R&D, typical 80s and beyond behavior. Then they went all Pikachu face when employee loyalty dried up and their competitiveness faltered and the companies found themselves unable to compete without government assistance.

a-priori 3y ago
Just because it's 'not much time for turnover' doesn't mean there's plenty of younger companies with much higher lifetime turnover. In the tech industry, the average annual turnover rate is 13.5%. If I'm doing my math right, that amounts to a lifetime turnover of 77% for an average 10 year tech company assuming flat employee count over the time period, or 51% for the same company with linear growth from zero over the time period. Both are well above the 10% this company is claiming. (The 77% came from 1 - ((1-0.135)*10), and the 51% came from 1.0 - ((1-0.135)*10)0.1 - ((1-0.135)*9)0.1 - ((1-0.135)*8)*0.1 ... to sample even cohorts of 10, 9, 8, etc. years making up equal portions of the population.)