3 ms·

The government is a special case. In terms of private sector work, tech companies were able to carry a huge number of barnacles, not just in “what does this per

The government is a special case. In terms of private sector work, tech companies were able to carry a huge number of barnacles, not just in “what does this person even do?” orgs like DEI and HR but also in engineering and product. This was because of zero-percent interest rates, never ending labor shortages of tech workers, and a growth story that somehow made sense if you squinted. I think only AI still can portray that level of cognitive dissonance with future promises of unlimited growth. For the rest, Musk showed how bloated tech companies can get rid of 70% of staff and operate even better than before. Private equity is licking its lips and big tech is trying to fend off the barbarians at the gate. We shall see…

qwytw 3y ago
> operate even better than before Right... Except the interest on the debt Musk offloaded to Twitter during his acquisition is enough to fund 1000-2000 employees so he didn't really have a choice. I guess the operating better than before part is debatable, since the most idiotic decisions like the rebranding are not that related.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> tech companies were able to carry a huge number of barnacles [...] in engineering and product. This was because of [...] never ending labor shortages of tech workers Everything else aside, that part...doesn't make even a little sense. Labor shortages of tech workers, if they existed, would make it impossible, not more possible, to "carry a huge number of barnacles" in engineering and product. > Musk showed how bloated tech companies can get rid of 70% of staff and operate even better than before. Well, except for the "operate even better than before" part, which Musk has done nothing whatsoever to show.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  It’s strange but it was a never ending race to hire, fear of losing anyone, hints of weakness causing talent to quit. With profit king and future growth discounted, the leverage labor had has been rapidly eroded.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    That wasn't becauase of a shortage of labor. Yes, hiring happened at high levels because money was cheap, but not because employees were in short supply. If anything, the cheap money caused the hiring caused employees to be in short supply. And, yes, the (for now) end of cheap money for means less hiring based on high-risk, high-reward, long-payoff-window efforts, which were common in tech.
no_wizard 3y ago
X (formerly Twitter) has network effect lock in. Mastodon etc. never penetrated fully enough into the public consciousness for the bulk of Twitter users to move. If anything, some maintain dual profiles, but major movement from one side to the other never happened. In some ways, Twitter was the perfect business to buy. It takes alot for users to move on, even with all its failures, flakiness etc. because at the end of the day, where else are people going to fill the need Twitter does? You can mess up all day long, do really dumb things, and keep the bulk of your users still, because honestly, where else they gonna go? Now, it remains to be seen if Musk can turn it into a real, viable business with legs, as it where. His skeleton crew makes them vulnerable to upstarts IMO. Eventually, someone or something will become a good enough competitor that X starts losing users

qwytw 3y ago

> operate even better than before Right... Except the interest on the debt Musk offloaded to Twitter during his acquisition is enough to fund 1000-2000 employees so he didn't really have a choice. I guess the operating better than before part is debatable, since the most idiotic decisions like the rebranding are not that related.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> tech companies were able to carry a huge number of barnacles [...] in engineering and product. This was because of [...] never ending labor shortages of tech workers Everything else aside, that part...doesn't make even a little sense. Labor shortages of tech workers, if they existed, would make it impossible, not more possible, to "carry a huge number of barnacles" in engineering and product. > Musk showed how bloated tech companies can get rid of 70% of staff and operate even better than before. Well, except for the "operate even better than before" part, which Musk has done nothing whatsoever to show.

monero-xmr 3y ago
It’s strange but it was a never ending race to hire, fear of losing anyone, hints of weakness causing talent to quit. With profit king and future growth discounted, the leverage labor had has been rapidly eroded.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  That wasn't becauase of a shortage of labor. Yes, hiring happened at high levels because money was cheap, but not because employees were in short supply. If anything, the cheap money caused the hiring caused employees to be in short supply. And, yes, the (for now) end of cheap money for means less hiring based on high-risk, high-reward, long-payoff-window efforts, which were common in tech.

no_wizard 3y ago

X (formerly Twitter) has network effect lock in. Mastodon etc. never penetrated fully enough into the public consciousness for the bulk of Twitter users to move. If anything, some maintain dual profiles, but major movement from one side to the other never happened. In some ways, Twitter was the perfect business to buy. It takes alot for users to move on, even with all its failures, flakiness etc. because at the end of the day, where else are people going to fill the need Twitter does? You can mess up all day long, do really dumb things, and keep the bulk of your users still, because honestly, where else they gonna go? Now, it remains to be seen if Musk can turn it into a real, viable business with legs, as it where. His skeleton crew makes them vulnerable to upstarts IMO. Eventually, someone or something will become a good enough competitor that X starts losing users