4 ms·

The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). So I wouldn't put these t

by mo_42 3y ago

The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). So I wouldn't put these two things into one argument necessary. Then, an absolute number of profit doesn't reveal much. Maybe this seemingly huge profit is tiny compared to the effort to make it (i.e., the profit margin). As much as I'd like to see a world where we value more aspects of a business than only profits, I can not change it alone. There's a brutal competition of companies to earn a certain profit margin. And Maersk is more or less forced to play this game until we change the rules.

mschuster91 3y ago
> The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). And should demand pick up again in 2-3 years worth of time, they'll now have a really hard time ramping hiring back up... fucking beancounters don't learn, even as the aviation industry is right now showing just how bad this effect can get.
- gruez 3y ago
  I'm going to go on a limb and say that the "fucking beancounters" has done more financial modeling on this decision than some armchair CFO on hn who probably haven't even seen their last quarterly statement.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Especially since people on HN eho are "tech worker" assume the, including an over exagerated importance of themselves, tech employment dynamics apply to other industries. Not that the tech employment is anything like people think is, the mass layoffs showed as much. And as soon as FAANG start hiring again, most on here would be happy to sign up again.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  Not really. The shipping industry is known to be extremely cyclical with a liquid labor market. The companies who survive are the ones that react accordingly. In just a couple of years they have went from scarcity and record profits to a capacity glut and shipping prices cratering.
- paddim8 3y ago
  Why do you think you know more about this than them?
jzjsniiaj 3y ago
> The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). If I draw parallels to personal finance, say I have a record high profitable year, would I rather assume my profits stay record high in the future and increase spending/investments OR would I ensure I have enough rainy day funds for the next inevitable slowdown (at least give me enough runway to weather the slowdown before cutting big line items in my expenditure). Funny enough, this time around some big companies that laid off thousands just after a year of record profits also had record amounts of cash on hand, making me wonder if it's more about manipulating stock price to a desired level. I understand that companies are more complex than personal finance but am I wrong that these are potentially symptoms of mismanagement rather than just to be pushed under the rug as demand-in-the-future? Surely, the money/time spent on hiring, training, laying off, and rehiring, retraining people a year or two later when demand returns is worth something. Just seems to me that the economy will be so much more resilient if everyone simply focussed more on emergency funds
- matwood 3y ago
  By cutting now they are building that emergency fund. They see demand dropping back to pre-COVID levels or worse. They haven't cut employees that far yet though. Your analogy can also work here. When I have a record year I might add some extra services to my life. I see that changing and cut the services before it's a huge problem.
  - bsbsinai 3y ago
    Start building an emergency fund when you see an emergency is already too late. Cutting an expense or two in hardship is fine but the problem is after one windfall taking on recurring spend of extra services assumes a windfall to recur too. Isn't this similar to living pay check to paycheck? If this is someone else's personal finance I'd say it's none of my business, but if it's likened to a public company, I'd say it's not well managed.
    - sokoloff 3y ago

by mo_42 3y ago

mschuster91 3y ago

> The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). And should demand pick up again in 2-3 years worth of time, they'll now have a really hard time ramping hiring back up... fucking beancounters don't learn, even as the aviation industry is right now showing just how bad this effect can get.

gruez 3y ago
I'm going to go on a limb and say that the "fucking beancounters" has done more financial modeling on this decision than some armchair CFO on hn who probably haven't even seen their last quarterly statement.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Especially since people on HN eho are "tech worker" assume the, including an over exagerated importance of themselves, tech employment dynamics apply to other industries. Not that the tech employment is anything like people think is, the mass layoffs showed as much. And as soon as FAANG start hiring again, most on here would be happy to sign up again.
ViewTrick1002 3y ago
Not really. The shipping industry is known to be extremely cyclical with a liquid labor market. The companies who survive are the ones that react accordingly. In just a couple of years they have went from scarcity and record profits to a capacity glut and shipping prices cratering.
paddim8 3y ago
Why do you think you know more about this than them?

jzjsniiaj 3y ago

> The earnings Maersk has posted reflect the past. The mass layoffs reflect the future of the company (i.e., less demand in the future). If I draw parallels to personal finance, say I have a record high profitable year, would I rather assume my profits stay record high in the future and increase spending/investments OR would I ensure I have enough rainy day funds for the next inevitable slowdown (at least give me enough runway to weather the slowdown before cutting big line items in my expenditure). Funny enough, this time around some big companies that laid off thousands just after a year of record profits also had record amounts of cash on hand, making me wonder if it's more about manipulating stock price to a desired level. I understand that companies are more complex than personal finance but am I wrong that these are potentially symptoms of mismanagement rather than just to be pushed under the rug as demand-in-the-future? Surely, the money/time spent on hiring, training, laying off, and rehiring, retraining people a year or two later when demand returns is worth something. Just seems to me that the economy will be so much more resilient if everyone simply focussed more on emergency funds

matwood 3y ago
By cutting now they are building that emergency fund. They see demand dropping back to pre-COVID levels or worse. They haven't cut employees that far yet though. Your analogy can also work here. When I have a record year I might add some extra services to my life. I see that changing and cut the services before it's a huge problem.
- bsbsinai 3y ago
  Start building an emergency fund when you see an emergency is already too late. Cutting an expense or two in hardship is fine but the problem is after one windfall taking on recurring spend of extra services assumes a windfall to recur too. Isn't this similar to living pay check to paycheck? If this is someone else's personal finance I'd say it's none of my business, but if it's likened to a public company, I'd say it's not well managed.
  - sokoloff 3y ago