5 ms·

Do they also cut 25% of the top-brass salaries? You know, as a result of the responsibility these people always refer to when asked why their wage needs to be s

by atoav 3y ago

Do they also cut 25% of the top-brass salaries? You know, as a result of the responsibility these people always refer to when asked why their wage needs to be so high.

cyanydeez 3y ago
even if they did, these cost cuts are typically designed to increase stock prices.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  That makes no sense. No one would do a major corporate restructuring, (like laying off one in four people) just to get a 3% bump in the stock that can easily be taken away by any downish day in the market next week.
anonymouse008 3y ago
Probably don’t have to if they aren’t 174s
- yebyen 3y ago
  I hate this. You're talking about S174 tax code changes, right? I'm here making a hard decision about whether to remain in a field of work that could be classified as either R&D or Maintenance, whether to move out of the country, or both – and we are talking about the same thing aren't we?
  - anonymouse008 3y ago
    I’m sorry you’re going through this it’s bonkers for everyone Yeah my working theory is that Trump thought he would still be in office to use this as a negotiation token to bring big tech to the table.
    - mamidon 3y ago
      Can you elaborate on what this 174S is? I've never heard about it.
      - jamescostian 3y ago
        Google "Section 174" to see news coverage, but here's the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/174 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/174
      - yebyen 3y ago
        Tl;Dr: in the past, if you hired developers and made no money, you could choose to either classify that work as R&D or Maintenance. From a business perspective it matters because R&D gets written off until it becomes profitable, but maintenance is for long-term on software that's in production, so you amortized the maintenance over 5 years if you see it that way, if you're making money now, but you wouldn't amortize the R&D because it isn't making money and that's just a way to get yourself a big tax bill with no way to pay it. It was an option. No longer, all one bucket now. I'm probably oversimplifying but today, with the S174 updates in effect, you don't have this choice. If it's classified as either, it gets amortized over 5 years, unless it's developed outside of the country then it's 15. Either way it's a massive tax bill because you had to have revenue to pay the devs and that revenue gets taxed in the first year now, where you could have written it off before all this. This leaves very little room for speculative investments in R&D that were actually quite incentivized before S174. We called it an investment and showed no profit, paid no taxes (except for the payroll taxes, social security taxes, all the other taxes which you obviously still can't avoid through paying employees in whatever locality they are working based out of...) So the net effect of S174 is (we seem to be observing) that organizations with large developer footprints are now figuring this out a bit too late and laying off some or all of that staff pool to try to dig themselves out of this before it's really too late. You can't invest in research unless it's gonna pay off this year or you have some sort of money tree to use to pay for it and pay taxes on it. That makes it hard to see as an investment unless you are able to become profitable today. The worst part is nobody seems to get it in the food chain. My (former) boss is barely aware of this issue, my CEO hasn't brought it up, but I am laid off and all my coworkers are. We are nearly all software developers. I have to assume it's related, until I can find another software developer job that isn't going through the same thing.
tschellenbach 3y ago
Well if you cut everyone's salaries, you also don't retain the good people. That's the theory at least. In practice, some of these companies don't know who is solid and who isn't since they have layers of management. So it can be quite random
- bananapub 3y ago
  > Well if you cut everyone's salaries, you also don't retain the good people. what good people? the upper management of this company fucked up so badly that they're sacking 50% of the company!
wilg 3y ago
Obviously that makes no sense. It’s a layoff, they’re not cutting salaries.
- mynameisvlad 3y ago
  I mean the result is the same, lowering costs due to “current economic conditions” and such.
  - wilg 3y ago
    No, there is a major difference in the number of people that would work at the company and how much they would be paid. More people aren’t always better for the company, especially in a bloated and unfocused company like Unity.
    - Freedom2 3y ago
      How did the company get so bloated? Who approved the hiring decisions? Shouldn't well-compensated, forward looking leaders anticipate this?
      - wilg 3y ago
        Bad leadership created this situation, but that doesn't make OP's suggestion any smarter.
        mynameisvlad 3y ago
        Has the obvious bad leadership committed to doing things differently in the future? Generally, an ineffective employee gets laid off when layoffs happen. That would surely be a more effective strategy to financial concerns.
        skywhopper 3y ago
        I’ve been through enough layoffs to know that the effectiveness of the laid off employees is very rarely factored into the decision of who to get rid of.

by atoav 3y ago

Do they also cut 25% of the top-brass salaries? You know, as a result of the responsibility these people always refer to when asked why their wage needs to be so high.

cyanydeez 3y ago

even if they did, these cost cuts are typically designed to increase stock prices.

missedthecue 3y ago
That makes no sense. No one would do a major corporate restructuring, (like laying off one in four people) just to get a 3% bump in the stock that can easily be taken away by any downish day in the market next week.

anonymouse008 3y ago

Probably don’t have to if they aren’t 174s

yebyen 3y ago
I hate this. You're talking about S174 tax code changes, right? I'm here making a hard decision about whether to remain in a field of work that could be classified as either R&D or Maintenance, whether to move out of the country, or both – and we are talking about the same thing aren't we?
- anonymouse008 3y ago
  I’m sorry you’re going through this it’s bonkers for everyone Yeah my working theory is that Trump thought he would still be in office to use this as a negotiation token to bring big tech to the table.
  - mamidon 3y ago
    Can you elaborate on what this 174S is? I've never heard about it.
    - jamescostian 3y ago
      Google "Section 174" to see news coverage, but here's the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/174 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/174
    - yebyen 3y ago
      Tl;Dr: in the past, if you hired developers and made no money, you could choose to either classify that work as R&D or Maintenance. From a business perspective it matters because R&D gets written off until it becomes profitable, but maintenance is for long-term on software that's in production, so you amortized the maintenance over 5 years if you see it that way, if you're making money now, but you wouldn't amortize the R&D because it isn't making money and that's just a way to get yourself a big tax bill with no way to pay it. It was an option. No longer, all one bucket now. I'm probably oversimplifying but today, with the S174 updates in effect, you don't have this choice. If it's classified as either, it gets amortized over 5 years, unless it's developed outside of the country then it's 15. Either way it's a massive tax bill because you had to have revenue to pay the devs and that revenue gets taxed in the first year now, where you could have written it off before all this. This leaves very little room for speculative investments in R&D that were actually quite incentivized before S174. We called it an investment and showed no profit, paid no taxes (except for the payroll taxes, social security taxes, all the other taxes which you obviously still can't avoid through paying employees in whatever locality they are working based out of...) So the net effect of S174 is (we seem to be observing) that organizations with large developer footprints are now figuring this out a bit too late and laying off some or all of that staff pool to try to dig themselves out of this before it's really too late. You can't invest in research unless it's gonna pay off this year or you have some sort of money tree to use to pay for it and pay taxes on it. That makes it hard to see as an investment unless you are able to become profitable today. The worst part is nobody seems to get it in the food chain. My (former) boss is barely aware of this issue, my CEO hasn't brought it up, but I am laid off and all my coworkers are. We are nearly all software developers. I have to assume it's related, until I can find another software developer job that isn't going through the same thing.

tschellenbach 3y ago

Well if you cut everyone's salaries, you also don't retain the good people. That's the theory at least. In practice, some of these companies don't know who is solid and who isn't since they have layers of management. So it can be quite random

bananapub 3y ago
> Well if you cut everyone's salaries, you also don't retain the good people. what good people? the upper management of this company fucked up so badly that they're sacking 50% of the company!

wilg 3y ago

Obviously that makes no sense. It’s a layoff, they’re not cutting salaries.

mynameisvlad 3y ago
I mean the result is the same, lowering costs due to “current economic conditions” and such.
- wilg 3y ago
  No, there is a major difference in the number of people that would work at the company and how much they would be paid. More people aren’t always better for the company, especially in a bloated and unfocused company like Unity.
  - Freedom2 3y ago
    How did the company get so bloated? Who approved the hiring decisions? Shouldn't well-compensated, forward looking leaders anticipate this?
    - wilg 3y ago
      Bad leadership created this situation, but that doesn't make OP's suggestion any smarter.
      - mynameisvlad 3y ago
        Has the obvious bad leadership committed to doing things differently in the future? Generally, an ineffective employee gets laid off when layoffs happen. That would surely be a more effective strategy to financial concerns.
        skywhopper 3y ago
        I’ve been through enough layoffs to know that the effectiveness of the laid off employees is very rarely factored into the decision of who to get rid of.