16 ms·
Our Company Is Doing So Well That You're All Fired
- jonaswalker305 3y ago[dead]
- makach 3y agoAn uncomfortable piece of fiction. AI will for sure shake things up.
- ajkjk 3y agoAll AI can do is make what's already happening worse. This has been the way of things for a long time now.
- dinkleberg 3y agoThat isn't something to rejoice.
- disqard 3y agoYou're both right -- technology acts as an amplifier for human intentions (Kentaro Toyama's words, not mine).
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y agoAny change requires massive bloodshed and revolution. It's a matter of when not if.
- btbuildem 3y agoIt doesn't have to be massive if it's just the C-suites and up.
- mentalpiracy 3y agofinancial engineering has become a disaster.
- briantakita 3y agoFinancial engineering is designed to benefit the designers of the financial systems. There is a sales pitch to convince people to play along, but it's a net negative game & not designed to benefit everyone else.
- christkv 3y agoReminds me of the classics onion skit about Dell shutting down due to having reached its goal of becoming the biggest pc maker in the world. https://www.theonion.com/corporation-reaches-goal-shuts-down-1819566365 https://www.theonion.com/corporation-reaches-goal-shuts-down...
- yinser 3y agoI can't decide if I'd prefer to hear a bunch of nonsense from an executive at the moment of being let go, or no explanation and just an email saying I'm part of a layoff.
- trey-jones 3y agoThe nonsense (thank you for your valuable contributions) makes me nauseous. I'm so sick of that shit. We as a society need to stop sugarcoating (denial, rationalization) and be more candid. Otherwise the words just become more and more meaningless and nobody can trust anything anybody says. So I know which I would choose, is what I'm trying to say. Like a band-aid.
- yinser 3y agoExecutives and bloviating. Peanut butter and jelly unfortunately.
- eclipticplane 3y agoYou may find value in bullshit.js: https://mourner.github.io/bullshit.js/ https://mourner.github.io/bullshit.js/ > You’ve helped us bullshit so much that the only possible way for you to continue to help us bullshit is by no longer working here, effective immediately.
- EchoChamberMan 3y agoThere's a third option - no warning at all, your laptop is remotely disabled, and you have to figure it out yourself.
- ipython 3y agoAh. I'm old enough to remember the last time automation was going to eliminate all the jobs.. back in the 80's, when robots entered the chat and manufacturing jobs got outsourced to Japan. (side note, interesting to read that the nikkei finally surpassed the previous record set in 1993 or so). But now, it's interesting because, well, for one, I'm actually old enough for it to matter to me now. And two, I actually work in a field that may be impacted. Perhaps it's time to invoke Martin Niemöller's poem: First they came for the garment workers And I did not speak out Because I liked cheap clothes Then they came for the blue collar assembly line workers And I did not speak out Because I liked cheap cars Then they came for the journalists And I did not speak out Because I was not a journalist Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me.
- Swizec 3y ago> when robots entered the chat and manufacturing jobs got outsourced FWIW: Car manufacturers have started moving back away from robots because productivity gains have not quite materialized. Turns out humans are really really good at solving small problems in real time without needing a bunch of hand holding. > Research in a highly automated German car body production plant found as many as 20 to 30 human interventions per shift were needed to prevent major flaws in quality and productivity. Agile, cost effective, and high-quality operations in the automotive industry require adaptability and the ability to change quickly, and humans can be more flexible and capable than production line robots. > Human labour also won in studies conducted by Toyota comparing the time it took people and machines to assemble a car. https://www.performancedrivers.com.au/single-post/robots-humans-tesla-toyota https://www.performancedrivers.com.au/single-post/robots-hum...
- ipython 3y agoThis was not apparent in the mid 1980s when the robot panic was definitely in full swing. You're looking back with almost 40 years of hindsight. The view in the 80s was that the entire assembly line was going away to be replaced with nothing but robots. We were taught to expect that our jobs would be to maintain and service the robots. Heck in the 90s I remember going to a museum somewhere where McDonald's was demonstrating a fully robotic kitchen for its restaurants. This was a real widespread fear at the time. Thirty to 40 years later, maybe we can look back and recognize that it didn't quite turn out that way, but at the same time we can't know what's going to transpire by 2050 based on today's fears of AI outsourcing "information work" either.
- matusp 3y agoIf the company fires hundreds or thousands of people and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? One thing that is baffling to me is that these companies can fire 10% of their workforce and they just keep on chugging without a hitch. The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here.
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago> If the company fires hundreds or thousands of people and there is no visible dip in the productivity, is it really a bad thing? This presupposes a company can even somewhat accurately track productivity for the short, medium, or long term.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mankyd 3y ago> is it a really a bad thing? It's great for the company. Not so much for the people. It's a matter of perspective. > The bullshit job phenomenon is the problem here. Perhaps, but who's fault is that? Sounds like the company's problem. Who suffers from the layoffs however? Per your example, not the company.
- ytx 3y agoOne relevant question is would the fired person have been better off had they not been hired or the job didn't exist in in the first place? It's far from clear to me, but admittedly doesn't soften the blow either way.
- mathverse 3y agoYes. These companies are faceless entities, literal money printing machines where some people in charge are the gods who get to decide what to do with the money printer. They hold an insane monopolistic position. Often these companies utilize verticals which obliterate entire business segments because they are allowed to give products for free (MS Teams for example). This should not happen.
- 3y ago
- Fin_Code 3y agoI'm pretty sure a lot of this is connected to the bond market. Companies are running out of operating capitol. When they try and get an operating loan the terms are onerous. Rather than refinance they are electing to perform layoffs to maintain solvency. It does not matter how good you are doing in contrast to previous years. If your loan comes due and you can't afford another one to keep that revolving credit going you need to free up the capitol to pay.
- yladiz 3y agoI mean, if companies like that didn’t run such a huge deficit, they might be able to get more favorable loan terms.
- lokar 3y agoIt’s not about running a deficit (most are free cash flow positive), it’s about improving returns on capital with leverage.
- sterlind 3y agoI'm financially illiterate, but what does this mean? Companies have the revenue to pay their employees, but they choose to terminate them instead, because... why?
- WorkerBee28474 3y agoHey, SWE who happens to have an MBA here. Theoretically, if a company has money to pay employees it keeps them if the present value of their project is positive, and terminate them if the present value of their projects is negative. Let's say an employee earns $100K this year. The project they're working on this year will generate 40K of revenue in 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years. Is the project worth doing? Let's assume the discount rate is 5%. A dollar now (which we call 'present value (PV)') is worth $1.05 a year from now ('future value (FV)'). And 1.05^2 in 2 years. And 1.05^n in n years. And a dollar in n years (FV) is worth 1/(1+discount)^n dollars today (PV). It's a mechanism similar to inflation, or paying interest. (IRL the discount rate is the WACC + some factor for riskiness, but that's too much to talk about.) Let's say the discount rate is 5%. Is the project worth doing? The present value (PV) is -100K + 40K/1.05 + 40K/1.05^2 + 40K/1.05^3. So if you approve the project, the future profits and expenses are as if you earned $8,930 today. You approve the project. Let's say interest rates go up, and you now need to use 10% as the discount rate. -100K + 40K/1.10 + 40K/1.10^2 + 40K/1.10^3 = $-526. If you approve the project, you will lose money. So you don't approve the project. Now you don't need the employee anymore, and you get rid of the them, by reassignment, reorganization, or layoff.
- oldpersonintx 3y ago[dead]
- complianceowl 3y agoIsn't this kind of weird? Some try to blame capitalism, but AI is not capitalism. It is technological progress. Every president and dictator, no matter what type of economy or political system they have, are trying to develop AI right now. It's something that goes beyond any economic system and is a fact and force that can't be stopped and one must simply reckon with. What we have in the US today is not capitalism. It's cronyism, soft socialism, and an increasingly government-led economy. Capitalism defined: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." When the government gets its paws out of the economy, then we can blame our ills on capitalism. Until then, don't call it capitalism.
- thefaux 3y agoCapitalism fundamentally depends on government enforcement of contracts and property rights. It is not possible to have capitalism without government interference in the economy.
- lordfrito 3y agoNot just capitalism. I'd argue it's not possible to have much of anything without government enforcing contracts and property rights.
- iepathos 3y agoOh a semantics argument, lovely. Let me ask you this, what percentage of US trade and industry isn't controlled by private owners for profit? Shareholders count as private owners in case that confuses you since it's public stock that is privately owned. Once you answer that, let me know what percentage is required to classify a country as capitalist.
- complianceowl 3y agoLOL - Your condescending tone tells me everything I need to know about the type of person that you are and your inability to control your own emotions when talking to someone you disagree with. And, no -- I did not make a semantics argument. The point of defining capitalism was to emphasize the the fact that the US economy is not a truly capitalistic economy -- Uncle Sam is heavily involved; the article insinuates Capitalism is to blame. But you didn't read the article, did you? No, you didn't. Also, I know the difference between public and private ownership -- I've worked in corporate law for a number of years. I've literally created the initial shares for newly incorporated public and private corporations. I currently work at a multi-national and we are about to go public, as well. While you Google these things, I do it for a living. I'd also like to point out that I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about Shareholders "counting" as private owners". Whether it's a private or public company, both fall under the umbrella of private ownership. You're lost, bud; hope you have a better day and learn to have a conversation.
- sausagefeet 3y agoSide thought I had: I've met a lot of software developers that will say "I'm trying to automate myself out of a job". It feels a lot different when you actually do lose your job. I know that isn't what's going on here, it's other economic trends, but this just made me think of that.
- erikpukinskis 3y agoIdeally when you automate yourself out of one job, you are then available to take on another, and also to have more flexibility and higher compensation as part of that process. This is pretty much what “leveling up” is. Either literal automation, or automation through establishing process, culture, and hires around you. If you want to automate yourself and then stop working you need to be an owner.
- jader201 3y agoYou know it's satire from the title (and the first paragraph) because it uses terms like "fired" and "let go". Nobody uses those anymore. You're "impacted".
- preciousoo 3y agoEuphemisms!
- hyperhello 3y ago“Succeeding downwards”
- tairar 3y ago"promoted to customer"
- esafak 3y ago"Poor people used to live in slums. Now the economically disadvantaged occupy substandard housing in the inner cities. And they're broke! They're broke! They don't have a negative cash-flow position. They're ****ing broke! Cause a lot of them were fired. You know, fired. Management wanted to curtail redundancies in the human resources area, so many people are no longer viable members of the workforce." George Carlin. https://youtu.be/vuEQixrBKCc?si=cLfi4-hH78PA6ZEg&t=217 https://youtu.be/vuEQixrBKCc?si=cLfi4-hH78PA6ZEg&t=217*
- noswi 3y agoAnd the teams are rightsized!
- janalsncm 3y agoA term which I hate because potentially everyone on the team was “impacted” if they have to do the same work with fewer people. It’s just one person who isn’t getting paid.
- rng99834 3y agoPro tip, it goes both ways. "Unfortunately, you have been impacted by my resignation"
- recursivedoubts 3y agodaily reminder that you are probably not cynical enough about your companies sociology: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... i certainly wasn't
- tsunamifury 3y agoWe blow back and forth, windlessly, in the void. We imagine the story of it, and sell it to others. From this we build our world from nothingness.
- disqard 3y agoDid you have ChatGPT generate this?
- tsunamifury 3y agoHa no. If you read the essay you’d understand.
- disqard 3y agoThank you for the reply! Yes, Venkat's essays tend towards logorrhea, so I don't quite like them (though the kernels within are insightful). I went back and skimmed this one again, and your verse makes more sense now :)
- frankjr 3y agoShould private for-profit companies employ people just because they can?
- engineers_unite 3y agoPay salaries, or pay taxes. The society that enables a for-profit company to succeed is not free for the taking. Do your part.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago[dead]
- beiller 3y agoSure! Salaries are what people use to exchange money for goods and services that these companies produce in theory. But the free money environment we've lived in the last decade seems to have primed companies to think that operating at a loss is okay. If we just fire the workers, and sales lag and dip, its okay because it will force the fed to lower rates and we can just borrow our way back to the top with no sales! Imagine though... an AI startup that just trades goods between AIs. We should actually start firing customers!
- pjmorris 3y agoEmployed people are much more likely to be customers.
- UberFly 3y agoI'm normally pretty pessimistic, but haven't we seen countless examples of initial panic over technology replacing jobs only to see new vistas of opportunity opening up? Hopefully that takes place in cases like this.
- a_wild_dandan 3y agoTechnological breakthrough always causes a workforce expansion. More, diverse jobs. The "but this time it's different" people are correct. The important bit is when.
- tareqak 3y agoWhat about when companies are doing layoffs but still continue hire at exactly the same time? Sometimes, they even hire for the same positions that were just laid off. Are there ever conversations where employees are asked to take a pay cut instead of being laid off?
- ejb999 3y agoI've seen it done for consultants before - in fact was working for mega financial services company in the years heading up to the 2008 crash. When it hit, they told all the consultants from the big consulting firms (i.e. Anderson etc) they needed to take a 50% cut if they wanted to stay on - almost all accepted the new rate. Months later, when things continue to go really bad in the economy, they told them same firms, they needed to take another 50% cut (so now down 75%), most took that as well, but not all. Those that didn't take it largely found themselves unemployed for a very long time. Just goes to show you how bloated those rates were to begin with.
- macintux 3y agoI have twice been asked to take a pay cut: once long ago at a startup when the funding dried up, and early in the pandemic when my (fairly large) employer got nervous. Well, the second time it wasn’t really a request.
- scruple 3y agoAnd what about companies who do layoffs and then have to scramble to try to re-hire some of the very key, crucial people that were "accidentally" let go?
- maerF0x0 3y agoIf the company ultimately has no need for workers, then it's competitors won't either. And as they compete on price there will be no reason for the goods not to sink to the raw ingredient price + cost of capital. With the hypothetically perfect AI this will sink to near 0 + raw material cost (which itself will be plummeting due to AI). I have long thought that automation will result in goods being so cheap that it becomes unconscionable to not provide them free of charge to anyone who asks for them, within reason. Think like how we do not charge for air, or a glass of tap water (in the USA). I'd love to work on making it so other goods become as such. Simple diet like rice and beans, simple clothing just jeans and a plain tshirt etc. Call me a communist but I think as a society we can get to a point where these things are just free because the cost of accounting for who gets what is higher than the value of the stuff.
- srveale 3y agoThat sounds great, but I think it's more likely that they'll start charging for water and air before they start producing food and clothing with the intention of giving it away.
- maerF0x0 3y agoYeah, I dont think any one would start a company with no incentives, but I do think the existing capitalized ones will have no choice. Once you've built a factory, you have a sunk cost and need to extract whatever you can out of the capital even if it's only 1% profit. (else you bankrupt and implicitly reduce the capital base such that it does profit)
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago"Our Company is Doing So Well That You're All Fired" The title seems to presume that "you all" are contributing to the company doing so well. If you're not, then firing you will have no effect on the company doing well or not, except it will reduce costs. Arguably the company may do better without you as by firing you they have reduced costs.
- tsunamifury 3y agoThis is, roundly, impossible to measure in real time as investments take long time horizons to mature. But its easy to self-justify as survivorship bias.
- valval 3y agoIf you think there are no reliable ways to measure employee productivity I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoI think any company that does layoffs in the US should be blocked from hiring H1-B workers for a period of 5 years. In addition, the CEO and board of directors should have a tax increase of 15% on their income and capital gains taxes for 5 years.
- Gunax 3y agoI know it's comedy, but the essense relies on faulty reasoning of why you were employed. You are employed because the company expects the profit/savings you generate to exceed the cost of employment. If that stops being true, then naturally it's no longer profitable to employ you. You'll notice there is no mention of the overall profitability of the organization in that equation. It holds equally true for both profitable and unprofitable orgs. Obviously the world in messy, and it isn't always clear whether a given department or unit is or will be profitable.
- tsunamifury 3y agoThis is a very simplistic understanding of how much more complicated the world has become. Google was able to take 20 years worth of salary of its laid off employees and execute stock buybacks that increased stock price more than those workers POSITIVE revenues. Its a more brutal reality than you think.
- disqard 3y agoThank you for articulating this! I'm not accusing everyone of this cluelessness, but many appear to think that Google was looking at financially-trying times, and fired some employees to save some money -- no, they fired people, and then spent enough money to have kept those folks employed for decades on stock buybacks. Google's layoffs weren't about saving money, but about juicing the stock.
- EchoChamberMan 3y agoUber burned 250m a year for 10 years without making a profit; are you sure your logic still applies?
- cynicalsecurity 3y agoThe young lad who blames capitalism has obviously never lived under socialism.
- briantakita 3y agoWhat's interesting is that capitalist systems often make socialist systems poor through sanctions, military intervention, & other underhanded tactics. It's a geopolitical game of control & socialism stands of defiance over the banking establishment. Times seem to be changing though as the commodity producing nations are gaining leverage & winning wars against colonial nations. The problem for the colonialists is if the peasants walk away, peasant work is no longer as inexpensive & readily available. I'm all for free markets, but the end-game of capitalism is power cartels backed by military intervention...not free markets. So socialism seems like an interesting alternative to collaborate. That being said, rhetorical systems are used to convince people to adopt an underlying real political order.
- cynicalsecurity 3y agoMate, you want to tell me that a country that had 1/6 of all the resources of the planet collapsed into oblivious because of the Western sanctions and mean Western banks? I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. Authoritarian/Totalitarian structures always flop. Unfortunately, they also tend to screw millions of lives in between. They also like put the blame on others and gaslight. Like a crazy doomsday cult. Oh mate... The so-called socialism is a much worse mafia which wouldn't even allow you to call them mafia. The way they disregard human life and any human morals would damage your mental sanity if you ever had to face it. I hope you wouldn't. I wish you all the best and a great life, and hopefully you would never have to face the evil that the socialism is.
- briantakita 3y ago> Mate, you want to tell me that a country that had 1/6 of all the resources of the planet collapsed into oblivious because of the Western sanctions and mean Western banks? I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. Are you talking about Russia? They seem to be on the upswing by all standards. Food is plentiful & inexpensive compared to the inflation that we see in America with rampant homelessness...while billions are sent to buy weapons for foreign countries. You seem quite emotionally agitated. > Authoritarian/Totalitarian structures always flop. Unfortunately, they also tend to screw millions of lives in between. They also like put the blame on others and gaslight. Like a crazy doomsday cult Gee...are you talking about Pax Americana Exceptionalism? With NeoCon/NeoLib crying about "human rights" while supplying weapons & escalating conflicts to genocide populations of brown people? > Oh mate... The so-called socialism is a much worse mafia which wouldn't even allow you to call them mafia. The way they disregard human life and any human morals would damage your mental sanity if you ever had to face it. I hope you wouldn't. I wish you all the best and a great life, and hopefully you would never have to face the evil that the socialism is. I'm glad that I don't live in a country controlled by Nazis, yes actual Banderite Nazis, brought in by a US backed coup...where young men & women are picked up off the street & sent to the front lines to die. All because the country is dissuaded from making a peace agreement by British & American politicians. Lets get real. This insanity needs to stop...or people will look for alternatives...which is happening as we speak. I hope we can focus on what is constructive again & be on the right side of history. The age of Colonialism is nearing its end.
- briantakita 3y agoSolopreneur programmers collaborating using open source software to create businesses would be more fair. Even if it no longer makes sense to "keep the band together", the programmers have a greater chance of having something tangible to use moving forward. Non-programmers don't have the option, which is where proprietary Intellectual Property comes in. Giving everyone a share of the IP, like a co-op, would be more fair. Perhaps this is unrealistic in most scenarios today, but it's at least worth pointing out. Perhaps the future of economic collaboration can have fairness in future progress/reward as a consideration.
- transitionnel 3y agoHaven't you seen how discussion lately has improved in quality? For whatever mixture of reasons, the world is finally waking up. We should start lobbing some good thoughts and respect on folks around us, and start to bring them around. The government is us, and needs us. The time is here.
- transitionnel 3y ago...but really though. Y'all are the smartest people I know, and with a little banter we could figure things out. A win for all parties. "Yes, Mom, I took my pills today" Lol
- black_13 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CamelCaseName 3y agoThis reminds me of Reed Hastings (Netflix Co-Founder) talking about how after he had done layoffs (I think 30%) he found that they actually moved faster because all the dead weight was gone and the talent density had gone up. This could also just be marketing spin however.
- nine_zeros 3y agoThis is actually true. Cutting people automatically causes a cut in scope of work. Teams become more picky and focused about the work they would do in the next few quarters. BUT - the cut has to be management. Management is overhead. They are the reason why red tape exists. Every manager in the company adds more reporting, more paperwork, and more bureaucracy for people doing the actual work. By cutting layers and layers, companies can become very efficient.
- MarkusWandel 3y agoThe floors are always clean, so we don't need janitors...
- helsinkiandrew 3y agoI’m not sure how satirical that article is meant to be but Paramount Global is doing dreadfully by just about every financial metric (apart from great Super Bowl ratings!). They’re even rumoured to be looking for a buyer for Paramount+
- skeledrew 3y agoThis actually makes sense, no /s. After all, the core reason for a business to hire is to access talent to fulfill various business requirements. And the better a given employee does, particularly one doing software development things, the less they should be needed over time. So with AI being increasingly available in limited forms, and at costs more business-friendly than hiring humans, it only makes sense that human talent is gradually deprecated. And this is why I'd like to get to the point where I'm running my own business eventually, because one will always be "expendable" as an employee/contractor. I actually look forward to a day when there's 100% automation of all value-giving labour. Raises some interesting questions about what society and economy will become, but that's another topic...
- timrobinson333 3y agoOn my feed this appeared almost next to "10 rules of Zen programming" - What a contrast. If you feel anger and frustration after reading this, I'd definitely suggest you find and read that other article.
- lorenzo4151 3y ago[flagged]
- alberto4151 3y ago[flagged]
- alberto4151 3y ago[flagged]
- sara44444444 3y ago[flagged]