6 ms·

This really isn't that surprising. The FAANGs, including Apple, have committed serious anti-trust violations especially their hoarding of talent during the 0% i

This really isn't that surprising. The FAANGs, including Apple, have committed serious anti-trust violations especially their hoarding of talent during the 0% interest rate years to prevent them from starting competitors then freezing hiring and laying off en masse once the interest rates started rising. They really should have to pay damages in the 6 to 7 figure range to each developer who's been looking for work in the mid 2022 to present tech recession that they caused via their monopoly power.

shmatt 3y ago
I don't know if it can be called "En Masse" if they STILL have more employees today than during the 0% interest rate years
- agos 3y ago
  it's en masse because it's way more than the baseline firing rate
  - Rinzler89 3y ago
    Hiring in that period was also way more than the baseline hiring rate. Some companies doubled their headcount in the span of ~2 years.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      And the revenue? Did it more than double? If so, they got their money's worth. It's a business and people have been numbed to companies being dishonest, but it's still a betrayal to hire so much, have them generate more money for your company, then drop them when convinient for the company.
      - Rinzler89 3y ago
        >And the revenue? Did it more than double? If so, they got their money's worth. Did that revenue double because of the contributions of the extra headcount, or because of the temporary artificial economic situation of that period that doesn't apply anymore? From where I was standing, the revenue massively spiked during the pandemic way before the mass hirings even happened, let alone have those people become productive enough to have a positive impact on the bottom line. It was an open secret that a lot of newly hired people during that period were just keeping seats warm at home collecting nice compensations while playing videogames and doing next to no work (a lot of people were gloating about it on reddit and in my circles). Given that knowledge, was it any surprise for anyone that this was not a sustainable increase and a correction would follow at some point in the future? > but it's still a betrayal to hire so much, have them generate more money for your company, then drop them when convinient for the company. Agree, but most tech companies aren't there to provide social services, but to make a profit, as much of it as possible. If people want ethical employers that will never let them go, maybe they should give up on 400k+ TC big-tech jobs, and become school teachers, nurses or social workers instead for much less money. There are plenty of tech jobs out there that won't crash or won't let you go the moment the shit hits the fan, but they also won't pay anywhere big-tech TC. It's like gambling, big money also comes with big risks. Similarly to 2008, the ones with the biggest compensations tended to also be the first ones to be let go in the process of reducing operational costs. People aren't complaining about making bank, earning orders of magnitude above average pay during the good times, right? Then why do they expect sympathy when the charade that made them bank for a while comes crashing down?
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        >or because of the temporary artificial economic situation of that period that doesn't apply anymore? A mix of both. Clearly if they thought they could get double the money with the same amount of people they would not have gone on a hiring spree. If you want to take an inference: most companies post layoffs are still larger than 2019. So that implies that the inflation wasn't all temporary. >but most tech companies aren't there to provide social services, but to make a profit, Sure, companies will be as evil as regulation allows them too, nothing new. As I said, just becsuse people are numb to it doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out. >There are plenty of tech jobs out there that won't crash or won't let you go the moment the shit hits the fan, but they also won't pay anywhere big-tech TC. Oh it's okay. I work in games. I get the worst of both worlds, this isn't about chasing total comp for me. My #1 goal is growth and it just feels like it stagnated in the professional conrext. Spending as much time looking for a job these past 2 years as I am working jobs. I've just kind of accepted the plataeu and am doing some indie work. But I still need some stability, and it's not like "lower paying" (so, well paying but not close to 400k total comp) are biting any better in this market. So may as well apply yo what I know. >People aren't complaining about making bank, earning orders of magnitude above average pay during the good times, right? My sector is :) >why do they expect sympathy when the charade that made them bank for a while comes crashing down? Outside of the above reasons: becsuse it's not sustainable. Stability is a big factor in any job market and in All sectors it feels like an all time low. Loyalty/tenure is dead and that's going to cause a huge brain drain across all white collar work as the seniors who live in an age of proper retention take off. It's a ticking time bomb. I don't care about sympathy, we're on the internet. I do hope at least some people can look at the grander picture of it all, though. A storm is coming, not necessarily I the next 5 years, but maybe 10-15.
bertil 3y ago
I’m not sure employee compensation is part of the FTC remit.
- Finnucane 3y ago
  The FTC is mainly concerned with the company's external behavior. Internal business would probably fall under the purvue of the NLRB, maybe the SEC, and such.
lupusreal 3y ago
What does it mean to "hoard talent"? Pay high wages? I'm sure they've done plenty worth penalizing, but not that.
- vundercind 3y ago
  Eh, there’s kinda precedent in entertainment specifically, from the days of the studio system. Though made up of a bunch of “free choices” the situation was still kinda shit for both consumers of film and actors. So it may or may not be a good description of what’s happening, but it’s not a ridiculous notion.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >“I mean, we were just sitting there,” she said. “You had to fight to find work.” >“It kind of seemed that Meta was hiring people so that other companies couldn’t have us.” >“They were just kind of like hoarding us like Pokémon cards,” she said. “It was a very strange time to work there.” https://nypost.com/2023/04/07/workers-at-meta-salesforce-say-they-got-paid-to-do-nothing/ https://nypost.com/2023/04/07/workers-at-meta-salesforce-say... People who are dismissing this as "well they got paid well" aren't seeing the bigger picture. Artists in the 40's-70's or so were paid decent wages. Then when the company breaks critical mass, they can squeeze out the talent and replace them with starry eyed newbies who'd work for free if they could. 40 years later, we have VFX sudios work on award winning billion dollar moneymakers and still end up shutting down because the studio can't get a good bid going (oh yeah, they are bidding their talent for work now. Another issue). People need to heed the lessons from other industries. These strategies aren't new.
bko 3y ago
What is "hoarding of talent"? These are human beings and they have a right to work where they want. Let's be clear, apple "hoards" talent by offering them competitive pay and benefits. If others want to compete they should offer something as compelling. It doesn't have to be money, I personally left for less money multiple times. It could be working on an interesting problem or with smart people.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-... > Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe will shell out $415 million to put to rest an antipoaching civil lawsuit that accused the companies of conspiring not to hire each other's employees. > Filed by former employees of the companies involved, the lawsuit shed a light on the practice of some major tech industry players of allegedly working together to agree not to poach employees from each other. The affected employees had argued that such agreements limited their ability to rise up in the industry and stifled their attempts to earn higher salaries. Email exchanges among such top executives as late Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs and former Google CEO and now executive chairman of Alphabet Eric Schmidt revealed how requests were made not to hire certain employees away from each other.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Which is pretty much the opposite of what the complaint upthread is making. The lawsuit you reference was basically about not "hoarding talent" by paying more money.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      The post upthread didn't assert they hoarded talent by paying more. They hoarded talent by conspiring to make it harder to leave, which had the bonus of not having to pay them as much.
      - ghaff 3y ago

shmatt 3y ago

I don't know if it can be called "En Masse" if they STILL have more employees today than during the 0% interest rate years

agos 3y ago
it's en masse because it's way more than the baseline firing rate
- Rinzler89 3y ago
  Hiring in that period was also way more than the baseline hiring rate. Some companies doubled their headcount in the span of ~2 years.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    And the revenue? Did it more than double? If so, they got their money's worth. It's a business and people have been numbed to companies being dishonest, but it's still a betrayal to hire so much, have them generate more money for your company, then drop them when convinient for the company.
    - Rinzler89 3y ago
      >And the revenue? Did it more than double? If so, they got their money's worth. Did that revenue double because of the contributions of the extra headcount, or because of the temporary artificial economic situation of that period that doesn't apply anymore? From where I was standing, the revenue massively spiked during the pandemic way before the mass hirings even happened, let alone have those people become productive enough to have a positive impact on the bottom line. It was an open secret that a lot of newly hired people during that period were just keeping seats warm at home collecting nice compensations while playing videogames and doing next to no work (a lot of people were gloating about it on reddit and in my circles). Given that knowledge, was it any surprise for anyone that this was not a sustainable increase and a correction would follow at some point in the future? > but it's still a betrayal to hire so much, have them generate more money for your company, then drop them when convinient for the company. Agree, but most tech companies aren't there to provide social services, but to make a profit, as much of it as possible. If people want ethical employers that will never let them go, maybe they should give up on 400k+ TC big-tech jobs, and become school teachers, nurses or social workers instead for much less money. There are plenty of tech jobs out there that won't crash or won't let you go the moment the shit hits the fan, but they also won't pay anywhere big-tech TC. It's like gambling, big money also comes with big risks. Similarly to 2008, the ones with the biggest compensations tended to also be the first ones to be let go in the process of reducing operational costs. People aren't complaining about making bank, earning orders of magnitude above average pay during the good times, right? Then why do they expect sympathy when the charade that made them bank for a while comes crashing down?
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        >or because of the temporary artificial economic situation of that period that doesn't apply anymore? A mix of both. Clearly if they thought they could get double the money with the same amount of people they would not have gone on a hiring spree. If you want to take an inference: most companies post layoffs are still larger than 2019. So that implies that the inflation wasn't all temporary. >but most tech companies aren't there to provide social services, but to make a profit, Sure, companies will be as evil as regulation allows them too, nothing new. As I said, just becsuse people are numb to it doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out. >There are plenty of tech jobs out there that won't crash or won't let you go the moment the shit hits the fan, but they also won't pay anywhere big-tech TC. Oh it's okay. I work in games. I get the worst of both worlds, this isn't about chasing total comp for me. My #1 goal is growth and it just feels like it stagnated in the professional conrext. Spending as much time looking for a job these past 2 years as I am working jobs. I've just kind of accepted the plataeu and am doing some indie work. But I still need some stability, and it's not like "lower paying" (so, well paying but not close to 400k total comp) are biting any better in this market. So may as well apply yo what I know. >People aren't complaining about making bank, earning orders of magnitude above average pay during the good times, right? My sector is :) >why do they expect sympathy when the charade that made them bank for a while comes crashing down? Outside of the above reasons: becsuse it's not sustainable. Stability is a big factor in any job market and in All sectors it feels like an all time low. Loyalty/tenure is dead and that's going to cause a huge brain drain across all white collar work as the seniors who live in an age of proper retention take off. It's a ticking time bomb. I don't care about sympathy, we're on the internet. I do hope at least some people can look at the grander picture of it all, though. A storm is coming, not necessarily I the next 5 years, but maybe 10-15.

bertil 3y ago

I’m not sure employee compensation is part of the FTC remit.

Finnucane 3y ago
The FTC is mainly concerned with the company's external behavior. Internal business would probably fall under the purvue of the NLRB, maybe the SEC, and such.

lupusreal 3y ago

What does it mean to "hoard talent"? Pay high wages? I'm sure they've done plenty worth penalizing, but not that.

vundercind 3y ago
Eh, there’s kinda precedent in entertainment specifically, from the days of the studio system. Though made up of a bunch of “free choices” the situation was still kinda shit for both consumers of film and actors. So it may or may not be a good description of what’s happening, but it’s not a ridiculous notion.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>“I mean, we were just sitting there,” she said. “You had to fight to find work.” >“It kind of seemed that Meta was hiring people so that other companies couldn’t have us.” >“They were just kind of like hoarding us like Pokémon cards,” she said. “It was a very strange time to work there.” https://nypost.com/2023/04/07/workers-at-meta-salesforce-say-they-got-paid-to-do-nothing/ https://nypost.com/2023/04/07/workers-at-meta-salesforce-say... People who are dismissing this as "well they got paid well" aren't seeing the bigger picture. Artists in the 40's-70's or so were paid decent wages. Then when the company breaks critical mass, they can squeeze out the talent and replace them with starry eyed newbies who'd work for free if they could. 40 years later, we have VFX sudios work on award winning billion dollar moneymakers and still end up shutting down because the studio can't get a good bid going (oh yeah, they are bidding their talent for work now. Another issue). People need to heed the lessons from other industries. These strategies aren't new.

bko 3y ago

What is "hoarding of talent"? These are human beings and they have a right to work where they want. Let's be clear, apple "hoards" talent by offering them competitive pay and benefits. If others want to compete they should offer something as compelling. It doesn't have to be money, I personally left for less money multiple times. It could be working on an interesting problem or with smart people.

ceejayoz 3y ago
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-... > Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe will shell out $415 million to put to rest an antipoaching civil lawsuit that accused the companies of conspiring not to hire each other's employees. > Filed by former employees of the companies involved, the lawsuit shed a light on the practice of some major tech industry players of allegedly working together to agree not to poach employees from each other. The affected employees had argued that such agreements limited their ability to rise up in the industry and stifled their attempts to earn higher salaries. Email exchanges among such top executives as late Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs and former Google CEO and now executive chairman of Alphabet Eric Schmidt revealed how requests were made not to hire certain employees away from each other.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Which is pretty much the opposite of what the complaint upthread is making. The lawsuit you reference was basically about not "hoarding talent" by paying more money.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    The post upthread didn't assert they hoarded talent by paying more. They hoarded talent by conspiring to make it harder to leave, which had the bonus of not having to pay them as much.
    - ghaff 3y ago