5 ms·

Advice for future Musk employees: Do a somewhat shitty job, otherwise you'll get fired as soon as you build a stable product.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
same could be said for home builders and heart surgeons. Do a shitty job or you wont be needed anymore.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  Home-building companies and hospitals do need home builders and heart surgeons. Are they all doing shitty jobs?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    And Tesla still has employees, but fewer than before. I was trying to highlight the idea that most workers dont have to rely on having a shitty work product to ensure their job security. This itself is a reaction to the idea that a job offer is a life long commitment akin to marriage. In a healthy labor market, employers would want to retain talent because it is profitable to do so. I don't employers retaining unproductive employees is a desirable state.
    - mandeepj 2y ago
      > And Tesla still has employees, but fewer than before They know they can hire more; Anytime they'd post an ad, there'd be millions of applicants. So, the input funnel is not their problem. https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/much-more-difficult-to-get-into-spacex-tesla-than-harvard-says-elon-musk-381650-2023-05-17 https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/much-more...
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Indeed. This means that they can employ more people when it is productive to do so, and let them go when they dont need or want them. I think this is a good thing in general. I dont think we should structure our expectations or the labor market around the idea that companies should retain unprofitable workers.
        matthewdgreen 2y ago
        Developing a bad reputation is like sunburn. It doesn't turn into cancer instantly, but it slowly accumulates damage over time. Right now a top worker (particularly in a critical field like AI) has a lot of choices, and the company that gets a reputation for randomly firing entire teams is going to be a harder sell.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Perhaps, but that is a strategy decision for the company, and potential employee.
        mandeepj 2y ago
        Checkout Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Those who need a job urgently especially now a days wouldn't look into "reputation". They may not even leave later as long as their needs are met. https://canadacollege.edu/dreamers/docs/Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs.pdf https://canadacollege.edu/dreamers/docs/Maslows-Hierarchy-of...
        greedo 2y ago
        Pretty sure that a good techie (not even someone in AI) has most of their basic needs taken care of. Working for a psychopath who can't control his impulses does a killer number on the other levels of Maslow's needs...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      >I was trying to highlight the idea that most workers dont have to rely on having a shitty work product to ensure their job security. I think, then, that we're saying the same thing? That, yes, most workers, like heart surgeons, or engineers at a good tech company, don't have to do a shitty job to ensure job security, whereas Musk's employees do, because that means Musk will retain them while firing many workers who do a good job. I don't think either Musk retaining unproductive employees or firing productive employees are desirable, but that seems to be what he's doing, hence the advice spawning this thread.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I guess I just dont understand where that assumption comes from. How is this or any tech layoff different? Builders and surgeons do suffer layoffs when they dont bring in more revenue than they cost. There are tons of industries where jobs, projects, and labor demands are cyclic that dont resort to cynical employee sabotage. I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI. In my opinion at least, jobs aren't guaranteed lifelong appointments. They are open ended contracts that either party can terminate any time. Termination from either side isn't a moral transgression in general, but I understand there can be some issues on the margin. Im genuinely perplexed by others reactions and I think my post was an attempt to get at why so many people see it different
        ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        > I guess I just dont understand where that assumption comes from. It comes from multiple people in this post, so it might be worth just asking them, if you want to find out. I'm sure the posters are willing to answer a good faith question. >I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI. I have not seen this, but there are assumptions that the employees fired were somehow unprofitable. Perhaps at another company, this might be a safer assumption. In this case, it's more likely the action was irrational, impulsive, and drug- and/or ego-fueled. We'd need some evidence that they were fired because they were worth less than they cost, to make that assumption.
    - greedo 2y ago
      Employees are rarely a JIT component of a strong, healthy business. Good businesses have a little fat so that they can expand or react to changing market conditions. Make the teams too lean and then you're at constant risk of losing a key member and watching all that institutional knowledge walk out the door. And that's if you treat employees well. Treat them like expendable cogs in the machine and your churn will be higher than industry average and you'll end up being less efficient. Think of why the body has tons of leukocytes roaming around, just looking for viruses to whack. If your body had to wait for an infection before creating leukocytes, you'd die pretty quickly.
ein0p 2y ago
To be fair that’s good advice for most people in large corporations. I’ve even seen people deliberately spin up crises out of nothing to then heroically solve them and get an easy promo.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

same could be said for home builders and heart surgeons. Do a shitty job or you wont be needed anymore.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
Home-building companies and hospitals do need home builders and heart surgeons. Are they all doing shitty jobs?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  And Tesla still has employees, but fewer than before. I was trying to highlight the idea that most workers dont have to rely on having a shitty work product to ensure their job security. This itself is a reaction to the idea that a job offer is a life long commitment akin to marriage. In a healthy labor market, employers would want to retain talent because it is profitable to do so. I don't employers retaining unproductive employees is a desirable state.
  - mandeepj 2y ago
    > And Tesla still has employees, but fewer than before They know they can hire more; Anytime they'd post an ad, there'd be millions of applicants. So, the input funnel is not their problem. https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/much-more-difficult-to-get-into-spacex-tesla-than-harvard-says-elon-musk-381650-2023-05-17 https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/much-more...
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Indeed. This means that they can employ more people when it is productive to do so, and let them go when they dont need or want them. I think this is a good thing in general. I dont think we should structure our expectations or the labor market around the idea that companies should retain unprofitable workers.
      - matthewdgreen 2y ago
        Developing a bad reputation is like sunburn. It doesn't turn into cancer instantly, but it slowly accumulates damage over time. Right now a top worker (particularly in a critical field like AI) has a lot of choices, and the company that gets a reputation for randomly firing entire teams is going to be a harder sell.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Perhaps, but that is a strategy decision for the company, and potential employee.
        mandeepj 2y ago
        Checkout Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Those who need a job urgently especially now a days wouldn't look into "reputation". They may not even leave later as long as their needs are met. https://canadacollege.edu/dreamers/docs/Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs.pdf https://canadacollege.edu/dreamers/docs/Maslows-Hierarchy-of...
        greedo 2y ago
        Pretty sure that a good techie (not even someone in AI) has most of their basic needs taken care of. Working for a psychopath who can't control his impulses does a killer number on the other levels of Maslow's needs...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    >I was trying to highlight the idea that most workers dont have to rely on having a shitty work product to ensure their job security. I think, then, that we're saying the same thing? That, yes, most workers, like heart surgeons, or engineers at a good tech company, don't have to do a shitty job to ensure job security, whereas Musk's employees do, because that means Musk will retain them while firing many workers who do a good job. I don't think either Musk retaining unproductive employees or firing productive employees are desirable, but that seems to be what he's doing, hence the advice spawning this thread.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I guess I just dont understand where that assumption comes from. How is this or any tech layoff different? Builders and surgeons do suffer layoffs when they dont bring in more revenue than they cost. There are tons of industries where jobs, projects, and labor demands are cyclic that dont resort to cynical employee sabotage. I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI. In my opinion at least, jobs aren't guaranteed lifelong appointments. They are open ended contracts that either party can terminate any time. Termination from either side isn't a moral transgression in general, but I understand there can be some issues on the margin. Im genuinely perplexed by others reactions and I think my post was an attempt to get at why so many people see it different
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        > I guess I just dont understand where that assumption comes from. It comes from multiple people in this post, so it might be worth just asking them, if you want to find out. I'm sure the posters are willing to answer a good faith question. >I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI. I have not seen this, but there are assumptions that the employees fired were somehow unprofitable. Perhaps at another company, this might be a safer assumption. In this case, it's more likely the action was irrational, impulsive, and drug- and/or ego-fueled. We'd need some evidence that they were fired because they were worth less than they cost, to make that assumption.
  - greedo 2y ago
    Employees are rarely a JIT component of a strong, healthy business. Good businesses have a little fat so that they can expand or react to changing market conditions. Make the teams too lean and then you're at constant risk of losing a key member and watching all that institutional knowledge walk out the door. And that's if you treat employees well. Treat them like expendable cogs in the machine and your churn will be higher than industry average and you'll end up being less efficient. Think of why the body has tons of leukocytes roaming around, just looking for viruses to whack. If your body had to wait for an infection before creating leukocytes, you'd die pretty quickly.

ein0p 2y ago

To be fair that’s good advice for most people in large corporations. I’ve even seen people deliberately spin up crises out of nothing to then heroically solve them and get an easy promo.