16 ms·
Google gave investors a $70B buyback,and laid off 12,000 people
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agohttps://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/08/google-staffers-question-execs-over-decline-in-morale-after-earnings.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/08/google-staffers-question-exe...
- user90131313 2y agoThis is called capitalism and I really don't understand how people that tweet this think what economic reality is in the world and USA ? If only they could read and understand.
- LightBug1 2y agoIt's companies at the scale of governments - which is a distortion of capitalism.
- MuffinFlavored 2y agoIs it thought that "the creators of capitalism" didn't think through what would happen "late stage" and we are dealing with a "never before in history" mutation of that?
- voisin 2y agoCapitalism evolved. That’s like saying “did the first settler of Chicago not think through the future problem of crime?”
- spookie 2y agoYou could say the same for all economic ideologies. This is why you need checks and balances along the way. Some are more prone to human flaws than others, but the real issue is almost always how greed has found ways to circumvent the methods in place to not allow these mutations to occur. As always, take "pure" ideas with huge amounts of salt.
- voisin 2y agoThen vote for government that doesn’t allow companies to grow to government scale. Western antitrust regulations are not being enforced properly and it is to everyone’s detriment.
- LightBug1 2y agoSo you agree with the distortion. Thanks. I agree with what you said also, to a certain extent. But then we go down the path of: is there anyone with enforced antitrust on their manifesto? Considering the overwhelming lobby influence of 'government scale companies', will there ever be? I'll suggest: no.
- trust_bt_verify 2y agoI don’t think they stated that they agreed with the ‘distortion’ statement. They only stated that if you believe that is the case, the government would be the one who should regulate that distortion out of existence. I personally don’t believe this is a distortion of capitalism as much as it is just a later stage of capitalism’s inevitable self destruction.
- LightBug1 2y agoI know. I was just trying to find common ground. Forced, but in this day and age you almost have to ... On the latter point, perhaps you're right. The key is whether it's inevitable or not. I don't profess to know.
- metacritic12 2y agoThat Google is a monopoly that should be a broken up is a whataboutism. It's intrinsic in capitalism that firms often increase in value as they fire works. Your values determine whether that's a feature of a flaw though.
- mordae 2y agoNo, capitalism is distortion of free markets. Capitalism literally means preventing workers from keeping the profits, replacing then with a flat wages. Markets are an important force of progress, capitalism is feudalism all over again. There is no real negotiation going on between employer and employees. If you don't believe me, ask any HR person whether they allow custom contracts.
- translucyd 2y agoBecause people don’t understand what capitalism is, only what it was. The most ironical part is that the ones who predicted what is going on are the communists.
- mordae 2y agoAgreed. (Pun intended.) Capitalism seemed to work for a while only because it has been tempered with socialists fighting back hard and incentives being aligned for a while (build more high-tech, time-saving stuff like fridges). Now when the market has saturated with time-saving goods, capitalism needs to widen the divide between workers and owners more and more just to keep going.
- wernercd 2y agoCapitalism did work. Socialism has never worked. Capitalism still works. Socialism still doesn't work.
- chownie 2y agoOutside of the US does this actually convince anyone? Just repeating the hymn?
- wernercd 2y ago"outside of the US" its still true. Outside of the US, do people think that truth can be changed because you aren't in the US? Just deny literally 100+ years of history? The only way Socialism works is in The Utopia that's never existed. The real life examples of socialism are authoritarian nightmares. Thinking that outside of the US this isn't still true is an... interesting... attempt to deny history.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoCapitalism has raised billions of people out of poverty. Yes, the people who are no longer starving are happy to no longer be starving. Communism on the other hand usually leads to mass famine. Even nordic democratic socialism is falling apart. None of the systems are perfect, they are all hampered by power hungry leaders. Capitalism clearly seems to be the best option.
- voisin 2y agoGoogle isn’t a work program. It is set up to make money and return money to investors either via capital gains (buybacks) or income (dividends). The fact that they laid people off means they felt they could accomplish this mission better without those people. These facts are irrefutable and confusing them for your own desire for how the world should work is a waste of time. If you don’t like this setup, then don’t work for Google or other companies prone to mass layoffs. Start your own business. Work for government. There are plenty of ways to avoid layoff risk. But you won’t get paid Google salaries.
- MrSkelter 2y agoThey could sell the assets shutter the company as fire everyone for huge dividend. It’s more complicated than that.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Invictus0 2y agoBut the layoff letter wasn't empathetic enough!* *got 12 weeks severance at $7k/week
- throwup238 2y agoOr better yet, work for companies like Google and do the absolute bare minimum to get paid and promoted. Cold hard self interest works both ways. If Google’s trajectory is any indication, that’s what their workers are doing anyway.
- fnord77 2y ago> do the absolute bare minimum to get paid and promoted The minimum is actually a lot, because at companies like that individual performance is monitored closely and other people are going to be working very hard.
- gmassman 2y agoFrom what I understand though, it’s often possible to just “look” busy without actually being productive. Seems like cranking out design docs and scheduling meetings to make yourself and your work appear important can push one up the ladder a lot faster than making improvements to the codebase will. Optics matter most in organizations the size of Google.
- Jabbles 2y agoI don't get why anyone would be upset at the CEO earning $200M/year, when the founders are worth $100,000M each.
- throwaway5959 2y agoBecause Sundar is an awful leader. Or at least not the right leader for a company that needs to be innovative.
- Marsymars 2y agoI wouldn't say I'm upset, but as a (small) shareholder, it's generally in my best interest to compensate executives less. I can't do anything about founder equity.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- telepathy 2y agoInvestors are dumb enough to link employee count with company health, so they have to give them a huge bribe to calm them down
- cobbzilla 2y agoYes and they even use quantifiable things like revenue per engineer, it’s palliative right?
- nine_zeros 2y agoThe reason people are complaining is because the in current capitalism: - Shareholders are given a preference over labor - Executives continue to print shares for their own compensation. Like a food chain, the years/decades of value is being sucked off by shareholders and execs without adequately compensating the people who built it. No, the handful of shares given to engineers doesn't cut it when they were the one who toiled to make it happen. This system is not rewarding workers appropriately. That's the root cause. If employees continued to get residuals/printed stocks after losing their jobs, they'd feel more ok with such mass layoffs where value is sucked by some at the expense of others.
- refurb 2y agoCurrent capitalism? It’s always been this way. Shareholders (the owners of the company) are always given preference. They own the company. Yes, shares are printed for CEOs but also employees (quite generously at Google) so I’m not sure I’d go down that line of thinking.
- mordae 2y agoThere was no capitalism that did not favor owners. What you perceive as previous version was in fact the direct result of socialist unions threatening to burn down the factories unless better terms are negotiated.
- richrichie 2y ago> being sucked off by shareholders and execs without adequately compensating the people who built it Who built it?
- jacknews 2y agoCertainly not the (passive) shareholders.
- richrichie 2y agoWithout the passive DARPA funding in the beginning, Google would not exist.
- badwolf 2y agoWe really should restrict buybacks.
- flappyeagle 2y agoWhy
- discocrisco 2y agohttps://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.usdebtclock.org/
- uxp100 2y agoWe should moderately increase the capital gains tax so that buybacks are less advantaged for investors than dividends. Probably would not change the rate of companies doing buybacks, but why encourage it when so many people don’t seem to like it (doesn’t bother me, but I’m not wedded to buybacks either).
- HDThoreaun 2y agoThere is nothing wrong with buybacks.
- Newlaptop 2y agoThere is nothing evil about this at all. People on HN constantly talk about how useless a large chunk of the FAANG workforce is- unnecessary projects just so someone can get a promotion, initiatives that are reinventing the wheel, managers who overhire to increase their headcount without any meaningful work for their employees to do, projects which get cancelled without ever launching. And that's just on the product and engineering side, HR, finance, and marketing have their own set of "bs jobs" and dysfunctions. Laying off the people responsible for all that makes sense. Continuing the operate the profitable parts of the business, while shutting down the bad parts, is a good thing for a healthy company. Capital flowing to productive uses is a good thing for everyone in the long-term, even if it comes with the short-term hassle of some employees needing to find new jobs.
- anal_reactor 2y agoThat's completely true, but if a company refuses to admit any mistakes or wrongdoing, then we get used to having to dissect all of its actions looking for secret malice, or at least incompetence. Every single change in a sizeable company is called "a new direction" and it's always up to us to figure out what this actually means. That's why we're afraid of changes. I feel like our economy system misses a way to reward honest companies, and it resembles the Russian "we know they know we know they are lying, but we're still all excited about the new amazing opportunity".
- IshKebab 2y agoYeah and none of these people are going to struggle to find another job. I guess it sucks for the H1B people.
- bitcharmer 2y agoTbh I don't under why someone would think passing Google's interview process immediately makes someone a great hire. Care to explain?
- IshKebab 2y agoYou really don't understand that or you just don't like it? Because the reason is very simple and obvious...
- olix0r 2y agoDan Price is a grifter who posts things like this in bad faith. Don’t engage.
- jmclnx 2y agoI remember a very long time ago in college, the prof was talking about stock equity. I asked "Why can't the company buy back stock to increase value ?". He was shocked at the question and explained in detail why doing that is bad. It was something about doing that does not create real value. So now we are living in that environment with no care about the impact of buy backs.
- gruez 2y ago>I asked "Why can't the company buy back stock to increase value ?". He was shocked at the question and explained in detail why doing that is bad. It was something about doing that does not create real value. As opposed to paying dividends, which does create value? Buybacks and dividends are both ways of returning money to investors.
- finolex1 2y agoFrom my understanding, buybacks return money to investors, who are free to plow that cash into something else that "creates value". It's not like Google is the only place that knows how to use that money effectively.
- Aurornis 2y ago> I asked "Why can't the company buy back stock to increase value ?". He was shocked at the question and explained in detail why doing that is bad. It was something about doing that does not create real value. Either you misunderstood your professor or your professor was very misinformed. Stock buybacks and stock dividends are two ways for companies to return value to shareholders. They’re not actually as different as non-Econ people think. They both have the same effect of returning value to shareholders. > So now we are living in that environment with no care about the impact of buy backs. I’m old enough to remember people hand-wringing about stocks that did not have dividends or buybacks. The complaint was that they weren’t sharing profits with shareholders which was somehow evil. Ironic that people are now angry that companies are sharing profits with shareholders. I think the bottom line is that people like to get outraged over anything companies do.
- phmqk76 2y agoStock buybacks were always an illegal form of stock manipulation, until Reagan decided it was fine, and then it stopped getting prosecuted.
- SilverBirch 2y agoI think a big part of this is what happens before that. Google hires lots of people because they think those people will create more value and growth. The reason it's under pressure to fire them and return money to shareholders is because shareholders no longer think Google is good at creating growth with these investments. Arguably they're right, you could take a look at Google's Ads business and say "Hey! This is fantastic, fire anyone not working on this and just give me a great dividend", it would arguably be better for the shareholders. Now in reality, that swing from "Invest and grow" to "Just return cash" is driven far more by fickle market sentiment than a real solid basis in fact, but that's still the pressure they respond to.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- neilc 2y agoIt wasn't "good" when Google hired a ton of people during Covid, and it isn't "evil" when they have subsequently let some people go. The people who are being laid off are generally given very generous severance packages, and I think it would be hard to argue that Google treats its employees poorly in general. Google should employ a workforce that they think meets their needs as a business, and when that involves letting some people go, they should do their best to treat those people fairly, which AFAIK they generally do.
- aftbit 2y agoMaybe they will finally stop moving buttons around meaninglessly in Android. I can't believe someone looked at the Alarm UX and thought "Stop" vs "Snooze" was easier than "Dismiss" vs "Snooze". Or that they should swap the sides of share and flip buttons on the Camera.
- mateus1 2y agoThere is nothing wrong with layoffs. What is disappointing to me is that companies will do mass layoffs after posting immense profits. As a tech worker, the message I get is: you’re going to get fire eventually unconditional to you or your company’s performance. So I feel like my future is pretty much beyond my control.
- quantified 2y agoYup. It is not in your control. That's OK. You're not in control of the ocean or river, or the weather, or the ground under your desk. You are often in control of the vessel you navigate them with. Navigate your people, skills and situations.
- Draiken 2y agoCompanies are not oceans. Giving up and accepting abuse from these companies is definitely one way to deal with it, but I don't believe it's a good one.
- mateus1 2y agoThat does seem to be the prevalent thinking in corporate America. Busting unions and using the government to persecute labor leaders seems to have worked. “Companies are not charities” shouldn’t be an excuse to let them destroy the workforce.
- quantified 2y agoCompanies are companies. Oceans are oceans. Of course. It's a metaphor. Are you in control of your company's sales or corporate strategy? If so, are you in control of the markets they operate in? You are so not in control of your job. It just seems so based on some level of statis in the environment. What's your concrete advice here?
- Draiken 2y agoWe can't control the physics that controls oceans. But we can control regulations and laws in which corporations operate in. That's why IMO the metaphor is deeply flawed. As for advice, honestly, we all know it already. Voting, getting into unions, fighting for legislation, organizing your community/peers and even simpler acts like spreading knowledge that the status quot is not actually immutable. IMO anything other than accepting it without a fight is already a better option.
- thiscatis 2y agoNot to go full ad hominem but the author of this tweet is Dan Price, best to do some background research on him before trusting him to be calling out others for “don’t be evil”. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/technology/dan-price-resign-social-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/technology/dan-price-resi...
- mctt 2y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20240128234227/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/technology/dan-price-resign-social-media.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240128234227/https://www.nytim...
- flappyeagle 2y agoDan is a grifter of the highest degree. This is important context
- quantified 2y agoThere are few one-dimensional characters. It seems lots of people discount any worthwhile acts performed by people who also perform bad acts. Many of us are a little complex, quite a few of us highly so.
- PeterZaitsev 2y agoIt is interesting to see such statements popping up in the context as if something is horribly wrong with that. Google is not a charity or even some B-Corporation - it is commercial company which operates for benefits of their owners. It is also worth to note many of those "owners" are not individuals but something like pension funds, which often have troubles to fulfil their obligations and need to maximize their returns above all. Having said that, it is quite certain among those 12000 let go there have been some bad decisions, where Google would be much better off, over long term retaining those people and putting them to the good use.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ZuckMusk 2y agoI'm deeply angry after reading this post.
- syngrog66 2y agowow "You might be a psychopath/sociopath if..."
- zac23or 2y agoAdapting a quote from Brian Cantrill (https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m1s https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m1s): Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising a CEO. You need to think of a CEO the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about any CEO.