Real talk here, and I'm sorry for being "that guy"
Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping? I know multiple people who have worked their entire career thus far without ever staying at a place for more than 3 or 4 years. Some no more than two. Tech job culture is practically a mono culture with "hop jobs" being a hallmark.
From an employers perspective it's not laying off a bunch of family members (Southwest has an average tenure of 11.5 years), it's laying off a bunch of people who were gonna dip in 6 months to a year anyway.
I know this is controversial take, but recognize that the tech industry is an outlier industry, with outlier amounts of money and outlier amounts of volatility.
I cannot speak for layoffs in all industries ever, but I agree with your assessment of layoffs in big tech from personal experiences.
I have way too many “lifer” friends in big tech who are deadly scared of layoffs and job hopping. They are also the ones who rarely got promoted and havent had a significant pay bump pretty much ever.
On another hand, half my team at a big tech company got laid off back at the start of 2023. 4 months later, I caught up with them over drinks, and the results were rather interesting. They all got around 4-6mo worth of severance pay, spent 2-3 months just skiing/traveling/hiking/vacationing, then 1 month or so interviewing, and then starting their new jobs shortly after. All seemed rather happy, both with their new positions/pay (which had a significant paybump) and, essentially, paid vacation break they took right before.
It seems like the heavity majority of those stressed about layoffs in big tech are lifers and those who are chronically averse to and dread the interview process.
Yeah, I make the same adjusted for inflation that I did when I got my last/only promotion 10 years ago. I have grey hair, a disability, and a family that relies on the health insurance. Switching or being laid off is a risky proposition for me. It sounds like all your examples are young, childless people (who else could take a month off to go vacationing?). Life is much harder for some of us.
Yeah, the prospect of layoffs hits a little different when you're in your 50s. I have some non-techie friends in their 50s (sales, project management) who have been looking for a job for years. I've even heard third-hand about some good programmers in their 50s in LA in the same boat, although I don't know them personally.
The last time I was looking for a job at age 48, I interviewed at a bunch of startups and only got a second interview from one. It was clear that most of them were never going with someone my age unless I'd written a book or had patents or something (or was ex-FAANG), even if they didn't consciously realize that.
I reached a point--somewhat older than that--when I didn't have a real job any longer, but nobody seemed in a big hurry to get rid of me, and they were paying me pretty well. I made it through a small layoff though I wouldn't have minded the good severance. I might have hung around in different circumstances but figured I should optimize the payout up to a point and wasn't really interested in heading somewhere new.
Yep. The subliminal message I'm getting from my current managers is that I should just be a good little disabled person and work as a Walmart greeter. It's turning into harassment at this point. Just all sorts of BS. Like telling me they are doing so much for me, when my ADA accommodation is weekly 1-on-1s with the manager and my tech lead. Is that really a lot? There are people without disabilities getting weekly 1-on-1s with their managers. Maybe the weekly tech lead meeting is more than others get, but it doesn't seem that hard. I got told my productivity looked bad. I asked if he ran the numbers - he didn't. He didn't even look at my productivity before telling me it looked bad. I ran the numbers and I was in line with my peers. I would think that's the definition of bias... nobody gives a fuck. I didn't get my accommodation for 6 months last year and then they gave me a bad rating based on opinon and not metrics. They said me not getting the accommodations wasn't a factor in my performance (how?).
At my current job, in the manager training we were told "you should have weekly 1:1 with your direct reports" and i thought "who the fuck needs to be told that?". This is an illuminating comment, seems absurd to me
It's supposed to be bi-weekly here. But according to HR "that's not policy, just recommended". I had about 5-6 months were I only got 2 1-on-1s, and the feedback then was good. They completely dropped the ball and blamed it on the disabled guy.
Such a subliminal message might be "constructive dismissal" and against disability legislation. With a good lawyer you might get a decent result if they ever did fire you? On the plus side, the fact they haven't fired you means either (a) they do actually value you performance even if they're claiming otherwise (perhaps to avoid paying more) or (b) they'd quite like to fire you but fear being sued big time if they did, so holding back. Either way, it'd seem you've got some power over them if you play your cards right. So, maybe try not to stress? ;) Yeah OK that's easier said than done....
Off and on they've been threatening me with a PIP for the past year, but haven't actually triggered one. I did talk to a lawyer. They said there's not much I can do until they terminate me, or risk losing the job. They could help me respond to a PIP when they PIP me. But even if the company terminates me, the lawyer said they are inclined to negotiate higher severance than going to court because it's tricky to prove that any bias or singled out treatment was because of the disability and not something else. Although I do have notes of my manager saying requesting accommodations might have hurt me and that my department head is targeting me for some reason.
Ah well I wish you all the best with it. Sounds like a form of bullying to me :( Might not hurt to set your phone to record mode during some of those meetings. ;) I know what you're saying about making a legal case. Legal stuff is always a pain, not somewhere you wanna go if you can help it. Its bluffing right? They need to think you might consider sue-ing and could win, even if you know you wouldn't. Personally, if I was in your position, I'd be looking at what skills were in demand locally, and ruthlessly up-skilling in that stuff, during work time, ideally by working on stuff they need anyway. But, again, easier said than done...
> your recent years of peak lifetime earning potential overlapped with an industry massively overpaying its workforce
Only if the following conditions are true:
1. You spent your entire career in the US, ideally on the West Coast
2. You entered the industry early, ideally right after (or in!) university
3. You did not spend significant time in low-paying segments of the industry, such as in academia, hardware, games, idealistic open source, or the public sector
4. You did not need a significant career break, such as for major medical issues, being a SAHP, or caring for sick family members
Even if all of the above applied, certain wealth-destroying events such as an expensive illness, legal trouble, or bad divorce, might have made FIRE infeasible.
As I understand it, tech employees are typically paid a small fraction of the revenue that they bring into the company.
Outside of tech, employees are underpaid, and wages haven't tracked productivity growth since the 1970s. Profit growth has greatly exceeded wage growth since the early 2000s, with the exception of the 2008 recession.
Minimum wage, fairly, should have been around $32 in 2019 or so. I haven't run numbers lately because it's depressing, but I bet it's worse now.
You can't go off mcdonalds sandwiches, and you can't use the economic indicators that ignore food and fuel.
I've heard wild numbers from "the dollar is worth 50¢ compared to 20 years ago" to "the dollar has lost 98% of its value in the last N years."
I'm not an economist, but I do know my electric bill has been thr exact same dollar amount for 12 years, and I've halved my usage twice in those years. That puts the dollar purchasing power for power at 25% of 2013.
Gasoline changes prices so much I can't really say, it's about twice as expensive for 87 here as 12 years ago, but 93 is 2.5+ times higher.
Food? Don't get me started.
I live in the rural south. I don't really care about price fixing in Los Angeles or silicon Valley.
There is no such thing as what minimum wage should be "fairly". What is the minimum amount you should be able to pay someone an hour? Surely it is the amount where if you didn't, someone else would pay them more.
There are many people who do jobs worth much less than $32/hour. That min wage would just make them illegal to employ.
>You can't go off mcdonalds sandwiches, and you can't use the economic indicators that ignore food and fuel.
You can't use economic indicators that track volatile commodities either. We use baskets of consumer goods and the inflation tracking is very accurate in short time frames but it becomes harder to compare the further out you get. A TV today is much better than a TV even 10 years ago but it is hardly even the same product as one from 1970.
>I've heard wild numbers from "the dollar is worth 50¢ compared to 20 years ago" to "the dollar has lost 98% of its value in the last N years."
What is wild about that? If you had 50c then and you had invested it in even relatively poorly performing investments it would be worth much more than $1 now.
>I'm not an economist, but I do know my electric bill has been thr exact same dollar amount for 12 years, and I've halved my usage twice in those years. That puts the dollar purchasing power for power at 25% of 2013.
That you are not an economist is obvious.
You are aware that dollars buy more things than energy from your energy provider according to your energy plan, yeah?
> There is no such thing as what minimum wage should be "fairly".
Sure there is. It's the amount you have to pay someone such that they can work a reasonable amount of hours (40/week), such that they can afford all of life's essentials while having a little extra to save for a rainy day, as well as have a little fun.
But certainly some people's poilitics ignore the human aspects of the world we live in, and think that the "free market" (something that doesn't actually exist) will sort it out.
What are life's essentials? Do you have the right to a car? To one bedroom per child or should they share? Do you have the right to central heating so you can wear a tshirt indoors or should you be expected to wear a jersey in winter?
The minimum wage doesn't make anyone be paid more. It only causes anyone paid less than it to instead be paid $0, and instead be paid an unemployment benefit. How is that reasonable?
A higher minimum wage puts upward pressure on wages at the lower end of the scale, which helps the working class so that they aren't working and on medicare, section 8, food stamps etc. - as many Wal-mart workers currently are. That saves us money in the long run.
When Seattle raised the minimum wage to $15/hour, everyone screamed it would lead to mass unemployment. That never happen. Suddenly the lower class had more money to spend, which boosted the economy as much or more than higher wages hurt bottom lines.
Higher minimum wage doesn't put upward pressure on other low wages, and even if it did, pushing up the wages of people making $30/hr by taking away jobs from people making $20/hr to put them on benefits earning $15/hr is obscene.
>which helps the working class so that they aren't working and on medicare, section 8, food stamps etc. - as many Wal-mart workers currently are. That saves us money in the long run.
A higher minimum wage leads to lower employment not higher employment.
>When Seattle raised the minimum wage to $15/hour, everyone screamed it would lead to mass unemployment. That never happen.
It has been shown many times that a higher minimum wage causes less employment. It is also obvious from first principles and basic logic. Price controls are a very bad idea, and wages are no exception.
> A livable wage in the geographic jurisdiction they are in.
This is called the Iron Law of Wages. As its name implies, it's neither prescriptive nor pleasant - but it is guaranteed to be liveable.
> Including stuff like transportation, healthcare, food, heat, housing, and insurance.
The thing that trips people up is that the word "liveable" is a synonym for "subsistence," not "fullfilling." A wage that's only liveable would feel quite exploitative to most people.
The intention of "minimum wage" in the US is not merely subsistence level. FDR said, "by living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." [0]
The "iron law of wages" is instead an economic principle that wages tend to trend downwards until people are paid the minimum possible for subsistence. It's not meant to be a goal.
There are ten million stated reasons for the minimum wage! Pretty much the only one that economists can agree on is that it's helpful to prevent abuses of monopsony power in small towns.
Regardless of what FDR said, a living wage is guaranteed because people will not accept anything lower.
The problem with a "decent" living is that reasonable people can disagree about what that looks like. Roommates? Children? An unemployed spouse? Vacations and retirement?
It's not the government's job to guarantee all of that stuff and I would rather we focus on stopping wage and tip theft and protecting the rights of workers (banning noncompetes, decoupling health insurance, etc.) instead of increasing the minimum wage towards some poorly-defined goal.
There's also the other side of the minimum wage debate, which is that most of the specific numbers people list as "liveable" do actually result in some folks losing their jobs and becoming unemployable. There was even a recent BERKELEY study that showed this!
>>There is no such thing as what minimum wage should be "fairly"
Nonsense.
There most definitely IS a definition of a fair minimum wage -- it is the definition used when it was originally introduced into law:
The wage necessary for a full-time (40hr/week) worker head-of-household to support a family of four above the poverty line -- spouse & kids in a house/apartment, food, medical, education, etc..
We have Walmart workers collecting $6 Billion in benefits per year to stay above the poverty line while the Waltons sit on a $250Billion fortune, it is clear we are subsidizing the rich by failing to set an above-poverty minimum wage.
Despite agreeing with the rest, should the kid who graduated high school 2 months ago (1) earn as a grocery cashier to support a family of four, including medical and education, (2) should they not work / not be employable, or (3) is there room for a minimum lower than this definition?
I would say yes, it is reasonable to have an exception for lower wages for teenage part-time entry-level workers, and maybe some partially-disabled workers.
Of course there would need to be provisions that it not be abused and just used for all positions. E.g., it cannot be used for workers 21 years old or older, etc. And the rules against abuse need to be solid, as we can guarantee that whatever rules are made, employers will work hard to abuse and game the system to their advantage and at the employee's cost.
"Doctor, I need you to declare me disabled or else I'll lose my job when I turn 21. I need this job, and I don't know if I can find another one at the 21yo minimum wage."
I really want to like what you're saying, but I see too many problems. I don't have answers.
>The wage necessary for a full-time (40hr/week) worker head-of-household to support a family of four above the poverty line -- spouse & kids in a house/apartment, food, medical, education, etc..
Food of what quality? That available in the 1930s?
Medical of what quality? 1930s medical care?
Education to primary level as most had in the 1930s or more than that?
You don't have a natural right to receive the fruits of the labour of others.
>We have Walmart workers collecting $6 Billion in benefits per year to stay above the poverty line while the Waltons sit on a $250Billion fortune, it is clear we are subsidizing the rich by failing to set an above-poverty minimum wage.
Then stop giving benefits to people that have jobs.
There are standards for virtually everything. Meet the current basic standards. For food, a basket of FDA/USDA-approved for distribution food to make a basic but nutritious diet for the family of 4. For housing, you could go with minimums for HUD housing. For education, through public high school. These are not hard to figure out (but may be a bit tedious). These are also minimums required to maintain a functional workforce in a modern society.
>>You don't have a natural right to receive the fruits of the labour of others.
>>Then stop giving benefits to people that have jobs.
Right. So what you want is a Dickensian crabs-in-a-bucket labor market where the wage level is set by the most desperate person, who will work for hours to get a crust of bread for his/her next meal. A market where employers can abuse workers at will because there really are 500 others outside the gate who will take his job if he isn't willing to take the beating?
We are no longer living in a frontier society where 97%+ of the workers are producing food.
That insanely over-simplistic model has been tried, and it is a resounding failure, both for every society, every country, and every individual living in it. Those societies inevitably collapse or grow out of it with minimum standards for everyone. And while it is obviously awful for the workers, it is no day at the beach for the oligarchs either, who must live in secured closed-off areas, always frightened of everyone in the public as well as their rivals in power. Unproductive misery for everyone is what you want?
So, NO, the solution is not to just make the people at the bottom more poor, more hungry, and more desperate.
The solution is to stop giving benefits by ensuring that their employer pays the workers sufficiently that they do NOT NEED benefits to survive.
If an employer cannot pay their workers a living wage they do NOT have a business model.
They have an exploitation model.
The exploitation model specifically violates your above principle saying that the employers have a natural right to the fruits of the workers' labor to whatever degree they can exploit the worker by their desperation.
You aren't saying the no one has a right to the fruits of anyone else's labor, you are only saying that no other worker has such a right, but the employers do.
You are saying that if someone has power or deception, whatever they can take is their right.
I say, NO, that is the most dishonorable and amoral of societies.
The labour theory of value that you allude to here makes no sense. People are paid at the market price based on supply and demand, just like other goods and services.
Tech employees don't "bring in" the company's revenue. That makes the mistake of attributing the products and services of a business to its workers.
>wages haven't tracked productivity growth since the 1970s.
Propaganda. Productivity growth literally is just wage growth, by definition. It is impossible for them not to track each other.
>Productivity growth literally is just wage growth, by definition. It is impossible for them not to track each other.
I don't understand what you mean by this. If i own a business, and employee productivity increases but i don't increase wages doesn't that disprove your statement?
The graph on this page disagrees, can you explain please? I haven't heard anyone say the two concepts are the same before.
As I have heard it "productivity" is roughly gdp/hour, which can be different from wages/hour (but you generally expect the two to be related / correlated).
>>Productivity growth is literally just wage growth, by definition.
No, it is the opposite, whether you are measuring Units Per Worker Hour or especially Units Per Worker Dollar.
You have a dozen $25/hr workers in a factory producing 50 widgets/hour, and you now introduce new tools, techniques, and/or materials and they now produce 80 widgets per hour, productivity per hour and per dollar has risen, but worker pay is exactly the same.
If you instead cut their pay to $22/hr their productivity in Units/WorkerHour is unchanged but productivity in Units/Labor$ has risen.
It is ONLY in the limited case where you are paying 100% by piecework that productivity tracks wages, e.g., if those workers are paid $6/Widget produced and they manage to make 50%more widgets/hr, then their pay rises with productivity. But that is uncommon and labor cost is rarely the only input.
>No, it is the opposite, whether you are measuring Units Per Worker Hour or especially Units Per Worker Dollar.
That is precisely how it is measured: by measuring wages.
>You have a dozen $25/hr workers in a factory producing 50 widgets/hour, and you now introduce new tools, techniques, and/or materials and they now produce 80 widgets per hour, productivity per hour and per dollar has risen, but worker pay is exactly the same.
As is unlikely to surprise you, productivity as a macroeconomic indicator is not measured by lookikg at factories and the tools and techniques they use.
96% of the gap can be explained by the fact that these figures compare productivity growth of the whole economy with wage growth of some workers (the lowest 80% of them - leaving out... the most productive workers), count the productivity growth of the self employed but not their wages, dont take into account overtime, bonuses, or health insurance benefits, and intentionally use different means of measuring inflation across the two figures in an attempt to inflate the numbers.
At the end of the day they track very closely because they are both measures of wages. Productivity is just net output by hour worked and wages is just net output by hour worked. If you use different methods for calculating each you can make either look higher but it is pure methodology.
> Tech employees don't "bring in" the company's revenue.
Sure they do. Every employee contributes to the revenue a company brings in. If they don't, then they should be fired.
> Productivity growth literally is just wage growth, by definition.
Completely false. You accuse a commenter in a sibling thread of not having a good grasp of economics, but that feels like the pot calling the kettle black, here.
You don't "bring revenue in". You are paid for providing a service to your employer. Your employer brings revenue in by providing quite different goods and services to its customers.
By your logic, "cost centres" (like IT, HR, and office management) within a business are bad because they don't bring in any revenue. Except of course in reality they are the same: they provide a service to the business that the business makes use of in providing goods and services to its customers.
I am being pedantic but for good reason: there is no a priori reason why your pay should go up just because your employer has become more profitable, except that it is in the interests of employers to make use of resources efficiently. If they are profitable then hiring more people so they can make more money is good. But it isn't a matter of "deserving" to be paid more or something. Pay isn't based on what you deserve for many reasons, including that you can't attribute the business's profits to its workers and ignore, for example, the investment in capital resources (including IP) required to enable the workers to work effectively. Mainly though because of supply and demand.
If an improvement in productivity makes you more efficient then there should be higher demand for you and you should be paid more. And indeed that is exactly what happens: people in industries that have productivity improvements are paid more afterwards than before.
When I get to 50, I will still need some sort of job. Maybe I can get a lower paying or low stress job. That's me being in the industry for my entire career, good credentials, etc. I will have been making somewhat less than the national developer median (about $130k is median). I live in a moderately high cost area. Even the people that live in high cost areas making 2x my salary have significant tax and real estate burdens. Not everyone can FIRE, especially if you're below the median.
Having FIRE doesn't mean you're ready to retire and build ships in a bottle or whatever. I like programming, it puts me in flow state and keeps my brain young. I want to go out on my own terms. Also good luck with FIRE if you're putting kids through college. And thirdly, for those of us at normal companies the pay has been nice, but not FAANG mid-six-figures nice.
You don't have to "put kids through college". If you're in the US, they can borrow to go somewhere decent and affordable. Harvard has never been for you, it has always been for the children of very rich New Englanders.
Not passing any judgements on any life choices here, but occasional months off sounds like a good thing. I would not necessarily need to go anywhere to enjoy (make use of) the time. The notion of getting a month off with pay sounds good.
That sounds good, so long as there is similar employment at the end of it. As a sabbatical it sounds great. As a layoff, the uncertainty sounds crushing. It could take months to find a new position, especially with the disadvantages I have, I would likely need to start looking immediately and wouldn't be able to enjoy it.
Yeah, it's the same problem I have when the 20 somethings use the term "funemployment".
If you're single and have no responsibilities, sure. The second you have a mortgage, medical conditions that need health insurance, or need money because you had a family emergency and had to dip into savings, it's not "funemployment" at all.
There was a period in tech when a lot of people had a certain sentiment that they could drop a few emails and have a well-paying job the next week. That's never been the norm for professional work.
During dot-bomb I was relatively lucky if not necessarily super-well compensated but I knew a lot of people who basically dropped out of the professional labor market.
Just to be clear, I mean time off and returning to the same job. Shouldn't we be aiming for a future where we do not have to work like dogs to earn enough to struggle at home?
How do you do this? Taxes? Increase worker salaries? Government funded health care?
Access to cheap labor is what really drives economies. Market forces are what drive labor salaries. More people cheaper labor.
It used to be in the 60s, 70s, and to some extent the 80's a single wage earner was enough in a family. By the end of the 80's it became clear that 2 wage earners was how people got ahead in life.
I'm not sure how we do this, but our current economic system is garbage. As the saying goes, the other systems we've tried may have been worse, but that doesn't make this system good.
A significant portion of the world population works themselves to the bone while barely scraping by. This is not the mark of a successful civilization. It's gross.
Maybe as a start, we put limits on the ratio of executive compensation to the lowest paid jobs in a company. And require that a significant percentage of profits be distributed to employees rather than shareholders.
Yes, that will slow economic growth. But even as someone reasonably well off, who depends on investments for his future, that seems much more fair than what we're doing now.
I don't know and it is a good question. Maybe we need three or four wage earners per household. Maybe 60-70 hour work weeks. I would like to hear some ideas that does not include more grinding down workers for GDP. Maybe another measure for a health society. Growth certainly help lots of people but when an economy is mature maybe more is not necessarily better, at least for the average worker.
The main thing is that the share of GDP per worker has gone down, meaning the distribution is skewed. But I agree that there isn't a good option that I've heard to change this without other negative side effects.
We don't let the billionaires suck of 90% of the revenue, that's how. Them making 10% of their current salaries stock would still have them well well into retirement.
Oh, and not doing 2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich would help.
No sympathy from me either; instead, he gets appreciation. Thank you, OP, for bringing more life into the world. It's hard and (obviously) frequently thankless.
Thanks, but I'm not sure this deserves appreciation either. We already have plenty of life in this world. Perhaps so much so that the human life is negatively impacting other life, including other humans. I'd be much more appreciative of people making life better than making more of it.
That's a pretty weird and heartless thing to say. Having children is not a vice that deserves to be judged anymore than not having kids is. I could enumerate why fewer kids is bad for our collective future as a whole, but I won't, because the decision to have kids is a personal choice.
Also, having kids is generally not the difference between having to work or not—most people have to work for a living regardless of family status. It's just that the stakes are higher when you have dependents.
You can view what I wrote whatever way you want, but I stand by it and don't think it was heartless at all. I think not having children is actually more heartful and caring than having children.
Look, out of all the people who come into this world, how many people can we say were a net positive for this planet? I see that you are currently at Airbnb. Great. You are lining your pockets, but I'm not sure what the net benefit to this planet is. If I have children, the chances are great that they were just resource consumers and waste producers. There are too many people on this planet, and chances are my having kids will make this problem worse. Of course, on a local scale, your children will add love to your life, you will help them out financially, they will live at home with their parents as adults, etc. This is not being selfless. You are helping your progeny which is, ultimately, selfish. What is truly selfless is to meaningfully help someone who has no connection to you. Fight for the poor, support countries that are being terrorized by aggressor countries, adopt a shelter animal, etc. That is truly selfless. Having kids--selfish. Look at Elon Musk and his 10+ kids.
> the decision to have kids is a personal choice.
And I choose not to burden the world with my own children. I've had numerous exchange students, adopted shelter animals, and I'm volunteering at a local shelter. I'm not under any illusion that my life here is going to be a net positive for the planet, but I am trying really hard. Having children, with the traditional notions about it that you regurgitated, is a vice when you consider that we are reaching our planet's capacity for supporting all of us. Ruining other planets such as Mars, I don't feel is a morally acceptable choice.
So you don't think people should have kids, that's a fair viewpoint, I don't begrudge you that.
But you responded to a thread where someone was expressing the considerations they have about why being laid off is personally scary to them. Using that to grind your axe about whichever of their life choices you find morally dubious is the heartless part.
It's not really surprising though since your first reaction to my comment was to look at my profile and cherry-pick something to condemn me with.
I didn't ask for your sympathy. I'm merely responding to someone who doesn't understand that others have factors that affect how hard it is to change jobs.
On a side note, I'm getting whiplash by how fast we go from
It's your fault for having children [overpop, resource exhaustion]
to
It's your fault for not having children [low-birthrates]
back to
It's your fault for having children [whatever this is]
I think a lot of the "low-birthrate" fearmongering is just a way to distract people.
Overpopulation was projected to be an issue, but we actually addressed it pretty well over the last 50-75 years and global average birth rates are in a pretty good place now.
I understand the trade offs you mention. I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.” You have chosen a different payoff - your family, certainty of health insurance, etc. You get the benefits that children bring and the joy of being a parent. The “young, childless people” have made a different choice - more freedom in employment decisions but no joy from children. Everyone has their own cost/benefit analyses on these issues. That is life.
Haha you must be young. It's entirely possible young people will make the same choices and face the same realities I currently do. They just havent gotten to that stage yet. Even comparing my life now to my life 10 years ago would show the younger me had an easier life. However, having a disability is not a choice, and in general makes life harder than those without a disability. Don't get me wrong - I believe life is hard for almost everyone at at least one point or another in unique ways and to varying degrees.
Actually, I am not young. I just retired and have been thinking about my life, career, etc. I do not have a disability (my wife may disagree) and I agree it makes life more challenging (wouldn’t be called a disability otherwise). I also agree with you that life can be hard, children are born with health challenges, children make poor decisions with terrible consequences, spouse dies, you get cancer, etc. We all need to get through these. That does not change the fact that we all have decisions to make everyday about our careers, our families, our health, our financial situation, and so on. When we look at those who made different decisions, it does not necessarily mean they made better or worse decisions, just different decisions.
I have been thinking about this a lot recently. A former boss and good friend who is incredibly smart and effective in the work place asked why the two of us had never gone the PE route and been more successful. While he is very successful by most standards, he sees people flying private jets all the time who do not appear more skillful, yet have been more successful. As I think on this, I feel I simply was never willing to go all in on the risk required to achieve that level of financial success. I tried co-founding a company once when I was 28 while engaged and importantly, before children. I felt I could take the risk and if I failed, could bounce back. I did fail - company did ok but my I ended up disliking working with my senior partner - and I did bounce back, ending up at GE.
After that, I did not feel comfortable taking that level of risk until my children were off to college and no longer dependent on me an I had enough money saved that my wife and I would be ok for a long time. The people I know who have been jet-money financially successful took huge risks. They were all in on their venture(s). Frequently this cost them their marriage and/or relationships with the children. This was their choice. Their cost/benefit analysis to optimize their success criteria. Some regret the decisions - they underestimated the effort and impact on those they cared about. However, most have not. They are happy with how things have turned out.
The other factor you are missing in your analysis of PE route is the number of musical chairs are limited. There can only be 1 taylor swift not millions. So the choice is not for everyone. Even if everyone made that choice, a million taylor swifts will not happen. Surviorship bias is real.
It sounds like, by and large, you've had a pretty good life. But please understand that, while you've made good decisions and have taken advantage of the opportunities in front of you, a large chunk of your success comes down to random chance.
Many people do not fall on the good side of that random chance.
Dealing with poverty in my youth, homeless at 16, no parents to help me, debilitating ADHD, tourettic OCD, bipolar type II, CPTSD from 10 years of intense childhood physical/emotional abuse, my full-ride college scholarships illegally stolen from me by a high school who knew I was homeless and had no recourse and allowed a teacher to illegally modify my grades out of pure spite, malnourished, intense, crippling sciatica, fused lumbar discs, possible fibromyalgia, and then developing excruciating daily pains and physical disability which greatly impacted my life and sometimes made me suicidal, which turned out to be an autoimmune disorder that took 10 years for doctors to figure out... an extremely intense case of gout developing since my teens...
I just keep pushing on but every day I see people who take so much for granted, and who are so ready to pass judgement without appreciating the basic privilege of good health.
I've had to deal with so much struggle that the average person wouldn't even want to take the time to hear all of it much less believe it, once someone momentarily realizes that they'd have it comparatively easy compared to others, they often get defensive as they begin to realize that their life doesn't have nearly as many barriers as they've convinced themselves, and they have to come to terms with not applying themselves harder. It's easier for them to be dismissive and tell me, "all your problems would go away if you worked out more" or tell me to get on a keto diet, or whatever have you, as if I haven't tried every single thing I can think of.
And the insane thing is I am still quite privileged compared to some people in war-torn countries, even if they are able to move around without swallowing a truckload of ibuprofen. Reminding myself of that is a source of strength and determination to keep moving forward.
Well, the person you originally replied to mentioned having a disability, and your response was "yeah but you have kids so really you chose this and also I disagree that life is harder for some people."
The generous interpretation would be that you have sufficiently good health that you do not have to structure your life around it, and therefore lack understanding of the challenges faced by those who do.
The alternate interpretation, that you do understand and choose to ignore and dismiss, would be rather less generous to you.
I actually agreed with them that a disability makes life harder. I then pointed out other things that an individual did not choose can make life harder as well.
As for bringing up children, I did make the leap that that is generally a big difference between younger employees and older employees.
Hmm.. I think we are talking past each other. In my initial comment I said "I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.” I still maintain that comment.
In my follow up comment I attempted to clarify my comment in response to giantg2's reply. "I do not have a disability (my wife may disagree) and I agree it makes life more challenging (wouldn’t be called a disability otherwise)." I completely agree a disability makes life more difficult. I simply added that it is not the only thing that makes life more difficult. All of these things need to be considered when making career/job decisions.
Let me take a step back here. You're contradicting yourself.
> In my initial comment I said "I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.” I still maintain that comment.
> I completely agree a disability makes life more difficult.
Do you not see how it's hard to square the first statement, with the second? You do not agree that life is much harder for some people, but you do agree that a disability makes life more difficult?
> I think we are talking past each other. In my initial comment I said "I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.” I still maintain that comment.
It sounds like you have very little experience with people outside your socioeconomic class. (Or you do have that experience, but have drawn the wrong conclusions from it.) It is an obvious, proven fact that life is much harder for some people than for others.
I didn't publicly shame anyone. I pointed out their clear position of privilege to help them learn to apply empathy.
I think helping one another to build empathy is a good thing, and even if the person I replied to is unable to do so, it's possible that observing them tell a disabled person that they don't think their life is any harder will help other third parties such as yourself build that empathy.
I did not flag their original comment, but it's not for no reason it was flagged to death.
Text is a fairly imprecise form of communication. It's pretty common for multiple people to get triggered by misreading a post the same way if such a misread is possible.
In other cases downvoted posts are often the most interesting precisely because they trigger people with points they don't want to consider. I certainly wouldn't cite it as proof of any position.
I never said people choose disabilities. I tried to point out there are other life changing issues that can affect a person that they also did not choose.
As for starting a family, I agree not all can. My mistake was jumping from their assertion that I must be young to mean I did not have the responsibilities of an older worker such as taking care of a family. The less generous interpretation of that accusation is what? I am stupid? Ignorant of life? Not suffering from the impact of issues that I did not choose?
Sure, maybe that's how people in their 30s living in NYC or bay area feel about layoffs. But when you're older, have a family, and live in an area with a less dynamic job market, you may see things differently.
Why does it have to be an age thing? Some men and women are players and the game is the game to them. Those who are naturally monogamous would be stressed in a game like that. Constantly uprooting is a stressful lifestyle and can truly be torture (as evidenced by constant anxiety, no way to be). I can promise you people who are job hopping are hopping around other things in life (friends, family, relationships, projects, interests, roles, identities). It's a whole way of being.
Edit: This is not a judgement, but if you felt like it was, I very much want to hear about it.
Doesn't have to be an age thing, but it often is an age thing. Because lots of us were carefree before dependents and a mortgage as well.
Unexpected or deliberate change was an opportunity, a challenge, a stimulant! Job hopping (or hopping around relationships) when young can be about exploring the world, finding yourself and your values and isn't inherently bad.
Then you discover what you are good at doing and that you like doing and dedicating time to (or perhaps another person with whom you want to spend all your time) and your priorities change.
Then you might have kids and the work becomes more about financial security for the family then about your personal growth. And so you aren't looking at layoffs and unexpected change as opportunity because you are happy with what you've got.
It just often is an age or 'stage of life' thing for many people.
It's an age-related issue because ageism is deeply ingrained in the tech industry making it difficult for older engineers to find opportunities.
They are are more likely to set strong boundaries, demand fair compensation, and expect strong leadership. They are less willing to work nights and weekends, accept subpar pay, or tolerate workplace abuse, unlike younger, less experienced employees who may be more naive or eager to conform.
> Why does it have to be an age thing? Some men and women are players and the game is the game to them.
Yes, buuut many will be players from 25 to 35 (with some degree of flexibility), that's why it's still an age thing. Yes, there are persons that are players for life, sure. But IME they are a minority.
A few months of skiing sounds nice, but not as nice as the profound pleasure of working on a team of people I've know and cared about for over a decade.
You're going to spend half your waking life at work. For me, that's too much time to not want to do so at a place where I have real relationships with my coworkers.
This is ultimately what some of the risk comes down to: you invest time(a decade is a long time!) into creating meaningful relationships at work and one day you come in to have your key card de-activated and some corporate speak as to why. There are certainly people working on truly meaningful projects out there, with teams they trust and adore...but for most of the workforce, even in tech, its just work and any fun had at work is a great cherry on top.
How is this different than the manager who has spent years developing an employee - making sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hiring the right people to complement the team, fighting for bonuses and pay raises - only to have them quit to join the next company for a 10% raise. It is difficult to build a long-term culture when society seems to expect job hopping to rapidly advance a career.
On a related note, it is odd that HN comments rarely seem to include a manager’s perspective.
I've never seen people leaving great jobs for a 10% raise. It's always something else: a much bigger benefit, or a significant downside of the current job, which are not widely publicized. Instead, I've seen people going to a lower-paying position for a more interesting job, a chance to learn new hot thing hands-on, a different set of responsibilities, etc.
I worked with a guy who left for more money, found out the grass wasn’t greener, and came crawling back. Then did it again. For some reason they hired him back a second time. When he quit the 3rd time I think that was the final bridge burned. I asked him about it and he said money was his singular metric for choosing a job, he was always looking, and would never stop.
Yeah, I left a job where I loved the team and didn't mind the leadership too much for a 45% raise. Got lucky and the job I landed in was an even better fit for me.
I remember a guy at a previous job doing something similar - left for a React job (despite being a PHP developer), then came back like 6 months later because he couldn't get his head around React, then left again like 6 months later. Pretty sure it was about money because the PHP job was pretty relaxed and had some good perks.
Yeah I was offered a job with 12% better pay recently - from a friend too so I knew the job couldn't be too bad. But I feel like I'm onto a good thing where I am and the perks are okay (plus I'd probably be burning some bridges just by leaving).
Oh totally! I don't have that perspective from the manager as I am very much an IC, and I have 0 experience job hopping as well as I have basically been with the same company for most of my career. I would say, naively, that part of that difference comes down to job description. If its in a manager's job description to: "make sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hire the right people to complement the team, fight for bonuses and pay raises", then they should be doing those things. If not, they are going above and beyond and I would certainly consider them a great manager...but the truth is that there are not that many managers out there doing this.
Interestingly, I have never had a job description that actually said "make sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hire the right people to complement the team, fight for bonuses and pay raises." Rather they say something like 'effectively lead team to do...." To effectively lead the team, IMHO, one needs to "make sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hire the right people to complement the team, fight for bonuses and pay raises." I think this is true for all managers/leaders.
An experienced manager would know that is how the game is played and act accordingly. Don't get emotionally attached to any work relationships. It's transactional, keep that in mind.
Well yeah, the problem is capitalism. The least you can do is try to tilt the scale in your favor as much as possible. That’s absolutely what capital is doing all the time.
I think there is always going to be a middle ground. We are not robots and if the people I work with are a pleasure to be around and work with, there is a natural connection there that can be labeled "emotional" I guess, but it is very much in the moment for me. I want my manager to be somewhat invested in my success, and I somewhat reciprocate that. Additionally, while the business is transactional, it is almost always the case that the employer has more information than you, making it an uphill battle in the first place.
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. My personal life is what I enjoy, the random people I work with to make money and will be gone as soon as I quit or get laid off, well... I just don't want them to be toxic. I already have a ton of friends, I don't need to convert work people into my social life. Skiing for a few months sounds super amazing though!
Big tech interviews tend to be daunting. Many long term employees lose the skill, and fear the impact of work interruption on their resume as well as their ability to get in again.
Anecdotally, the LC bar for many firms has risen to the point that passing requires at least one through of the question before. If you Time bound your practice per question to 20 minutes, this means that you can solve most LC problems at least once in around 8 weeks of 40 hour weeks. Or 6 weeks at 60 hours.
Not a pleasant way to spend two months - but not impractical. I'm unclear what employers are deriving from this exercise at this point.
> I'm unclear what employers are deriving from this exercise at this point
It filters out the complete frauds.
Yes, there are people who know all the right things to say in a job interview, but cannot code at all. If you hire one of them, it takes a bit to find out they cannot code, and a bit longer to fire them, so you're out $$$$ paying their salaries for nothing.
For example, a recruiter I know will ask a tech candidate "what is 20% of 20,000?" A significant percentage cannot answer the question. Some even cry. It's shocking.
A friend of mine was looking at getting a FAANG job. He was worried about the leetcode tests. I suggested he spend a month going through the leetcode books studying them - that the return on his time investment doing that will be one of the best ROIs he's ever done. He did, and got the job. (Although the LC was just a first gate one had to go through to get to the real job interview.)
Personally, I have no idea how I'd do on an LC test without prep. But I don't have a problem with studying it to get a top job.
> it takes a bit to find out they cannot code, and a bit longer to fire them, so you're out $$$$ paying their salaries for nothing
Not just that. They block the hiring process. Maybe there was just that one open position on your team, and that bad 3 month hire postponed a good hire by 6 months. It's also very incomfortable to fire and start again.
My interviews contain questions that are basic, and any new team mate should know. I keep asking them because 90% of the candidates actually can't answer them well. You should know what a "dot product" is if you want to work as a ML engineer, that kind of stuff. Or be able to open a text file and count word frequencies.
True words. It's not 'imposter syndrome' if one comes across as an imposter (though it might have been just be a bad day).
I can appreciate the gating process because it's a real drag to get hired and then spend more time than necessary not doing my work but trying to help coworkers catch up on very basic and fundamental skills in order to be able to collaborate with them.
> For example, a recruiter I know will ask a tech candidate "what is 20% of 20,000?" A significant percentage cannot answer the question. Some even cry. It's shocking.
During our interview, we ask candidates to design a history system. The key is to realize that our database is only 8Gb, and storing a year of updates is only 160Gb, so $2pm in AWS. Once there, a simple DB table suits, no need to set up Amazon S3.
So we ask them for the multiplication. First we give them the data, and if they don’t do the calculation, we nudge them, then we ask them, then we write the multipliers for them, then we take the calculator out and write the result for them.
Those are Masters degrees. They can’t even do calculations, let alone getting it right, because 500MB x 200 days a year = a few petabytes apparently. And after that, they’re exhausted, it’s impossible to ask them the rest of the questions like “So is it worth worrying about a Rube Goldberg machine when you’re in for $2 of AWS costs?”.
Honestly, after ~13y in this, I only know a handful of items from the famous latency table, notably those I've used a lot (mutexes cost 25ns, is only 1/4th of main memory reference tho, then disk seek is x100K of that). I'm "DevOps" (and titular variants thereof) in most of my resume.
That said, I'm not above your bar as each cloud provider have their own pricing model. I'm not even above your bar for AWS---which I've used the past six years---just for the sheer diversity of their offerings, not to mention regional variations. I know how EC2 servers are priced relative to each other but when we include ECS, DynamoDB, Lambda, etc., I'm gonna need a cheat sheet.
Out of curiosity what do you find wrong in the s3 solution? This is a data volume that rdbms can manage, but are you looking specifically for the engineer to say something like “I’ll maintain a Write Ahead Log in the database”
Aye - I don’t tend to have a problem honestly with “classic” lc tests. I tend to take issue with uncommon/nuanced Dynamic Programming questions and clever uses of binary search. Both of these categories tend to rely on the engineer knowing the “trick” of the particular question.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I suspect that hiring based on a candidates ability to produce optimal solutions to LC Hards will bias strongly towards candidates who can't code, but are very good at interviewing.
I get that perhaps you were using the proverbial "I" in your last sentence as an example of something everyone should be willing to do in/for their career, but does someone of your stature even need a real interview, much less a LC test, to obtain a top job? It's kind of funny imagining a young tech bro interviewing you, tbh.
I generally do not use clever algorithms in my code. I just use straightforward ones. Rarely, I might need a better one and go looking for it (like a better hash algorithm). I rarely use a data structure more complicated than an array, list, binary tree, hash, or single inheritance.
What I have, though, is decades of experience with what works and what doesn't work. (My favorite whipping boy is macros. Macros look like they are great productivity boosters. It takes about 10 years to realize that macros are a never-ending source of confusion, they just confuse and obfuscate every code base that uses them. I could go on about this! ...)
I have become pretty good at writing modules that minimize dependencies, and pretty good at the user interface design of a language.
But still, if the job wanted a leetcode test, I'd take it, no problem. I'd study up first, though.
If a young tech bro was interviewing me, I'd suggest he show me his best code, and I'd do a review of it :-) The point of that would not be to humilate him, but to demonstrate the value I can bring to improving code quality.
If I was being interviewed for a job writing a faster divide routine (the ones I wrote were shift-subtract, slower but bulletproof), a better random number generator, a cryptographically secure hash function, a tighter compression algorithm, a faster sort, I'm not the right guy for that.
P.S. I was once asked to review the code of a famous programmer I won't name. I was shocked to discover that the large codebase had 3 different implementations of bubblesort in it. I replaced them all with a call to qsort(). He asked me how I managed to speed it up :-/
My favorite blind spot is how our definitions of quality change over time. I knew someone who had a mature codebase which a new developer made substantially faster by removing his old optimizations. He’d measured very real improvements back when he made that hand-rolled assembly code on early Pentium generations but by the time we revisited it less than a decade later the combination of compiler and processor improvements meant that the C reference implementation was always faster. (I was assisting with the port to PowerPC and at first we thought that it was just XLC being especially good there, but then we tested it on x86 with GCC and found the same result)
Beyond the obvious lesson about experience and sunk costs it was also a great lesson about how much time you assume you have for maintenance: when he’d first written that code as a grad student he’d been obsessed with performance since that was a bottleneck for getting his papers out but as his career progressed he spent time on other things, and since it wasn’t broken he hadn’t really revisited it because he “knew” where it was slow. Over time the computer costs eventually outweighed that original savings.
I have done probably 500 to 1000 tech screens for big tech companies (as the interviewer) and this is completely true.
I have interviewed many people employed in tech as programmers for their entire career and they can't code. I don't meen leetcode, I mean they get confused trying to write brute force substring search. The nested for loop seems to be too complex for them to keep in their head all at once.
I have had numerous people cry. Again this was a screen, not leetcode. I'm asking them to check if text has mismatched parens, or find a substring. Things you do for homework in your 2nd programming class freshman year. Things every competent programmer can do while chitchatting about the job.
I would estimate that more than 10% of screens are like this, again these are employed people in the industry for years, sometimes tens of years.
Edit: I understand that people can get flustered, I understand that some people have trouble under pressure or while being observed. That's why I pointed out multiple times that the problems I gave are extremely, EXTREMELY easy. I'm basically asking them to write down their name and they sit and look at the pen like they've never seen one before. If you can't write a 5 line function to find whether a substring occurs in a larger string when given 45 minutes, your choice of programming language, and as many attempts as you need to debug and try again you simply will not be able to do any useful work as a programmer. If you don't know that to match parens you need to use a stack (or at least that it's one way to do it) you either have a very poor memory or no training in computer science at all - either of which is frankly disqualifying. Anyone borderline competent would invent a stack when presented with this problem if they hadn't already been told this fact a dozen times during their education or even light reading about algorithms.
I always try to give everyone I’ve interviewed the benefit of the doubt. You never know what’s going on in their lives, and even if they fail a trivial question it doesn’t mean they are faking the ability to code.
I joined Facebook back in 2018. Didn’t study at all for the interview and passed somehow. Then I probably conducted 200-300 interviews in my time there, so I became quite familiar with the questions. My performance ratings were all exceeds or greatly exceeds. I voluntarily left on my own after four years to join a unicorn startup. I didn’t prep for that interview either but passed it too. Well, the startup failed and many people went back to Meta. So I actually prepared quite a bit this time and scheduled a mock interview with them. The mock interviewer said I did great and not to change a thing. When it came time for the real screening interview... I failed the matching parentheses question.
I generally try not to make excuses. Almost every interview I’ve failed has clearly been my own fault. But in this particular one the interviewer kept interrupting me every two seconds and I absolutely could not think. I had done matching parentheses many times before in practice, but the constant interrupting rattled me to the point where I totally lost focus and bombed it. Not a great experience.
So yeah, I’d just recommend giving people the benefit of the doubt. Everyone has difficult moments occasionally, but it doesn’t mean they’re stupid or can’t code.
I run coding interviews at BIGCO. Half of the candidate success relies on the skills of the interviewer. A bad interviewer can bomb the best candidates.
Something I have changed my stance on a bit is automated coding interviews. I used to be adamantly against a company giving candidates automated code tests, but I see now that it takes the interviewer out of the equation.
Pre-screening, depending on how it’s done, could eliminate good candidates.
There have been times I’ve received answers in interview that weren’t the written answers, but I looked it up afterward and tested it out… and they were right. I learned something news and tweaked the answer reference as a result. If those questions were in the pre-screening instead of asked directly by me, it would have filtered out good people.
I remember fighting to get access to the pre-screen data to see what the answers were and find if there were any other cases like this, where the non-technical pre-screener was filtering out potentially good candidates, because we couldn’t give them exhaustive answers to questions being asked.
>but I see now that it takes the interviewer out of the equation.
Well yes, that's why I'm against it. A one way "interview" is an audition, not an interview. There's nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on something that ends up with a template rejection letter.
That's great for the interviewer, but devastating for the interviewee. They can't even get feedback on how to improve.
Nobody is going to give an interviewee feedback, even if they are interviewed by a human. There is too much legal risk to open the company up to discrimination lawsuits.
There is also nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on an in person interview to just have the interviewer flunk you our be unfair to you.
I still believe that personal interviews are important, I'm just raising the fact that a large portion of an interviewee's success is based upon their interviewer.
Yes, and actions have consequences I'm not going to audition if I have not at least talked to a human first. The game industry in particular does this to abuse Artists and Designers with spec work, so I feel especially strong about the power dynamic here.
>There is also nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on an in person interview to just have the interviewer flunk you our be unfair to you
The interview stage inflation is definitely a problem, but speaking with actual people still has benefits. You get an idea of their culture and you can still network even in such a situation. It's not guaranteed but you get a much higher chance to get advice and feedback on or off the record if you're polite. People are flexible, some standardized exam may never even reach a human.
>'m just raising the fact that a large portion of an interviewee's success is based upon their interviewer.
Indeed. I'm just stating a viewpoint where an interview needs to be personal. An audition in this software space is about as impersonal as you can get.
As an interviewer at Google, we arent given an exact list of questions to ask or what to evaluate (there are broad categories).
It is really entirely up to each interviewer how the interview goes and they are usually scheduled between 2 other meetings so often the interviewer is distracted.
Yeah, rejected after previously working there. Was also going for a different role than I previously had. To their credit, I respect that they don't just hand out free passes back in.
Welcome to the wonderful world of coding under pressure, which almost never occurs in the real world. It's a non-issue when you're young and don't feel the pressure. But when you have grey hairs in your beard and know you're already walking in with two strikes, all of a sudden the fog of war kicks in.
> I have interviewed many people employed in tech as programmers for their entire career and they can't code.
Think about this contradictory statement for a while. Can it actually be true? Or is there something else going on?
If the interviewee has nothing but sub-1yr stints on their resume, perpetually getting fired before vesting at any company, then yes, it's very possible they actually can't code and just fake it at every interview.
But everyone else... if they have spent years at tech companies writing production code then obviously they know how to code. They might be great or maybe mediocre, but guaranteed they at least know how to code.
So, if your interviewing technique is concluding something that is obviously impossible, then start by considering how to improve the interview technique.
I’m an electrical engineer who does circuit design. I’ve interviewed many electrical engineers over the years and the situation of applicants having “years” of experience while simultaneously not knowing how to design a single circuit is real. In our field it’s usually because although the person’s title is engineer, in practice, they don’t do any engineering. There’s just a ton of peripheral work (basically paperwork related to operations and compliance), which is very important, but is not design.
My guess is computer science has a similar issue.
Lots of people with programming in thier job title but they don’t actually program. And based on ltbarcly3’s empirical measurement, “lots” is above 10%. ;)
10% of applicants that make it to a phone screen. I estimate that the number is much lower than 10% overall because incompetent people with good looking resumes tend to do a lot more interviews than good candidates.
"claim" kills? Isn't part of the HR screening about some litmus test to make sure they aren't very obviously lying?
And yes, this is part of why the obsession with FAANG on resume is very overrated. Very few companies require the skillsete FAANG needs. Some of thst FAANG culture is orthogonal to what medium/small sized companies require.
I don't think you read the thread. They did have those jobs, and presumably they were on teams that did vaguely what is on their resume. No HR doesn't investigate candidates or do background checks before you interview them, that would be very expensive and silly.
I feel like you kind of vaguely are aware of these topics but have never actually had a job or something because you seem completely unfamiliar with the basics of how hiring is done in the industry. Are you from Eastern Europe maybe?
Quite the opposite (and sadly, still. American). I'm just so frustrated how I'm 10 years into this career and the interview process feels more random than ever. I can apply to 100 job and interview for 10 that all fall through. Then I can just go to a bar and trip into an opportunity I wasn't fully expecting. What does that say about the interview process?
>No HR doesn't investigate candidates or do background checks before you interview
An HR screen isn't a background check. It's "can you talk about your roles and provlems solved like you actually did it. A good HR screen should make sure they aren't blatantly lying
>that would be very expensive and silly.
Let's both not pretend the interview proces is in any way optimized for any metric. You have often non-tech roles create a description for a tech role (leading to famous blunders like "have and jave script is the same") . You have an increasing amount of rounds of interviews to go through for a job that may not exist or may already be reserved. And more and more of the parts are being outsourced, leading to power quality candidates. All that before throwing a reckless reliance of AI on everything.
The most optimal hiring is to focus on high quality hires brought in as fast as possible. Or not to hire if you don't need to hire. But we're not really running on sensible business practices these days.
> An HR screen isn't a background check. It's "can you talk about your roles and provlems solved like you actually did it. A good HR screen should make sure they aren't blatantly lying
Correct. While not perfect, if you have good HR hiring team they will do a decent job at feeling out the people before they get to you.
> I can apply to 100 job and interview for 10 that all fall through.
Part of the difficulty is that (despite any myths around engineering shortage) there are so many qualified people for every role that it is overwhelming.
I just opened a new job req last week, I have over 1100 resumes in the queue already. And this is a pretty specialized technical role in a specialized department, not a generic "javascript software engineer" role, either.
Obviously I can't read all of them, which makes me sad because someone took the time to send their resume and I feel like I should give them the respect of reading it, but there are simply not enough hours in a week. While HR does the screening, I also go and do a random sampling of the resumes and everyone who has applied seems at least moderately qualified. But of course I can only talk to about 1% of them at best.
You keep saying 'we'. The companies I have worked for have on average had very streamlined interview processes, with the exception of very large (>2000 engineer) companies. I don't know how to fix hiring for companies that big. I'm sure you have a lot of 'ideas' that are really just pointing out the problems. We all see the problems, but fixing them means either empowering individual managers (many of which would just hire their cronies instantly if allowed to) or inventing new ways to do HR which is obviously nontrivial, especially with incumbent HR morons fighting you.
An HR screen will sometimes remove frauds (not usually because they can't really tell, it removes uncharasmatic frauds only), but it also has a very high probability of removing anyone on the autism spectrum - no matter how qualified. I really don't want people on the autism spectrum removed from my hiring funnel for software engineer. If you ever looked over the shoulder of a recruiter or HR when they do a first pass on resumes you will be horrified at how many of the best candidates they pass over because they have no idea what they are reading, and how many very poor candidates they pass along for very stupid reasons like having 'Yale' for their college (despite it being for History and despite it being the extension school, true story, and this person ended up getting hired despite negative interview feedback and then fired for incompetence a few months later).
I know a lot of people who can tweak code that already exists. However, if they are sitting in front of an empty text editor and given a goal, they don’t know how to break the problem down and build a solution with the tools the language gives them.
In a large environment, someone may rarely need to start from nothing, so the interview format throws them.
That said, I think being able to break down a problem to solve it with code is a really important skill. Without it, the person will always have to lean on others to fill that skill gap.
> I know a lot of people who can tweak code that already exists. However, if they are sitting in front of an empty text editor and given a goal, they don’t know how to break the problem down and build a solution with the tools the language gives them.
But being able to break things down and come up with a solution is not necessarily something that needs to be done quickly, in the time you have for an interview. Quite often I've been faced with a new problem and done absolutely nothing visible for ages. Literally just reading around the problem, asking questions, and sketching in my mind without writing a single line of code.
This is often faster and better than starting immediately.
There's another extreme, too: people who can code up an app in a matter of days, but can never learn to navigate and successfully maintain a legacy code base (even their own!).
And there's no easy objective way to screen for this in a job interview. So they pretend it doesn't exist and never ask questions like: "Suppose you're designing a green-field app that you think will grow over time like X, Y, and Z. How would you design and organize your code so that the app stays maintainable and flexible over time?"
I could talk for hours on this subject with concrete examples if anyone ever asked.
I think another problem is that there are so few engineers/architects who really "get it" on this subject. I can only think of a few ex-coworkers with whom I could have the kind of in-depth conversation about app design and organization that I'm picturing.
I've never worked in big tech, always for startups or non-tech corps with a few rock star devs and a lot of decent devs. So maybe it's different at a FAANG. But in my head I'm picturing a bunch of algo-geniuses whose code turns into a big mess over time when requirements take a right-turn and break all their beautiful abstractions. I've worked on a few apps like that and it's not fun.
Nothing on interviews is objective to begin with, so we can discount that.
Your template sounds like a fine way to ask such a question. I think the issue is managers or someone above simply don't want to invest in proper interview questions and instead just do that FAANG does. Even though very few companies need such core algorithmic knowledge but need people who can properly navigate legacy code. FAANGs will actually make sure new hires learn the code base, unlike many companies thst want you to "hit the ground running".
I think this is why people job hop. They never have to support their unmaintainable greenfield app. Without the pain of those mistakes, they never learn to make the next one better either.
The goal when hiring isn't to find someone who is barely skilled enough to just slightly come out as better to have on staff than not. In fact these are often the worst hires as they slow everything down and create work for you to find tasks they are capable of, but it seems unfair to fire them because they aren't totally useless all the time. You hire the best candidate overall, and you are very far from describing that.
Too right. I had an idiot manager who hired the next person with a pulse - we got some money-motivated guy that complained about everything and didn't listen to what he actually needed to do, and my manager nearly destroyed the team by pretending that he was fine.
I thought that too until we had a guy start two years ago that interviewed well and answered questions like he knew what he was talking about but then when he started, one of his first questions was how to figure what endpoint was being called by a website (as obvious as looking at your browser's Network tab, or browsing the website's source to find the endpoint). Not long after that he had to clear a couple more values as part of a cache invalidation procedure and was utterly bamboozled by the if (!cached) { clearCache(); } else { cache(data); } logic. That was an exceptionally draining few months until he was sacked.
What is really crazy about this though is that sometimes it really is the interview setting, as people unused to interviews can, at times, emotionally collapse. I have seen people who are actually good programmers get wrecked by simple questions because of their inability to handle stress, and how the lack of interview practice turns a simple exercise into a hellscape.
It's not as if testing for performance under stress is useless: Tough on call rotations happen, and you might need someone that does well under pressure at 3 am in the morning. But the picture you get on a screening isn't as clear as it appears.
Not to imply that you're wrong, but I've always been bad at LC interviews, but surprisingly (for myself) passable when called upon to troubleshoot and code up a hot fix in the middle of the night. Maybe those are not entirely similar types of pressures.
There is a big difference between solving a critical bug, which is your job, vs. passing an arbitrary leetcode test from a disinterested 22 year old where you might lose your house if you get it wrong. You have 15 minutes.
It’s also not the same kind of stress. I’ve interviewed many a candidate who were sweating and/or shaking at some point of the interview (with heavy reassurance and me trying to to steer the conversation towards and area where they feel stronger), but they can often end up being calm and reliable alert responders nonetheless. So far I’ve seen very little if any correlation between being able to handle interview stress and on-call stress.
Leetcode performance isn’t going to be representative of 3am incident response though. If that matters, you’re probably better off asking a classic “tell me about a time you responded to a page in the middle of the night” type question.
> Tough on call rotations happen, and you might need someone that does well under pressure at 3 am in the morning.
On a stop-the-world production incident at 3am I know that codebase like the back of my hand, and my job very likely doesn’t depend on whether I solve it in the next 30m. There’s barely anything stressful about it.
On an interview, with my future on the line, and presented with an unfamiliar problem?
You are still not testing if they can code. But whether under the scrutiny of another person, they can code. Maybe this is important to you, maybe peer programming is important to you for example. I remember a young dev who couldn’t pass such tests, as he would get too nervous, yet he had written the core tech for many shipped products. The type of guy you would just stick in dark room. With age this type of stuff settles down.
“Scrutiny of another” who’s a peer or even a client is super different from an interview.
The latter has more in common with an open mic night, the prospect of which the vast majority of people are terrified and would break down if they attempted it.
My first attempts at public speaking were a frozen horror. But I kept doing it, and it kept getting easier and easier.
I recommend that when there's an opportunity to get up in front of a mike, take it, and get comfortable with it. It's a skill that will serve you well.
I agree with both you and the parent to some degree. I have experienced interviews that went badly because they were in an IDE I wasn't familiar with, or in Leetcode (never used it). So I'm distracted by how to use the tool rather than how to code the solution. But I can also see how stuff like finding a substring is easy - most languages have a function for it. But at that point, you're testing different things - problem-solving vs rote memorization of a provided function.
I feel like a good middle is to allow Google for documentation searches, not solution searches. Without searching (or IDE with radix completion), I'd probably fail the test for not knowing the syntax off the top of my head.
Not everyone uses it (or their language equivalent) frequently depending on the needs of their project. If I'm really using it frequently, then I would probably be looking at higher accuracy/resiliency options like parsing the input and comparing to a map, or regexes.
As someone who does these types of interviews on both ends, something like this is why I like to start with an outrageously simple question to break the ice.
Surprisingly, I have an 80% fail rate on the first question usually, which is just “find the second largest number in an array of numbers” for a 5 YOE role.
I just saw that this comment was fading from downvotes.
I think HN is just overwhelmed with people who somehow got hired into technical jobs but can't do them. Anyone who thinks that 'finding second largest number in an array' or 'finding if a string is a substring of another string' are hard, or that the pressures of an interview are a valid excuse for being unable to do it are simply not intelligent enough to be successful in this field and they are casting about for some excuse to protect their ego. These are problems that a bright 12 year old with no programming experience could do for fun, and these folks are purporting to be educated, experienced, professional programmers.
As much as people like to say 'muh anxiety', I've yet to meet someone who can't do very basic coding in an interview but also they are capable of basic coding in any other context. I would suggest that this sort of person is so rare that you will probably never meet one over the course of a normal career.
> 'finding if a string is a substring of another string'
Unless you mean using a "substring" function or regexes... coming up with the naïve O(n^2) algorithm is indeed easy, but finding a fast algorithm like KMP is, I would say, non-trivial?
For the "second-largest number in array" it's rather easy to come up with an O(n) algorithm, so I would consider the two cases to be different.
Elsewhere in this thread there is literally an example of someone who, by their own description, worked at a FAANG company for some years getting good performance reviews, has enough interview experience that even if they couldn't generally code their way out of a paper bag they were surely good at interview-question coding, ... and, under pressure from a pushy interviewer, completely failed to do a straightforward coding task.
I guess they could just by lying "to protect their ego" but in that case why post their comment at all?
It really is the case that some people sometimes completely go to pieces when stressed, and mocking them by saying "muh anxiety" doesn't stop that being true.
I will say that, as the interviewer asking the question, I do recognize that people have anxiety, and I would prefer to nudge them out of a spiral, because a bad interview is generally not pleasant for anybody involved.
To some degree the interview is not about getting the question right but also how you respond to questions about your answers. I would rather have someone who started with a totally incorrect answer and then reason back and forth with them til they got on the right path, than someone who came up with the right answer and then clammed up and refused to explain how they got there. (I once had a candidate tell me, verbatim, "I don't think analyzing performance of an algorithm is part of an engineer's job.")
I would prefer if there were a more humane, less stressful, and scalable way to do an interview. The problem is that as a profession we lack the continued examination/licensing of other fields like engineering or medicine, so we don't have a good barometer of skills otherwise. And I often have to sift through massive numbers of people clearly overshooting their shot to get a good position.
The solution to the problem in question is about 9 lines of very simple code. In a 45 minute interview, that is 5 minutes per line available. It's about 1 character every 40 seconds. I think anyone can get flustered and mess up. It's possible for someone, on a bad day, lack of sleep, hung over, experiencing an anxiety attack to mess this up, but it's really really a stretch. This is a VERY EASY task, and if someone has done it before there's nothing sneaky or hard to do here. The version where you match different kinds of braces is very slightly more complicated but actually less lines of code.
Yes maybe someone can't come up with this in an interview. My point is 99.99% of the time when someone fails this they are lying about their work history or they are so stupid they can't hope to do the job. 00.01% of the time they could do this easily and the stars aligned to give them a rare bad day. The best way to deal with that is to just assume everyone who fails this can't do the work, and the 00.01% person just interviews somewhere else and doesn't have another bad day. I don't even know what the alternative to that is, just hire everyone who claims to be qualified and hope for the best? Give everyone who demonstrates very very strong incompetence signals 2 or 3 more tries?
def matched(str):
count = 0
for c in str:
if c == "(":
count += 1
elif c == ")":
count -= 1
if count < 0:
return False
return count == 0
I completely agree that this is a very simple problem; I'm not at all arguing that it isn't. What I am arguing is that this doesn't make it super-unlikely that an otherwise competent person screws it up. If it's really a 1-in-10,000 event, isn't it rather surprising that we've got someone right here in this thread to whom it happened? Someone, moreover, not just barely competent but able to do well with a demanding employer, and who has a lot of exposure to this sort of interview question?
I think this is good evidence that, in fact, it's not vanishingly unlikely that someone genuinely competent flubs what should be an embarrassingly straightforward coding task in an interview.
That doesn't, unfortunately, mean I have a good suggestion for a better way of telling who is and who isn't capable of writing code. Maybe this is the best we can do. If it really is just a matter of "sometimes, at random, people have bad days"[1] then provided it's fairly rare this issue doesn't matter too much. I'm more worried about the possibility that it's more "a smallish fraction of otherwise-good people often have this sort of bad day", because then that smallish fraction of people may be getting completely overlooked, which is bad for them because it may take them ages to get a job and bad for employers because it effectively reduces the pool of good people to hire.
[1] In this particular case, the "bad day" seems to have included an obnoxious interviewer, which it's reasonable to hope wouldn't be repeated at another company's interview.
But, again, pointing out a problem unfortunately doesn't guarantee having a good answer. But, equally, not having a good answer doesn't mean the problem isn't real. It would be very nice to believe that all the people failing interviews because they fail to solve an easy coding problem are undeserving incompetents who should be bombing out of the interviews, but it looks to me like that ain't so.
As an interviewer, my company allows the person to pick the language of their choice. At that point, you could just write it in psuedocode if it came down to it, and if you actually knew what you were talking about it doesn’t matter all that much. It’s not like I know the in and outs of every single language people have answered the question in.
In an era where linters and autocomplete and IDEs have existed for decades it’s silly to fail an interview based on tiny error checks.
It's rather funny, but I wonder if you've ever been a Game Master? One of the most common problems running a game, is making the puzzles simple enough. You have to use kindergarten or back of the cereal box level puzzles or the players will fail.
I played with engineers, it's a game, and there is nothing riding on the outcome and we often failed stupid simple puzzles.
Interviews have a lot riding on them and yes stress is terrible. Stress eats working memory for breakfast, NASA learned that the hard way.
At that point I have to ask if your screening is really working. There's hundreds, thousands of potential SWEs that can be productive, but you keep picking people who struggle with CS101 problems?
You sure it's not nepotism, or an inability to make sure the resume fits the person? Or any other number of non-merit based criteria from HR?
You just reminded me I said it on a programming interview for Java one time and my friend was giving them the Fizzbuzz test.
And, and having to explain everything, well, this person had never heard of it. And, and for the more, didn't know what modulo was, like, how do you, how do you say you know Java?
I suck at programming but I could bang out 100% of the things mentioned in this thread. In like four languages, including FORTRAN.
The other replies to this comment aren't wrong but I feel they fail to take into account that (especially with startups): having someone watch you code during an interview is one of the the least stressful experiences the person will face with the company - once the job begins. Companies can't take on the risk of dealing with a bunch of passive-aggressive bullcrap once the real code reviews begin after the hire. Most tech job reqs contain the words "Excellent written and verbal communication skills" on purpose.
Imagine a person with a pilot's license refusing to fly tandem for an airline interview.
> Imagine a person with a pilot's license refusing to fly tandem for an airline interview.
That’s not a great comparison since a pilot has already passed substantially harder tests to get that license and a flight is exactly what the job is. If you have a candidate with a pilot’s license you can assume at least a baseline level of capability which you can’t assume for a software engineer. That has pros and cons but it definitely means interviewing is a noisier process.
The other problem, however, is deeper: the job of flying a plane is exactly what’s tested to get a pilot’s license but what many places do for developer interviews is wildly unlike the actual job so it’s more like interviewing pilots based on trivia questions about the number of rivets on a B-52 and how well they can solve 3-D puzzles, and then being surprised when there isn’t much correlation with real world performance. For example, only at the most toxic companies will the interview be one of the least stressful parts because the rest of the job is a team effort. What makes the interview challenges stressful is doing it without your normal tools while someone else is looking for reasons to fail you, but in a normal job your coworkers are trying to help you succeed because even if you’re not friends you are all better off when your company succeeds. At a startup, trying to ding someone for trivia challenges is like hitting the iceberg to prove that the navigator made a mistake.
Go on youtube and watch NTSB / FAA investigation reports. If you think that a pilot's license demonstrates that someone is a competent pilot you are very very mistaken, and there are scores of counter examples.
Airlines very strictly test pilots and insist on check rides regardless of what official qualifications pilots show up with. They do this because they are professional organizations with decades of experience and it is necessary for safety. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt because they manage to meet the absolute minimum standard that makes operating an airplane legal is insane.
Yes, that’s what I was referring to with “baseline level of capability”. It doesn’t mean everyone is the same, or that they’re all super pilots, but anyone with a commercial license has at least 250 hours doing the primary job function and that makes it’s reasonable to ask them to do a test flight.
In contrast, we don’t have anything like real certifications for developers and many of the interviewing questions are very unlike the actual job. Hiring would be easier if we did have something closer to what a pilot’s license conveys, but that’d also slow the field down since programming has changed a lot more over the last 50 years than flying.
Dude, I have no idea what a stack is because I never studied computer science. It’s never held me back except during interviews with people that expected me to understand computer science fundamentals.
If someone asks me what the time complexity of something or the other (I literally had to go look up the name), I completely freeze up.
Whether you know the term doesn’t matter when you understand the basic concept that for inside for == bad.
Anyhow, it seems to be working out pretty well for me, so while I’m also annoyed by incompetent people the idea that it’s due to lacking CS fundamentals sounds bizarre to me.
Typically speaking, when you encounter a problem in excess I believe you should start to assume that perhaps the problem is on your side.
For context, back when I was interviewing I encountered many interviewers who process involved simple questions with simple solutions but with extra gaslighting on top. 'Are you SURE that's the right solution?' while I'm in the middle of throwing out a correct answer. It's actually very easy to guide someone away from a correct solution into the wrong one by simply making them second guess themselves under pressure.
It was something that I started to be extra cognizant about when I was the one interviewing people, that it's really quite easy to throw someone off track.
I agree, but I look at it like trying out for an athletic team.
Once you're on the team, you are mostly practicing plays, doing clinics, and simulating competition, but to get on the team in the first place you have to prove your general fitness by running, say, a 6 minute mile.
You may not be able to do that again easily right away once you've been on the team for a while because you don't practice running for pure time at that distance, but it's a level of fitness you should be easily able to obtain again if you had to, and it's a very useful benchmark to a scout.
When you're laid off, it's time to start doing that "roadwork" again. It will be a bit hard at first in practice, but if you've been a solid contributor, you should be able to get fit enough again to prove that.
> I agree, but I look at it like trying out for an athletic team.
Pro teams have scouts, draft based on college performance, trade or poach players from other teams. They don't even have tryouts 99% of the time. You have to be a proven performer for a team in a developmental league.
You've never worked at a place where someone was an incompetent hanger-on who was an expert at self promotion and stealing credit? Or hired someone like that accidentally?
Notwithstanding, I have long argued that a non-profit credentialing body for SWEs offering cerification exams (which also required regular updates) akin to passing the bar or USMLE could go a long way to solving this problem. It would come with other drawbacks, perhaps not worth it, but we have to accept that constant tech interviews is the price we pay for refusal to standardize and professionalize.
> You've never worked at a place where someone was an incompetent hanger-on who was an expert at self promotion and stealing credit? Or hired someone like that accidentally?
Thinking back on it. Not really. I’ve had a few people be outright incompetent, but I’ve never been at risk of them stealing the credit for stuff. The closest I’ve come is people that should probably be fired, but manage to barely hold on by being experts at self promotion.
I definitely feel that first part. I landed in a nice company in SF about 8 years ago and am still here. The culture has changed a lot but I often find myself doubting whether I could repeat the whole thing or if I got lucky. (The work is fine, and the company is one of the good ones I feel, so no real qualms there).
Just do what everyone is doing today and use those AI tools for cheating. There’s a whole industry of invisible and hard to detect leetcode AI cheating tools.
Glad they exist and I fully support all candidates using them aggressively.
This is a persistent myth in our industry. If you're a good manager, you can tell within minutes if someone is "for real", if you can't, you aren't qualified to be hiring people. Have you even looked at their GitHub?
If your definition for "best engineer in the world" is "hired by you"… sure. I'm just not sure anyone else in the world would agree with this definition :)
My definition of "best engineers in the world" are people that have wildly successful GitHub accounts. I'm very glad I'm in an industry with losers that don't know how to compete. It's like playing on easy mode!
This story is changing. There is now an oversaturation of us ex-BigCo people in the market. I quit Google before the layoffs, after being there for 10 years and sick of it. The first year was serious ego boost, having Google on the resume opened doors all over the place. Then my ex-coworkers started getting laid off and things began to shift.
Now I know people I used to work with who have been without work for many months and having a hard time getting interviews.
Granted, I'm not in the Bay Area, so. But the market is saturated.
Its not that the market is saturated, its that a lot of incompetent ex googlers are interviewing now. People usually have a pretty good idea they can't do their job. They find a niche where a manager is not paying attention, or they can obfuscate and take credit for others work, etc. These people don't usually job hop, the interviews are way too hard and then they are very unlikely to find another long term safe niche to hide in. So previously seeing google on a resume correlated highly with strong competence. A lot of people laid off from google are complete incompetents. A lot were hard working geniuses too, but it doesn't take many interviews where a exgoogler is completely useless to spoil the brand.
The reputation for googlers on the market right now is very bad, and it will keep getting worse as the group of ex googlers who are basically unemployable keep interviewing over and over and over.
There's also the "we can only pay a third of what Google paid you..." and given two candidates that interview equally well, one is former Google and appeared to be making $300k and another is from somewhere where they were making $70k before...
I'd argue for the $70k person. They are less likely to have experienced lifestyle inflation and looking at this position as a "slumming it until they can get a job making $300k+ again."
It further complicates the issue that most companies don't have Google scale problems and don't have the engineering culture for a Google scale solution.
There are several factors working against even not incompetent former Google employees - especially if their experience is entirely within Big Tech.
A bit ago a former Tesla person was in the set of interviews and it became clear that they wanted to make the organization that was considering hiring them into a copy of how Tesla works... and that wasn't something that was going to be doable. The post interview discussion was "this person is going to try to make us into a copy of Tesla for six months, and then leave shortly after they realize that we weren't a place that could become another Tesla."
Big Tech experience may be a positive signal for getting hired at other Big Tech companies... but it can be a negative signal at a company that isn't trying hiring for an organization that can't become a Big Tech company - especially if that is the only thing that is known.
Hiring isn't necessarily picking the "best" person for the role, but rather the least risky. Former Big Tech employees are often riskier than other candidates given their lifestyle expectations and the mismatch of the engineering cultures.
Personally when I left Google and interviewed elsewhere I made clear to potential employers two major things:
1. I never expected to be paid "Google level" money again. I was nowhere near high up in the pay tier there, but it was still almost twice what local shops were paying, at times (depending on how RSUs worked out, etc.)
Google can pay what it can because of the ads firehose, and it was actually, more than anything, a strategy used to deprive the competition of talent.
2. I never actually liked the Google internal culture, so although I was there for 10 years I was constantly aware of the things that I didn't like and the things I would not be trying to bring over to future gigs. And I had 10+ years work experience before Google. Which didn't serve me well while I was inside Google, but definitely has afterwards.
> The first year was serious ego boost, having Google on the resume opened doors all over the place.
Before I worked in FAANG, My subjective view of big tech SWEs was they were very skilled, in a different league.
My current view is that it "just" takes very good preparation and a decent resume to get in. And they've hired so many people that it's not so special anymore to be an "ex-Google". There are just a lot of them.
That being said, I think someone who gets hired in such a company, and manage to stay for many years has to be quite productive and competent. Especially if they reached higher levels.
Google is not a "produce a lot of code" place. It's a careful and deliberate and systematic type of place.
One thing I think ex-Google does bring especially to the table is a disdane for over-complicated and overly trend-driven solutions.
For one Google's internal review culture is (or at least was when I was there) very stringent. Pointless complexity and showboating is usually spanked.
For two, because Google basically rolls its own everything in regards to frameworks and the like, developers who come out of there have been mainly cured of "flavour of the month" and "my ego wants us to use this new shiny new-coloured tech".
Post layoff, a person on H1B has 2 months to sign a new job offer or they must leave the country.
Majority of Indian and Chinese H1bs do not have green cards, and are the main group that suffers. Some of these folks are well into their 30s, with kids and houses in the US.
I’m familiar with H1b visas. Yes it’s an irritating situation for an immigrant to be in but it’s not as bad as you make it out to be.
If you have good life savings, you can convert to tourist visa, and stay in the country for an additional 6 months and a higher hassle when restarting your career.
You can leave the country, and get back as long as your H1b is still valid.
If your spouse is working, you can be convert to being a dependent on them with H4 visas.
At the end of the day I think the government should not let people end up in such a situation. After the 6 year H1b deadline, I would prefer if the government just sends a notice to those that it thinks can immigrate long term and send the rest back. At least then we won’t have the ridiculous situation of upending families and children who have started schooling just because their parents lost a job.
I'm kind of curious how they have houses in the US. I'm from Europe but I would have kind of assumed that banks aren't willing to lend to someone without residency pinned down or would only do so at extortionate rates. I also kind of assume most wouldn't be able to pay for a house outright.
In the US, it's common for folks to sell a house with a partially paid loan. Makes real-estate a liquid asset and that reduces risk. Further, it's low risk for the bank because they can always repossess the house if something goes wrong. A resident who falls on hard times can missa lot of payments before repossession can be forced. An H1b on hard times has 2 months to leave the country. This means at worst, they'll miss 1 payment before they're forced to sell the house. Much lower risk for the bank.
If you pay your monthly installments and have solid financial health (good credit score, high income, paid your taxes) then you'll get a standard deal. H1b Indians are on 30-50 yr queues for green card. Buying houses without residency is the norm, not the exception.
Unfortunately yes. That is exactly how it works. Most Indians on H1b will never get a green card despite having an approved green card application. (the I140)
Indian wait-times are expected to be between 20-60 years. It is ~10 years of the Chinese & Mexicans. Everyone else gets a green card within 1-2 years.
I stayed in the same job for nearly a decade, it got really interesting in the second half; in a way that it never would have gotten if I had job hopped every 3 to 5 years.
That being said, once I got bored in the job, I sniffed out that the parent company wanted to lay a few people off, and hinted that I was open to it. It worked out well for me.
I was just too busy in my personal life to look for a job on the side, and honestly I didn't want to walk away halfway through a project.
Situation: My boss was given a month notice about getting laid off. He told me that he believed the department head was told to cut costs dramatically.
Situation, part 2: All tech products have a life cycle. At some point they go into maintenance mode where there's no active development of new features.
Situation, part 3: Although we were a market leader in our niche, we just couldn't compete with what was coming from Microsoft.
Thus, I had a 1-1 with the department head. I don't remember exactly what I said, but I probably alluded to wondering what I was going to do when the feature I was working on was complete, and hinting that, after working on this product for a decade, I was getting kind of bored.
The package was confidential, but given that my last day of work was February 29, 2020, I made out rather well. :)
Those "lifer" friends may just be later in their career, though. Your ability to significantly advance your compensation depends on how early in your career you are. You will plateau at some point, but early on it makes a lot of sense to job hop. My first job hop was for +66% comp increase. My next was for about +25%, next for +15% or so. Eventually you hit a ceiling. After 30 years in the industry, my last job change was probably about +0.05%. I expect if I have to interview again, it's a toss up whether I'd get a higher or lower offer.
How does this work, though? Every company I've worked for has an HR system, and resumes flow through it, and there's a set process. If I have worked with a candidate in the past and highly recommend them, all I can do is submit their resume into the great void and check a box "Recommend". I don't have any other power. There is no "Skip the interview, I vouch for him!" button that I can push.
It's probably related to the size of the company. Most of the companies I've worked for in the past have been between 50-200 employees across the entire org. The dev teams were usually around a 10-20 people and the director of R&D often encouraged us (the devs) to recommend new hires. They still had to pass through HR but it was more of a formality and the director had the proverbial majority vote.
Smaller teams are also more tight-knit so recommending a new potential dev wasn't a matter of process - it was literally head down a few doors and have a chat with the director.
I'm sure it's significantly different for huge enterprises where even the teams within the R&D department are heavily siloed.
> How does this work, though? Every company I've worked for has an HR system, and resumes flow through it, and there's a set process. If I have worked with a candidate in the past and highly recommend them, all I can do is submit their resume into the great void and check a box "Recommend
I haven't worked for any massive companies with thousands of employees where there might be a lot of bureaucracy, but the few I've worked for ranged from ~100-700 and it was pretty easy to get interviews for referrals. One of my employers encouraged referrals and offered bonuses if it led to a hire.
If you are regarded very highly, if you suggest to your manager there's another person out there like you they will work the system to get that person lined up for an interview ASAP. If you aren't very highly regarded, your suggestions will be put into the HR system and never looked at.
If your manager is inexperienced or not very good then there's nothing you can do about that.
That's how it works in my company too. The recruitment teams barely work with the engineering teams themselves. You may know a very good fit for the team, possibly even a previous member/intern of that team, and you won't be sure you can put the person into the recruitment loop. And then they'll need to pass the interviews...
And at the end of the day the HR work for your VP. And your VP needs people to do things, and if he hears you are a good person and you are available it will happen. HR is just a layer of process. Make them happy in regards to the things they care about.
Yeah, that was the situation until 2023. This market is absolutely brutal and there's no guarantee of an offer in 6+ months, even for roles you'd get in a month.
I wanted to be a "lifer" (you don't build expertise jumping jobs every 2 years) but I more or less knew going into games that that was never going to truly be the case. But this bad market only amplifies the issues.
> It seems like the heavity majority of those stressed about layoffs in big tech are lifers and those who are chronically averse to and dread the interview process.
Not helped by the fact a lot of interview processes - unless you can rely on word-of-mouth and the corporate structure allows for shortcuts - are byzantine, maddening and/or don't have much relations to the work one will be doing afterwards. No fuck you I'm in for a sysop/cloud position, I won't waste my time doing Fizzbuzz. Give me a laptop with internet and an actual work task if you want to judge my competence.
I have pretty severe social anxiety and this industry was a refuge for me.
The added social and political mental load that has crept in over the past decade or so has effectively pushed me to burnout.
And I was a happy "lifer" making subpar salary writing government software. I got to work in a large dark office with other nerds and joked about esoteric things.
But once software development became formalized, homogenized, and micromanaged, I couldn't conform.
Maybe that perception that people chronically job hop is not true? I would welcome a data source that shows chronic job hopping is the norm.
Anecdotally speaking, I spent 6+ish years at my first "old tech" company. My org in this (very large) company was constantly simmering with resource actions (mostly small scale layoffs). There was lots of negative energy there. I left to take a programming/data analytics gig in a large, privately held financial company that had never had a layoff. This was unfortunately timed, 2 years later the financial crisis of 2008 kicked off and I (and my entire team) were all laid off. I have been with my current employer for approaching two decades and several of my peers have been on our team for that much time.
I have had a SINGLE manager in that time window. I can't even name all the managers I had in my first job due to near-constant re-orgs and layoffs.
I worked at Microsoft 2009-2024 and I've seen it a lot. It's rather telling when your own manager tells you that if you want fast promos and raises, the best way to do so is to switch companies every few years. And I've had more than one manager say that. I know many people who did several rounds of Microsoft -> Google -> Amazon -> Microsoft or the like.
That said, I don't think one can blame the devs for it, since it is the companies themselves that have created the environment where the above holds true. I never understood why - intuitively, it doesn't make sense for the company to underpay its devs to the point where they leave for a competitor, and then come back and get rehired at a much higher salary anyway. But it is what it is, and the workforce has caught on.
> I never understood why - intuitively, it doesn't make sense for the company to underpay its devs to the point where they leave for a competitor, and then come back and get rehired at a much higher salary anyway. But it is what it is, and the workforce has caught on.
It's because they are unable to tell who is worth what. So they outsource it to the market. If you managed to pass the interviews and get hired at the other big tech company, that's proof of value.
It's also self-reinforcing. If you don't leave, it's a signal that you don't trust your own market value to be higher.
For every dev that is able to make the "Microsoft -> Google -> Amazon -> Microsoft" circuit, you have n others who look hardly distinguishable to management who can't do that if they tried quitting. In other words, quitting is risky, in game theoretic terms it's a costly signal of competence.
I also wouldn't be surprised if it had some internal politics reasons that there are certain rules/power games around salary raises that don't apply when someone is hired from scratch.
> It's rather telling when your own manager tells you that if you want fast promos and raises, the best way to do so is to switch companies every few years.
This is different than what GP asked, it excludes anyone who might prefer stability over fast raises. Are the job-hoppers the majority, or are they just more visible because they're always interviewing?
Another anecdote from my part. I graduated in roughly 2015. I've had 5 software eng jobs since then. Each one I've had at least 2 different managers in the average 2 years I spent in each. My latest role, however, I was at for 2.5 years and had 6(!) managers. I had originally intended to stay at that role longer term but it was obvious the constant managerial turnover was a negative for my career growth - so I hopped again.
I've not experienced a layoff, but I also think its extremely abnormal to be in a position for so long and only have one manager.
I contracted/consulted around London for decades, and though I was with some clients for many years in total, others were much shorter, and short entries on a CV were not seen as a red flag AFAIK.
(Well, there was one hiring manager idiot who could not conceive of anything other than linear non-concurrent contracts as being honest - that interview did not go well, but I dodged a bullet!)
Hard to say - at my current company many people seem to be there for the long haul (it is a good place to work) and I'd say many departures have been due to restructures (some people lost jobs, but I think in a few cases existing managers haven't seen eye to eye with new leadership so have left, but also taken people with them).
At my last job people came and went, but I'd say that the job hoppers would be more inclined to say for 3-4 years rather than 1-2 years.
As a further insight, I'd say that my current job is at a big company, and in my town there are probably only four or five other companies of comparable size, while my previous job was medium sized and there were probably a lot of companies of that size that you could move to.
I think it's possible that the majority of tech workers aren't hoppers, but the majority of applicants are. This just stands to reason, since hoppers aren't doing much applying and interviewing. This would tend to make interviewers think that this is a dominant strategy even if it isn't really.
It's also the case that the "everything is transactional, fuck your coworkers, leave your job the minute you can plausibly say you learned something and move on, chase impact at any cost because you only have one career" live-to-work contingent is just much louder online, especially here. After all, these are people that are investing a lot in their career, while IME most of my coworkers, even managers (though I don't personally know very many VP-and-up managers) are work-to-live people, mostly interested in their families and hobbies, and seem to rarely post on forums like this.
In any case, I'm fairly certain that there are (or were until recently) Labor Department researchers who have figured this all out empirically and could give us an answer if we knew where to look.
Job hopping is done to maximize your salary in the least amount of time - but everyone knows that there's a ceiling. You can't just keep job hopping for the rest of your career, and magically end up making 25% more every time you hop to the next gig.
Sooner or later you'll start to reach a ceiling, and have to defend your salary more. The idea is that if you can end up hitting that ceiling in 10 years by job hopping, that's better than spending 25 years at one place to hit the same figure. The earlier you have maximized your salary, the more you can invest and hopefully retire earlier.
Now, once you hit that ceiling - it kind of sucks to be in a constant state of job hopping. You actually don't get rewarded, and it is more stress than anything. And the older you get, the more stability you'll value - after all, you probably have a mortgage, kids, and all that to account for.
- Detail-oriented nerds with a rich mental framework around things like optimization, making decisions based on data, perhaps statistical approaches to uncertainty get frustrated when they see their organization making big, irreversible choices without the benefit of all available information. From the IC or line-manager level there may be a bunch of information which you can tell was not taken into consideration.
- Process-oriented people who have put a bunch of effort into planning, goal-setting and measurement based on seemingly reasonable assumptions like "this team that provides service X will continue to exist for the duration of project Y which depends on X" get frustrated when execs throw everything into disarray ... and then 3 weeks later want to know why Y is off track.
As the article describes, often lay-offs end up being bad for the company, not just the employees who get terminated. Even if you're not let go, or even if you just care about the value of your vested equity, it can be quite frustrating to see this happen. And often, because layoffs are generally planned in secret, leadership explicitly precludes the possibility of getting input from the experts in their organization.
While perhaps some layoffs ultimately turn out ok, I think generally the people who go through them can tick off a list of parts of it that were ill-considered and needlessly disruptive, in part b/c of this lack of trust and communication.
I think there are two reasons: choosing to change jobs on your own gives you ability to pick a time when it's minimally disruptive to yourself and your actual family, and then the pretend "family" vibe you cite is pushed by the employer in the first place. Companies insising on a game of make-believe where the relationship between employer and employee isn't transactional makes it hard not to be bothered by the hypocrisy. I agree that on average, the tech industry isn't as bad as other industries often are, but I don't see why that's a compelling argument not to care about the fact that it still could be better. There's nothing stopping me from wanting fewer tech layoffs and better conditions for workers in other industries as well (and in some circumstances even advocate for that even knowing that it might require changes to my own quality of life to achieve that; as a trivial example, I go out of my way to tip much larger than 20% when I use Uber because I'd rather risk getting ripped off than a driver not getting paid a fair wage for the work they do for me, even if it's at my own expense).
At the end of the day, everything is a balancing act, and the amount of change most of us can make as individuals is a drop in the bucket compared to the unfairness that people have to deal with every day. We all have to make judgement calls on where to take a stand and where to play it safe to avoid making things harder for ourselves without actually making a difference that ends up helping anyone, and if people are acting in good faith when trying to make those choices, I don't see any value in criticizing what they end up deciding. If anything, most of us in tech are probably in far more of a comfortable position to be able to speak out against employers (either or own or those in industries where workers are treated even worse), so I think there's a reasonable argument that it's more important for us to because of that. It's not a zero-sum game though; pointing out tech employer hypocrisy doesn't inherently take anything away from pointing out even worse things that other employers do.
> I go out of my way to tip much larger than 20% when I use Uber because I'd rather risk getting ripped off than a driver not getting paid a fair wage for the work they do for me, even if it's at my own expense
Honest question, as a European who doesn't fully understand tipping culture: don't you think that this might be perpetuating a culture of exploitation? Wouldn't you rather spend your money on taxis that at least have some regulations if you are afraid the drivers are getting the wrong end of the deal?
In the macro sense? Possibly, if everyone is doing what I'm doing. In my experience though, the opposite is more common; I've heard of people absolutely refusing to tip out of "principle", and then workers making sub-minimum wage don't actually get paid what they're legally "mandated".
In the micro sense, I find it pretty unlikely that I'm single-handedly making much difference personally in the New York economy. While as software engineer in tech I'm undoubtedly better off than average, I'm certainly not anywhere close to wealthy enough that even spending my entire net worth on tips would affect anything at all.
I didn't say don't tip, I said don't use Uber and use a taxi instead (and keep tipping if you want). I don't know what the situation is in NYC, but the last time I visited the US in Illinois, my taxi driver told me he also used Uber when he finished the hours he could legally drive a taxi for. To me that's scary on so many levels: both from the point of view of exploitation, but also personal safety.
The tech industry also doesn’t reward loyalty, even at big tech.
There’s a reason for the low tenure at most firms and it’s primarily due to the lack of rewarding experience and depth of field knowledge at most companies. When you have to get a new job just to get a salary increase that keeps up with inflation you are going to see a lot of job hopping when the skills of the workforce are generally in demand.
How often is it that someone leaves because they can get paid better elsewhere? Why do we think this wouldn’t drive the primary cause of people leaving companies?
Where the fuck is the company showing any loyalty to its workforce?
> Where the fuck is the company showing any loyalty to its workforce?
They have been and are out there. But all it takes is a change on C level and cost cutting suddenly is everything, loyalty a thing of the past. That is, you cannot count on loyalty anymore, even if the company you are working for is currently showing it (or seems to).
Yeah I don't see the big mystery here. People leave to keep up with cost of living or get away from toxic elements in their current workplace that are otherwise difficult - if not impossible - to change by staying. It's not something we want to do, it's something we have to do for one good reason or another. If we had better rights and meaningful raises to improve or even sustain our quality of life, the job hopping would surely decrease. The layoffs and the reason for job hopping are both attributed to actions on the employer's side.
For almost every job I've had, I would have been more than happy to stay there if it provided the career growth that job hopping provides. Companies seem to deliberately make internal promotion far more difficult than just job hopping to L+1.
Big tech employees have been abandoning companies the second they can get higher TC for decades, and as soon as the companies start firing a very small fraction (in a lot of cases people who were coasting or incompetent) its a problem of morality?
You can really see what people are made of when they face adversity. Good luck.
Big tech employees are a fraction of all tech employers and employees. There’s problem so systematically pervasive that you see this across the board. Companies do not value long term retainment of employees up and down the size spectrum and it’s very clear in how they behave.
They don’t award experience and depth of knowledge in any way that is indicative of fostering retention
Big tech employees have been doing that because they see new hires (who have themselves switched from another big tech company!) get a lot more comp than their meager raise. Don't blame the workers from reacting to the signals that company is sending through its own deliberate actions.
The thing is, the tech industry is also an outlier in a sense that the quality of the job you find varies massively depending on (1) the timing, sometimes literally by a few weeks and (2) whether you already have a job or not.
And so, layoffs are not "just another bump" in people's career. They represent a major net negative for people who would otherwise have much more control over the trajectory.
I've worked over 12 years at the same company. Finding a new job would be difficult as remote pays lower and isn't the best fit for me, my area isn't known for tech job, my spouse doesn't want to relocate, I work for one of the biggest employers in my area (fewer choices outside the company), and we are seeing the highest sector unemployment since the dot com bubble. Oh, and my disability makes it all worse. My job has been an absolute hell hole for the past 2 years, but internal and external job opportunities have been extremely limited.
I guess there are a broad range of perspectives and how loud people are is going to depend on their perspectives. Some reasons to dislike layoffs:
- visas may be dependent on employment, and can make changing jobs harder. In the United States, lots of visa rules are at the discretion of the government (eg how long one may live in the United States on an employer-sponsored visa while unemployed)
- the recent (and dot-com era) tech layoffs have been cyclical: many companies are in layoff-mode or hiring-spree mode at the same time. The time when many companies are not hiring is the worst time to be thrust into the job market
- people may have other job security worries – big tech companies tend to always be growing so it is worrying if they are laying people off instead of moving them from a failing business line to a new one
- in general some people may have a lot of anxiety about changes to income. If you are applying for new jobs while currently holding another, there is much less pressure than if you’re unemployed and need to find a new job (and possibly at a pay cut requiring outgoings to be reduced) before you run out of savings, especially if you don’t have much in savings compared to outgoings, which may be the case for some tech workers (some people spend a lot, or have much of their wealth tied up in property or have a family which requires spending more on eg housing or school fees). The much-worse consequences of failing to get a new job may increase the pressure/stress/discomfort
- this reveals an obvious truth about where the power lies in ‘engineering-focused’ companies and people don’t like it
- people can see a layoff as being like a firing and therefore be unhappy due to hurt pride (or worries about being less desirable in the job market)
- the lack of agency in a layoff is unpleasant. It is quite different from choosing to apply to other jobs.
It's a chicken and egg problem. If people feel they could have a meaningful career in a given place, they would stay longer. When you see your teammates getting laid off one after the other - including people with 5-10 years of seniority and history of good performance, you start to wonder whether you should have any sense of loyalty to the company.
I joined my company with the naive hope there would be some sentiment of family/community and that I'd do a big chunk of my career there. But after seeing how they treat employees, I'm looking for the way out.
> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
1) Because layoffs are a timeline not in your control.
Leaving a job under my timeline is very different than suddenly being out of a job on somebody else's timeline. On my timeline, I know what my financial situation is and have likely planned around it. Layoffs, on the other hand, can catch people at vulnerable points. Even if you don't get laid off, you will likely have hoarded cash and adjusted major purchases just in case you did.
2) Because most "tech" workers are NOT in a chronic state of job hopping.
Most people working "tech" are in boring businesses doing 8-to-4, have a mortgage, a spouse, and maybe a child or two. They have friends and support networks where they are. They are reasonable at their job, but nothing outstanding that would set them apart from the masses. Moving to another job in the same area is probably not an easy task--either the area has a single big employer or the scattered "tech" jobs are kind of rare. And even if the area has another job, your commute may change from reasonable to absurd. In the worst case, your spouse also gets laid off since tech companies are like sheep and will do layoffs simultaneously for "reasons". Now, you may have to completely leave the area to find a new job.
This all sucks for people who are just getting by day to day.
3) Unless you have really good personal networks right now, job hopping is really difficult.
Sure, senior people can just call up "so-and-so" and wind up with an interview tomorrow. Junior people, not so much.
Because a lot of tech workers today aren't actually job hopping and instead get very cozy in a job and a team and a career trajectory, which feels unfairly ripped away during layoffs for reasons that don't feel connected to their personal performance.
1. People like to control when they leave a company and join a new one. Most people will have a new job lined up, papers signed, before they put in their resignation at their old job. Getting laid off means a scramble to find something new. There's generally a big power imbalance between an employer and employees; the employee having the power to interview around and leave on their timetable is one of the less common cases where the employee has control over their own destiny.
2. While sometimes layoffs are isolated to a company, at other times (as we've seen over the past several years) it's indicative of an industry-wide trend. In this case, employees should definitely be worried about layoffs, as there well be a lot of their fellow workers competing for a smaller number of job opportunities.
Have you ever seen a tech company where the workers actually stay? Where you can find employees who have been there for up to 30 years?
I have. You know what striking difference I found with BigTech and their layoffs? These companies don't do layoffs. They are stable, employees feel secure and can evolve in their career without leaving. You know what employees say about their company? "It doesn't give the highest salary, but it's safe and rewarding, and you can actually evolve in your career". Turns out that if people are actually happy, they stay.
> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
I know lots of people hop jobs to get promoted. It's understandable too: promotion has become a prestige. It hurts to see coworkers get promoted yet oneself stays at the same place, let alone promotion is the only way to get a larger package. Personally, I think the promotion culture, especially the one popularized by Meta, is pretty ruinous to the tech companies, as many people exclusively focused on getting promoted. That means first write less code but draw more boxes, then draw fewer boxes and write more docs, and then write fewer docs but go to more meetings. Soon it's hard to distinguish a high-level engineer from a technical PM, from a director (except that the IC does not have direct report), or even from a program manager. The end result is that the company gets more bloated, slows down every day, and produces bullshit systems. When those ICs go out to interview, all they can do is throwing around a few terms and fail miserably on even the most basic questions.
100% (I have owned and worked at my own company for 10 years)
Anecdotally, I've also worked at many startups that became big companies through acquisition and Let me tell you - J&J has a lot of employees who have been there more than 5 years, thousands. They also had several big layoffs of such people during the process.
There is attrition and there are layoffs. With attrition someone leaves every year or so, you part on good terms, and the company hires a replacement on a similar level and location.
Layoffs means reducing headcount, your team ends up weaker than it was, and everyone is left wondering if they are next.
I think many people at big tech companies like Facebook truly drank the koolaid there, and when they got laid off it laid bare that the companies they worked at were just companies. Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc are no better than Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, or whatever other 20th century company they had come to represent the answer to. I think a LOT of people had really tied their identities up in being a big tech employee and when they got laid off it was like being cast out of paradise
To be fair, Facebook was a really really great place to work for the five years I was there. Given that, it's not surprising that people got comfortable.
Like, I've gone from 200 connections at FB to less than 100 over the years of layoffs.
> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
Most of us job-hop because we have to, not because we want to.
There's a class of people in the tech industry who like to write blogs about how fun and fulfilling it is to constantly change jobs and roles. Those people are highly visible but not representative. Most humans find constant change and uncertainty stressful, not exhilarating.
I’ve been at my company working in tech for 19 years and I hate the pushing of job hopping as a norm. Job hoppers have no skin in the game. They don’t need support what they build, they don’t get to see where it fell short… they really can’t learn from their experiences and mistakes. What they do isn’t in the best interest of the company, it’s just enough (an MVP if you will) to add to the resume so they can leverage it for a bump in pay on their next job.
I see wave after wave of job hoppers hired to “transform” the organization and all they ever do is repeat the same old mistakes, which we could tell them if they weren’t too arrogant to listen.
Every job hopper I’ve worked with has simply been a distraction to the greater goals of the organization to serve the customer. I’ve lost all patience and respect for the people who practice it, and the companies that set themselves up in a way which encourages it.
I don’t know how we find our way back, but I think companies and employees would all be better off with some stability and more long term thinking.
Yes, but it also takes some level of patience on the part of the employee.
Corporate bureaucracies often move slow, and they also want to see you can do the job first. I’m seeing most younger people don’t seem to have patience for this.
They also grossly overestimate their knowledge and ability. I’ve seen a significant number of people talk like they mastered a job after 1 year, then they stared asking me how they could get on my team doing what I do. I did the job they were doing for 10+ years. The reason they think it’s easy is because I defined the processes of how to do it all, wrote all the documents on how to do it, made a training program they went through, and worked with other teams to remove a lot of the toil. I then started building tools to make it easier for anyone off the street to do a lot of the work, and do it at scale. Thats why I have the job I have; it wasn’t given to me, I created it out of a desire to make the team better after realizing we could only go so far if I just worked faster. They didn’t see any of that.
For those that seemed interested, I’d give them the tools they needed to help, to see if they were the type to do this kind of stuff. I’d provide feedback, answer questions, or do anything else I could to help them. Out of the dozen or so who asked, only 1 person has done it to a limited degree. Thats why companies don’t just offer it up quickly and easily. A lot of people talk, but not many back it up.
I just performed a job hop. I've stayed in the same job for nearly 4 years and I'd be happy to stay if I wasn't being underpaid. I think I've performed pretty well and I know I've had good feedback from colleagues, I've told my voss multiple times that I like my job but I feel like my pay isn't developing fast enough. My raises have been 7% for the first two years and 4% the last year.
So when my team lead quit I decided to look around to see if I was right to think I was underpaid, and the first place I applied offered me more than a 20% raise. I think I've been patient, but I'd much rather have money now that later.
I think if you're at a company for more than a year then the chances are you need to support what you build. Also, how do you know you work with a "job hopper" until they leave? You always have to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're committed to the cause. It feels like you got burned at some point in the past but I could be wrong.
LinkedIn can show a trend pretty well. Sometimes they stop at some point, so I can be proven wrong. In other cases the person left, came back, and left again.
The last one was the chief architect on a project I was assigned. She turned the org upside down, left the day after her bonus hit, came back 6 months later, turned the org upside down again, and again left the day after her bonus hit. If she comes back a 3rd time I won’t be engaging.
I’ve been burned by these people a lot. They have absolutely obliterated the culture and the stability of our infrastructure, and in a few short years destroyed what I spent a decade helping to build. They replaced it with fragile systems without any kind of support model, which now get full re-writes every year… just because.
Really you dont see the difference between the little guy who has a family and barely affords rent and food doing all the extra work and calculating and saving to make the risky jump when he feels comfortable, vs a giant corporation sitting on 10 years of runway no matter what they do indiscriminately cutting and shoving dozens of "little guys" into unplanned for stress and upheaval?
I think job hopping happens for the same reasons layoffs do: short-term thinking on management's part. I've been an engineering manager for 8 years now and have observed that a) giving an external candidate a $10-15K bump during negotiations is fairly easy while b) giving that same bump to an existing employee is practically impossible. Engineers learn that moving every 2-4 years is the way to keep their salary growing, while the same companies that claim to not be able to pay them more happily dish out even more money to hire their replacements.
Keep in mind that only the most extreme, financially focused workers are doing what you describe. Like ones that are young and single.
In addition, let's not pretend thos also isn't by design from the companies. They stopped doing tenure based rewards and are harder than ever to get a raise from. Those people are simply reacting to the terms the companies set.
> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
When I leave a job, I leave on good terms, they're always sad to see me go but understanding, and I always give my employer 6 or more weeks notice with the additional offer that they can still reach out to me for help if they need after that for as long as my memory remains helpful. A couple even took me up on my offer and asked to pay me for my time.
The time I got caught in a layoff I had the door slammed in my face literally minutes later and barely two weeks severance contingent on signing away rights. So, fuck me I guess.
Maybe the workers who complain understand that circumstances are not always equal.
I get the point, but I don't think that's universally true. Especially in the less glamorous corners of the tech industry -- yes, you have some younger people looking to bounce, but most of the people who actually keep the lights on have full lives outside of work and all things being equal, they'd rather stick around than deal with the hassle of finding a new job. They're only going to leave if you create a toxic work environment or underpay them by double-digit percentages.
For those industries, I don't think they're getting much from the layoffs besides the short-term "we did layoffs" C-suite bonus. If you're in the Widgetmaker Control Systems industry, why do you want to make your workforce think they have to leave in 3-4 years?
I think your idea is a good faith argument, but it's a fallacy: high turnover on a job because of stiff competition for labor is not a "tech culture" issue, and it's not at all the same impact on a person as changing due to a layoff.
That's kind of a chicken and egg issue, isn't it? Why is it that employees can get more money/promotions from a company they have no relationship with, than from a company where they've already been working for multiple years and have more company-specific knowledge than their replacement will? Unlike with government work, years at the company isn't really considered when deciding who layoffs are going to hit. You're proposing that tech workers should loyally stay at the same company for 10 years, make less money, and then get laid off just as easily anyway?
> Why is it that employees can get more money/promotions from a company they have no relationship with, than from a company where they've already been working for multiple years and have more company-specific knowledge than their replacement will?
Short form: Lack of headcount at the various levels, and the responsibilities at the different levels would skew to "staff developers doing junior tasks because there are no juniors."
--
Many times promotions need an available headcount at that level. The promotion also reflects a change in responsibilities.
The company couldn't have an entire team of staff engineers thinking about things without writing code - so there's an entire setup for "this is how much is budgeted for these roles and these responsibilities."
You could have headcount for 20 developers (1:3 junior to mid), two tech leads, and a staff level architect. That doesn't you could hire / promote 23 staff and have them writing code.
So when a mid level progresses, it isn't always possible to say "you're a tech lead now" as that would mean fewer developers writing code... Unless you're also going to get to the point where your 23 staff engineers are also being tasked with writing the unit tests as if they were a junior developer still learning the codebase.
So in many cases, the mid level developer looking for more has to go somewhere else.
This isn't as much of an issue in a large company where there's more room to move between teams and new positions opening as attrition happens (in the organization I work for, attrition is most likely to happen from retirement).
There's also the aspect of not every company has the same revenue. If you are at the point where you want to make more and the company can't budget for that... then you're looking somewhere else.
This is an interesting question to ask, though I personally would not attribute it to "culture" as much as it may be a product of the environment people are put in. From my experience, there are a lot of jobs that make it difficult to continue past a few years, so job hopping is the inevitable outcome of that. I think many companies need to examine why they have a lot of turnover instead of attributing it all to individual employees.
And to be frank, layoffs are scary for any industry, because they usually are correlated with layoffs at other companies. A rising tide lifts all boats, but a sinking tide is difficult to escape. You might be laid off at a time when there is no other job to hop to.
> there are a lot of jobs that make it difficult to continue past a few years
This has been a lot of my career. All my long, successful jobs have lasted around 2-3 years, and it's the time it takes for the company to realize the initiative wasn't worth it. I count four of these stints where I left, and the team was essentially dissolved within a year. I'm not saying I was the key person for the project; I just saw the writing on the wall.
It's been career limiting not having a large-scope project on a growing team, but I don't know if this is something about me, something about the projects I'm a good fit for, or the reality that a lot of projects and teams don't survive 5 years, and I've been exposed to some survivor bias of smart people who have gotten lucky.
That is a great example of what I was talking about.
Another example is the changing nature of the contracts people are hired under. I'm a scientist, and a lot of positions are inherently term-limited. You end up with a lot of organizations with two different groups of employees: employers who have worked there for decades, and employers who are temporary and work there for a few years hoping to be converted to permanent. Just like in the situation you describe, if you end up on a project that just isn't working out, that does not bode well for your own prospects. That has nothing to do with your own capabilities or how hard you worked on the project. And just like you mention, a lot of the "permanent" people have survivorship bias and do not really understand that they ultimately got lucky and timed the market well.
(Or many of the permanent people were hired as permanent staff originally and do not understand the conditions under which new staff are hired.)
It's an outlier because unlike other service industries the software has global presence. An app written by software engineers laid-off 3 years ago will still run by itself with exceptions like servers running out of disk space.
Unlike other services industry tech workers get laid off for:
1. When the product has failed market-fit and company is not raising anymore capital.
Tech is a huge field. If you work in big tech or well-known companies, it is common to job-hop. If you're at something more established, traditional, or mid-sized, you'll probably find lifers.
Additionally, I think fewer people are job-hopping considering the market is so competitive. I would expect new grads to start staying at their first job for longer, too.
I agree with parts of what you say. I’m a career contractor or job hopper. I like it this way. I also am aware of the volatility of the industry. I prefer hopping and getting 20% pay bump each year. This more than offsets the risk of being laid off and staying a few months without income.
I resent the fake legal douche move of falsely asserting "low performance" as the rationale for their cuts.
Some people work hard and take pride in their work. And on top of their gaming down our wages with h1b workers and low benefit contracting they have the gall to assert we're low performers when what they want is a $20 million bonus for their execs.
per this article, Amazon 401k has a cliff vesting on matched funds at 3 years of employment. After reading around, it seems like 3 years is the legal maximum for 401k cliff vesting, with 6 years permitted for incremental vesting.
It’s worth mentioning (as a public FYI) that it’s not smart to _expect_ to stay with a company for 10+ years, from a risk mitigation perspective. At least not in 2025.
It’s kind of like picking a stock. Purposely picking just 1 stock for your portfolio carries great risk. Likewise, picking 1 job and/or 1 tech stack and hoping for the best is also high risk. It’s smart to at least dabble in new trendy technology for 1-2 days a month. Maybe review basic leet code questions once a year. Maybe every 2-3 years, apply somewhere else and go through the interview process strictly for practice. Who knows, maybe you’ll get a great offer? Just examples of what one can do to reduce the risk when a layoff occurs.
Regardless of what your culture taught you, try to reduce your risk. It might be outside your comfort zone, but better to be uncomfortable than unemployed. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket (one company, one tech stack). Keep your interview skills a _little_ sharp so that you don’t panic if a layoff occurs. It’s just common sense.
I agree. Jobs can go away at anytime for any reason. What really hurts is when people think their devotion and sacrifice means it wont apply to them. Set expectations accordingly.
Because it's usually only true in your early 20s. Then you find a place and stay. These people bragging about company hopping every 3 or 4 years don't do that for 20 years.
Citing an airline for longevity is a bit disingenuous.
I’m not sure how it works with support staff, but aircraft crew have contract structures that so heavily favor seniority that most pilots and FAs will never leave a major willingly during their career.
Your observation, to me, seems more like: tech companies reward new employees over old, airlines do the extreme opposite.
I don't work in Silicon Valley, nor pure tech, but in many industries, the quickest way to climb titles and pay is to move to a new firm. Plus you can avoid the friction of asking for a better title or pay as your current firm. (And getting a "no" is horrible for your self-esteem.) Can you blame these people for leaving a job for better title/pay? I cannot. Better: I would expect HN to applause! "Stick it to the man!"
I mean in all fairness, I move around because I’m looking for a place to stay - if I’m not enjoying myself at my job, why would I stick around? And conversely, when I find a spot I like, why job hop?
And besides, the last time I was laid off, it was from a place I’d been at nearly 5 years, a place that did feel almost like family - that’s why I stayed as long as I did.
Layoffs save money. They work for that purpose. Perhaps the blog post assumes some other purpose. I am not getting it. This appears to be nothing more than complaining, not "real talk". But being published from a domainname like "thehustle.co", nonsensical gibberish comes as no suprise.
If the title was "Tech Companies Don't Work", then this might be a good segue into discussing layoffs. For example, layoffs could be evidence of so-called "tech company" dysfunction or mismanagement. But, for some, the "outlier amounts of money" suggest these companies do "work". If the companies survive after layoffs, then clearly layoffs do "work" for the purpose intended.
Maybe in your early years when stability doesn't matter to you. When you have a mortgage, a family, and obligations then you care about your job. Putting food on the table and paying bills becomes your highest priority. As to tech industry as an outlier, it's not so much that as it's not yet been reigned in yet. Technical jobs are just another tool to execute a business mission and once utility is gotten from AI to effectively reduce costs then costs will be reduced. That means bye bye to big salaries and hello to new reality. So enjoy the gig while it pays.
The average tenure of an employee at HP is 6.6 years (source: Google AI) to pick a company that may be outside your bubble. And the lifelong career holding older employee at a legacy enterprise tech company is the kind of worker who is most adversely affected by an unexpected return to the job seeking pool.
Because not every company gives severance during layoffs. As someone who got RIFed (again - fourth time in my 15yr career), this is the first time I've had severance, and the first time I had a notice period that wasn't just "till the end of the month". As such, layoffs are traumatic just on their own.
Adding more rapid-fire context (for the sake of brevity):
* Parents changed jobs every few years growing up, which meant a new city, new home, new schools, and a complete cycling of relationships (forcibly out with the old, forcibly in with the new)
* I watched layoffs in non-tech sectors gradually go from tech-style severance packages, to no packages beyond the required WARN notice period payouts, to filing the notices and hoping nobody asks, to now just paying out any damages after-the-fact in lawsuits
* I spent ~15mo unemployed during the "Great Recession" of '08, ending up having to move to another region of the country for work and spending a night homeless, followed by six-months couch surfing, then another month in a hotel before finally having an apartment again
So all that put together, layoffs and job changes are incredibly traumatic experiences I do my best to avoid at all costs. I am one of those "lifers" who would much rather hunker down for a good wage today, buy a home, sock away savings, and work my way up an internal career ladder than throw myself into an entirely new workplace, colleagues, culture, and standards every year or two. I claw for multiple roles in an org (at the most recent one, I was juggling roles on Private Cloud & Public Cloud, Governance Councils, leading a CaaS ops overhaul, plus other PoCs) specifically to make myself as indispensable as possible and position myself on the internal promotional ladder, because I'd rather stay with one org provided I can eke out a modest living and take care of those I care about (myself included).
Now all that aside, there's also the reality that wage growth from job hopping hasn't turned out to be as big as folks thought. The real growth comes from career promotions, which companies hate doling out internally for profoundly stupid and arbitrary reasons (hence job hopping). I get the impression most folks would stay put if they could get the growth in their career they wanted, but companies would rather hire someone externally to fill a spot than promote someone internally operating at that level; I am very much in that group myself. Heck, we're seeing that now with folks not leaving jobs because they're having difficulty finding that growth (in comp and title) elsewhere, as everyone kind of knuckles down for tough times ahead. That taste of stability will create more "lifers" as you put it, especially when the world outside is increasingly unstable; it's natural that humans (and most animals) will seek stability in times of crisis, taking only as much risk as necessary to preserve their survival.
Something the article doesn't get into is the knock-on effect of layoffs in future business: if workers are let go for what they perceive to be arbitrary or irrational reasons, they're less likely to want to do business with that company again in the future. This is particularly why tech companies offer such good severance packages, as it's their mea culpa of sorts by trying to buy themselves a good reputation on the way out the door. When everyone is doing it though (like the current layoff cycles), it becomes a broader disgust or distaste for established vendors in general, and those workers - when they land a new role - are likely to want to migrate off their employer's products unless their career is tied to it somehow. This can reduce business after cuts had already been made, potentially putting an organization into a cycle of self-harm wherein more cuts are made in response to declining business, which then causes more declines in business, which leads to more cuts, etc. This in turn leaves a huge opening for new startups to enter the hole left behind by established players, undercutting them on pricing and providing better service.
So taking all of that into context when reading the article again, and it paints a pretty telling picture of widespread mismanagement at companies doing unwarranted and highly traumatic layoffs. If the only thing your leadership can do to grow the business is to layoff staff, that's a pretty telling sign that business ain't doing so great in general and leaders are out of ideas to improve it.
> After the early-2000s dotcom bust, Bain researchers found that stock prices for S&P 500 companies that had no layoffs or laid off less than 3% of their workforce increased an average of 9% in the next year. Meanwhile, stock prices were flat in companies that laid off between 3%-10% of their workers, and prices plummeted 38% for companies that laid off more than 10%.
Failing companies go through layoffs. Companies like Sun Microsystems, Kodak, Sears, Circuit City, Kmart all went through lots of layoffs. But everyone knows that's not what killed them.
Another addition I'd like to add here is more often then not wrong people get booted while the "dead weight" tends to stick around and becomes even deader due to a motivation fall from the layoff. So maybe it doesn't kill, but for sure exacerbates an already bad situation.
We are a small team in big company, and management that made wrong decisions is still somewhere there but not my direct management, still getting same paycheck, car, cards and benefits but new managers (that accepted to take over and got brand new car for 100k€, cards and bonuses, bells and whistles) started to layoff workers so we know this is the end for my team, and of course they will do whatever it takes to "save the product", but not fix the the real issue... lack of good developers to fix terrible bugs in our product.
That’s really the key part: if the managers who created the problem are still there, layoffs will just make it worse. There are cases where getting out of a dubious business line can lead to long-term benefit but I’ve seen that a handful of times compared to losing useful people while the bad managers failed upwards.
That's basically the story of Philips. They go through a tough period and choose to divest a "dubious" line of business to focus on higher margin products. The new company, freed of Philips management, goes on to surpass the revenues of the parent. That's how ASML and NXP were born. Signify (Philips lighting) is getting reasonably close.
If your small team in a big company does not directly generate money, then you’d definitely be ripe for elimination. Time and time again we’ve seen examples of trams that are critical to supporting various revenue generating parts of the company while not directly making money themselves get cut as an “obvious” way to save money when only looking at the books. Been there.
The thing is, ending a product that's not making money shouldn't mean eliminating the workers. Those were people you picked, brought in, and have adapted to your culture.
It always strikes me as weird when a product fails and the decision is to eliminate everyone from the product manager down... and then make no other changes. Then they bring in completely new people for whatever the new product line is. Sometimes, sure, an individual or group might cause a product to fail that should otherwise succeed. But it's weird to default to the production team. Is it a design problem? A maintenance problem? A product price problem? A sales and marketing problem? A management problem?
Like, the Pontiac Aztek did not do badly because one welder from Mexico screwed it up. It failed because it was ugly. It was ugly because the styling didn't survive the requirements to use the same parts as the Buick Rendezvous and the same basic platform as the Pontiac Montana. The process of making that vehicle fit into GM at that time killed the product. Today the Chevrolet Equinox, a direct descendent, is one of the best selling vehicles on the road at a time when there's a lot more competition.
> Time and time again we’ve seen examples of trams that are critical to supporting various revenue generating parts of the company while not directly making money themselves get cut as an “obvious” way to save money when only looking at the books.
Love how your typo turned into a beautiful metaphor for infrastructure being cut.
Some are kind to eng ICs, you’re not laid off from the company just given time to join another team. As you can still be a high-performer with context on company culture/tech stack while on a non-revenue-generating team.
Even if,
from the company's perspective,
if lays off all the "right" people,
some of those people will be "wrong" from the point of view of other people on the team.
Maybe the company didn't value a certain person,
for corporate or HR reasons,
but there's always a chance that person was a valued team member for human reasons.
Layoffs will lead to people leaving,
regardless of how surgical or random they are.
Exactly. Somebody who is universally hated by their co-workers should just be let go. Nothing to do with a layoff. So everybody who is around has some reason for actually being there. In a well-managed place, that is.
> Somebody who is universally hated by their co-workers
How many times have we seen a company fire whoever they consider "dead weight" but keep the universally hated guy because he's a 10x rockstar whatever?
A 10x person who brings down 20 others to a small fraction of their potential and causes other rockstars to leave is still net-negative. Good management understands this.
(And I'm not sure why I'm downvoted for this. Nothing about that should be controversial?)
Exactly. So the company keeps the guy everyone hates after laying off people that get along. The next people to leave the company are the ones disgusted by the move.
Depends on the company. I've seen the opposite case were such a person was let go, much to everybody's relief. Some people had to clean up his mess, which was genius in the sense that it worked flawlessly, but nobody else could maintain it, so he had locked in a minimal bus factor. Which makes such a move harder to execute, but the earlier the better.
Indeed. Like everyone from Lake Wobegon, I think that I am effective at my job. One of the most productive things I can do is to strangle bad ideas in the crib. This is not a popular role. Killing someone's pet initiative can make enemies. Yet, it can save countless weeks/months/years on doomed-to-fail efforts.
Working to not be laid off usually means just keeping your head down and going with the flow.
The key takeaway for me is that layoffs are an effect, not a cause, of company failure.
The quoted text is a good example of this. If a company is struggling strategically or economically, and doesn't do a layoff, it's just going to struggle more, and fail more quickly. Companies that aren't laying people off are likely not even considering layoffs, because their businesses are actually doing well.
So, it's pretty obvious to me that companies in that cohort would see the biggest stock price appreciation, because layoffs are an indicator of poor future performance.
There is the question of if layoffs saved the company enough to save itself or improve? And with that data you could say layoffs by themselves don't.
Today the question is why companies making good profits are making layoffs. And looking at the damage they cause is relevant in trying to predict company performance
> And with that data you could say layoffs by themselves don't.
I think that is one inference too far? Layoffs may have saved some of those companies from bankruptcy. The Bain study is looking at share price performance and offers no data that would resolve that question.
If the layoffs are taking a company which could be stably growing to one which is going downhill - in that case the execs actually hurting their long term compensation.
But i get it, it's like junk food for execs, easy to do, crisp in the action (even if not in the effects). But consumed carelessly its bad for company health
There's a big tendency to look for culprits whether layoffs, PE, MBAs, or whatever. But a lot of companies just made wrong bets or were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Kodak was never going to survive in anything like its pre-digital form.
You skipped the second part of my comment. Yes, senior execs at large publc companies--assuming they didn't do anything actually criminal or stupid related to their own finances--generally come out the other side OK. But sometimes a company can just reasonably get into a place it's hard to come out from. Kodak is a really good example IMO.
Maybe I'm expecting too much, but for me the only good reason a CEO is paid more than any actually useful employee of the company is to anticipate this kind of thing and use the money from their leadership position in the old tech to invest and not be in a very bad position with the new tech.
Sometimes companies just aren’t in a good position for historical reasons. Returning to Kodak you can’t really say to your investors and employees 90% of our existing business is toast and we’re going to churn everything over the next 5 years.
Sometimes you can do things more incrementally but other times it makes sense to basically close up shop and maybe shop your brand and some assets while keeping the biz afloat at some level with a lot of people still collecting a paycheck.
This correlation isn’t necessarily causal. Companies that are failing are more likely to layoff could be just as true as companies that layoff are more likely to fail.
Also, failing companies that use layoffs to restructure can succeed. For an example see IBM in the 90s. It’s hard but possible. And since the article uses stock price as a proxy for success, IBMs stock struggled for a long time afterward. It hit an all time high in 2025.
And then there are non tech industries that just go through cycles, like oil.
This is a terrible opinion piece. Layoffs do work. Cutting hours does not work. I am always amazed how few people understand how a business operates. They think its a community organized event where there is unlimited revenue.
There are a few basic accounting principles employees need to understand. It all revolves around Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity. If you think otherwise, take a "Cost Accounting" course. This is a pure numbers game. Everyone wants to wrap a psycho analysis into something that has ZERO relevancy.
If a company is bleeding revenue, it cannot sustain the overhead of employees. They have to go. Cutting hours does nothing for those on a salary, and those that are hourly, benefit costs are far more expensive than their wage. If a company has stagnant growth, that means leadership has made bad decisions, and things have to change.
Employees feelings don't matter on a Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Cash Flow Statement. There is not a "Employee's Feelings" column on the ledger. Everyone can be replaced. No one is special, unless you're a majority shareholder.
> If a company is bleeding revenue, it cannot sustain the overhead of employees. They have to go.
No, they don't. During the dotcom bubble my company gave us 2 choices, layoffs or 20% pay cut. We took the latter. Everyone stayed and we had our pay back to previous levels in a couple years and the company remained profitable.
You can, in fact, treat people as people and still run a company.
> Employees feelings don't matter on a Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Cash Flow Statement.
This is only true of companies of a certain (large) size, when all semblance of employees being people have been abstracted away. In companies of more reasonable sizes you must take employee moral into account or you will lose critical employees which could kill the company.
Surely there are some situations where a pay cut is insufficient because you would like to reorganize the company, for example to wind down an unprofitable initiative or division and there's not a reasonable way to maintain the same headcount?
There are some situations where layoffs are unavoidable. That's fine.
What's infuriating is a business culture that includes layoffs for outrageously profitable companies. I work at Google, which made 100 billion dollars in profit last year. More than $500,000 in profit per employee. Google is still conducting layoffs.
Layoffs are used as a tool of capital against labor. Amongst other things, it generates unemployment and people who are willing to accept lower pay due to the precarity of their situation (everybody needs to pay rent and eat), pushing down pay for the entire industry.
I wasn't saying that there are never needs for layoffs, but these aren't the sorts of layoffs being discussed. Where that line is drawn can be a bit fuzzy in a few cases, but the for majority it is clear cut.
My grandparent used consider global bubbles as the norm, likely because his own parents never told him that local, company-limited bubble are actually the norm. Fortunately my own parents are more agreeable with how I manage my finances, and my whole family – including the 380-minutes old grand-grandparents – is still alive & well. We still see each other, despite the occasional confusion my use of the English plurals causes us (not to mention everyone's own ups & downs, and the weird reproductive mechanisms of our larger genus within the world).
Not what happened with some of the recent layoffs. Some big tech companies generate huge revenues, laid off 5-10% of people (sometimes with false pretext of performance), and do keep hiring at the same time or soon after. This happens not to reduce cost but to stress out remaining employees.
In my team, two people who got laid off as "low performers" weren't. One was very good but had a bad luck with a very bad project / manager the previous half. The other picked the wrong topic to work on and they weren't well rewarded.
The low performers are usually managed out anyway. The last lay off phase was quite arbitrary.
Also note that high performers often do get promoted, and may become low performers at the next level.
> The low performers are usually managed out anyway.
That may be your experience, and kudos to companies that do this, but particularly in tech I've seen that not be the norm. Egregiously low performers are managed out, but performers who are basically just "low mediocre" can hang on for a long, long time in my experience, and tech companies often use layoffs as an opportunity to get rid of them. To be clear, not everyone who is let go in a layoff is a low performer (a lot of time it's just the luck of whatever business unit you're working in), but companies certainly take advantage of layoffs to get rid of low performers without needing reams and reams of documentation.
If there's an interview for a position and the candidate is 30 minutes late or no shows, maybe there is a legitimate excuse and it's a rare event, but the system is that both parties give up on that relationship to damage candidates that do that constantly.
Just look for another job and in the long run you'll be successful. Variance is part of life.
It is still to reduce cost. Hiring would often be in cheaper geographies. The reason to reduce cost is not to e.g. save a business from collapsing but it is to improve the financial results with the hope of making the stock price go up.
> Many companies rotate the bottom N percent to dump the bad performers
I have never seen this actually happen in practice.
It's always specific teams and projects that get fired because some C-Level fucked up and pushed for some ego project, or over-hired and placed those poor souls in useless projects.
What’s actually happened is that activist investors have bought their way onto the boards of highly profitable companies with insufficient poison pills and made them fire some percentage of workers under the guise of making the stock price go up.
Does worker happiness matter at all, or is it OK to have a net miserable company where the bottom line is slightly higher profit than it would otherwise have been if the environment were a pleasant place to work? Because that’s the tradeoff here; rabid billionaire investors are unhappy because numbers aren’t as high as they could be.
Activist investors are a problem. Most recent activist investors have been centered around climate and DEI. Exxon had activist investors try to get on the board. There was a lawsuit over it, I believe it was Arjuna Capital.
Whoever is funding these activist investors, probably a nation/state, is doing it on purpose. Natasha Lamb has to be the dumbest investors to ever live, next to Cathie Wood, IMO. You could invest in an S&P index fund and perform better at 264% for the past 11 years, compared to her 132% realized, and taking far less risk.
I get everyone has their idealistic views of how the world should work, but capitalism dominates every other society, providing better living standards, and security. It is unfortunate we have had leftists in the Democratic party take control of it, and pushing some very strange agendas, that doesn't reflect reality. These strange agendas have been exploited by other nations, like China.
Some activist investors have brought better function management and boards. Carl Icahn is a great example. But he has also brought his fair share of problems.
This is not what happened in recent layoffs where I am familiar with the company. Perhaps you would like to make the argument that in theory, lay-offs can be done that way.
A good friend of mine has a PhD in labor economics and is now a senior management consultant for a big firm and I've been told that in general just cutting people is bad for businesses and most businesses will be worse off by just cutting people, especially without changing any of the underlying systems that got the company to the position it's in. Next time I'll have to ask him about the studies on it but there definitely isn't a consensus that general layoffs help businesses in the medium/long term. He was saying the times they seem to work best is in the context of a broader restructuring, (which in my experience is not common for companies).
Asking who funded it is kind of meaningless when you’re talking thousands of studies, it’s one of those topics that’s quite interesting for everyone from economists to management consultants.
COVID was a mix of turnover, furlough, and layoffs, but the layoffs were generally of the exact type I was referring to. Shutting down a restaurant’s dining service doesn’t get the same kind of pushback as a 15% cut across a division. The company isn’t trying to do the same stuff with fewer employees, it’s no longer serving those customers.
Unsurprisingly, both the OP and this are oversimplified statements.
The more nuanced point is to note that simply reducing the world to accounting equations omits all of the human detail. Morale is a meaningful thing, or if you prefer, knowledge, expertise, Metis; these are damaged in layoffs, especially repeated rounds. And furthermore, the recent tech layoffs were not generally about fixing unsustainable businesses, they were about juicing profit margins for already profitable ones.
On the other hand, of course the OP title is wrong and layoffs can work. There are many examples even within tech where cutting deep is the only way of surviving.
Math wise, yes, you're correct, but layoffs can also hurt morale, especially if not done well. And in a competitive environment, the most talented people might be next to leave after a layoff, as they see things aren't going well and have the easiest time finding alternatives. I've seen that happen myself.
And some of those people you're laying off did revenue generating activities, so, as above, yes, it may be necessary to reduce costs, but it has to be done carefully.
> Employees feelings don't matter on a Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Cash Flow Statement. There is not a "Employee's Feelings" column on the ledger.
Sure they do. Just in the sense that employees feelings need to be controlled and made to fear any collective action or sense of agency.
> If a company has stagnant growth, that means leadership has made bad decisions, and things have to change.
There is a bigger picture.
Developed economies across the globe are experiencing stagnant growth, and the trickle down economics they have engaged in has failed to fix that.
Knowing this, the wealthiest, through their proxies in corporate leadership and government, are cutting back their biggest cost - employees - to maximize their near term returns, which will then be put into relatively fixed-supply assets, rather than risking capital on new ventures, and the employees that traditionally requires.
Corporations are betting that "growth" going forward is going to come from AI-enabled efficiency and productivity gains, not more employees making more product or innovating on product/service development and delivery. While it's too early to say whether they are right, many signs point in that direction.
Also I'd argue that a lack of layoffs at a company probably causes stagnation and inefficiency. I don't thin the only good argument for layoffs is that a company has no choice because of cash flows.
I see this in the public sector where you often find people who have been working at the same dept for a decade or more. These people feel very safe and know they don't really need to try that hard. They also know nothing about how things function elsewhere so they'll put up with using spreadsheets and fax machines because that's just how they've always done things.
It seems rather obvious to me that a good economy is one where employers feel some nervousness about losing good employees, so offer pay rises and perks; And where employees feel some nervousness about layoffs so work hard and try to be as productive as they reasonably can be.
If a company is not cutting a few percentage of their least productive workers each year they're probably doing something wrong imo. I think it's far to argue big tech companies built up a lot of these under productive workers over the years.
The article cited actual statistics and data comparing companies that enacted layoffs vs those that didn't. It showed very clear evidence, even within the same industry, that those that enacted layoffs fared MUCH worse
Also many of these layoffs are NOT coming when companies are "bleeding revenue". E.g. Meta and Twitter enacted massive layoffs after posting their most profitable quarters yet
That’s what should be expected. A company in a stronger position can more confidently avoid laying off people and “ride out” the painful market conditions. Not every company’s revenue is composed of similar risk items even within similar industries. Some companies are already knee deep in some new strategy and need everyone on board to roll it out. The other company is just a bunch of variable labor that can be culled when volume shrinks. It also means they’re not investing in the future and going to get beat by a more strategic competitor. So many other riffs to take on this, but short term minded financials are absolutely improved by layoffs and that’s usually all the action is trying to effect.
At least for public companies, accounting is FAR from the end all be all.
Most of the time, company valuations are completely divorced from valuations. And much of what public companies do these days is try to game their stock price.
Government employment is 95% the time completely divorced from reality.
That being said, private companies employee a lot of people and this is very relevant.
> Government employment is 95% the time completely divorced from reality
This is a pretty big claim to make without any evidence to support it.
The government, whether it be state, local, county federal etc. does in have a different pace and certainly like with any big organizations can have issues such as waste, but to say it’s completely divorced from reality, especially in context of somehow private (as in not government or NGO) companies don’t also act completely divorced from reality is a really big claim
Private companies generally need to be efficient and make money or go out of business.
VC funded startups are a VERY small percentage of jobs compared to ALL private company employees. But, sure, there is much shenanigans there.
Public companies can play tons of games as well - but the vast majority of people employed at public companies are at relatively efficient and profitable companies.
Government services are under no obligation to be efficient.
Often people vote for them to be LESS efficient, hoping that they'll get similar benefits from their private employers.
Though, hope is a bad strategy, and it rarely works for non-government employees.
But there's enough state employees that you don't have to win over that many private employees to win votes for things that make the services less efficient (like ever juicier retirement benefits).
> Private companies generally need to be efficient and make money or go out of business.
Half of this statement is true. A private company definitely can’t run at a loss forever. Although in the era of ZIRP a few definitely made a solid go of it.
However nothing requires an any company, and especially a private one, to be efficient. If an otherwise profitable and privately-held company wants to swell its middle management ranks or spend lots of cash employing the owners’ dubiously capable relatives, there’s nothing to stop it.
Incidentally that’s mostly true of public companies with diverse shareholders, too.
The idea that private enterprise is always efficient is a myth, as is evident to anyone who’s worked for a large enough corporation, or even a small one where management weirdly shields some obviously incompetent people for internal political reasons.
The only correcting factor is that companies can fail, and smaller competitors can sometimes find ways to undercut large, inefficient firms. But often the small company gets acquired or out-marketed. So there’s nothing inevitable about any of this.
> Private companies generally need to be efficient and make money or go out of business
They sure need to make money or they’ll go out of business, but efficient is not required. I think nearly anyone who reads HN regularly could tell you multiple stories through their own careers about waste in the private sector, bizarre politically motivated decisions etc. and that’s just this community as a sample size. I’m certain this holds if you cast a wide net
The fact is most businesses are not the paragons of efficiency that is being postulated.
Many larger do companies behave as if revenue is unlimited.
Too many times, I’ve seen layoffs followed by acquisitions of 10x the cost reduction from the layoffs — often even in the same quarter. And when parent company has a track record of driving acquisitions into the ground from mismanagement, where is the profit?
Your horribly simplistic take has already received a lot of backlash, but whatever I'm angry enough to add onto the pile:
1. Big tech companies doing layoffs are not hurting on revenue, so your basic assumption is wrong.
2. "Cutting hours" needs to be steelmaned if you're not going to anything but a charlatan. That means you have to interpret it as taking a paycut, as in a salary cut. This has actually been done before in worker-focused companies to survive covid, and in one instance I'm aware of the company gave workers back pay after surviving covid.
You also ignore all the intangibles that are no easy to measure, because of course the business acumen of "make number go up this quarter" is too short sighted to care about institutional knowledge or long term strategy.
Layoffs are like closing factories that don't produce, cutting products that don't sell, closing deserted retail locations, and so on. Likely bad business decisions got you there in the first place. Maybe market conditions changed. Maybe your whole company is going to fail no matter what you do. But blanket statements about what does or doesn't "work" are not very instructive.
Why can’t the outrageously overpaid leadership who made the mistakes be the ones who are punished instead of the individual contributors who are just trying to survive?
I mean, everything you said is true, but only because we have deliberately set up the system as such. Shareholder Primacy is a choice we have made as a society. It's not some natural law or something carved by god into stone tablets. It's not hard to imagine alternatives, but obviously the shareholding class is going to work hard to ensure that only their preferred rules have traction. Whether or not alternatives are workable given human nature is another thread altogether.
Shareholders don't have "primacy", eg they're last in bankruptcy. If you're asking for them to never get anything, then they're not going to participate, and this is supposedly a forum about startups.
In tech the employees also tend to be shareholders which I think is healthier.
Nobody is stopping anyone from running a non-profit tech company, or a PBC or co-op or various other structures. It's not even true that a US company has to prioritize "shareholder value" or whatever over anything else. You can kinda just do whatever you want. So the interesting question to me is, why don't more people try to operate companies/workplaces in the way they think would be more ethical and better for business?
>only because we have deliberately set up the system as such.
No one can sell at a loss all the time. That's just stupidity. Either I get a return on money invested later or I get a return on my balance sheet now in the form of profit. Shareholders primacy is because they can only be cut trough a buyout.
Why should you get a vote? You don’t get a vote on what groceries I buy. What entitles you to a vote on this purchase decision? (In this case “all the votes” means when making decisions on actions a particular corporation is considering, not any vote on anything)
The creation and transacting of corporate shares is also highly regulated. But it doesn’t address the question of why a third party should get a vote that helps decide a particular corporate action. Votes that limit the possible actions of all corporations equally are a different thing.
Ultimately, the corporation is operating (and gets legal support like corporate personhood and limited liability) because the public permits it through the state approving its corporate charter. The public allows the company to exist, and in exchange, the company is supposed to serve at least some vague public good. Technically, the public has the power to revoke the company's charter if that's in people's best interest.
The general public are all stakeholders that are affected by the actions of the corporations they allow to exist. They ought to have a say. In practice, we as a people have pretty much given up that say, and the world as it exists today is the result: Corporations running amok doing whatever they want, answering only to shareholders.
OP was talking about the overall social arrangement. One possibility would be to give employees (of all corporations!) some collective power over the company, as a fundamental requirement of incorporation.
At that point we're begging the question by going too deep into the analogy and finding the original situation again. The point has still been made that working on something without ownership can be enough to justify a say.
And the framers might have a say, it depends on the company.
The owner has a bunch of space and equipment they can grant power over, but that's only half a company. They don't naturally start with power over the employees.
It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context.
Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management.
Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them.
> They don't naturally start with power over the employees.
Indeed. What they have power over is what their employees do while the employee chooses to rent their time to them.
The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property.
If you seek voting rights, you should negotiate that as part of your employment - or don’t agree to it. Many white collar employees receive this in the form of stock.
> It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context.
Right, and it shows that ownership isn't the one factor that matters.
> Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management. Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them.
It's not like delegation is optional.
But more importantly, the suggestion had nothing to do with ownership. The suggestion was voting power.
I am glad you seem to have stepped back from the "someone else built" language you originally used.
> The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property.
And sometimes it's good to negotiate parts of employment contracts as a whole society, by putting it into law. It's not "entitlement" in any derogatory sense. It's a very mild limit on which things can be negotiated.
> Research has consistently shown he was right about layoffs: They’re damaging to companies...
The research is probably misleading. The damage was done to companies when the over-hired people who couldn't add enough value to justify keeping them employed. The layoffs are just when the damage is recognised.
It is like borrowing a huge amount of money, using 90% of it it to buy prawns and leaving them out to rot for a few days. The damage is now done, the borrowed money is lost. It won't be recognised for a while though. There is even enough left over to pay an interest payment or two to string everything along. But the damage is done.
A lot of people treat economics as though damage didn't happen unless someone acknowledges it. That isn't how it works. Not acknowledging that something is value-destructive just means more value is destroyed by the time people are forced by market forces to confront the truth.
This isn’t how all layoffs work though. Some, yes they are due to over hiring and a failure of management to plan. They are likely necessary for survival of the firm and generally last course of action. Although even those come with a cost to current and departing employees which harms the business.
But the ones being discussed in the article are the consistent ones. The ones you do while you’re ahead to make your balance sheet look better. Those come with a temporary balance sheet boost and all of the negative effects of any layoffs.
> But the ones being discussed in the article are the consistent ones. The ones you do while you’re ahead to make your balance sheet look better.
That has to be matched with a strategy of intentional overhiring though, and the damage is being done there. That is the insight that should be drawn from the research - intentionally doing something silly (in this case, overhiring) is a classic form of waste and economically destructive. Layoff or no layoff, the problem is the management team has set up a situation where they believe a big chunk of their workforce is unproductive.
This does raising the question of why boards and shareholders tolerate these clowns. To me the obvious answer being that the major central banks have a history of printing money and handing it out to asset owners, so hiring competent managers for said assets is a lot of trouble for limited gains - even weak managers are enough to drink from the money hose. But who knows, maybe the analysts think that a small amount of sillyness averts a greater problem.
> That has to be matched with a strategy of intentional overhiring though, and the damage is being done there
No, doesn't have to. Looking at the article, sometimes they had hired the right number of people, but (new?) management decided to let people go because that looked better short term (saved money, higher profits), but was bad long term.
> But the ones being discussed in the article are the consistent ones.
I worked at GE when Jack Welch was there. First of all we never had a systematic firing of the bottom 10%. That is a myth. We ranked everyone each year and clearly identified the bottom 10% but they were not always fired. The manager did have to have a development plan for these individuals.
More importantly, GE did have consistent layoffs. I assert this was a good thing. I vividly remember asking an EVP at GE Capital when I first joined GE why we did this. It seemed inhumane. Wasn’t it better to try and fix the so-called ‘C’ players? His response fundamentally changed my view on hiring, leadership, and firing. He told me two things. 1) Hiring people is always a gamble. The best interview/onboarding processes will not produce 100% success. There will people that do not have the skills that are needed. There will also be people for whom GE is simply not a good cultural fit. 2) In good times, when a GE business unit is doing well, they always over hire. People working 50 hours a week want to work 40, process problems that have built up need to be addressed (similar to tech debt), etc. Over time this leads to bloat and inefficiency.
For these reasons, consistent layoffs make sense for the company. They also make sense for the employee. By not waiting for an economic downturn and then making dramatic cuts, the exiting employees would have an easier time finding the next job as odds are the economy would doing well. Particularly in the case where the person was not a good fit for the GE culture, they learned this and could find a better fitting role elsewhere. And GE was great on the resume back in those days (sadly not so today). If we waited for the downturn, then the exiting employees would be looking for a new job in a bad economy with everyone else who had just been laid off. Not a good situation.
Finally, an additional point I learned later by observing when and where we made headcount reductions. GE made many bets on new markets, new products, etc. We had to if we were to grow by 10% each year (GE Capital’s rigorous requirement for business and strategic plans). The successful GE leaders understood is was easier to grow revenue to achieve 10% net income growth than to cut expenses. Unfortunately, not all new business ventures worked out. In those cases, we had to make a decision to shut them down (all new ventures had off-ramps). As a result, some people were repurposed, but others had to be let go. I posit that is consistent with the tech approach of “fail early, fail often.” In industries with significant people required to try a new approach, the consequence of failing will be layoffs.
My recollection is a very high percentage. Not clear what the alternative is. No action plans to help people improve their performance? Action plans also helped people understand their situation and allowed them to find other jobs while they were still employed at GE. For clarity, I never developed an action plan for someone who was then surprised to receive it.
>But the ones being discussed in the article are the consistent ones. The ones you do while you’re ahead to make your balance sheet look better. Those come with a temporary balance sheet boost and all of the negative effects of any layoffs.
This feels like a "no true scotsman" argument. The headline of the article is literally "Why layoffs don’t work", not "why consistent layoffs don't work". The only mention of "consistent" layoffs were when referencing Jack Welch's management style, but that was more of an attempt to argue that layoffs are bad by citing the worst possible example, than trying to introduce nuance between the types of layoffs. The studies cited also did not distinguish between the type of layoffs.
Clickbait headlines aren't anything new. While a better headline like: "How the Layoff Culture that Started in the 80s and Spread to the Rest of Wall Street is Actually Harming Business's Long Term Prospects" would be better, punchy headlines like this one spur clicks and conversation as seen by this thread.
I believe we took different things from the piece and I imagine you'd disagree with my better headline. I understood the piece to be telling a story starting with Welch and Dunlap of how layoffs as a way to improve numbers actually damage those same numbers in the long term.
I don't see much reason to think mass layoffs are typically the result of over-hiring rather than a reaction to changing circumstances that are different than when the hiring originally happened. The article opens with a perfect example, the constriction of the US air travel market following 9/11. The people most airlines fired as a result weren't "over-hired". Their hiring made sense at the time and they were fired when circumstances changed. I'd argue this is likely more often be the case than actual over-hiring, since it's easier for a company to see if they can actually utilize new employees now than it is for them to predict the future.
In cases like that, the layoffs really do seem likely to be damaging to the companies. If circumstances change for a company and they can no longer effectively use all their employees, the most obvious solution is to get rid of employees, but it then makes it far more difficult to recover when positive opportunities present themselves. I think companies trick themselves into believing that since hiring and firing employees is relatively quick, it's a good tool to adapt to changing circumstances in either direction. But that ignores the time it takes for a new employee to become fully productive and the increased difficulty/cost in hiring new employees if your company has a reputation as an unreliable employer. It also ignores the potential boost to productivity that can come from employee loyalty and job satisfaction and security.
The latter points are true. But it's also the case that radical reskilling for very different job roles (with possibly rather different market salaries and, honestly, different from many people's job preferences) is tough too. Probably hard to come up with reliable rules.
I have tried and failed to understand what is meant by "layoff due to overhiring", in the context of Software Engineering. When an engineer is employed in a successful project, they are incredibly profitable. A handful of engineers can write and maintain products worth millions of dollars. Big companies, which are the ones we discuss when talking about "overhiring" should be capable to find or create projects where an engineer will be at least modestly profitable. And having an employee creating a small amount of profit, who might eventually be moved to something that's better, is certainly more profitable than firing him and paying severance.
Note that here I'm talking about firing good performers because you have "too many" of them. Firing bad performers because the estimated cost of training them is not justified, I can understand.
The only explanation I found satisfying is that investors heuristically care about profit per capita(ppc) as well as total profit, and employees who don't produce _enough_ profit reduce ppc and thus investment to point the opportunity cost of firing them aligns. You'll make investors happy, which will raise valuation, more than what you are losing from the lost profit. But this is not "rational" in a full information economic sense. It's essentially the company virtue signaling that they are capable to fire if they had to, even at the cost of actual dollars.
> A lot of people treat economics as though damage didn't happen unless someone acknowledges it.
This is what I call the TV effect. People are trained from an early age, by consuming media, to only construct what is "real" by what is announced. And it's not just economics, but all sorts of aspects of life.
Is it not incumbent on the company who hired the employees to ensure they are utilized sufficiently? Why imply it’s the worker’s fault for their own mismanagement?
>Why imply it’s the worker’s fault for their own mismanagement?
I'm not sure how you got the impression that OP implied it's the worker's fault. If during the 2021-2022 boom, some startup hired a bunch of junior programmers for $200k/yr, I think describing those people as "people who couldn't add enough value to justify keeping them employed" is a fair assessment of the situation. It doesn't imply that it's the junior programmer's fault, any more than it's not my "fault" if I'm asked to play a musical instrument with no prior experience, it sounding terrible, and people asking me to stop.
This would be more true of management did not play BS with the numbers constantly.
I worked at a firm that for 2-3 years straight would report great Q1,Q2,Q3 numbers.. tell employees it's looking like a good year. And then Q4 report a total wipeout loss that negated the quarterly earnings and swung the company to flat or a loss. Whoops, sorry, no raises, cutting bonuses.. and need to do some layoffs.
Behavior like this reminds us that the numbers are not real real in a scientific sense, but only in a relativistic accounting sense.
Similarly when goals are linked to earnings and the company reports adjusted earnings... So changing the earnings by disregarding some expenses or some sales out of the calculation. The one in charge of this adjustment can play to allow or dismiss bonus for the year.
I worked at one place that would frequently do "hiring freeze, consultants only!" thing followed by "fire all the consultants, FTEs only!" thing every other year. Clearly some OpEx/CapEx budget arb.
Also would do incredible things like mandate firm wide sending all consultants home for rest of year in early/mid December to save 3-4% lol. Did this at least twice in 5 years.
One year there was a fairly large failed projects with a dozen senior devs and they had nothing to do but also weren't fired because "we don't have budget for severance". This was in July. Guys started showing up to work in sandals and baseball caps.
Some people will really do a lot of mental gymnastics in order to consistently blame workers instead of laying the real blame on poor leadership for company failures. If your company is failing because Tammy isn’t a “rockstar” at her job, you have a terrible company.
You don't know what you're talking about. People are fired when they can't add enough value to justify being employed. Sweeping industry-wide layoffs are different. Eg the "damage was done" to the aviation industry in 2001 due to plummeting demand, due (obviously) to new fears and hassle inhibiting travel; the damage currently being done to companies in the economy is from interest rates, inflation, trade uncertainty, stock manipulation, ...
> You don't know what you're talking about. People are fired when they can't add enough value to justify being employed.
That depends upon the employer. Layoffs occur for a plurality of reasons and the persons selected for termination are selected by various different criteria that may include quotas or random selection.
'The research is wrong because I said so' isn't exactly a compelling argument, and certainly not a strong enough one when you've been in the modern workforce long enough to recognize how badly layoffs are conducted at just about every company. I've seen enough 10x engineers get laid off to know that the idea that companies have any idea as to who is actually productive or not is just false.
1) But I included an actual argument and, furthermore, it assumed that the research is correct.
> I've seen enough 10x engineers get laid off...
2) That is sensible for the company. They have no idea how to use a 10x engineer, as can be detected by the fact that they're having layoffs. They don't know how to create value in the market and they're being forced into a position where they have to squeeze what they can out of what assets they have.
It isn't economically rational for them to employ 10x engineers in that sort of environment. The global and local optimum is to let those engineers go so they can do something valuable somewhere and keep some more 1x style engineers on the cheap.
If a company is having layoffs, that is the invisible hand of the market writing on the wall "THIS MANAGEMENT TEAM DOESN"T KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY AT THE MOMENT, STOP GIVING THEM IMPORTANT RESOURCES". That includes 10x engineers.
Unfortunately as I've seen countless times, it's also writing on the wall to the management team "TIME TO MOVE ON CAUSE DAMAGE TO ANOTHER COMPANY", I don't know why we don't expect management's head on the chopping block. If a captain orders a course into an iceberg, idk why we can't just hang the captain and course correct.
That's how I feel about it too, the times I've been around layoffs management and the executives all talk about a difficult economic environment and making the organization leaner by firing a bunch of IC's. Never once have I seen a C level say hey we steered the company in the wrong direction its time for new management or hey our CFO failed to communicate the economic environment and caused us to overspend so we're going to look for a new one.
I know it's ridiculous to expect them to blame themselves but the fact that we just accept this lack of accountability from executives/management in the corporate world is insane to me.
Execs go on to "pursue new interests" or "spend more time with family" all the time. They may get pretty good packages to do so but it absolutely happens.
> 2) That is sensible for the company. They have no idea how to use a 10x engineer, as can be detected by the fact that they're having layoffs. They don't know how to create value in the market and they're being forced into a position where they have to squeeze what they can out of what assets they have.
Okay, now explain why every company is encountering these issues where they're frequently laying off people and are unable to create value. The frequency of layoffs is diametrically opposed to your thesis because otherwise companies would behave in a way to reduce layoffs. Such as hiring fewer employees and encouraging longer term retention.
> If a company is having layoffs, that is the invisible hand of the market writing on the wall "THIS MANAGEMENT TEAM DOESN"T KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY AT THE MOMENT, STOP GIVING THEM IMPORTANT RESOURCES". That includes 10x engineers.
This is basically the Just World fallacy but applied to the free market. If something occurs then it's justified as a perfectly rational action of the invisible free hand of the market. In reality layoffs are rarely conducted by the people most equipped to do them, but via a mandate from heaven that you must cut your team for the sake of Number even if you're one of the most efficient teams in the company.
Had been advocating slower hiring & targeted reductions in a mid-sized tech firm for years after COVID, but it happened much faster under a newly appointed CEO.
Under new leadership, we executed 1/3 layoffs framed as a "culture refresh" and to briefly lift the stock. It wasn't about survival, we had plenty of cash, okayish growth and fantastic ARR - more about a new corp-backed CEO adopting a "do-it-like-Elon" approach.
Being mostly Europe-based but US-led, it turned into a massive and costly process (Americans don't exactly dig EU/UK workers rights - Spain was the biggest shock), stalling most productive activity for half a year. Internal trust and brand perception tanked. Since it began with ousting old execs, it quickly devolved into a blunt-force exercise with no internal knowledge, led by scared managers with percentage targets - many good people were cut. Managers hesitated to shield talent, given the "culture reboot" framing. I ended up personally cutting entire offices.
When the CEO's broader strategy failed (for reasons beyond layoffs), high performers started eyeing the exit. Ironically, many first saw the layoffs positively - COVID overhires had left uneven team dynamics, and some dead weight was on high salaries. But when it became clear there was no coherent plan, people began leaving.
That triggered a chain reaction. Senior hiring pipelines dried up (reputation matters, esp. when your top-talent is on the way out and is loud about it), and panic set in. Eventually, it turned into survival mode. The CEO didn't last long after that.
There’s weirdly (to intuitive sense and business zeitgeist since the 80s or so) mixed data on layoffs in general. There’s a decent chance they cause more mid-term harm than good, most of the time.
They also didn’t used to be a regular feature of business.
It’s funny how such things become “ordinary” and “obviously good things to do sometimes” that haven’t always been the former, and may not really be the latter either.
Business management is vibes, trend-following, and fear of straying from the pack. And the best of that is vibes! That’s how bad it is.
You nailed it. In our case, EBITDA margins were "pencil on a napkin" at best — only because the CFO is usually the sanest person in the room. At the same time, Elon's moves and Meta's "year of efficiency" were super influential.
A lot of what happens in the boardroom or C-suite is "stick with the crowd" — e.g. template-based "tech modernization." (That's often a new CTO's hedge if the real problems are too hard. Just "go Cloud" or "go AI" for five years — four vests, one to jump off.) You broadcast confidence, you own the narrative. Which means never, ever saying "I don't know."
This is especially common in PE "turnarounds" or post-IPOs after founder exits. And it's especially harmful there because current staff is often seen as a liability, not an asset.
I thought a lot about this after the layoffs, and I think it boils down to how "professional C-levels" see execution as a commodity. They tend to overemphasize leadership (sometimes self-serving, but often genuine) and resource availability. The focus is on "what?" and "how to pay for it?" — with "how?" left to be figured out on the go.
I don't think that's completely wrong. Sometimes execution is a commodity. But not when you're short on time and planning for a rapid sprint.
> But when it became clear there was no coherent plan, people began leaving.
I see this more any more, to the point of wondering what % of execs and decision makers are actually meaningfully good at the job? When times are good, any exec action will turn out fine. But when times are tough, who is worth their salt?
And if all these decision makers are bad at decision making, what would a better organization look like?
There's definitely a "peacetime" / "wartime" divide. There's also an overreliance on pedigree. But above all, it's the pressure of being a public company (which often means losing the founder).
As a new CEO, you have to impress the board and investors without really knowing the company. You probably get two earnings calls - six months at most - to prove yourself. That's nothing, even for a senior dev, let alone an exec. And if you're being brought in, it means the company isn't in great shape - or is at least perceived that way.
You don't have time to really figure out how things work, and even if you did, it's political suicide. The board didn't hire a "looks fine to me" person. They hired a fixer. So, it turns into narrative games and rapid actions with massive tail risks.
I don't think it's a people problem. It's a system problem. Leadership replanting is hard, but it's one of the very few tools in the board's toolbox.
UK was horrible. No real protection for workers - just layers of mandatory legal mumbo-jumbo with zero actual chances for people to keep their jobs. It was like ripping off the band-aid 1mm at a time for four months.
Spain/France were an employer’s nightmare. Anyone without another job lined up secured a "special deal"—workers have massive leverage, they know it, and they’re actively litigious. People on parental leave had close to a year of guaranteed no-shows. The reaction was, of course, "never again" rippling across American corporate circles.
The rest of Europe was okay-ish.
US was predictably the easiest. We were generous with packages, but it's easy to see how the system can be used to screw people over.
Middle East was the roughest. Visas in UAE/Qatar expire instantly, and the local tech market is almost non-existent. We extended until the end of the school year to help with visa concerns, and some people managed to arrange golden visas. But for many, it was a massive shock — losing both jobs and residency overnight.
When I hear things like this, where one person has been given command of the plane and tanked it straight into the ground, with dire consequences particularly for the middle east employees you have mentioned, I am filled with concern about the stability of our systems in general. It often feels like in the history books when you read about the land the King built and then his son inherits it and burns it to the ground. This can't be a sustainable way to run a society.
I remember hearing a take on layoffs that I think is pretty true: When you fire the bottom 10%, you lose another 10% who are from the top performers. The destruction of psychological safety for everyone at the company is irreparable, and you start to bleed your most productive talent, too.
I've seen this happen. I worked at an extremely efficient company that had a great product. We got acquired, and within months, were part of the acquiring company's yearly mandatory layoffs. They fired a bunch of (apparently random) people to meet the quota. This absolutely destroyed us. Morale was just gone.
Within six months, about a quarter of our employees, mainly top performers who could easily find other jobs, left voluntarily.
The whole thing self-destructed within another year, and the product we worked on was abandoned.
Enron was famous for this. Supposedly it's a practice that Jeff Skilling learned at Harvard business school, where the bottom 10% were flunked no matter what their absolute GPA was
Owners made half a billion and got high-ranking positions at the buyer.
Buyers bought it because they had a very specific problem that the product was designed to solve, and thought that it would be a competitive advantage to deny the solution to their competition. On paper, it was a good decision.
I don't think its only psychological safety. If the top performers lose staff that did the mundane crap and now they have to do it they start to really pay attention to what the management is actually doing.
Every layoff I have ever survived the staff inevitably ends up talking about how so and so manager and his favorite buddies are still out golfing every friday. Why the f are they still here etc.
Companies churn through people constantly. Google famously has an employee tenure of like a year[1]. Most companies that subscribe to the Jack Welch "fire your bottom 10% yearly" philosophy don't usually declare a media stock-pump "layoff" but are just letting go of purported non-performers constantly. And there are a lot of "top 10%" performers who are very happy that the so-called deadweight isn't kept around just for some foolish notion of "loyalty".
Sometimes layoffs are unfair, and sometimes the wrong people are let go. But often it's entirely necessary and the right people are let go.
[1] - Which makes the whole gruelling, multi-month hiring process positively ridiculous. It would be much better for this industry if companies hire fast and fire fast, instead of delusions that they're finding the magical employee base that will be with them forever.
The Google tenure stat is misleading because it was taken at a time when the company was growing 20% per year. The actual statistic worth looking at was how long a person who is leaving had been with the company on average at the time of leaving or what percentage of the overall headcount leaves per year. While I don't feel comfortable sharing those numbers, I can confidently say they lower than the industry norm.
The industry norm is incredibly short tenures, and often when it starts increasing, it's paradoxically when the company is on the track towards complacency and eventual failure.
This isn't some Google specific thing. The cargo cult "look at our super exhaustive, endlessly demanding hiring process" is a farce everywhere. It's actually a bit paradoxical because it actually selects for employees who don't want to actually stay with you, they just want to be able to say they were willing to endure your gauntlet.
I’ve worked in places where people stuck around for years because they believed in the company and technology and wanted to successfully ship a product. In fact, I still view repeated 18-month stints as a bit of a red flag.
It’s a big industry. There’s a difference between a norm and something that a sizable subset of people do.
I think if you look at companies like Citadel, which routinely fire the bottom 10% as part of the job description, it attracts a certain set of people who actually do feel "safe" in that environment. The trouble comes when you break your norms about layoffs.
Also, Google's median tenure of <1 year was due to hiring, not employees leaving. In other words, that number included people who hadn't left yet. I think if you look at people leaving Google, average is about 3 years.
>Also, Google's median tenure of <1 year was due to hiring, not employees leaving
Google would have to be growing at >300% per year for this math to make sense.
But even if it's 3 years ({X} doubt), that's still cartoonishly low for a hiring process that drags on for months and months.
>I think if you look at companies like Citadel, which routinely fire the bottom 10% as part of the job description
Almost all tech companies target firing/pushing out a considerable percentage of employees per year. It actually is incredibly common, even if it usually doesn't make the news. They used to do it overtly via stack ranking, but now they just do it more quietly. Microsoft punted 2000 "low performers" in the first two months. Brutal firings with zero severance, immediate cancellation of health coverage, etc.
Just to do the math for you, a 1 year average tenure would be a doubling of company size per year without any attrition, not a 300% increase. Google "exponential distribution." With attrition, you get there pretty fast. Also, the statistic you quoted comes from ~2012 IIRC, which was a period of explosive growth at Google.
> Almost all tech companies target firing/pushing out a considerable percentage of employees per year.
Not firing, but managing out. It's very different culturally.
>just to do the math for you, a 1 year average tenure would be
The guy I replied to did say median tenure (where I was talking about mean or average tenure), so relative to a median tenure sure, doubling the staff would do that.
But you said average, in which case no that isn't true. Google is a 26 year old company. If you randomly distributed tenures across a hypothetical employee base (1-26 years), it would take something like 1200% growth to get the average tenure under 2 years. And of course Google's actual employee count growth rate over the past decade and a half is more in the range of 12%, so a couple of factors off for that.
Even when people say the average tenure is 3 -- doubtful -- that still requires an insane level of turnover for a company growing so slowly, relatively, and being so old.
I don't know if I'm a top 10% employee, but I'll share how layoffs influenced my decision to leave a job of 5+ years. I started looking for a new role after they announced the layoff of about 200 people in my organization. When I finally got an offer, I kept going back and forth on staying and negotiating or accepting the offer. There were many other reasons why I left, but a huge factor were the layoffs. I just kept thinking, they already had layoffs, what's to stop them from laying me off next? It's also a crappy feeling thinking that you/your team can be on the chopping block at any time.
Top performers have options and value stability. They also know that they rely on their manager to accurately reflect their work up the chain.
Some percentage of top performers report to deadbeat managers, so in an environment doing mandatory layoffs, they'll know that it doesn't matter how much they knock it out of the park, their manager will screw them. So of course they'll leave.
If you're a top performer stuck under a deadbeat manager, how are you able to signal to new companies that you're a top performer?
I read posts here all the time about how hard it is to hire. How do top performers distinguish themselves as they go out for new jobs? When did this become easy?
> How do top performers distinguish themselves as they go out for new jobs?
During an interview process, and by using your network. Top performers aren't usually slinging applications through LinkedIn in my limited experience
> When did this become easy?
It isn't, they're referred to as top performers for a reason. It's easier for folks who excel in their fields, and that holds true across domains.
I don't know where I fit on the scale but I'm confident I'm in the top 50%. I got only one job (an early one in my career) through the "normal" way of sending lots of applications for public postings. Every other job has come through my network or a targeted recruiting process.
In most cases, someone you worked with before who liked working with you suggests to their employer or someone in their professional network they hire you. Could be an old classmate, coworker, open source collaborator, even someone you know through a hobby.
I have only ever quit jobs in response to layoffs. Layoffs demonstrate to me that the company is apparently low on cash if they need to fire people to make ends meet. If they are not low on cash, it means that they will arbitrarily fire anyone in order to pump up their stock.
Though I've never personally been laid off, it's a black mark on the company that I think you can never recover from. It means I will never trust anything said at a quarterly all-hands. The projections they give us employees are spun to be more positive than they really are.
During COVID, my company told us that we were going to be able to save money by breaking the lease on our office building and stop paying for amenities like the snacks in the break room and catered lunches (since nobody could use them anyways). This, they said, should save us enough money that we don't need to lay anyone off!
10% of the company was laid off a week later. The next day, I would later discover, the company applied for a PPP loan: they had laid people off pre-emptively so that they wouldn't be penalized for it next year when they sought to have their PPP loan forgiven.
It illustrated to me that you can't trust leadership, ever. Once a company initiates a layoff, it's a permanent black mark on that company
Because people will often see people who they don't perceive as low performers getting lumped in with 'low performers' and laid off. At that point, you start looking for management that seem to know what they're doing.
because they see the company struggles and is not loyal, as top performers have plenty of options they will be more likely to take a better offer when it comes along. Top performers will not leave the same day but bleed out over a bit longer timeframe. The most popular example is woz hesitating so much to leave HP because HP was loyal to employees and woz was loyal to HP. Imagine the same situation when HP had just let go 10% of employees, he would not have thought about it twice.
Top performers are generally pretty sharp. If they recognize the company is struggling and decide they have a better future elsewhere then that’s where they’ll go.
I think because - if you fire a poor performer, everyone kind of gets it - they weren’t doing a good job, they’re a drain on company resources, they’ve got it coming, basically.
But lying off isn’t firing someone for performance - it’s admitting “we don’t have enough money to pay you”
And that’s something that should be scary to everybody in the company.
When your shitty coworker gets fired, you shrug and say, yeah, saw that coming. When your shitty coworkers get laid off, you look around nervously and think phew, l lucked out.
Anecdotally layoffs leave a bad taste. I worked at a smallish company that laid of 20% going into covid and within 2 years most of the best talent churned out.
I’ve been through several waves of corporate layoffs across many industries.
Some observations:
1 - It’s rarely one round.
2 - Companies tend to be the most thoughtful on the first round. Then it looks easy and the precision (and severance) of future cuts goes down. That’s why it’s smart to take a voluntary offer.
3 - Cuts that are broad based (“Every department cuts 15%”) are a sign the company doesn’t know what’s going on or prefers harmony over hard choices.
4 - Layoffs can be a crutch for firms that don’t do performance management. (Less work to do a layoff than have managers counsel bad performers out)
Running a business is less and less about actual business outcomes and more about juicing stock. And the stock market itself is divorced from reality as companies whose output has gone down over time sees higher valuations because the owner has cult appeal. So everything gets worse and more expensive year over year while feckless suits get sloshed over company dinners.
Can we have a different kind of stock market which forces participants to consider long term outcomes more? E.g. no HFT firm should be able to make a profit from such a stock market. Selling stocks earlier and often should result in a penalty or percentage being taken away as a fee. As a retail investor I would love to use invest and forget strategy based on trends observed in such a stock market.
>forces participants to consider long term outcomes more
I remember many years ago telling a senior executive that I had concerns that some of the steps we were taking to boost current quarter financials would negatively impact business performance in the long term. He just chuckled and said, "there's no such thing as the long term, only a never ending series of current quarters".
>E.g. no HFT firm should be able to make a profit from such a stock market. Selling stocks earlier and often should result in a penalty or percentage being taken away as a fee.
Maybe by "HFT" you only mean "those evil hedge funds that are pushing companies to chase next quarters' earnings", but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with high frequency trading. Market making[1] is high frequency trading, and basically involves offering to both buy and sell and given stock, and pocketing the spread. That increases liquidity, making it easier for other traders to buy/sell stock without taking a huge loss. It's unclear why you'd want to ban this, or how you'd distinguish this from whatever evil HFT you actually want to ban.
I am not saying HFTs can't sell but there should be penalty for higher frequency. It means they have to craft algorithms which will take longer term view of stocks (and their fundamentals) rather than ignorance of other participants
Market makers make fractions of a percent per trade. How will your "penalty for higher frequency" deter traders that prey on "ignorance of other participants" or whatever, but don't put market makers out of business?
All these HFT stuff reminds me of chinese event where people send each other gift money as a good will gesture. Revenue is high but no meaningful transaction has happened. The money is just being exchanged between the same top HFT firms. And the best of our minds are fighting it out in the arena of algorithms rather than creating real world value.
>Revenue is high but no meaningful transaction has happened. The money is just being exchanged between the same top HFT firms. And the best of our minds are fighting it out in the arena of algorithms rather than creating real world value.
Liquidity is "real world value". Being able to buy/sell a stock instantly without a massive premium/discount makes stock ownership for the average person possible. Contrast this to an liquid market, like buying houses, where you need to spend months house hunting, and pay a 6% commission on top.
To return to our initial question: does stock market liquidity deteriorate when HFTs compete? The results suggest that competition among HFTs increases speculative high-frequency trades, which could lead to a deterioration in market liquidity.
Taking the study at face value, it only says that competition among HFT is bad. It also specifically admits that "As market-makers, they can update their price quotes fast when news arrives and provide liquidity to the market. In this case, the low-frequency traders in the market – the investors – benefit from lower transaction costs". In other words, at best it's advocating for some sort of monopoly for HFT, rather than getting rid of HFTs entirely.
It's not really high frequency trading in the sense of day trading, it's a bit of a misnomer. I would say it's actually low latency trading, the number of trades isn't huge. It ensures that linkages in the market operate quickly. Linkages between a stock price and its respective options. Or linkages between an index ETF and its components. The price discovery process should be fast, it benefits all of the market participants.
High-frequency traders (HFTs) are market participants that are characterised by the high speed with which they react to incoming news, the low inventory on their books, and the large number of trades they execute. All this is possible for HFTs because they use automated, algorithmic trading, which enables them to analyse markets and execute trades in under a millisecond. The high-frequency trading industry grew rapidly after it took off in the mid-2000s. Today, high-frequency trading represents about 50% of trading volume in US equity markets. In European equity markets, its share is estimated to be between 24% and 43% of trading volume, and about 58% to 76% of orders.
Benefits how? Even if we are all 'market participants', the time investment between a hobbyist and career investor is rarely equal. An LFT/low frequency trading market would egalise this discrepancy.
This subthread is nonsense. As a retail investor, HFT is good for you and lowers your prices. They have a bad reputation because of the book Flash Boys… but basically nothing in that book was true.
What is the long term effect on accuracy when a large mass simply moves XX% of their monthly paycheck into top ETFs?
I don’t disagree with what you said though, simply sharing thoughts - I think it leads to markets being more sensitive to macro strategies rather than actual fundamentals
>What is the long term effect on accuracy when a large mass simply moves XX% of their monthly paycheck into top ETFs?
Such investments are typically market cap weighted, which means their effect on stock prices are neutral. Moreover there's still room for hedge funds (and other sophisticated) investors to engage in price discovery.
Well people are also betting on themselves in sport betting so if we account for ignoring the rules, I don't see why the qualfiier that betting on yourself is allowed would be needed.
software development costs are out of control the whole industry is one big grift, there’s no accountability anywhere, 20% of the devs are doing 80% of the work, the business would instantly terminate the 80% for cause if they could only discern the difference, but they can’t, because the business side is also a big grift with the exact same problem all the way up to the founders recursively
It’s not the devs who are bloating development costs. It’s the layers of management making hour long meetings to discuss button placement.
It’s the hours of retros, design meetings, and skip-levels designed to remove any personal investment or sense of ownership from everything.
Since so few individuals are trusted with real decision making power, you need a lot more people to achieve some kind of consensus/buy-in so that you can ship anything.
The devs are at the extreme bottom of this totem poll.
It’s like blaming construction workers for houses being expensive.
And, ofc, that goes without mentioning the multimillion yearly bonuses for C-suite, but we can just forget about that and blame the lowest ranking corporate employees (devs)
Source: I worked at a large tech firm for many years and saw this over and over again.
Right every step of every dev task is ticketed, scheduled and measures within a millimeter of its life in many orgs. The people working the tickets aren't to blame when it all goes wrong in the big picture.
I've worked at shops with agile coaches, consultants, product teams, multiple management layers, etc all attending agile planning/retro/blab sessions. They always had really strong opinions on the minutae of each footstep (tickets/sprint), but couldn't speak to where the path was to take us. Essentially zero quarterly let alone annual planning.
A lot of management these days is the equivalent of driving and saying "I'll decide where I'm going when I get to the next stop light", repeated every 2 weeks.
> I'll decide where I'm going when I get to the next stop light
Surprisingly, this type of iteration can actually work; but the caveat is that the people behind the wheel, and reading the maps, need to be very good, and also, experienced enough to make sound decisions. If mediocre (or inexperienced) people try it, it’s a disaster.
From what I can see, the entire tech industry has been institutionalizing mediocrity, so this type of approach is not really available.
It doesn’t sound like the type of iteration matters at all.
If your leadership is good and competent, they can drive the company any way they feel and have it work.
The most productive I’ve been in my career was when my PO put all tasks that needed to be done in a Google sheet and the whole dev team spent a week just picking tasks off the list. It ended with us shipping our app on time.
No planning, no grooming, no nothing.
It was a high trust, high ownership team.
I've definitely been at shops that screen hard in interviews for people that should be given high trust & ownership, but then is agile product team micromanaged.
Sort of worst of both worlds. Everyone develops learned helplessness, checks out or leaves.
If you’re copying this approach from someone who copied it, after hiring an agile coach and reading the phoenix project, you are likely definitionally mediocre.
Also it’s not a one size fits all solution even for the competent. Requires a more direct interface and two way dialogue with users than most devs actually face.
Generally you see stuff like this turn into bikeshedding and/or sales features only. Way too often I see companies push for new features because they will generate sales that in the long run cause more customer loss because performance and stability was neglected to implement them.
Second that, scrum teams having 3 business analysts, scrum master, product owner, ops/it, ux designer, 2 testers, 4 developers is basically how it goes.
Heh, and there's at least one FAANG where it's not even the layers of management.
They've just removed a huge amount of manager discretion and initiative through multiple top-down dictates that are pretty much killing any low level desire to really innovate and try risky initiatives.
IBM, but with same level product market fit as IBM had for its mainframes, but in this case for markets 100x more important for the global economy.
I’m not saying just leave everyone to their own devices, but some individuals should be able to have ownership and make decisions without layers and layers of process.
Ofc decisions can have consequences, but that’s what the high pay should be for.
It’s not a black and white issue and I don’t think you need to present it like one.
A more risky job should be compensated more ? It'd be the opposite, if it's risky then the variance of the income should be greater (success = more income)
I don't want to present the problem as black and white but merely express a simple idea : developers DO want to be managed to simplify their lives and focus their time on more important things for them
Risk = variance = you should make less or make more depending on outcome.
You want the cake (freedom, more impact) and eat it too (guaranteed higher salary)
It’s the devs too. Do you really need an army of developers to build a web app or put text onto screen? No, a small team can easily handle that much faster and at higher quality without all the framework bullshit.
You also have to consider that developers are not sales people. They are a cost center.
> you really need an army of developers to build a web app or put text onto screen? No, a small team can easily handle that much faster and at higher quality without all the framework bullshit
Got news for you, too: it's both. It's the useless management, it's the "developers" who send me screenshots of stack traces while they cry and soil themselves because they have no clue what they're doing.
So much of the software industry is just an outrageous combination of inexperience and "YOLO". Every problem can be solved by just giving AWS another $100,000 this month because we don't have time (and don't know how) to make even basically optimized software. So just burn the gas and electricity and give more money to the YAML merchants at Amazon.
I still have PTSD from around 2012 when a company I worked for and loved very much (chumby) imploded financially and almost all of the employees including myself got vacuumed up in an acquihire-type deal into a streaming media company that was building a would-be netflix competitor.
Us former chumby developers were working primarily on the front-end across a variety of embedded-system-like devices (writing code for early versions of 'Smart' TVs from the likes of Vizio, etc) while another team was creating the backend and whenever they would show us the infrastructure diagrams of what they were working on they would just place a "HADOOP Server" wherever they had no idea how they were going to solve some large difficult problem, it was effectively a stand-in for "magic happens here".
Got to the point where there were a hilarious number of layers upon layers of little cylinder icons in the system design titled "HADOOP Server" all interlinked in non-decipherable directed graphs.
I'm pretty sure every single one of us left the new company within 6 months, I lasted about a month and a half.
The big tech companies paying the largest salaries are raking in billions in profits. How does this square with the view that software development costs are out of control?
Layoffs today seem more like execs following management fads for easy visible actions and this data would suggest that the actions are actually detrimental to company profits. Juice the numbers for a quarter but add another long term drag to the company
Just because a company can be overall profitable doesn't mean costs aren't out of control. If you make enough profits, you can literally feed money into a shredder and still come out ahead if you earn profits faster than your shredder can eat them.
What you're describing isn't out of control, all businesses have income and expenses, good management is watching both sides and building the organization that connects the two in the middle.
Sudden drastic moves if the business is delivering profits seems like the out-of-control action to take. If the business salary structure is off, or if you need to a different skill mix there are ways to shift that in a profitable business without sudden layoffs damaging the very organization that delivers your current profits.
So maybe we don't take jobs away from people with families and mortgages then, if all we have to do is sacrifice some profits, yeah? Gee, maybe the company can only make $9 billion instead of $9.5 billion, and everyone can stay employed.
The twist is that when you layoff the 80% who supposedly only did the 20% part, you pretty much still have to hire the same amount of people to do that 20%.
But with lower rates, and with abysmal rampup period (or even afterwards).
Don't blame managers, they just follow money, why else would they work those crappy jobs. Blame idiots who think short term bonuses should be massive instead of some long term performance and investment of oneself in company's success.
Blame the board, full stop. "Follow the money", there is really no other possible answer. Some set of people are responsible and to determine who that is, you read the corporate ledger, you read the financing contracts, you read the bylaws and governance structures, and what they literally state is that the board of directors are responsible for directing the company. The board is responsible. If you wish to be a director and responsible, then go incorporate, now you are the board! You are responsible! Good luck!
I'll start to call this mindset the "DOGE mind-virus": "80% of workers are doing absolutely nothing and can be cut with no repercussions whatsoever". Sure buddy.
Well, it worked for Twitter. Lots of people screamed that Twitter would implode withing 6 months, after the massive cuts. There was some scrambling for a while, but I haven't noticed any issues. In fact, they've added tons of new features and Grok AI (which is much better than competitors).
My understanding is that twitter's struggles are/were a result of advertiser and customer boycotts, not site functionality.
People were aghast at the brutality of the layoffs, and ideological direction. However, my impression was that there was in fact a tremendous amount of bloat.
If by worked you mean steadily losing users for the first time in the history of the platform and a 0.2x of the company's valuation, then sure. That worked.
And what's that about Grok AI being better than the competition? I think I misheard.
They also removed old features. Or can we look at threads without being logged in? It's clear people who say Twitter didn't change don't remember at all what Twitter was like.
“If we reduce the number of employees for better short-term financial results, employee morale will decrease,” he said. “I sincerely doubt employees who fear that they may be laid off will be able to develop software titles that could impress people around the world.”
Having lived in the Boise (Idaho) area, I saw this happen over and over with Micron and HP. I knew dozens of people who had worked for one or the other (and sometimes both) and were then let go in those companies frequent mass layoffs. One person I knew had been laid off → rehired by Micron 3x in the span of 10-years.
I think the biggest issue is that it is far too often the _first_ tool that companies reach for, instead of the last. Oh, the market feels unstable? Better cut 5% "just to be safe". There's a national event that might impact our business? We're going to drop 10% of our employees before we know anything.
While it certainly doesn't apply to every company, I wonder what it might look like for executive leadership to make a pledge that it always comes from the top first: The leadership team agrees that it will take a (public) $X financial cut for N months in the event of a layoff-level event/period to help guide the ship through the storm (with compensation on the other side). If it works, you have the loyalty/respect of your employees. If it doesn't, you do the layoffs anyway and those who remain know that you tried.
In Europe where most countries are notoriously hard to fire people they don't do layoffs like that "just to be safe", they instead just cut-back on hiring more people during though times.
It has an impact of morale, but not nearly as bad I imagine. I wonder if that is one of the reasons why Europe companies tend to be smaller companies, while US tend to be bigger. Expansion is easier when you can fire at any time, smaller companies are more likely to succeed if they don't over-hire and keep talent around.
Yes, this is happening at the company I work for. Total hiring freeze, people leaving through retirement or attrition aren't necessarily replaced. Salary raises are lower than inflation. Because no growth in staff, there's limited progression opportunity - you can't take a step up by moving to a new team since the business isn't expanding. It does have an impact in that ambitious people get frustrated and end up leaving.
I don't know whether it's a reason for size ("one market" isn't just about taxes, it's also about culture and language, and that's more different in the EU than the US), but it definitely makes companies more risk-averse towards expansion and disadvantages people with non-average backgrounds. The risk your CV suggests (e.g. mental health, unemployment, non-traditional career) gets multiplied if it's close to impossible to fire you.
Personally I think the model in Brazil is the best one, you can be fired at any time but you always get severance with the value of the severance dictated by how long you been at the company (I think it was 1 month of salary per year of tenure).
It does create some problems but not nearly as bad.
> Companies must invest to train current workers to pick up new tasks — and invest to recruit replacement employees after the economy improves or the company’s financial troubles clear up.
It always baffled me how could a businessman fail to understand that loosing a reliably working employee (even of mediocre productivity) is like shooting your own leg - resulting in having to look for a replacement, train them and hope (certainty is value worth money as well) they are going to be as good. To me it seems it is always better to increase the wage to avoid losing people already working for you so you save yourself from the hassle.
The layoffs are not the issue. It is the decision makers who took the two decisions to both over-hire and then mass-fire shortly after. GM is a great example. The company was the largest and one of the most innovative car manufacturers in the world. It doesn't stand a chance against BYD today and it is not by a lack of money (though maybe with a C-suite change).
So my opinion is, yes, the damage is done (or being done) but like GM, it'll probably take 10-15 years until we are in the visible territory. Maybe a bit shorter because this is tech.
GM is a great example, Intel as well, that its rarely the engineers fault. You can have great talent but if management is dead set on bad decisions over & over, theres nothing to be done.
And the decision to overhire/overfire, set bad strategy, etc all resides in the C-Suite who rarely fire each other or themselves when it all goes wrong. It's only the employees that suffer for every mis-step.
This hits home. I wish there was a way to gauge “retrospect” before actually suffering from it. I’m now usually quite weary of “we’ve had to get yet another loan of 60 mil, after 6 years in business because we don’t know how to make a profitable business” also known as a series C or whatever.
I don't work full-time for startups, because of this. I was contracting for a startup last summer for about 6 months. They paid really well, but after researching the company, they were on their 3rd round of funding. The estimated yearly profits were a sliver of this, meaning they were burning through VC money hoping for an acquisition or somehow massively increasing profits. The product was also in a very crowded space with lots of competitors.
They had 3 other contractors working on the same functionality and they were all let go within a couple of weeks, because I could get it done 2X faster and without many integration issues.
I would have gladly kept working as a contractor, but when I refused a full-time work offer, they cut all contact off with me.
I would talk to the FTE frequently and they were always overworked and on multiple teams.
GM is not innovative. Tesla is innovative. GM is a creaking giant that was bailed out and is reliant on trade barriers to have any domestic customers. Nobody outside the US wants any American cars except Teslas or ever has. They have a terrible reputation except amongst muscle car enthusiasts who like them for reasons other than their actual quality.
Even their foreign brands are widely considered bad cars: "barely Holden' together" etc.
> one of the most innovative car manufacturers in the world
Off topic, but I'd like some more specific thoughts regarding what you are aware of for specific automotive technologies that GM has innovated over the past decades, to make this statement.
Intuitively, GM cars do not do well internationally, have been known to have creaky interior build quality, have silly features like turning the reverse lights on when you unlock the car in a parking lot, and are not competitive on a scale of luxury compared to their European and Japanese counterparts.
I agree with you that most American cars are junk. I hate all these same features plus others like the weird headlight controls, parking break on the floor in non-trucks, not to mention the loose feeling brakes and steering.
Traditionally, GM sold other models overseas through brands like Holden or Opel, but these have all been sold off or shut down over the past decade or so except in China. GM now has a much heavier reliance on trucks and SUVs in the North American market. They sell some of those same product overseas still, but in much smaller quantities than before.
I've been through several layoffs, on both sides of the coin. The one consistent factor I've seen is managerial incompetence. Management will fail to provide any leadership or guidance to employees, then blame them for not being productive enough. They can't see their own incompetence, so they blame hiring practices and keep ratcheting up interview difficulty. It's like corporate America has evolved to protect the ego of the managerial class.
Does anyone here understand the "The consistency of layoffs" graphic?
The best guess I have is that the number of layoffs in each year is indicated by some sort of measure of the "overall height" of that slice of the image, so e.g. somewhere around 2020 the number is very large. But it's not at all clear, and it's especially not clear which if any of the various small-scale ups and downs we are supposed to take seriously if this is how it works.
It's a good candidate for the worst statistical graphic I've seen this year. (The opening-door one earlier in the article is another.)
Don't work to do what? If you think layoffs are about efficiency or saving the company, at least in tech you couldn't be more wrong. Companies like Meta and Google have done multiple rounds of layoffs despite being insanely profitable and never taking a loss.
The real purpose of layoffs is to get people to do more work for the same or less money (by firing people and distributing their responsibilities to those who remain) and to suppress wages because nobody is asking for raises when they fear for their jobs.
Big Tech is really out of ways to grow their business. The only way they can keep growing profits is by cutting costs and the biggest cost is labor. It's really that simple.
"Kelleher wasn’t around to see them. He died in 2019."
That's how it works. You have someone who is a great leader who started a company and treated their employees well, then the behemoth corporation waits for them to die to start gutting their values. It happened at my company. It's basically just a lite version of a private equity takeover.
The other question is why C-suite does even need to tell the respective division management to lay off employees if the actual goal is cost reduction. Shouldn't they impose a budget reduction target instead and trust them to allocate the savings between capex, opex and salary budget according to specific situation at hand?
>> why C-suite does even need to tell the respective division management to lay off employees if the actual goal is cost reduction
You answered your own question. For a lot of layoffs, cost reduction isn't the goal; it's disciplining the workforce who were increasingly assertive at work about direction and conditions.
For many companies the largest cost is labor. Also in many companies, managers amass power by the number of people they manage. If the C-suite doesn't explicitly push for layoffs they will likely not happen, causing them to not reduce costs as quickly as they wanted.
Nah I've been in meetings before where it was asked "if we can find these ten million in cloud costs and licenses, can we retain staff?" and the answer was "no, because those are different buckets."
Regarding "managers try to amass staff," I've seen some of that for sure, but it's not universal and acting like it's some kind of iron rule of organizations is an op.
Most managers are evaluated based on the impact their organization is having, not the size of it, unless the firm is incredibly poorly run.
What does happen, and where these layoff edicts come from, is that the executives fear the management is more loyal to their directs than they are to leadership. They feel that if they want to inflict something on the workforce they have to "force" management's hand, because otherwise management will resist.
> Nothing kills your company’s culture like layoffs,” Kelleher once said.
Or maybe the culture is already rotten before the layoff. I've seen so many companies in the bay area have become so bloated and bureaucratic. Directors and VPs have very senior engineers who exclusively go to meetings to "align". Directors who report to directors who report to directors who report to VPs who report to VPs who report to VPs. PMs and engineers and managers are all gatekeepers who focus exclusively on ensuring that a project will not fail before it is even conceptualized. Distinguished engineers draw bigger boxes and pass them to Principal Engineers who draw smaller boxes and pass them to Senior Staff Engineers to draw even smaller boxes until a poor E5 or E4 engineers implement the whole thing. We have so many professional box drawers, expert meeting goers, seasoned report writers, fierce gatekeepers, anything but engineers who can implement systems end to end. As a result, a 6-month one-person project gets finished half assed by a team of 60 with 5 layers of report chain. A 3-week project requires 3 months of approval and another three months of PoC.
In such case, what can a company possibly do to at least survive a little longer, even in hope of improving its culture? I guess layoff is not a bad answer.
> There are findings that suggest layoffs lead to both short-term and long term issues, including:
> - A 2x as likely chance of bankruptcy compared to companies that haven’t done layoffs.
Obviously! Because a huge number of the companies undergoing layoffs are about to go under and are using layoffs as a last ditch survival effort.
The author may be right, but every fact and figure presented in this article fails to distinguish between healthy companies in healthy industries using layoffs as a lever to increase stock prices, and layoffs happening in industries/companies that are collapsing.
"After the early-2000s dotcom bust, Bain researchers found that stock prices for S&P 500 companies that had no layoffs or laid off less than 3% of their workforce increased an average of 9% in the next year."
Do non-science journalists just not know about correlation vs causation? Does it really not occur to them that maybe the companies that didn't do layoffs were healthier and that's why they overperformed? Wouldn't a 10 year old know that?
I was being hyperbolic about the ten year olds, but that's funny.
Correcting for it: I don't know. It would be very hard. You could try to control for variables like profitability, etc., but there are so many and you don't know what you don't know. But the correct response to absence of valid data isn't drawing conclusions from obviously bad data.
It just cracks me up that one paragraph later the author points out:
"Mass layoffs are often symptoms of unsound business strategies and don’t do anything to cure the larger problem."
and yet somehow didn't see that that sentence alone proves his previous one was pointless.
One big problem is layoffs cluster around events like the dot com bubble, the financial crisis, or covid, so there are weird things happening. You might be able to look at companies' quarterly profits to identify healthy companies that remained healthy, but still did layoffs.
Because it's a very common logical fallacy. You're also describing sample bias, someone who wholeheartedly agrees with the article probably has little to discuss.
Layoff are like hammers: When needed, in the hands of someone skilled, they work perfectly well. But such situations are sadly rare, compared to frustrated idiots grabbing hammers to get their quick "Hulk Smash!" dopamine hits.
When it is your money making payroll, than the perspectives rapidly shift.
If your Labor doesn't tangibly produce quantifiable profit, than you must furlough staff to stay in business. Assigning fault in such situations is a fools errand, as everyone suffers losses in the end ($18k to $45k in lost training resources per person etc.)
The article doesn't actually explain why. It claims that they don't work and supplies statistical evidence. But why don't they work? I've only really seen speculation...
Because layoffs are not done to make company great but to make sure shareholders and execs preserve their wealth. It's never about company or people or technology - it's always about money, power and wealth.
A couple weeks ago Google announced more layoffs in their HR and cloud divisions. They have $100 billion cash on hand, literally more than any other tech company, and much more in longer term investments.
In round numbers, that's enough money to cover roughly 10,000 employees for 25 to 50 years (depending on how much you think the salary averages out to).
Regardless, the CFO said one of her priorities this year was more cost cutting.
Did I suggest it was? Apparently you missed the topic of this thread: According to the article, layoffs are bad for business.
I was pointing out that there doesn't seem to be an immediate need for layoffs at Google, based on the fact they have more money on hand than some small countries. Even with horrible future revenue projections, that seems like a reasonably large buffer.
But now that you mentioned it, there's nothing wrong with a corporation looking out for the long term interests of their employees. It would actually be smart for Google to act like a "jobs program" and retrain staff, or find work until the business cycle comes back around.
The CEO who "cuts" people at a company is like the Aztec priest who plunges the knife in atop the pyramid. The bloody spectacle is the point. It's as much about everyone who's watching as it is about the specific victim. It says, "I can do this to you. I can inflict pain without reprisal. Behold my power."
That's the whole point. Who is afraid of whom?
These people have the money. We depend on that money in order to live. They are reminding us of that fact. Now they demand obedience and harder work. 40 hours? Not enough. Elon sleeps at the office, why don't you? You have to be "super hardcore".
Partly, this is punishment for the challenge that was raised to CEO power from around 2016 to 2022. CEOs have been furious that they have felt fear of their workers. Now they want those workers to feel fear. In interviews, Andreesen has said almost exactly this, if not in quite so many words.
A similar theory is at the root of Fed policy, which hinges on the idea of a "wage price spiral". In their view, inflation is caused not by the accumulation of capital within a price-insensitive upper quantile, or by the constriction of economic chokepoints by consolidation, but by workers' ability to bargain for higher wages. The solution to inflation, they essentially come out and say, is to put workers in their place.
There is a united front here. It is about who fears whom, the end. It is about your emotional state. In a literal sense, it is terrorism.
So in that sense, yes, layoffs work. Are you financially independent? No? Are you afraid? Yes? Then they're working.
The premise that CEOs are stewards of companies is flawed. Their pay exploded over the period covered in this analysis. Hurting companies doesn't matter to them.
IMO its both ends. Overhiring and layoffs are both indicators that managers need a strategy change. Unfortunately Wall Street boys don't understand that employee productivity is directly correlated with stability. People don't actively try to improve how they work if they expect to be switching a job or getting laid off. You need employees to build a sort of nest where they want to be most productive in. Both overhiring and laying off is extremely destructive to the company because you increase volatility in social dynamics.
Layoffs are a blunt instrument. I don’t know if al layoffs should be seen through the same lens. I see layoffs as signals from the companies. They see the future as unsure and so they want to reduce costs. That should be an immediate layoff for the ceo and his team
The most direct way that the U.S. government can control inflation is via layoffs of federal workers. Private companies are jumping on the bandwagon to get rid of hires made during more booming times. The fact is that higher interest rates have cooled down investments, which factors into the decisions made by companies to fire staff. Note though that companies which actually build stuff, like Apple, are adding jobs, instead.
> The most direct way that the U.S. government can control inflation is via layoffs of federal workers.
I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Civilian employees are less than 3% of federal spending, so it won't have a measurable effect on spending. Some employees, like IRS employees, bring in revenue.
The more fundamental question is: If mass layoffs are so necessary, then who’s responsible for the unnecessary mass hiring? In any mass layoff, fire that person first. Get to the root of the problem.
I feel that companies just repeat discredited strategies because they are conventional wisdom, and no amount of explaining why layoffs don't make sense will stop them from laying off.
It's mostly about conformity. They heard that all the serious companies are laying off. So they've got to lay off too. Can't be seen breaking convention.
With big tech, a few years back when over-hiring was the conventional wisdom they were for that too.
Atleast 2 of the fast growing companies I have been a part of have had serious layoffs that were very successful in cutting dead weight that had accumulated because of fast and loose hiring and poor middle management. So it can be done well.
By and large though they are a sign to jump from the soon to be sinking ship... so it's very important to know what kind it is and act accordingly.
Unfortunate click bait title for such an important topic. The various metrics quoted of why companies without layoffs appear to do better do not address the idea of underlying causes such as companies doing better do need mass layoffs while companies not doing as well likely to reduce expenses with actions to include layoffs.
the key phrase of the article is "Nothing kills your company's culture like layoffs"
I think that company culture stands for a framework that enables internal cooperation within the company. Now i am not sure if cooperation is currently valued over internal competition in the tech industry, but my impression is that the opposite is the case for most shops. So the question is: how did we get here? what are the factors that have led to the prevailing choice of priorities?
The article says its the stock market that values short term gains over anything else. Now maybe its really because running fast and breaking things is the only way we know how to do things in tech?
The tech layoffs are the results of couple of years of exuberance that happened right after 2020. Companies are laying off and we are getting back to trendline. Nothing to see here.
I wish those departments tasked with busywork would be able to build skunkworks inside these dysfunctional molochs and be able to keep what they create. Fired into becoming a startup.. a man can dream.
Most places I've seen could cut 50-80% of people and maintain or even grow output.
Will they cut the right 50-80%? Chances are close to nill.
And the article is right that layoffs curb morale. Then again, what hurts morale even more, especialy for your true performers, is not laying of the incompetent, the 0 net contribution carreer ladder climbers or the pfiepdom pyramid seat fillers and the bloated 'management support' departments.
What hurts morale the most is when layoffs affect teams and people who are clearly not "underperforming". I've seen some star devs getting swiped up into mass layoffs, and that is incredibly demoralizing because it hammers home the point that it doesn't actually matter how good you are at your job, how much esteem you have with colleagues etc. Not even your manager will be able to help you if the entire team gets canned.
When your choice is basically having someone incompetent on the team vs not having the guys who carry it the most, I think most people will take the former. Incompetence can be managed to minimize damage, but there's no substitute for lack of competent people.
Fully agree with you on the impact of firing competent people. I think you severely underestimate the impact of not firing or even promoting the incompetent or the zero or negative contributers.
"Companies who enact them as part of a broader change in strategy, Cascio says, fare better than those who enact them simply to cut costs."
Ah, the old strategic realignment PR BS. "Its not cost cutting because our C levels are clowns and screwed up. Its a strategic realignment for AI investment ". Lol. Didn't Salesfarce and Fakebook both use that one?
When will AI replace upper management? It can't do any worse.
This blog post is wrong, it also just doesn't matter in practice. Nobody who is making this sort of decision is going to give this kind of obviously false argument a second thought. When you're the one that actually has to make decisions that matter you're going to be better at ignoring bullshit. The audience for this is just people wanting something to upvote that sounds good to them - driven by motivated reasoning.
> “You could blame the workforce,” he says, “or the managers and leaders who are leading that workforce.”
They often do fire large swaths of middle managers - when Musk bought Twitter cutting out the middle of the hierarchy and the orgs that didn't need to exist was a big part of it. It's the same with DOGE. After the twitter layoffs they've shipped more features, faster, with better margins (and he fired the CEO). Meta and Coinbase over hired during the covid 'zero interest rate phenomena' and had to fix it. Reducing hours instead is a joke - I find it hard to believe anyone being honest takes that seriously.
Americans perplex me (and I am one) we live in the most capitalist focused economy in the world and yet everyone acts that they are guaranteed a job. Sorry, but even in "socialist countries" in Europe / rest of world this is not even the case. Then the country turns around and elects someone like trump - thinking collectively someone like that will improve this situation?
Especially the FAANG folks - they get pissed when getting fired from there like DUDE you are literally in the top 0.01 of earners on the planet get over yourself. Poor financial planning and overleveraging yourself are not excuses when you get laid off / fired!!!
Just go read stuff on Blind for more of what I am talking about... i.e "got laid off... nervous to retire with 7 million?!?" like hey, some of us here will probably never see that kind of money in our entire lives
Combine that with temporarily-embarrassed billionaires and it's a recipe for disaster. Every last asshole here is hoping for a fat exit for some ReactJS garbage that probably just grinds up poor people into McDonald's hamburger meat; of course they don't give a shit about actual workers with actual lives, whom layoffs predominantly hurt.
I've been laid off, eight months after a hiring blitz for the exact division I worked for. Now, I could've told them the acquisitions they did were stupid and that the products were never going to be profitable, but I don't live in Manhattan, so those decisions are above me. But that didn't stop them from juicing the stock price and ruining our lives anyway.
Fuck these companies. They could do better, and they choose not to. And every last sycophant here is complicit.
The article lists down why layoffs don't work, but companies keep doing it, so it must be working for them.
I hate layoffs (from both perspectives), but the article sounds like whining "we shouldn't break up".
The alternative of furlough only works if everyone else is doing it. If everyone else fires left right and center, the people being furloughed will still have low morale.
I think it's better to avoid it in the first place, by not over hiring, as others have pointed out.
I think you’re right that it’s better to avoid these issues in the first place, but your perspective on furloughs instead of layoffs seems a bit fatalistic. I think a company that did rolling furloughs (and importantly was transparent about the whole process) would probably maintain pretty good morale, especially if the rest of the industry is laying people off. But yeah singling people out for furlough would probably be a big morale hit
There is a theory about large complex systems which seems to be true in biology and maybe applies here. Intentional downsizing during times of stress works when it preferentially targets defective or dysfunctional components of the larger system. The system improves because the worst parts were removed.
Layoffs don't help companies unless they can reliably remove the worst parts. At most large public companies, the cancerous bureaucracy protects itself and the parts removed are closer to median performers, or even above-median performers. The system gets smaller and less efficient.
Layoffs can be necessary to get the company to fit through a certain sized hole (in the form of cash flow constraints), but it won't be better at what it does on the other side of the hole, it will just continue to exist.
Layoffs work when there is an accurate discriminating mechanism for who stays and goes. The best example of this (outside of private equity turn-arounds that are not widely known) is Twitter. Outside engineering talent was brought in as an oracle, immune to Twitter's bureaucracy. It reliably discriminated between value-adding and not. As a result, the company became incredibly lean and even consistently profitable.
By the late 1960s, software projects had finally reached a certain size, and the particularities of managing these large projects were discussed at NATO software engineering conferences, and codified by Fred Brooks in 1975 in the Mythical Man Month. The upshot being, software projects at corporations can't be run in the same manner as non-software projects. Yet at Fortune 500 companies today, and in the past two years that includes at least some of the FAANGs, you see them trying to run software projects and treating programmers in the same manner they treat non-programmers, and it doesn't work.
I just happened to watch some old talk or interview with Gabe Newell recently, and he said industry thinking at the time Valve was founded was of a certain kind, and Valve took the opposite approach from the industry - the industry was looking to get cheaper programmers, and Valve went the other way and looked for the most expensive programmers, and so forth. Valve has probably less than 400 people working there (don't know the 2025 headcount), but makes billions a year in profit.
Large tech companies are inefficient and have very poor engineering productivity but this is largely for systemic reasons. They definitely do not have any mechanism for identifying high performers.
The basic problem they face is that they pay a fixed wage for complete IP ownership (horrible deal) and so they intentionally do not measure and reward actual performance because they do not want to compensate high performers based on the value they create.
There isn't really a solution because these companies are making rational profit maximizing decisions, it just happens that mediocrity and managed decline of locked in revenue streams is profit maximizing for them.
> they intentionally do not measure and reward actual performance because they do not want to compensate high performers based on the value they create.
Ten years ago, an oft-repeated quote: “you’re not paid what you’re worth, but for the value you create.”
In light of that, is the argument that performance is institutionally obscured so that devs don’t realize how much leverage they really have? I can see traces of that in seeing shipped products as less the result of one/few devs working hard and more as multiple teams, as you now have two levels of personnel abstraction to diffuse potential leverage (individual/their team, and the teams among themselves).
If you work in an org the share of the success of something that you could claim is really abstract. In some sense the cleaning lady can put claims on "my" success.
Most stuff I have done would probably be worthless without the sale people and customer relations in place. Like 0$ value.
Well, it goes both ways: a fixed wage for complete IP ownership is great if your main dev skill is "bringing key stakeholders into conversations at the appropriate time".
Could I be missing something, but are you seriously promoting layoffs? You must be trolling by using twitter as functional example of why they work? I think sometimes I miss sarcastic tones and I really hope i did with this one
Outside engineering is not ever an oracle, and it has its own interior motives and bureaucracy, firing people is generally a one way street.
Twitter has literally issued authoritarian threats to advertisers to come on its platform or else because of how much its valuation has dropped and how much money has been lost - this is the worst example of "engineering oracle fixing things" I could possibly imagine.
lmaoooooo buddy "oracle" implies they know something; the people brought in to fire people at Twitter spent almost no time in determining who was good or even how the company worked, completely undermining your thesis. It was madness: people were instructed to print paper copies of their code to bring into an office, like it was 1995. Remember geohot in a Spaces saying "the main problem with Twitter is that you can't run it locally?", as if any company of that size has run that way at any point in the last decade? Additionally, the horrible communication and chaos made it even harder for performers to perform. As others have pointed out, its stock lost a ton of value, it performs worse financially, and as a product by virtually every other metric has gone to hell (outages, CSAM safety, spam, bots...).
You tell a decent story at the start, but your choice of example couldn't be worse.
I don't have that much of an experience analysing similar reports, but it seems to me to be a healthy and growing company?
If you mean a negative cash flow and operating income - it doesn't mean much, as we need to know why.
Taking into account the jump in "Revenue", positive "EBIT" and so on, I would imagine that it was because of some sort of "strategic investment", like some acquisitions probably?
What am I missing? I would definitely be happy with such reports if that was my company.
Unless I'm missing something, your data you've voted seems to be pre-acquisition.
Also, by all accounts their revenue has dropped so much they're having issues even covering the loan payments, much less having enough for any semblance of profit.
Real talk here, and I'm sorry for being "that guy"
Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping? I know multiple people who have worked their entire career thus far without ever staying at a place for more than 3 or 4 years. Some no more than two. Tech job culture is practically a mono culture with "hop jobs" being a hallmark.
From an employers perspective it's not laying off a bunch of family members (Southwest has an average tenure of 11.5 years), it's laying off a bunch of people who were gonna dip in 6 months to a year anyway.
I know this is controversial take, but recognize that the tech industry is an outlier industry, with outlier amounts of money and outlier amounts of volatility.
I cannot speak for layoffs in all industries ever, but I agree with your assessment of layoffs in big tech from personal experiences.
I have way too many “lifer” friends in big tech who are deadly scared of layoffs and job hopping. They are also the ones who rarely got promoted and havent had a significant pay bump pretty much ever.
On another hand, half my team at a big tech company got laid off back at the start of 2023. 4 months later, I caught up with them over drinks, and the results were rather interesting. They all got around 4-6mo worth of severance pay, spent 2-3 months just skiing/traveling/hiking/vacationing, then 1 month or so interviewing, and then starting their new jobs shortly after. All seemed rather happy, both with their new positions/pay (which had a significant paybump) and, essentially, paid vacation break they took right before.
It seems like the heavity majority of those stressed about layoffs in big tech are lifers and those who are chronically averse to and dread the interview process.
Yeah, I make the same adjusted for inflation that I did when I got my last/only promotion 10 years ago. I have grey hair, a disability, and a family that relies on the health insurance. Switching or being laid off is a risky proposition for me. It sounds like all your examples are young, childless people (who else could take a month off to go vacationing?). Life is much harder for some of us.
Yeah, the prospect of layoffs hits a little different when you're in your 50s. I have some non-techie friends in their 50s (sales, project management) who have been looking for a job for years. I've even heard third-hand about some good programmers in their 50s in LA in the same boat, although I don't know them personally.
The last time I was looking for a job at age 48, I interviewed at a bunch of startups and only got a second interview from one. It was clear that most of them were never going with someone my age unless I'd written a book or had patents or something (or was ex-FAANG), even if they didn't consciously realize that.
I reached a point--somewhat older than that--when I didn't have a real job any longer, but nobody seemed in a big hurry to get rid of me, and they were paying me pretty well. I made it through a small layoff though I wouldn't have minded the good severance. I might have hung around in different circumstances but figured I should optimize the payout up to a point and wasn't really interested in heading somewhere new.
Yep. The subliminal message I'm getting from my current managers is that I should just be a good little disabled person and work as a Walmart greeter. It's turning into harassment at this point. Just all sorts of BS. Like telling me they are doing so much for me, when my ADA accommodation is weekly 1-on-1s with the manager and my tech lead. Is that really a lot? There are people without disabilities getting weekly 1-on-1s with their managers. Maybe the weekly tech lead meeting is more than others get, but it doesn't seem that hard. I got told my productivity looked bad. I asked if he ran the numbers - he didn't. He didn't even look at my productivity before telling me it looked bad. I ran the numbers and I was in line with my peers. I would think that's the definition of bias... nobody gives a fuck. I didn't get my accommodation for 6 months last year and then they gave me a bad rating based on opinon and not metrics. They said me not getting the accommodations wasn't a factor in my performance (how?).
At my current job, in the manager training we were told "you should have weekly 1:1 with your direct reports" and i thought "who the fuck needs to be told that?". This is an illuminating comment, seems absurd to me
I had only 2-3 1-on-1s over the course of about 5 months last year. But nobody will hold the manager accountable.
A weekly or bi-weekly 1:1 with your manager has been the standard arrangement in my last two jobs.
I suspect that the difference is a lot of managers end up so overcommitted that they can't handle 1:1s with all their direct reports.
Of course, that's its own problem, but particularly in places where it's hard to get headcount, the management structures get wider and wider...
Mine is bi-weekly but my boss cancels it every time.
Yea I do weekly 1:1s with all my directs and have done so for the past ~13 years. Pretty standard.
Mostly I had team calls. Theoretically had 1:1s with one former manager but with both of our travel schedules it ended up monthly at best.
It's supposed to be bi-weekly here. But according to HR "that's not policy, just recommended". I had about 5-6 months were I only got 2 1-on-1s, and the feedback then was good. They completely dropped the ball and blamed it on the disabled guy.
Such a subliminal message might be "constructive dismissal" and against disability legislation. With a good lawyer you might get a decent result if they ever did fire you? On the plus side, the fact they haven't fired you means either (a) they do actually value you performance even if they're claiming otherwise (perhaps to avoid paying more) or (b) they'd quite like to fire you but fear being sued big time if they did, so holding back. Either way, it'd seem you've got some power over them if you play your cards right. So, maybe try not to stress? ;) Yeah OK that's easier said than done....
Off and on they've been threatening me with a PIP for the past year, but haven't actually triggered one. I did talk to a lawyer. They said there's not much I can do until they terminate me, or risk losing the job. They could help me respond to a PIP when they PIP me. But even if the company terminates me, the lawyer said they are inclined to negotiate higher severance than going to court because it's tricky to prove that any bias or singled out treatment was because of the disability and not something else. Although I do have notes of my manager saying requesting accommodations might have hurt me and that my department head is targeting me for some reason.
Ah well I wish you all the best with it. Sounds like a form of bullying to me :( Might not hurt to set your phone to record mode during some of those meetings. ;) I know what you're saying about making a legal case. Legal stuff is always a pain, not somewhere you wanna go if you can help it. Its bluffing right? They need to think you might consider sue-ing and could win, even if you know you wouldn't. Personally, if I was in your position, I'd be looking at what skills were in demand locally, and ruthlessly up-skilling in that stuff, during work time, ideally by working on stuff they need anyway. But, again, easier said than done...
If you are in your 50s then your recent years of peak lifetime earning potential overlapped with an industry massively overpaying its workforce.
You shouldn't need a job. You should have FIREd.
> your recent years of peak lifetime earning potential overlapped with an industry massively overpaying its workforce
Only if the following conditions are true:
1. You spent your entire career in the US, ideally on the West Coast
2. You entered the industry early, ideally right after (or in!) university
3. You did not spend significant time in low-paying segments of the industry, such as in academia, hardware, games, idealistic open source, or the public sector
4. You did not need a significant career break, such as for major medical issues, being a SAHP, or caring for sick family members
Even if all of the above applied, certain wealth-destroying events such as an expensive illness, legal trouble, or bad divorce, might have made FIRE infeasible.
> massively overpaying its workforce
As I understand it, tech employees are typically paid a small fraction of the revenue that they bring into the company.
Outside of tech, employees are underpaid, and wages haven't tracked productivity growth since the 1970s. Profit growth has greatly exceeded wage growth since the early 2000s, with the exception of the 2008 recession.
Minimum wage, fairly, should have been around $32 in 2019 or so. I haven't run numbers lately because it's depressing, but I bet it's worse now.
You can't go off mcdonalds sandwiches, and you can't use the economic indicators that ignore food and fuel.
I've heard wild numbers from "the dollar is worth 50¢ compared to 20 years ago" to "the dollar has lost 98% of its value in the last N years."
I'm not an economist, but I do know my electric bill has been thr exact same dollar amount for 12 years, and I've halved my usage twice in those years. That puts the dollar purchasing power for power at 25% of 2013.
Gasoline changes prices so much I can't really say, it's about twice as expensive for 87 here as 12 years ago, but 93 is 2.5+ times higher.
Food? Don't get me started.
I live in the rural south. I don't really care about price fixing in Los Angeles or silicon Valley.
There is no such thing as what minimum wage should be "fairly". What is the minimum amount you should be able to pay someone an hour? Surely it is the amount where if you didn't, someone else would pay them more.
There are many people who do jobs worth much less than $32/hour. That min wage would just make them illegal to employ.
>You can't go off mcdonalds sandwiches, and you can't use the economic indicators that ignore food and fuel.
You can't use economic indicators that track volatile commodities either. We use baskets of consumer goods and the inflation tracking is very accurate in short time frames but it becomes harder to compare the further out you get. A TV today is much better than a TV even 10 years ago but it is hardly even the same product as one from 1970.
>I've heard wild numbers from "the dollar is worth 50¢ compared to 20 years ago" to "the dollar has lost 98% of its value in the last N years."
What is wild about that? If you had 50c then and you had invested it in even relatively poorly performing investments it would be worth much more than $1 now.
>I'm not an economist, but I do know my electric bill has been thr exact same dollar amount for 12 years, and I've halved my usage twice in those years. That puts the dollar purchasing power for power at 25% of 2013.
That you are not an economist is obvious.
You are aware that dollars buy more things than energy from your energy provider according to your energy plan, yeah?
> There is no such thing as what minimum wage should be "fairly".
Sure there is. It's the amount you have to pay someone such that they can work a reasonable amount of hours (40/week), such that they can afford all of life's essentials while having a little extra to save for a rainy day, as well as have a little fun.
But certainly some people's poilitics ignore the human aspects of the world we live in, and think that the "free market" (something that doesn't actually exist) will sort it out.
What are life's essentials? Do you have the right to a car? To one bedroom per child or should they share? Do you have the right to central heating so you can wear a tshirt indoors or should you be expected to wear a jersey in winter?
The minimum wage doesn't make anyone be paid more. It only causes anyone paid less than it to instead be paid $0, and instead be paid an unemployment benefit. How is that reasonable?
A higher minimum wage puts upward pressure on wages at the lower end of the scale, which helps the working class so that they aren't working and on medicare, section 8, food stamps etc. - as many Wal-mart workers currently are. That saves us money in the long run.
When Seattle raised the minimum wage to $15/hour, everyone screamed it would lead to mass unemployment. That never happen. Suddenly the lower class had more money to spend, which boosted the economy as much or more than higher wages hurt bottom lines.
Higher minimum wage doesn't put upward pressure on other low wages, and even if it did, pushing up the wages of people making $30/hr by taking away jobs from people making $20/hr to put them on benefits earning $15/hr is obscene.
>which helps the working class so that they aren't working and on medicare, section 8, food stamps etc. - as many Wal-mart workers currently are. That saves us money in the long run.
A higher minimum wage leads to lower employment not higher employment.
>When Seattle raised the minimum wage to $15/hour, everyone screamed it would lead to mass unemployment. That never happen.
It has been shown many times that a higher minimum wage causes less employment. It is also obvious from first principles and basic logic. Price controls are a very bad idea, and wages are no exception.
> What is the minimum amount you should be able to pay someone an hour? Surely it is the amount where if you didn't, someone else would pay them more.
A livable wage in the geographic jurisdiction they are in. Including stuff like transportation, healthcare, food, heat, housing, and insurance.
Glad you asked.
oh, the company can't compete without exploiting workers?
oh well.
> A livable wage in the geographic jurisdiction they are in.
This is called the Iron Law of Wages. As its name implies, it's neither prescriptive nor pleasant - but it is guaranteed to be liveable.
> Including stuff like transportation, healthcare, food, heat, housing, and insurance.
The thing that trips people up is that the word "liveable" is a synonym for "subsistence," not "fullfilling." A wage that's only liveable would feel quite exploitative to most people.
The intention of "minimum wage" in the US is not merely subsistence level. FDR said, "by living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." [0]
The "iron law of wages" is instead an economic principle that wages tend to trend downwards until people are paid the minimum possible for subsistence. It's not meant to be a goal.
0: http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html
There are ten million stated reasons for the minimum wage! Pretty much the only one that economists can agree on is that it's helpful to prevent abuses of monopsony power in small towns.
Regardless of what FDR said, a living wage is guaranteed because people will not accept anything lower.
The problem with a "decent" living is that reasonable people can disagree about what that looks like. Roommates? Children? An unemployed spouse? Vacations and retirement?
It's not the government's job to guarantee all of that stuff and I would rather we focus on stopping wage and tip theft and protecting the rights of workers (banning noncompetes, decoupling health insurance, etc.) instead of increasing the minimum wage towards some poorly-defined goal.
There's also the other side of the minimum wage debate, which is that most of the specific numbers people list as "liveable" do actually result in some folks losing their jobs and becoming unemployable. There was even a recent BERKELEY study that showed this!
>>There is no such thing as what minimum wage should be "fairly"
Nonsense.
There most definitely IS a definition of a fair minimum wage -- it is the definition used when it was originally introduced into law:
The wage necessary for a full-time (40hr/week) worker head-of-household to support a family of four above the poverty line -- spouse & kids in a house/apartment, food, medical, education, etc..
We have Walmart workers collecting $6 Billion in benefits per year to stay above the poverty line while the Waltons sit on a $250Billion fortune, it is clear we are subsidizing the rich by failing to set an above-poverty minimum wage.
EDIT: typos, add referenced line
Despite agreeing with the rest, should the kid who graduated high school 2 months ago (1) earn as a grocery cashier to support a family of four, including medical and education, (2) should they not work / not be employable, or (3) is there room for a minimum lower than this definition?
I would say yes, it is reasonable to have an exception for lower wages for teenage part-time entry-level workers, and maybe some partially-disabled workers.
Of course there would need to be provisions that it not be abused and just used for all positions. E.g., it cannot be used for workers 21 years old or older, etc. And the rules against abuse need to be solid, as we can guarantee that whatever rules are made, employers will work hard to abuse and game the system to their advantage and at the employee's cost.
"Doctor, I need you to declare me disabled or else I'll lose my job when I turn 21. I need this job, and I don't know if I can find another one at the 21yo minimum wage."
I really want to like what you're saying, but I see too many problems. I don't have answers.
>The wage necessary for a full-time (40hr/week) worker head-of-household to support a family of four above the poverty line -- spouse & kids in a house/apartment, food, medical, education, etc..
Food of what quality? That available in the 1930s?
Medical of what quality? 1930s medical care?
Education to primary level as most had in the 1930s or more than that?
You don't have a natural right to receive the fruits of the labour of others.
>We have Walmart workers collecting $6 Billion in benefits per year to stay above the poverty line while the Waltons sit on a $250Billion fortune, it is clear we are subsidizing the rich by failing to set an above-poverty minimum wage.
Then stop giving benefits to people that have jobs.
>...of what quality?
There are standards for virtually everything. Meet the current basic standards. For food, a basket of FDA/USDA-approved for distribution food to make a basic but nutritious diet for the family of 4. For housing, you could go with minimums for HUD housing. For education, through public high school. These are not hard to figure out (but may be a bit tedious). These are also minimums required to maintain a functional workforce in a modern society.
>>You don't have a natural right to receive the fruits of the labour of others.
>>Then stop giving benefits to people that have jobs.
Right. So what you want is a Dickensian crabs-in-a-bucket labor market where the wage level is set by the most desperate person, who will work for hours to get a crust of bread for his/her next meal. A market where employers can abuse workers at will because there really are 500 others outside the gate who will take his job if he isn't willing to take the beating?
We are no longer living in a frontier society where 97%+ of the workers are producing food.
That insanely over-simplistic model has been tried, and it is a resounding failure, both for every society, every country, and every individual living in it. Those societies inevitably collapse or grow out of it with minimum standards for everyone. And while it is obviously awful for the workers, it is no day at the beach for the oligarchs either, who must live in secured closed-off areas, always frightened of everyone in the public as well as their rivals in power. Unproductive misery for everyone is what you want?
So, NO, the solution is not to just make the people at the bottom more poor, more hungry, and more desperate.
The solution is to stop giving benefits by ensuring that their employer pays the workers sufficiently that they do NOT NEED benefits to survive.
If an employer cannot pay their workers a living wage they do NOT have a business model.
They have an exploitation model.
The exploitation model specifically violates your above principle saying that the employers have a natural right to the fruits of the workers' labor to whatever degree they can exploit the worker by their desperation.
You aren't saying the no one has a right to the fruits of anyone else's labor, you are only saying that no other worker has such a right, but the employers do.
You are saying that if someone has power or deception, whatever they can take is their right.
I say, NO, that is the most dishonorable and amoral of societies.
The labour theory of value that you allude to here makes no sense. People are paid at the market price based on supply and demand, just like other goods and services.
Tech employees don't "bring in" the company's revenue. That makes the mistake of attributing the products and services of a business to its workers.
>wages haven't tracked productivity growth since the 1970s.
Propaganda. Productivity growth literally is just wage growth, by definition. It is impossible for them not to track each other.
>Productivity growth literally is just wage growth, by definition. It is impossible for them not to track each other.
I don't understand what you mean by this. If i own a business, and employee productivity increases but i don't increase wages doesn't that disprove your statement?
Productivity as a macroeconomic measure (which is what is being discussed here) is just a measure of wages.
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
The graph on this page disagrees, can you explain please? I haven't heard anyone say the two concepts are the same before.
As I have heard it "productivity" is roughly gdp/hour, which can be different from wages/hour (but you generally expect the two to be related / correlated).
>>Productivity growth is literally just wage growth, by definition.
No, it is the opposite, whether you are measuring Units Per Worker Hour or especially Units Per Worker Dollar.
You have a dozen $25/hr workers in a factory producing 50 widgets/hour, and you now introduce new tools, techniques, and/or materials and they now produce 80 widgets per hour, productivity per hour and per dollar has risen, but worker pay is exactly the same.
If you instead cut their pay to $22/hr their productivity in Units/WorkerHour is unchanged but productivity in Units/Labor$ has risen.
It is ONLY in the limited case where you are paying 100% by piecework that productivity tracks wages, e.g., if those workers are paid $6/Widget produced and they manage to make 50%more widgets/hr, then their pay rises with productivity. But that is uncommon and labor cost is rarely the only input.
Edit: typos
>No, it is the opposite, whether you are measuring Units Per Worker Hour or especially Units Per Worker Dollar.
That is precisely how it is measured: by measuring wages.
>You have a dozen $25/hr workers in a factory producing 50 widgets/hour, and you now introduce new tools, techniques, and/or materials and they now produce 80 widgets per hour, productivity per hour and per dollar has risen, but worker pay is exactly the same.
As is unlikely to surprise you, productivity as a macroeconomic indicator is not measured by lookikg at factories and the tools and techniques they use.
96% of the gap can be explained by the fact that these figures compare productivity growth of the whole economy with wage growth of some workers (the lowest 80% of them - leaving out... the most productive workers), count the productivity growth of the self employed but not their wages, dont take into account overtime, bonuses, or health insurance benefits, and intentionally use different means of measuring inflation across the two figures in an attempt to inflate the numbers.
At the end of the day they track very closely because they are both measures of wages. Productivity is just net output by hour worked and wages is just net output by hour worked. If you use different methods for calculating each you can make either look higher but it is pure methodology.
> Tech employees don't "bring in" the company's revenue.
Sure they do. Every employee contributes to the revenue a company brings in. If they don't, then they should be fired.
> Productivity growth literally is just wage growth, by definition.
Completely false. You accuse a commenter in a sibling thread of not having a good grasp of economics, but that feels like the pot calling the kettle black, here.
You don't "bring revenue in". You are paid for providing a service to your employer. Your employer brings revenue in by providing quite different goods and services to its customers.
By your logic, "cost centres" (like IT, HR, and office management) within a business are bad because they don't bring in any revenue. Except of course in reality they are the same: they provide a service to the business that the business makes use of in providing goods and services to its customers.
I am being pedantic but for good reason: there is no a priori reason why your pay should go up just because your employer has become more profitable, except that it is in the interests of employers to make use of resources efficiently. If they are profitable then hiring more people so they can make more money is good. But it isn't a matter of "deserving" to be paid more or something. Pay isn't based on what you deserve for many reasons, including that you can't attribute the business's profits to its workers and ignore, for example, the investment in capital resources (including IP) required to enable the workers to work effectively. Mainly though because of supply and demand.
If an improvement in productivity makes you more efficient then there should be higher demand for you and you should be paid more. And indeed that is exactly what happens: people in industries that have productivity improvements are paid more afterwards than before.
When I get to 50, I will still need some sort of job. Maybe I can get a lower paying or low stress job. That's me being in the industry for my entire career, good credentials, etc. I will have been making somewhat less than the national developer median (about $130k is median). I live in a moderately high cost area. Even the people that live in high cost areas making 2x my salary have significant tax and real estate burdens. Not everyone can FIRE, especially if you're below the median.
This is not a real thing outside of a tiny number of people.
Having FIRE doesn't mean you're ready to retire and build ships in a bottle or whatever. I like programming, it puts me in flow state and keeps my brain young. I want to go out on my own terms. Also good luck with FIRE if you're putting kids through college. And thirdly, for those of us at normal companies the pay has been nice, but not FAANG mid-six-figures nice.
You don't have to "put kids through college". If you're in the US, they can borrow to go somewhere decent and affordable. Harvard has never been for you, it has always been for the children of very rich New Englanders.
You should probably update your personal data on what kind of debt they would be taking on, and how long it takes to pay it off.
https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics
https://research.com/education/average-time-to-repay-student...
https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college
Even at a relatively average college, debt repayment is often measured in decades.
Not passing any judgements on any life choices here, but occasional months off sounds like a good thing. I would not necessarily need to go anywhere to enjoy (make use of) the time. The notion of getting a month off with pay sounds good.
That sounds good, so long as there is similar employment at the end of it. As a sabbatical it sounds great. As a layoff, the uncertainty sounds crushing. It could take months to find a new position, especially with the disadvantages I have, I would likely need to start looking immediately and wouldn't be able to enjoy it.
Yeah, it's the same problem I have when the 20 somethings use the term "funemployment".
If you're single and have no responsibilities, sure. The second you have a mortgage, medical conditions that need health insurance, or need money because you had a family emergency and had to dip into savings, it's not "funemployment" at all.
There was a period in tech when a lot of people had a certain sentiment that they could drop a few emails and have a well-paying job the next week. That's never been the norm for professional work.
During dot-bomb I was relatively lucky if not necessarily super-well compensated but I knew a lot of people who basically dropped out of the professional labor market.
Just to be clear, I mean time off and returning to the same job. Shouldn't we be aiming for a future where we do not have to work like dogs to earn enough to struggle at home?
How do you do this? Taxes? Increase worker salaries? Government funded health care?
Access to cheap labor is what really drives economies. Market forces are what drive labor salaries. More people cheaper labor.
It used to be in the 60s, 70s, and to some extent the 80's a single wage earner was enough in a family. By the end of the 80's it became clear that 2 wage earners was how people got ahead in life.
I'm not sure how we do this, but our current economic system is garbage. As the saying goes, the other systems we've tried may have been worse, but that doesn't make this system good.
A significant portion of the world population works themselves to the bone while barely scraping by. This is not the mark of a successful civilization. It's gross.
Maybe as a start, we put limits on the ratio of executive compensation to the lowest paid jobs in a company. And require that a significant percentage of profits be distributed to employees rather than shareholders.
Yes, that will slow economic growth. But even as someone reasonably well off, who depends on investments for his future, that seems much more fair than what we're doing now.
I don't know and it is a good question. Maybe we need three or four wage earners per household. Maybe 60-70 hour work weeks. I would like to hear some ideas that does not include more grinding down workers for GDP. Maybe another measure for a health society. Growth certainly help lots of people but when an economy is mature maybe more is not necessarily better, at least for the average worker.
The main thing is that the share of GDP per worker has gone down, meaning the distribution is skewed. But I agree that there isn't a good option that I've heard to change this without other negative side effects.
Then I suppose increasing wages is a good option as well as adding workers are both options and more paid leave).
We don't let the billionaires suck of 90% of the revenue, that's how. Them making 10% of their current salaries stock would still have them well well into retirement.
Oh, and not doing 2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich would help.
Another benefit of the EU. Yearly month of vacation with very little fear of termination
If a layoff were actually a real layoff, you could get your job back once business conditions improve.
Tech "layoffs" are something of a euphemism for terminating (rather than pausing) employment for business reasons.
That seems unrealistic. Laid-off workers need to find a new job long before their former employer could hire them back.
[flagged]
No sympathy from me either; instead, he gets appreciation. Thank you, OP, for bringing more life into the world. It's hard and (obviously) frequently thankless.
Thanks, but I'm not sure this deserves appreciation either. We already have plenty of life in this world. Perhaps so much so that the human life is negatively impacting other life, including other humans. I'd be much more appreciative of people making life better than making more of it.
[flagged]
Goodness what a miserable outlook
Just look at history then
That's a pretty weird and heartless thing to say. Having children is not a vice that deserves to be judged anymore than not having kids is. I could enumerate why fewer kids is bad for our collective future as a whole, but I won't, because the decision to have kids is a personal choice.
Also, having kids is generally not the difference between having to work or not—most people have to work for a living regardless of family status. It's just that the stakes are higher when you have dependents.
You can view what I wrote whatever way you want, but I stand by it and don't think it was heartless at all. I think not having children is actually more heartful and caring than having children.
Look, out of all the people who come into this world, how many people can we say were a net positive for this planet? I see that you are currently at Airbnb. Great. You are lining your pockets, but I'm not sure what the net benefit to this planet is. If I have children, the chances are great that they were just resource consumers and waste producers. There are too many people on this planet, and chances are my having kids will make this problem worse. Of course, on a local scale, your children will add love to your life, you will help them out financially, they will live at home with their parents as adults, etc. This is not being selfless. You are helping your progeny which is, ultimately, selfish. What is truly selfless is to meaningfully help someone who has no connection to you. Fight for the poor, support countries that are being terrorized by aggressor countries, adopt a shelter animal, etc. That is truly selfless. Having kids--selfish. Look at Elon Musk and his 10+ kids.
> the decision to have kids is a personal choice.
And I choose not to burden the world with my own children. I've had numerous exchange students, adopted shelter animals, and I'm volunteering at a local shelter. I'm not under any illusion that my life here is going to be a net positive for the planet, but I am trying really hard. Having children, with the traditional notions about it that you regurgitated, is a vice when you consider that we are reaching our planet's capacity for supporting all of us. Ruining other planets such as Mars, I don't feel is a morally acceptable choice.
So you don't think people should have kids, that's a fair viewpoint, I don't begrudge you that.
But you responded to a thread where someone was expressing the considerations they have about why being laid off is personally scary to them. Using that to grind your axe about whichever of their life choices you find morally dubious is the heartless part.
It's not really surprising though since your first reaction to my comment was to look at my profile and cherry-pick something to condemn me with.
Anyone who would rather not be alive is free to make that decision. Why are you still alive if you really believe this?
[dead]
I didn't ask for your sympathy. I'm merely responding to someone who doesn't understand that others have factors that affect how hard it is to change jobs.
On a side note, I'm getting whiplash by how fast we go from
FWIW: https://www.usaforunfpa.org/are-we-overpopulated-are-birth-r...
I think a lot of the "low-birthrate" fearmongering is just a way to distract people.
Overpopulation was projected to be an issue, but we actually addressed it pretty well over the last 50-75 years and global average birth rates are in a pretty good place now.
I'm curious how you'll feel about this comment in 10 and 20 years from now.
Hard to say. Perhaps Boston Dynamics, or Canada will have a solution to their problem.
I understand the trade offs you mention. I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.” You have chosen a different payoff - your family, certainty of health insurance, etc. You get the benefits that children bring and the joy of being a parent. The “young, childless people” have made a different choice - more freedom in employment decisions but no joy from children. Everyone has their own cost/benefit analyses on these issues. That is life.
Haha you must be young. It's entirely possible young people will make the same choices and face the same realities I currently do. They just havent gotten to that stage yet. Even comparing my life now to my life 10 years ago would show the younger me had an easier life. However, having a disability is not a choice, and in general makes life harder than those without a disability. Don't get me wrong - I believe life is hard for almost everyone at at least one point or another in unique ways and to varying degrees.
Actually, I am not young. I just retired and have been thinking about my life, career, etc. I do not have a disability (my wife may disagree) and I agree it makes life more challenging (wouldn’t be called a disability otherwise). I also agree with you that life can be hard, children are born with health challenges, children make poor decisions with terrible consequences, spouse dies, you get cancer, etc. We all need to get through these. That does not change the fact that we all have decisions to make everyday about our careers, our families, our health, our financial situation, and so on. When we look at those who made different decisions, it does not necessarily mean they made better or worse decisions, just different decisions.
I have been thinking about this a lot recently. A former boss and good friend who is incredibly smart and effective in the work place asked why the two of us had never gone the PE route and been more successful. While he is very successful by most standards, he sees people flying private jets all the time who do not appear more skillful, yet have been more successful. As I think on this, I feel I simply was never willing to go all in on the risk required to achieve that level of financial success. I tried co-founding a company once when I was 28 while engaged and importantly, before children. I felt I could take the risk and if I failed, could bounce back. I did fail - company did ok but my I ended up disliking working with my senior partner - and I did bounce back, ending up at GE.
After that, I did not feel comfortable taking that level of risk until my children were off to college and no longer dependent on me an I had enough money saved that my wife and I would be ok for a long time. The people I know who have been jet-money financially successful took huge risks. They were all in on their venture(s). Frequently this cost them their marriage and/or relationships with the children. This was their choice. Their cost/benefit analysis to optimize their success criteria. Some regret the decisions - they underestimated the effort and impact on those they cared about. However, most have not. They are happy with how things have turned out.
Different strokes for different folks.
The other factor you are missing in your analysis of PE route is the number of musical chairs are limited. There can only be 1 taylor swift not millions. So the choice is not for everyone. Even if everyone made that choice, a million taylor swifts will not happen. Surviorship bias is real.
Great point
It sounds like, by and large, you've had a pretty good life. But please understand that, while you've made good decisions and have taken advantage of the opportunities in front of you, a large chunk of your success comes down to random chance.
Many people do not fall on the good side of that random chance.
Your good health is an invisible crown that can only be seen by those who do not wear it.
What a great saying. I feel this in my very core.
Dealing with poverty in my youth, homeless at 16, no parents to help me, debilitating ADHD, tourettic OCD, bipolar type II, CPTSD from 10 years of intense childhood physical/emotional abuse, my full-ride college scholarships illegally stolen from me by a high school who knew I was homeless and had no recourse and allowed a teacher to illegally modify my grades out of pure spite, malnourished, intense, crippling sciatica, fused lumbar discs, possible fibromyalgia, and then developing excruciating daily pains and physical disability which greatly impacted my life and sometimes made me suicidal, which turned out to be an autoimmune disorder that took 10 years for doctors to figure out... an extremely intense case of gout developing since my teens...
I just keep pushing on but every day I see people who take so much for granted, and who are so ready to pass judgement without appreciating the basic privilege of good health.
I've had to deal with so much struggle that the average person wouldn't even want to take the time to hear all of it much less believe it, once someone momentarily realizes that they'd have it comparatively easy compared to others, they often get defensive as they begin to realize that their life doesn't have nearly as many barriers as they've convinced themselves, and they have to come to terms with not applying themselves harder. It's easier for them to be dismissive and tell me, "all your problems would go away if you worked out more" or tell me to get on a keto diet, or whatever have you, as if I haven't tried every single thing I can think of.
And the insane thing is I am still quite privileged compared to some people in war-torn countries, even if they are able to move around without swallowing a truckload of ibuprofen. Reminding myself of that is a source of strength and determination to keep moving forward.
“You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from.” ― Cormac McCarthy, No Country for Old Men
Wisdom speaks. Hidden gem of this thread.
How do you know I have good health? What an incredibly smug comment meant to silence someone with no basis in fact.
Well, the person you originally replied to mentioned having a disability, and your response was "yeah but you have kids so really you chose this and also I disagree that life is harder for some people."
The generous interpretation would be that you have sufficiently good health that you do not have to structure your life around it, and therefore lack understanding of the challenges faced by those who do.
The alternate interpretation, that you do understand and choose to ignore and dismiss, would be rather less generous to you.
I actually agreed with them that a disability makes life harder. I then pointed out other things that an individual did not choose can make life harder as well.
As for bringing up children, I did make the leap that that is generally a big difference between younger employees and older employees.
> I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.”
It sounds like what you think you wrote, is not in fact the words of yours that everybody has been reading.
Hmm.. I think we are talking past each other. In my initial comment I said "I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.” I still maintain that comment.
In my follow up comment I attempted to clarify my comment in response to giantg2's reply. "I do not have a disability (my wife may disagree) and I agree it makes life more challenging (wouldn’t be called a disability otherwise)." I completely agree a disability makes life more difficult. I simply added that it is not the only thing that makes life more difficult. All of these things need to be considered when making career/job decisions.
Let me take a step back here. You're contradicting yourself.
> In my initial comment I said "I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.” I still maintain that comment.
> I completely agree a disability makes life more difficult.
Do you not see how it's hard to square the first statement, with the second? You do not agree that life is much harder for some people, but you do agree that a disability makes life more difficult?
> I think we are talking past each other. In my initial comment I said "I do disagree with your assertion that “Life is much harder for some of us.” I still maintain that comment.
It sounds like you have very little experience with people outside your socioeconomic class. (Or you do have that experience, but have drawn the wrong conclusions from it.) It is an obvious, proven fact that life is much harder for some people than for others.
My phone will drop contractions, and that would be charitable.
A double negative is risky without typos, though.
So you took the generous route in publicly shaming them.
I think their quibble was with a different item being used as evidence there (i.e., having a family), not necessarily with all that was said.
I didn't publicly shame anyone. I pointed out their clear position of privilege to help them learn to apply empathy.
I think helping one another to build empathy is a good thing, and even if the person I replied to is unable to do so, it's possible that observing them tell a disabled person that they don't think their life is any harder will help other third parties such as yourself build that empathy.
I did not flag their original comment, but it's not for no reason it was flagged to death.
Text is a fairly imprecise form of communication. It's pretty common for multiple people to get triggered by misreading a post the same way if such a misread is possible.
In other cases downvoted posts are often the most interesting precisely because they trigger people with points they don't want to consider. I certainly wouldn't cite it as proof of any position.
People don't chose the abilities or disabilities they're born with, nor those they receive at the hands of others.
Many also don't have the choice to start a family, no matter how badly they want it.
I never said people choose disabilities. I tried to point out there are other life changing issues that can affect a person that they also did not choose.
As for starting a family, I agree not all can. My mistake was jumping from their assertion that I must be young to mean I did not have the responsibilities of an older worker such as taking care of a family. The less generous interpretation of that accusation is what? I am stupid? Ignorant of life? Not suffering from the impact of issues that I did not choose?
your argument sounds like "some people choose to do the dishes, some of us choose to let other people do the dishes".
Some of the "free choices" you claim people can make, will only be possible if some other people don't make those same choices.
Sure, maybe that's how people in their 30s living in NYC or bay area feel about layoffs. But when you're older, have a family, and live in an area with a less dynamic job market, you may see things differently.
Why does it have to be an age thing? Some men and women are players and the game is the game to them. Those who are naturally monogamous would be stressed in a game like that. Constantly uprooting is a stressful lifestyle and can truly be torture (as evidenced by constant anxiety, no way to be). I can promise you people who are job hopping are hopping around other things in life (friends, family, relationships, projects, interests, roles, identities). It's a whole way of being.
Edit: This is not a judgement, but if you felt like it was, I very much want to hear about it.
Doesn't have to be an age thing, but it often is an age thing. Because lots of us were carefree before dependents and a mortgage as well.
Unexpected or deliberate change was an opportunity, a challenge, a stimulant! Job hopping (or hopping around relationships) when young can be about exploring the world, finding yourself and your values and isn't inherently bad.
Then you discover what you are good at doing and that you like doing and dedicating time to (or perhaps another person with whom you want to spend all your time) and your priorities change.
Then you might have kids and the work becomes more about financial security for the family then about your personal growth. And so you aren't looking at layoffs and unexpected change as opportunity because you are happy with what you've got.
It just often is an age or 'stage of life' thing for many people.
It's an age-related issue because ageism is deeply ingrained in the tech industry making it difficult for older engineers to find opportunities.
They are are more likely to set strong boundaries, demand fair compensation, and expect strong leadership. They are less willing to work nights and weekends, accept subpar pay, or tolerate workplace abuse, unlike younger, less experienced employees who may be more naive or eager to conform.
> Why does it have to be an age thing? Some men and women are players and the game is the game to them.
Yes, buuut many will be players from 25 to 35 (with some degree of flexibility), that's why it's still an age thing. Yes, there are persons that are players for life, sure. But IME they are a minority.
Or maybe I'm just projecting, who knows?
A few months of skiing sounds nice, but not as nice as the profound pleasure of working on a team of people I've know and cared about for over a decade.
You're going to spend half your waking life at work. For me, that's too much time to not want to do so at a place where I have real relationships with my coworkers.
This is ultimately what some of the risk comes down to: you invest time(a decade is a long time!) into creating meaningful relationships at work and one day you come in to have your key card de-activated and some corporate speak as to why. There are certainly people working on truly meaningful projects out there, with teams they trust and adore...but for most of the workforce, even in tech, its just work and any fun had at work is a great cherry on top.
How is this different than the manager who has spent years developing an employee - making sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hiring the right people to complement the team, fighting for bonuses and pay raises - only to have them quit to join the next company for a 10% raise. It is difficult to build a long-term culture when society seems to expect job hopping to rapidly advance a career.
On a related note, it is odd that HN comments rarely seem to include a manager’s perspective.
I've never seen people leaving great jobs for a 10% raise. It's always something else: a much bigger benefit, or a significant downside of the current job, which are not widely publicized. Instead, I've seen people going to a lower-paying position for a more interesting job, a chance to learn new hot thing hands-on, a different set of responsibilities, etc.
I worked with a guy who left for more money, found out the grass wasn’t greener, and came crawling back. Then did it again. For some reason they hired him back a second time. When he quit the 3rd time I think that was the final bridge burned. I asked him about it and he said money was his singular metric for choosing a job, he was always looking, and would never stop.
I once left for a 50% raise, and once for a large chunk of equity in a promising startup (and being able to do early-stage formative work). But 10%?..
Yeah, I left a job where I loved the team and didn't mind the leadership too much for a 45% raise. Got lucky and the job I landed in was an even better fit for me.
I remember a guy at a previous job doing something similar - left for a React job (despite being a PHP developer), then came back like 6 months later because he couldn't get his head around React, then left again like 6 months later. Pretty sure it was about money because the PHP job was pretty relaxed and had some good perks.
Clearly money wasn't the only factor if he crawled back. Was he terminated or something?
Yeah I was offered a job with 12% better pay recently - from a friend too so I knew the job couldn't be too bad. But I feel like I'm onto a good thing where I am and the perks are okay (plus I'd probably be burning some bridges just by leaving).
A company can definitely afford a 10% raise, and they instead choose a 20% raise from someone they headhunt.
An employee doesn't have much control of suddenly being locked out of their workspace.
>it is odd that HN comments rarely seem to include a manager’s perspective.
Managers can be screwed by the company too, yes. I understand such decisions aren't always their call.
Oh totally! I don't have that perspective from the manager as I am very much an IC, and I have 0 experience job hopping as well as I have basically been with the same company for most of my career. I would say, naively, that part of that difference comes down to job description. If its in a manager's job description to: "make sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hire the right people to complement the team, fight for bonuses and pay raises", then they should be doing those things. If not, they are going above and beyond and I would certainly consider them a great manager...but the truth is that there are not that many managers out there doing this.
Interestingly, I have never had a job description that actually said "make sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hire the right people to complement the team, fight for bonuses and pay raises." Rather they say something like 'effectively lead team to do...." To effectively lead the team, IMHO, one needs to "make sure they are getting the experiences they need to build a better career, hire the right people to complement the team, fight for bonuses and pay raises." I think this is true for all managers/leaders.
An experienced manager would know that is how the game is played and act accordingly. Don't get emotionally attached to any work relationships. It's transactional, keep that in mind.
This mentality is why people don’t get promoted internally, which leads to the job hoping in the first place.
Fix this and a lot of the job hoping problem goes away.
Job hopping is not a problem, it's how you get ahead quickly.
Monetarily, sure. But that's because companies are so hesitant to give raises but love to hire new people.
You just described the symptom of a problem.
Well yeah, the problem is capitalism. The least you can do is try to tilt the scale in your favor as much as possible. That’s absolutely what capital is doing all the time.
I think there is always going to be a middle ground. We are not robots and if the people I work with are a pleasure to be around and work with, there is a natural connection there that can be labeled "emotional" I guess, but it is very much in the moment for me. I want my manager to be somewhat invested in my success, and I somewhat reciprocate that. Additionally, while the business is transactional, it is almost always the case that the employer has more information than you, making it an uphill battle in the first place.
Agreed. Shouldn’t employees behave/feel the same way?
Absolutely.
It's really cool unless your visa is on the line. At least the US is falling apart fast enough that maybe it's not a bad idea to leave and stay out.
[dead]
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. My personal life is what I enjoy, the random people I work with to make money and will be gone as soon as I quit or get laid off, well... I just don't want them to be toxic. I already have a ton of friends, I don't need to convert work people into my social life. Skiing for a few months sounds super amazing though!
You need to find better ski spots!
Just joking :) I firmly respect your opinion on the matter, and understand different people value different things in life.
Big tech interviews tend to be daunting. Many long term employees lose the skill, and fear the impact of work interruption on their resume as well as their ability to get in again.
Anecdotally, the LC bar for many firms has risen to the point that passing requires at least one through of the question before. If you Time bound your practice per question to 20 minutes, this means that you can solve most LC problems at least once in around 8 weeks of 40 hour weeks. Or 6 weeks at 60 hours.
Not a pleasant way to spend two months - but not impractical. I'm unclear what employers are deriving from this exercise at this point.
> I'm unclear what employers are deriving from this exercise at this point
It filters out the complete frauds.
Yes, there are people who know all the right things to say in a job interview, but cannot code at all. If you hire one of them, it takes a bit to find out they cannot code, and a bit longer to fire them, so you're out $$$$ paying their salaries for nothing.
For example, a recruiter I know will ask a tech candidate "what is 20% of 20,000?" A significant percentage cannot answer the question. Some even cry. It's shocking.
A friend of mine was looking at getting a FAANG job. He was worried about the leetcode tests. I suggested he spend a month going through the leetcode books studying them - that the return on his time investment doing that will be one of the best ROIs he's ever done. He did, and got the job. (Although the LC was just a first gate one had to go through to get to the real job interview.)
Personally, I have no idea how I'd do on an LC test without prep. But I don't have a problem with studying it to get a top job.
> it takes a bit to find out they cannot code, and a bit longer to fire them, so you're out $$$$ paying their salaries for nothing
Not just that. They block the hiring process. Maybe there was just that one open position on your team, and that bad 3 month hire postponed a good hire by 6 months. It's also very incomfortable to fire and start again.
My interviews contain questions that are basic, and any new team mate should know. I keep asking them because 90% of the candidates actually can't answer them well. You should know what a "dot product" is if you want to work as a ML engineer, that kind of stuff. Or be able to open a text file and count word frequencies.
True words. It's not 'imposter syndrome' if one comes across as an imposter (though it might have been just be a bad day).
I can appreciate the gating process because it's a real drag to get hired and then spend more time than necessary not doing my work but trying to help coworkers catch up on very basic and fundamental skills in order to be able to collaborate with them.
> For example, a recruiter I know will ask a tech candidate "what is 20% of 20,000?" A significant percentage cannot answer the question. Some even cry. It's shocking.
During our interview, we ask candidates to design a history system. The key is to realize that our database is only 8Gb, and storing a year of updates is only 160Gb, so $2pm in AWS. Once there, a simple DB table suits, no need to set up Amazon S3.
So we ask them for the multiplication. First we give them the data, and if they don’t do the calculation, we nudge them, then we ask them, then we write the multipliers for them, then we take the calculator out and write the result for them.
Those are Masters degrees. They can’t even do calculations, let alone getting it right, because 500MB x 200 days a year = a few petabytes apparently. And after that, they’re exhausted, it’s impossible to ask them the rest of the questions like “So is it worth worrying about a Rube Goldberg machine when you’re in for $2 of AWS costs?”.
Does your interview process require knowing cloud costs off the top of your head? Because that's hard to track tbh
Sounds like it requires knowing them to an order of magnitude or so... Which honestly sounds like a pretty good bar to have your team above?
Honestly, after ~13y in this, I only know a handful of items from the famous latency table, notably those I've used a lot (mutexes cost 25ns, is only 1/4th of main memory reference tho, then disk seek is x100K of that). I'm "DevOps" (and titular variants thereof) in most of my resume.
That said, I'm not above your bar as each cloud provider have their own pricing model. I'm not even above your bar for AWS---which I've used the past six years---just for the sheer diversity of their offerings, not to mention regional variations. I know how EC2 servers are priced relative to each other but when we include ECS, DynamoDB, Lambda, etc., I'm gonna need a cheat sheet.
You'd probably be able to tell me if using Lambda for my backend is gonna be closest to, $2, $20, or $200 / month, right?
What the… no.
Out of curiosity what do you find wrong in the s3 solution? This is a data volume that rdbms can manage, but are you looking specifically for the engineer to say something like “I’ll maintain a Write Ahead Log in the database”
Aye - I don’t tend to have a problem honestly with “classic” lc tests. I tend to take issue with uncommon/nuanced Dynamic Programming questions and clever uses of binary search. Both of these categories tend to rely on the engineer knowing the “trick” of the particular question.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I suspect that hiring based on a candidates ability to produce optimal solutions to LC Hards will bias strongly towards candidates who can't code, but are very good at interviewing.
I'm still surprised how were 3 years into this horrible market and we still have people that just go "yeah bad employees just grind leetcode".
It's not about skills at this point, companies just want to pretend to hire while not admitting we're now heading towards a recession.
I get that perhaps you were using the proverbial "I" in your last sentence as an example of something everyone should be willing to do in/for their career, but does someone of your stature even need a real interview, much less a LC test, to obtain a top job? It's kind of funny imagining a young tech bro interviewing you, tbh.
It's an interesting question. I'll try to answer.
I generally do not use clever algorithms in my code. I just use straightforward ones. Rarely, I might need a better one and go looking for it (like a better hash algorithm). I rarely use a data structure more complicated than an array, list, binary tree, hash, or single inheritance.
What I have, though, is decades of experience with what works and what doesn't work. (My favorite whipping boy is macros. Macros look like they are great productivity boosters. It takes about 10 years to realize that macros are a never-ending source of confusion, they just confuse and obfuscate every code base that uses them. I could go on about this! ...)
I have become pretty good at writing modules that minimize dependencies, and pretty good at the user interface design of a language.
But still, if the job wanted a leetcode test, I'd take it, no problem. I'd study up first, though.
If a young tech bro was interviewing me, I'd suggest he show me his best code, and I'd do a review of it :-) The point of that would not be to humilate him, but to demonstrate the value I can bring to improving code quality.
If I was being interviewed for a job writing a faster divide routine (the ones I wrote were shift-subtract, slower but bulletproof), a better random number generator, a cryptographically secure hash function, a tighter compression algorithm, a faster sort, I'm not the right guy for that.
P.S. I was once asked to review the code of a famous programmer I won't name. I was shocked to discover that the large codebase had 3 different implementations of bubblesort in it. I replaced them all with a call to qsort(). He asked me how I managed to speed it up :-/
We all have our blind spots. I do, too.
My favorite blind spot is how our definitions of quality change over time. I knew someone who had a mature codebase which a new developer made substantially faster by removing his old optimizations. He’d measured very real improvements back when he made that hand-rolled assembly code on early Pentium generations but by the time we revisited it less than a decade later the combination of compiler and processor improvements meant that the C reference implementation was always faster. (I was assisting with the port to PowerPC and at first we thought that it was just XLC being especially good there, but then we tested it on x86 with GCC and found the same result)
Beyond the obvious lesson about experience and sunk costs it was also a great lesson about how much time you assume you have for maintenance: when he’d first written that code as a grad student he’d been obsessed with performance since that was a bottleneck for getting his papers out but as his career progressed he spent time on other things, and since it wasn’t broken he hadn’t really revisited it because he “knew” where it was slow. Over time the computer costs eventually outweighed that original savings.
My compilers support inline assembler, but these days there doesn't seem to be much of any point to them. The compilers have simply gotten too good.
Yes, it’s funny how support has never been better or less necessary.
Thanks for that very interesting and insightful feedback!
I have done probably 500 to 1000 tech screens for big tech companies (as the interviewer) and this is completely true.
I have interviewed many people employed in tech as programmers for their entire career and they can't code. I don't meen leetcode, I mean they get confused trying to write brute force substring search. The nested for loop seems to be too complex for them to keep in their head all at once.
I have had numerous people cry. Again this was a screen, not leetcode. I'm asking them to check if text has mismatched parens, or find a substring. Things you do for homework in your 2nd programming class freshman year. Things every competent programmer can do while chitchatting about the job.
I would estimate that more than 10% of screens are like this, again these are employed people in the industry for years, sometimes tens of years.
Edit: I understand that people can get flustered, I understand that some people have trouble under pressure or while being observed. That's why I pointed out multiple times that the problems I gave are extremely, EXTREMELY easy. I'm basically asking them to write down their name and they sit and look at the pen like they've never seen one before. If you can't write a 5 line function to find whether a substring occurs in a larger string when given 45 minutes, your choice of programming language, and as many attempts as you need to debug and try again you simply will not be able to do any useful work as a programmer. If you don't know that to match parens you need to use a stack (or at least that it's one way to do it) you either have a very poor memory or no training in computer science at all - either of which is frankly disqualifying. Anyone borderline competent would invent a stack when presented with this problem if they hadn't already been told this fact a dozen times during their education or even light reading about algorithms.
> check if text has mismatched parens
I always try to give everyone I’ve interviewed the benefit of the doubt. You never know what’s going on in their lives, and even if they fail a trivial question it doesn’t mean they are faking the ability to code.
I joined Facebook back in 2018. Didn’t study at all for the interview and passed somehow. Then I probably conducted 200-300 interviews in my time there, so I became quite familiar with the questions. My performance ratings were all exceeds or greatly exceeds. I voluntarily left on my own after four years to join a unicorn startup. I didn’t prep for that interview either but passed it too. Well, the startup failed and many people went back to Meta. So I actually prepared quite a bit this time and scheduled a mock interview with them. The mock interviewer said I did great and not to change a thing. When it came time for the real screening interview... I failed the matching parentheses question.
I generally try not to make excuses. Almost every interview I’ve failed has clearly been my own fault. But in this particular one the interviewer kept interrupting me every two seconds and I absolutely could not think. I had done matching parentheses many times before in practice, but the constant interrupting rattled me to the point where I totally lost focus and bombed it. Not a great experience.
So yeah, I’d just recommend giving people the benefit of the doubt. Everyone has difficult moments occasionally, but it doesn’t mean they’re stupid or can’t code.
I run coding interviews at BIGCO. Half of the candidate success relies on the skills of the interviewer. A bad interviewer can bomb the best candidates.
Something I have changed my stance on a bit is automated coding interviews. I used to be adamantly against a company giving candidates automated code tests, but I see now that it takes the interviewer out of the equation.
Pre-screening, depending on how it’s done, could eliminate good candidates.
There have been times I’ve received answers in interview that weren’t the written answers, but I looked it up afterward and tested it out… and they were right. I learned something news and tweaked the answer reference as a result. If those questions were in the pre-screening instead of asked directly by me, it would have filtered out good people.
I remember fighting to get access to the pre-screen data to see what the answers were and find if there were any other cases like this, where the non-technical pre-screener was filtering out potentially good candidates, because we couldn’t give them exhaustive answers to questions being asked.
>but I see now that it takes the interviewer out of the equation.
Well yes, that's why I'm against it. A one way "interview" is an audition, not an interview. There's nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on something that ends up with a template rejection letter.
That's great for the interviewer, but devastating for the interviewee. They can't even get feedback on how to improve.
Nobody is going to give an interviewee feedback, even if they are interviewed by a human. There is too much legal risk to open the company up to discrimination lawsuits.
There is also nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on an in person interview to just have the interviewer flunk you our be unfair to you.
I still believe that personal interviews are important, I'm just raising the fact that a large portion of an interviewee's success is based upon their interviewer.
Yes, and actions have consequences I'm not going to audition if I have not at least talked to a human first. The game industry in particular does this to abuse Artists and Designers with spec work, so I feel especially strong about the power dynamic here.
>There is also nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on an in person interview to just have the interviewer flunk you our be unfair to you
The interview stage inflation is definitely a problem, but speaking with actual people still has benefits. You get an idea of their culture and you can still network even in such a situation. It's not guaranteed but you get a much higher chance to get advice and feedback on or off the record if you're polite. People are flexible, some standardized exam may never even reach a human.
>'m just raising the fact that a large portion of an interviewee's success is based upon their interviewer.
Indeed. I'm just stating a viewpoint where an interview needs to be personal. An audition in this software space is about as impersonal as you can get.
As an interviewer at Google, we arent given an exact list of questions to ask or what to evaluate (there are broad categories).
It is really entirely up to each interviewer how the interview goes and they are usually scheduled between 2 other meetings so often the interviewer is distracted.
Very strange system imo, lots of randomness
So you were rejected at a Metà interview after you previously worked at Facebook for 4 years? Or were you interviewing for some other FAANG?
Yeah, rejected after previously working there. Was also going for a different role than I previously had. To their credit, I respect that they don't just hand out free passes back in.
I would not expect a free pass but at least going directly to second/third stage. I mean, they could check your committed code internally, no?
Welcome to the wonderful world of coding under pressure, which almost never occurs in the real world. It's a non-issue when you're young and don't feel the pressure. But when you have grey hairs in your beard and know you're already walking in with two strikes, all of a sudden the fog of war kicks in.
> you're young and don't feel the pressure
Wat? Feeling the pressure is even worse when you're young!
It wasn't for me. I guess I was too dumb to know I was supposed to feel pressure.
> I have interviewed many people employed in tech as programmers for their entire career and they can't code.
Think about this contradictory statement for a while. Can it actually be true? Or is there something else going on?
If the interviewee has nothing but sub-1yr stints on their resume, perpetually getting fired before vesting at any company, then yes, it's very possible they actually can't code and just fake it at every interview.
But everyone else... if they have spent years at tech companies writing production code then obviously they know how to code. They might be great or maybe mediocre, but guaranteed they at least know how to code.
So, if your interviewing technique is concluding something that is obviously impossible, then start by considering how to improve the interview technique.
I’m an electrical engineer who does circuit design. I’ve interviewed many electrical engineers over the years and the situation of applicants having “years” of experience while simultaneously not knowing how to design a single circuit is real. In our field it’s usually because although the person’s title is engineer, in practice, they don’t do any engineering. There’s just a ton of peripheral work (basically paperwork related to operations and compliance), which is very important, but is not design.
My guess is computer science has a similar issue.
Lots of people with programming in thier job title but they don’t actually program. And based on ltbarcly3’s empirical measurement, “lots” is above 10%. ;)
If they carry a wallet card that has on it:
they are not real EEs.And yeah, I've been trashed multiple times for this opinion, but I'm not backing down!
10% of applicants that make it to a phone screen. I estimate that the number is much lower than 10% overall because incompetent people with good looking resumes tend to do a lot more interviews than good candidates.
Sounds like the resume screening is either non-existent or insufficient then.
Nope, they have solid resumes. Top companies and relevant experience on paper. They claim skills with the right tools. They are just idiots.
"claim" kills? Isn't part of the HR screening about some litmus test to make sure they aren't very obviously lying?
And yes, this is part of why the obsession with FAANG on resume is very overrated. Very few companies require the skillsete FAANG needs. Some of thst FAANG culture is orthogonal to what medium/small sized companies require.
I don't think you read the thread. They did have those jobs, and presumably they were on teams that did vaguely what is on their resume. No HR doesn't investigate candidates or do background checks before you interview them, that would be very expensive and silly.
I feel like you kind of vaguely are aware of these topics but have never actually had a job or something because you seem completely unfamiliar with the basics of how hiring is done in the industry. Are you from Eastern Europe maybe?
Quite the opposite (and sadly, still. American). I'm just so frustrated how I'm 10 years into this career and the interview process feels more random than ever. I can apply to 100 job and interview for 10 that all fall through. Then I can just go to a bar and trip into an opportunity I wasn't fully expecting. What does that say about the interview process?
>No HR doesn't investigate candidates or do background checks before you interview
An HR screen isn't a background check. It's "can you talk about your roles and provlems solved like you actually did it. A good HR screen should make sure they aren't blatantly lying
>that would be very expensive and silly.
Let's both not pretend the interview proces is in any way optimized for any metric. You have often non-tech roles create a description for a tech role (leading to famous blunders like "have and jave script is the same") . You have an increasing amount of rounds of interviews to go through for a job that may not exist or may already be reserved. And more and more of the parts are being outsourced, leading to power quality candidates. All that before throwing a reckless reliance of AI on everything.
The most optimal hiring is to focus on high quality hires brought in as fast as possible. Or not to hire if you don't need to hire. But we're not really running on sensible business practices these days.
> An HR screen isn't a background check. It's "can you talk about your roles and provlems solved like you actually did it. A good HR screen should make sure they aren't blatantly lying
Correct. While not perfect, if you have good HR hiring team they will do a decent job at feeling out the people before they get to you.
> I can apply to 100 job and interview for 10 that all fall through.
Part of the difficulty is that (despite any myths around engineering shortage) there are so many qualified people for every role that it is overwhelming.
I just opened a new job req last week, I have over 1100 resumes in the queue already. And this is a pretty specialized technical role in a specialized department, not a generic "javascript software engineer" role, either.
Obviously I can't read all of them, which makes me sad because someone took the time to send their resume and I feel like I should give them the respect of reading it, but there are simply not enough hours in a week. While HR does the screening, I also go and do a random sampling of the resumes and everyone who has applied seems at least moderately qualified. But of course I can only talk to about 1% of them at best.
You keep saying 'we'. The companies I have worked for have on average had very streamlined interview processes, with the exception of very large (>2000 engineer) companies. I don't know how to fix hiring for companies that big. I'm sure you have a lot of 'ideas' that are really just pointing out the problems. We all see the problems, but fixing them means either empowering individual managers (many of which would just hire their cronies instantly if allowed to) or inventing new ways to do HR which is obviously nontrivial, especially with incumbent HR morons fighting you.
An HR screen will sometimes remove frauds (not usually because they can't really tell, it removes uncharasmatic frauds only), but it also has a very high probability of removing anyone on the autism spectrum - no matter how qualified. I really don't want people on the autism spectrum removed from my hiring funnel for software engineer. If you ever looked over the shoulder of a recruiter or HR when they do a first pass on resumes you will be horrified at how many of the best candidates they pass over because they have no idea what they are reading, and how many very poor candidates they pass along for very stupid reasons like having 'Yale' for their college (despite it being for History and despite it being the extension school, true story, and this person ended up getting hired despite negative interview feedback and then fired for incompetence a few months later).
I know a lot of people who can tweak code that already exists. However, if they are sitting in front of an empty text editor and given a goal, they don’t know how to break the problem down and build a solution with the tools the language gives them.
In a large environment, someone may rarely need to start from nothing, so the interview format throws them.
That said, I think being able to break down a problem to solve it with code is a really important skill. Without it, the person will always have to lean on others to fill that skill gap.
> I know a lot of people who can tweak code that already exists. However, if they are sitting in front of an empty text editor and given a goal, they don’t know how to break the problem down and build a solution with the tools the language gives them.
But being able to break things down and come up with a solution is not necessarily something that needs to be done quickly, in the time you have for an interview. Quite often I've been faced with a new problem and done absolutely nothing visible for ages. Literally just reading around the problem, asking questions, and sketching in my mind without writing a single line of code.
This is often faster and better than starting immediately.
There's another extreme, too: people who can code up an app in a matter of days, but can never learn to navigate and successfully maintain a legacy code base (even their own!).
And there's no easy objective way to screen for this in a job interview. So they pretend it doesn't exist and never ask questions like: "Suppose you're designing a green-field app that you think will grow over time like X, Y, and Z. How would you design and organize your code so that the app stays maintainable and flexible over time?"
I could talk for hours on this subject with concrete examples if anyone ever asked.
I think another problem is that there are so few engineers/architects who really "get it" on this subject. I can only think of a few ex-coworkers with whom I could have the kind of in-depth conversation about app design and organization that I'm picturing.
I've never worked in big tech, always for startups or non-tech corps with a few rock star devs and a lot of decent devs. So maybe it's different at a FAANG. But in my head I'm picturing a bunch of algo-geniuses whose code turns into a big mess over time when requirements take a right-turn and break all their beautiful abstractions. I've worked on a few apps like that and it's not fun.
Nothing on interviews is objective to begin with, so we can discount that.
Your template sounds like a fine way to ask such a question. I think the issue is managers or someone above simply don't want to invest in proper interview questions and instead just do that FAANG does. Even though very few companies need such core algorithmic knowledge but need people who can properly navigate legacy code. FAANGs will actually make sure new hires learn the code base, unlike many companies thst want you to "hit the ground running".
I think this is why people job hop. They never have to support their unmaintainable greenfield app. Without the pain of those mistakes, they never learn to make the next one better either.
> successfully maintain a legacy code base (even their own!).
Haha I hate all the code I wrote more than 5 years ago.
The goal when hiring isn't to find someone who is barely skilled enough to just slightly come out as better to have on staff than not. In fact these are often the worst hires as they slow everything down and create work for you to find tasks they are capable of, but it seems unfair to fire them because they aren't totally useless all the time. You hire the best candidate overall, and you are very far from describing that.
> You hire the best candidate overall
How, exactly, would you do that?
Say you open a new position and you get 100 resumes a day, every day, until you shut down the role and pick someone.
How are you hiring the best candidate overall?
How long are you waiting for "the best"?
How many resumes are you really evaluating per day? With 100 coming in, how do you know you didn't miss "the best" one?
Too right. I had an idiot manager who hired the next person with a pulse - we got some money-motivated guy that complained about everything and didn't listen to what he actually needed to do, and my manager nearly destroyed the team by pretending that he was fine.
I thought that too until we had a guy start two years ago that interviewed well and answered questions like he knew what he was talking about but then when he started, one of his first questions was how to figure what endpoint was being called by a website (as obvious as looking at your browser's Network tab, or browsing the website's source to find the endpoint). Not long after that he had to clear a couple more values as part of a cache invalidation procedure and was utterly bamboozled by the if (!cached) { clearCache(); } else { cache(data); } logic. That was an exceptionally draining few months until he was sacked.
Why would you clear the cache if it's not cached?
Or is this ironic?
Sorry got my code blocks swapped around and didn't proof-read carefully enough.
It was utterly mundane code.
i spent too much time on thedailywtf.
What is really crazy about this though is that sometimes it really is the interview setting, as people unused to interviews can, at times, emotionally collapse. I have seen people who are actually good programmers get wrecked by simple questions because of their inability to handle stress, and how the lack of interview practice turns a simple exercise into a hellscape.
It's not as if testing for performance under stress is useless: Tough on call rotations happen, and you might need someone that does well under pressure at 3 am in the morning. But the picture you get on a screening isn't as clear as it appears.
Not to imply that you're wrong, but I've always been bad at LC interviews, but surprisingly (for myself) passable when called upon to troubleshoot and code up a hot fix in the middle of the night. Maybe those are not entirely similar types of pressures.
There is a big difference between solving a critical bug, which is your job, vs. passing an arbitrary leetcode test from a disinterested 22 year old where you might lose your house if you get it wrong. You have 15 minutes.
The cure for such fears is to:
1. study the leetcode books in advance
2. do lots of interviews
In the military, there's a saying: train hard => fight easy
It’s also not the same kind of stress. I’ve interviewed many a candidate who were sweating and/or shaking at some point of the interview (with heavy reassurance and me trying to to steer the conversation towards and area where they feel stronger), but they can often end up being calm and reliable alert responders nonetheless. So far I’ve seen very little if any correlation between being able to handle interview stress and on-call stress.
Leetcode performance isn’t going to be representative of 3am incident response though. If that matters, you’re probably better off asking a classic “tell me about a time you responded to a page in the middle of the night” type question.
> Tough on call rotations happen, and you might need someone that does well under pressure at 3 am in the morning.
On a stop-the-world production incident at 3am I know that codebase like the back of my hand, and my job very likely doesn’t depend on whether I solve it in the next 30m. There’s barely anything stressful about it.
On an interview, with my future on the line, and presented with an unfamiliar problem?
You are still not testing if they can code. But whether under the scrutiny of another person, they can code. Maybe this is important to you, maybe peer programming is important to you for example. I remember a young dev who couldn’t pass such tests, as he would get too nervous, yet he had written the core tech for many shipped products. The type of guy you would just stick in dark room. With age this type of stuff settles down.
“Scrutiny of another” who’s a peer or even a client is super different from an interview.
The latter has more in common with an open mic night, the prospect of which the vast majority of people are terrified and would break down if they attempted it.
My first attempts at public speaking were a frozen horror. But I kept doing it, and it kept getting easier and easier.
I recommend that when there's an opportunity to get up in front of a mike, take it, and get comfortable with it. It's a skill that will serve you well.
I agree with both you and the parent to some degree. I have experienced interviews that went badly because they were in an IDE I wasn't familiar with, or in Leetcode (never used it). So I'm distracted by how to use the tool rather than how to code the solution. But I can also see how stuff like finding a substring is easy - most languages have a function for it. But at that point, you're testing different things - problem-solving vs rote memorization of a provided function.
I feel like a good middle is to allow Google for documentation searches, not solution searches. Without searching (or IDE with radix completion), I'd probably fail the test for not knowing the syntax off the top of my head.
> rote memorization of a provided function.
I never mesmerized strstr(). But using it frequently makes it stick in my mind.
Not everyone uses it (or their language equivalent) frequently depending on the needs of their project. If I'm really using it frequently, then I would probably be looking at higher accuracy/resiliency options like parsing the input and comparing to a map, or regexes.
Some people are good coders but can’t do it with an adversarial person watching. I’m often one of them.
Might as well put a suitcase with $200k and a copper clock ticking away on the table next to them.
As someone who does these types of interviews on both ends, something like this is why I like to start with an outrageously simple question to break the ice.
Surprisingly, I have an 80% fail rate on the first question usually, which is just “find the second largest number in an array of numbers” for a 5 YOE role.
I just saw that this comment was fading from downvotes.
I think HN is just overwhelmed with people who somehow got hired into technical jobs but can't do them. Anyone who thinks that 'finding second largest number in an array' or 'finding if a string is a substring of another string' are hard, or that the pressures of an interview are a valid excuse for being unable to do it are simply not intelligent enough to be successful in this field and they are casting about for some excuse to protect their ego. These are problems that a bright 12 year old with no programming experience could do for fun, and these folks are purporting to be educated, experienced, professional programmers.
As much as people like to say 'muh anxiety', I've yet to meet someone who can't do very basic coding in an interview but also they are capable of basic coding in any other context. I would suggest that this sort of person is so rare that you will probably never meet one over the course of a normal career.
> 'finding if a string is a substring of another string'
Unless you mean using a "substring" function or regexes... coming up with the naïve O(n^2) algorithm is indeed easy, but finding a fast algorithm like KMP is, I would say, non-trivial?
For the "second-largest number in array" it's rather easy to come up with an O(n) algorithm, so I would consider the two cases to be different.
Elsewhere in this thread there is literally an example of someone who, by their own description, worked at a FAANG company for some years getting good performance reviews, has enough interview experience that even if they couldn't generally code their way out of a paper bag they were surely good at interview-question coding, ... and, under pressure from a pushy interviewer, completely failed to do a straightforward coding task.
I guess they could just by lying "to protect their ego" but in that case why post their comment at all?
It really is the case that some people sometimes completely go to pieces when stressed, and mocking them by saying "muh anxiety" doesn't stop that being true.
I will say that, as the interviewer asking the question, I do recognize that people have anxiety, and I would prefer to nudge them out of a spiral, because a bad interview is generally not pleasant for anybody involved.
To some degree the interview is not about getting the question right but also how you respond to questions about your answers. I would rather have someone who started with a totally incorrect answer and then reason back and forth with them til they got on the right path, than someone who came up with the right answer and then clammed up and refused to explain how they got there. (I once had a candidate tell me, verbatim, "I don't think analyzing performance of an algorithm is part of an engineer's job.")
I would prefer if there were a more humane, less stressful, and scalable way to do an interview. The problem is that as a profession we lack the continued examination/licensing of other fields like engineering or medicine, so we don't have a good barometer of skills otherwise. And I often have to sift through massive numbers of people clearly overshooting their shot to get a good position.
The solution to the problem in question is about 9 lines of very simple code. In a 45 minute interview, that is 5 minutes per line available. It's about 1 character every 40 seconds. I think anyone can get flustered and mess up. It's possible for someone, on a bad day, lack of sleep, hung over, experiencing an anxiety attack to mess this up, but it's really really a stretch. This is a VERY EASY task, and if someone has done it before there's nothing sneaky or hard to do here. The version where you match different kinds of braces is very slightly more complicated but actually less lines of code.
Yes maybe someone can't come up with this in an interview. My point is 99.99% of the time when someone fails this they are lying about their work history or they are so stupid they can't hope to do the job. 00.01% of the time they could do this easily and the stars aligned to give them a rare bad day. The best way to deal with that is to just assume everyone who fails this can't do the work, and the 00.01% person just interviews somewhere else and doesn't have another bad day. I don't even know what the alternative to that is, just hire everyone who claims to be qualified and hope for the best? Give everyone who demonstrates very very strong incompetence signals 2 or 3 more tries?
I completely agree that this is a very simple problem; I'm not at all arguing that it isn't. What I am arguing is that this doesn't make it super-unlikely that an otherwise competent person screws it up. If it's really a 1-in-10,000 event, isn't it rather surprising that we've got someone right here in this thread to whom it happened? Someone, moreover, not just barely competent but able to do well with a demanding employer, and who has a lot of exposure to this sort of interview question?
I think this is good evidence that, in fact, it's not vanishingly unlikely that someone genuinely competent flubs what should be an embarrassingly straightforward coding task in an interview.
That doesn't, unfortunately, mean I have a good suggestion for a better way of telling who is and who isn't capable of writing code. Maybe this is the best we can do. If it really is just a matter of "sometimes, at random, people have bad days"[1] then provided it's fairly rare this issue doesn't matter too much. I'm more worried about the possibility that it's more "a smallish fraction of otherwise-good people often have this sort of bad day", because then that smallish fraction of people may be getting completely overlooked, which is bad for them because it may take them ages to get a job and bad for employers because it effectively reduces the pool of good people to hire.
[1] In this particular case, the "bad day" seems to have included an obnoxious interviewer, which it's reasonable to hope wouldn't be repeated at another company's interview.
But, again, pointing out a problem unfortunately doesn't guarantee having a good answer. But, equally, not having a good answer doesn't mean the problem isn't real. It would be very nice to believe that all the people failing interviews because they fail to solve an easy coding problem are undeserving incompetents who should be bombing out of the interviews, but it looks to me like that ain't so.
((What happens) if you are missing a close paren?
As an interviewer, my company allows the person to pick the language of their choice. At that point, you could just write it in psuedocode if it came down to it, and if you actually knew what you were talking about it doesn’t matter all that much. It’s not like I know the in and outs of every single language people have answered the question in.
In an era where linters and autocomplete and IDEs have existed for decades it’s silly to fail an interview based on tiny error checks.
the formatting was funky when i first looked at this, i can see it's returning a boolean now, that covers the case of count > 0
Knowing the right answer and knowing the right answer with a gun to your head are two different skills.
It's rather funny, but I wonder if you've ever been a Game Master? One of the most common problems running a game, is making the puzzles simple enough. You have to use kindergarten or back of the cereal box level puzzles or the players will fail. I played with engineers, it's a game, and there is nothing riding on the outcome and we often failed stupid simple puzzles. Interviews have a lot riding on them and yes stress is terrible. Stress eats working memory for breakfast, NASA learned that the hard way.
At that point I have to ask if your screening is really working. There's hundreds, thousands of potential SWEs that can be productive, but you keep picking people who struggle with CS101 problems?
You sure it's not nepotism, or an inability to make sure the resume fits the person? Or any other number of non-merit based criteria from HR?
You just reminded me I said it on a programming interview for Java one time and my friend was giving them the Fizzbuzz test.
And, and having to explain everything, well, this person had never heard of it. And, and for the more, didn't know what modulo was, like, how do you, how do you say you know Java?
I suck at programming but I could bang out 100% of the things mentioned in this thread. In like four languages, including FORTRAN.
The other replies to this comment aren't wrong but I feel they fail to take into account that (especially with startups): having someone watch you code during an interview is one of the the least stressful experiences the person will face with the company - once the job begins. Companies can't take on the risk of dealing with a bunch of passive-aggressive bullcrap once the real code reviews begin after the hire. Most tech job reqs contain the words "Excellent written and verbal communication skills" on purpose.
Imagine a person with a pilot's license refusing to fly tandem for an airline interview.
> Imagine a person with a pilot's license refusing to fly tandem for an airline interview.
That’s not a great comparison since a pilot has already passed substantially harder tests to get that license and a flight is exactly what the job is. If you have a candidate with a pilot’s license you can assume at least a baseline level of capability which you can’t assume for a software engineer. That has pros and cons but it definitely means interviewing is a noisier process.
The other problem, however, is deeper: the job of flying a plane is exactly what’s tested to get a pilot’s license but what many places do for developer interviews is wildly unlike the actual job so it’s more like interviewing pilots based on trivia questions about the number of rivets on a B-52 and how well they can solve 3-D puzzles, and then being surprised when there isn’t much correlation with real world performance. For example, only at the most toxic companies will the interview be one of the least stressful parts because the rest of the job is a team effort. What makes the interview challenges stressful is doing it without your normal tools while someone else is looking for reasons to fail you, but in a normal job your coworkers are trying to help you succeed because even if you’re not friends you are all better off when your company succeeds. At a startup, trying to ding someone for trivia challenges is like hitting the iceberg to prove that the navigator made a mistake.
Go on youtube and watch NTSB / FAA investigation reports. If you think that a pilot's license demonstrates that someone is a competent pilot you are very very mistaken, and there are scores of counter examples.
Airlines very strictly test pilots and insist on check rides regardless of what official qualifications pilots show up with. They do this because they are professional organizations with decades of experience and it is necessary for safety. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt because they manage to meet the absolute minimum standard that makes operating an airplane legal is insane.
Yes, that’s what I was referring to with “baseline level of capability”. It doesn’t mean everyone is the same, or that they’re all super pilots, but anyone with a commercial license has at least 250 hours doing the primary job function and that makes it’s reasonable to ask them to do a test flight.
In contrast, we don’t have anything like real certifications for developers and many of the interviewing questions are very unlike the actual job. Hiring would be easier if we did have something closer to what a pilot’s license conveys, but that’d also slow the field down since programming has changed a lot more over the last 50 years than flying.
Dude, I have no idea what a stack is because I never studied computer science. It’s never held me back except during interviews with people that expected me to understand computer science fundamentals.
If someone asks me what the time complexity of something or the other (I literally had to go look up the name), I completely freeze up.
Whether you know the term doesn’t matter when you understand the basic concept that for inside for == bad.
Anyhow, it seems to be working out pretty well for me, so while I’m also annoyed by incompetent people the idea that it’s due to lacking CS fundamentals sounds bizarre to me.
Typically speaking, when you encounter a problem in excess I believe you should start to assume that perhaps the problem is on your side.
For context, back when I was interviewing I encountered many interviewers who process involved simple questions with simple solutions but with extra gaslighting on top. 'Are you SURE that's the right solution?' while I'm in the middle of throwing out a correct answer. It's actually very easy to guide someone away from a correct solution into the wrong one by simply making them second guess themselves under pressure.
It was something that I started to be extra cognizant about when I was the one interviewing people, that it's really quite easy to throw someone off track.
I agree, but I look at it like trying out for an athletic team.
Once you're on the team, you are mostly practicing plays, doing clinics, and simulating competition, but to get on the team in the first place you have to prove your general fitness by running, say, a 6 minute mile.
You may not be able to do that again easily right away once you've been on the team for a while because you don't practice running for pure time at that distance, but it's a level of fitness you should be easily able to obtain again if you had to, and it's a very useful benchmark to a scout.
When you're laid off, it's time to start doing that "roadwork" again. It will be a bit hard at first in practice, but if you've been a solid contributor, you should be able to get fit enough again to prove that.
> I agree, but I look at it like trying out for an athletic team.
Pro teams have scouts, draft based on college performance, trade or poach players from other teams. They don't even have tryouts 99% of the time. You have to be a proven performer for a team in a developmental league.
Unlike, you know, proving that by the fact my previous employer was happy to retain me for 10 plus years?
You've never worked at a place where someone was an incompetent hanger-on who was an expert at self promotion and stealing credit? Or hired someone like that accidentally?
Notwithstanding, I have long argued that a non-profit credentialing body for SWEs offering cerification exams (which also required regular updates) akin to passing the bar or USMLE could go a long way to solving this problem. It would come with other drawbacks, perhaps not worth it, but we have to accept that constant tech interviews is the price we pay for refusal to standardize and professionalize.
> You've never worked at a place where someone was an incompetent hanger-on who was an expert at self promotion and stealing credit? Or hired someone like that accidentally?
Thinking back on it. Not really. I’ve had a few people be outright incompetent, but I’ve never been at risk of them stealing the credit for stuff. The closest I’ve come is people that should probably be fired, but manage to barely hold on by being experts at self promotion.
In my experience, coding interviews are more like checking that you can stand up and walk, maybe a short light jog.
They're not testing your limits, they're testing for basic competency.
I definitely feel that first part. I landed in a nice company in SF about 8 years ago and am still here. The culture has changed a lot but I often find myself doubting whether I could repeat the whole thing or if I got lucky. (The work is fine, and the company is one of the good ones I feel, so no real qualms there).
Just do what everyone is doing today and use those AI tools for cheating. There’s a whole industry of invisible and hard to detect leetcode AI cheating tools.
Glad they exist and I fully support all candidates using them aggressively.
This is a persistent myth in our industry. If you're a good manager, you can tell within minutes if someone is "for real", if you can't, you aren't qualified to be hiring people. Have you even looked at their GitHub?
> Have you even looked at their GitHub?
Lol, considering most big projects are not on github, you're just showing your own lack of clue.
Great, I'll continue my "lack of a clue" and keep hiring the best engineers in the world.
If your definition for "best engineer in the world" is "hired by you"… sure. I'm just not sure anyone else in the world would agree with this definition :)
My definition of "best engineers in the world" are people that have wildly successful GitHub accounts. I'm very glad I'm in an industry with losers that don't know how to compete. It's like playing on easy mode!
This story is changing. There is now an oversaturation of us ex-BigCo people in the market. I quit Google before the layoffs, after being there for 10 years and sick of it. The first year was serious ego boost, having Google on the resume opened doors all over the place. Then my ex-coworkers started getting laid off and things began to shift.
Now I know people I used to work with who have been without work for many months and having a hard time getting interviews.
Granted, I'm not in the Bay Area, so. But the market is saturated.
Its not that the market is saturated, its that a lot of incompetent ex googlers are interviewing now. People usually have a pretty good idea they can't do their job. They find a niche where a manager is not paying attention, or they can obfuscate and take credit for others work, etc. These people don't usually job hop, the interviews are way too hard and then they are very unlikely to find another long term safe niche to hide in. So previously seeing google on a resume correlated highly with strong competence. A lot of people laid off from google are complete incompetents. A lot were hard working geniuses too, but it doesn't take many interviews where a exgoogler is completely useless to spoil the brand.
The reputation for googlers on the market right now is very bad, and it will keep getting worse as the group of ex googlers who are basically unemployable keep interviewing over and over and over.
There's also the "we can only pay a third of what Google paid you..." and given two candidates that interview equally well, one is former Google and appeared to be making $300k and another is from somewhere where they were making $70k before...
I'd argue for the $70k person. They are less likely to have experienced lifestyle inflation and looking at this position as a "slumming it until they can get a job making $300k+ again."
It further complicates the issue that most companies don't have Google scale problems and don't have the engineering culture for a Google scale solution.
There are several factors working against even not incompetent former Google employees - especially if their experience is entirely within Big Tech.
A bit ago a former Tesla person was in the set of interviews and it became clear that they wanted to make the organization that was considering hiring them into a copy of how Tesla works... and that wasn't something that was going to be doable. The post interview discussion was "this person is going to try to make us into a copy of Tesla for six months, and then leave shortly after they realize that we weren't a place that could become another Tesla."
Big Tech experience may be a positive signal for getting hired at other Big Tech companies... but it can be a negative signal at a company that isn't trying hiring for an organization that can't become a Big Tech company - especially if that is the only thing that is known.
Hiring isn't necessarily picking the "best" person for the role, but rather the least risky. Former Big Tech employees are often riskier than other candidates given their lifestyle expectations and the mismatch of the engineering cultures.
In part true, for sure.
Personally when I left Google and interviewed elsewhere I made clear to potential employers two major things:
1. I never expected to be paid "Google level" money again. I was nowhere near high up in the pay tier there, but it was still almost twice what local shops were paying, at times (depending on how RSUs worked out, etc.)
Google can pay what it can because of the ads firehose, and it was actually, more than anything, a strategy used to deprive the competition of talent.
2. I never actually liked the Google internal culture, so although I was there for 10 years I was constantly aware of the things that I didn't like and the things I would not be trying to bring over to future gigs. And I had 10+ years work experience before Google. Which didn't serve me well while I was inside Google, but definitely has afterwards.
> The first year was serious ego boost, having Google on the resume opened doors all over the place.
Before I worked in FAANG, My subjective view of big tech SWEs was they were very skilled, in a different league.
My current view is that it "just" takes very good preparation and a decent resume to get in. And they've hired so many people that it's not so special anymore to be an "ex-Google". There are just a lot of them.
That being said, I think someone who gets hired in such a company, and manage to stay for many years has to be quite productive and competent. Especially if they reached higher levels.
Competent, yes. Intelligent, yes.
Productive, not necessarily.
Google is not a "produce a lot of code" place. It's a careful and deliberate and systematic type of place.
One thing I think ex-Google does bring especially to the table is a disdane for over-complicated and overly trend-driven solutions.
For one Google's internal review culture is (or at least was when I was there) very stringent. Pointless complexity and showboating is usually spanked.
For two, because Google basically rolls its own everything in regards to frameworks and the like, developers who come out of there have been mainly cured of "flavour of the month" and "my ego wants us to use this new shiny new-coloured tech".
> my ego wants us to use this new shiny new-coloured tech
lol. Nothing newer than a brand new framework created at google!
Yep, a sabbatical is taken to mean laid off and low performer. Have to sign an offer before leaving the old one.
Has to do with H1b visas.
Post layoff, a person on H1B has 2 months to sign a new job offer or they must leave the country.
Majority of Indian and Chinese H1bs do not have green cards, and are the main group that suffers. Some of these folks are well into their 30s, with kids and houses in the US.
I’m familiar with H1b visas. Yes it’s an irritating situation for an immigrant to be in but it’s not as bad as you make it out to be.
If you have good life savings, you can convert to tourist visa, and stay in the country for an additional 6 months and a higher hassle when restarting your career.
You can leave the country, and get back as long as your H1b is still valid.
If your spouse is working, you can be convert to being a dependent on them with H4 visas.
At the end of the day I think the government should not let people end up in such a situation. After the 6 year H1b deadline, I would prefer if the government just sends a notice to those that it thinks can immigrate long term and send the rest back. At least then we won’t have the ridiculous situation of upending families and children who have started schooling just because their parents lost a job.
I'm kind of curious how they have houses in the US. I'm from Europe but I would have kind of assumed that banks aren't willing to lend to someone without residency pinned down or would only do so at extortionate rates. I also kind of assume most wouldn't be able to pay for a house outright.
In the US, it's common for folks to sell a house with a partially paid loan. Makes real-estate a liquid asset and that reduces risk. Further, it's low risk for the bank because they can always repossess the house if something goes wrong. A resident who falls on hard times can missa lot of payments before repossession can be forced. An H1b on hard times has 2 months to leave the country. This means at worst, they'll miss 1 payment before they're forced to sell the house. Much lower risk for the bank.
If you pay your monthly installments and have solid financial health (good credit score, high income, paid your taxes) then you'll get a standard deal. H1b Indians are on 30-50 yr queues for green card. Buying houses without residency is the norm, not the exception.
>H1b Indians are on 30-50 yr queues for green card.
What do you mean by this? Surely they don't have to stay and work 30-40yrs before they can expect permanent residency?
Unfortunately yes. That is exactly how it works. Most Indians on H1b will never get a green card despite having an approved green card application. (the I140)
Indian wait-times are expected to be between 20-60 years. It is ~10 years of the Chinese & Mexicans. Everyone else gets a green card within 1-2 years.
[flagged]
I stayed in the same job for nearly a decade, it got really interesting in the second half; in a way that it never would have gotten if I had job hopped every 3 to 5 years.
That being said, once I got bored in the job, I sniffed out that the parent company wanted to lay a few people off, and hinted that I was open to it. It worked out well for me.
I was just too busy in my personal life to look for a job on the side, and honestly I didn't want to walk away halfway through a project.
How do you bring up that you want to be laid off?
Situation: My boss was given a month notice about getting laid off. He told me that he believed the department head was told to cut costs dramatically.
Situation, part 2: All tech products have a life cycle. At some point they go into maintenance mode where there's no active development of new features.
Situation, part 3: Although we were a market leader in our niche, we just couldn't compete with what was coming from Microsoft.
Thus, I had a 1-1 with the department head. I don't remember exactly what I said, but I probably alluded to wondering what I was going to do when the feature I was working on was complete, and hinting that, after working on this product for a decade, I was getting kind of bored.
The package was confidential, but given that my last day of work was February 29, 2020, I made out rather well. :)
Those "lifer" friends may just be later in their career, though. Your ability to significantly advance your compensation depends on how early in your career you are. You will plateau at some point, but early on it makes a lot of sense to job hop. My first job hop was for +66% comp increase. My next was for about +25%, next for +15% or so. Eventually you hit a ceiling. After 30 years in the industry, my last job change was probably about +0.05%. I expect if I have to interview again, it's a toss up whether I'd get a higher or lower offer.
I don't get how people get jobs so easily. It took me like 8 months and it was extremely stressful.
Interviewing is a skill of its own. Some people are really good at it.
They have connections from previous jobs who will vouch for them.
How does this work, though? Every company I've worked for has an HR system, and resumes flow through it, and there's a set process. If I have worked with a candidate in the past and highly recommend them, all I can do is submit their resume into the great void and check a box "Recommend". I don't have any other power. There is no "Skip the interview, I vouch for him!" button that I can push.
It's probably related to the size of the company. Most of the companies I've worked for in the past have been between 50-200 employees across the entire org. The dev teams were usually around a 10-20 people and the director of R&D often encouraged us (the devs) to recommend new hires. They still had to pass through HR but it was more of a formality and the director had the proverbial majority vote.
Smaller teams are also more tight-knit so recommending a new potential dev wasn't a matter of process - it was literally head down a few doors and have a chat with the director.
I'm sure it's significantly different for huge enterprises where even the teams within the R&D department are heavily siloed.
> How does this work, though? Every company I've worked for has an HR system, and resumes flow through it, and there's a set process. If I have worked with a candidate in the past and highly recommend them, all I can do is submit their resume into the great void and check a box "Recommend
I haven't worked for any massive companies with thousands of employees where there might be a lot of bureaucracy, but the few I've worked for ranged from ~100-700 and it was pretty easy to get interviews for referrals. One of my employers encouraged referrals and offered bonuses if it led to a hire.
If you are regarded very highly, if you suggest to your manager there's another person out there like you they will work the system to get that person lined up for an interview ASAP. If you aren't very highly regarded, your suggestions will be put into the HR system and never looked at.
If your manager is inexperienced or not very good then there's nothing you can do about that.
That's how it works in my company too. The recruitment teams barely work with the engineering teams themselves. You may know a very good fit for the team, possibly even a previous member/intern of that team, and you won't be sure you can put the person into the recruitment loop. And then they'll need to pass the interviews...
And at the end of the day the HR work for your VP. And your VP needs people to do things, and if he hears you are a good person and you are available it will happen. HR is just a layer of process. Make them happy in regards to the things they care about.
Yeah, that was the situation until 2023. This market is absolutely brutal and there's no guarantee of an offer in 6+ months, even for roles you'd get in a month.
I wanted to be a "lifer" (you don't build expertise jumping jobs every 2 years) but I more or less knew going into games that that was never going to truly be the case. But this bad market only amplifies the issues.
> It seems like the heavity majority of those stressed about layoffs in big tech are lifers and those who are chronically averse to and dread the interview process.
Not helped by the fact a lot of interview processes - unless you can rely on word-of-mouth and the corporate structure allows for shortcuts - are byzantine, maddening and/or don't have much relations to the work one will be doing afterwards. No fuck you I'm in for a sysop/cloud position, I won't waste my time doing Fizzbuzz. Give me a laptop with internet and an actual work task if you want to judge my competence.
I have pretty severe social anxiety and this industry was a refuge for me.
The added social and political mental load that has crept in over the past decade or so has effectively pushed me to burnout.
And I was a happy "lifer" making subpar salary writing government software. I got to work in a large dark office with other nerds and joked about esoteric things.
But once software development became formalized, homogenized, and micromanaged, I couldn't conform.
Nobody on your team had kids or dependents?
What was the age range of the referred 2023 sample of workers?
I don't think that this narrative works in the current job environment. But nice try.
Maybe that perception that people chronically job hop is not true? I would welcome a data source that shows chronic job hopping is the norm.
Anecdotally speaking, I spent 6+ish years at my first "old tech" company. My org in this (very large) company was constantly simmering with resource actions (mostly small scale layoffs). There was lots of negative energy there. I left to take a programming/data analytics gig in a large, privately held financial company that had never had a layoff. This was unfortunately timed, 2 years later the financial crisis of 2008 kicked off and I (and my entire team) were all laid off. I have been with my current employer for approaching two decades and several of my peers have been on our team for that much time.
I have had a SINGLE manager in that time window. I can't even name all the managers I had in my first job due to near-constant re-orgs and layoffs.
I worked at Microsoft 2009-2024 and I've seen it a lot. It's rather telling when your own manager tells you that if you want fast promos and raises, the best way to do so is to switch companies every few years. And I've had more than one manager say that. I know many people who did several rounds of Microsoft -> Google -> Amazon -> Microsoft or the like.
That said, I don't think one can blame the devs for it, since it is the companies themselves that have created the environment where the above holds true. I never understood why - intuitively, it doesn't make sense for the company to underpay its devs to the point where they leave for a competitor, and then come back and get rehired at a much higher salary anyway. But it is what it is, and the workforce has caught on.
> I never understood why - intuitively, it doesn't make sense for the company to underpay its devs to the point where they leave for a competitor, and then come back and get rehired at a much higher salary anyway. But it is what it is, and the workforce has caught on.
It's because they are unable to tell who is worth what. So they outsource it to the market. If you managed to pass the interviews and get hired at the other big tech company, that's proof of value.
It's also self-reinforcing. If you don't leave, it's a signal that you don't trust your own market value to be higher.
For every dev that is able to make the "Microsoft -> Google -> Amazon -> Microsoft" circuit, you have n others who look hardly distinguishable to management who can't do that if they tried quitting. In other words, quitting is risky, in game theoretic terms it's a costly signal of competence.
I also wouldn't be surprised if it had some internal politics reasons that there are certain rules/power games around salary raises that don't apply when someone is hired from scratch.
> It's rather telling when your own manager tells you that if you want fast promos and raises, the best way to do so is to switch companies every few years.
This is different than what GP asked, it excludes anyone who might prefer stability over fast raises. Are the job-hoppers the majority, or are they just more visible because they're always interviewing?
Another anecdote from my part. I graduated in roughly 2015. I've had 5 software eng jobs since then. Each one I've had at least 2 different managers in the average 2 years I spent in each. My latest role, however, I was at for 2.5 years and had 6(!) managers. I had originally intended to stay at that role longer term but it was obvious the constant managerial turnover was a negative for my career growth - so I hopped again.
I've not experienced a layoff, but I also think its extremely abnormal to be in a position for so long and only have one manager.
I contracted/consulted around London for decades, and though I was with some clients for many years in total, others were much shorter, and short entries on a CV were not seen as a red flag AFAIK.
(Well, there was one hiring manager idiot who could not conceive of anything other than linear non-concurrent contracts as being honest - that interview did not go well, but I dodged a bullet!)
Hard to say - at my current company many people seem to be there for the long haul (it is a good place to work) and I'd say many departures have been due to restructures (some people lost jobs, but I think in a few cases existing managers haven't seen eye to eye with new leadership so have left, but also taken people with them).
At my last job people came and went, but I'd say that the job hoppers would be more inclined to say for 3-4 years rather than 1-2 years.
As a further insight, I'd say that my current job is at a big company, and in my town there are probably only four or five other companies of comparable size, while my previous job was medium sized and there were probably a lot of companies of that size that you could move to.
It seems impossible to think that it's not true given how fundamental it is to (new) tech culture.
I think it's possible that the majority of tech workers aren't hoppers, but the majority of applicants are. This just stands to reason, since hoppers aren't doing much applying and interviewing. This would tend to make interviewers think that this is a dominant strategy even if it isn't really.
It's also the case that the "everything is transactional, fuck your coworkers, leave your job the minute you can plausibly say you learned something and move on, chase impact at any cost because you only have one career" live-to-work contingent is just much louder online, especially here. After all, these are people that are investing a lot in their career, while IME most of my coworkers, even managers (though I don't personally know very many VP-and-up managers) are work-to-live people, mostly interested in their families and hobbies, and seem to rarely post on forums like this.
In any case, I'm fairly certain that there are (or were until recently) Labor Department researchers who have figured this all out empirically and could give us an answer if we knew where to look.
Job hopping is done to maximize your salary in the least amount of time - but everyone knows that there's a ceiling. You can't just keep job hopping for the rest of your career, and magically end up making 25% more every time you hop to the next gig.
Sooner or later you'll start to reach a ceiling, and have to defend your salary more. The idea is that if you can end up hitting that ceiling in 10 years by job hopping, that's better than spending 25 years at one place to hit the same figure. The earlier you have maximized your salary, the more you can invest and hopefully retire earlier.
Now, once you hit that ceiling - it kind of sucks to be in a constant state of job hopping. You actually don't get rewarded, and it is more stress than anything. And the older you get, the more stability you'll value - after all, you probably have a mortgage, kids, and all that to account for.
I think the other side of it is:
- Detail-oriented nerds with a rich mental framework around things like optimization, making decisions based on data, perhaps statistical approaches to uncertainty get frustrated when they see their organization making big, irreversible choices without the benefit of all available information. From the IC or line-manager level there may be a bunch of information which you can tell was not taken into consideration.
- Process-oriented people who have put a bunch of effort into planning, goal-setting and measurement based on seemingly reasonable assumptions like "this team that provides service X will continue to exist for the duration of project Y which depends on X" get frustrated when execs throw everything into disarray ... and then 3 weeks later want to know why Y is off track.
As the article describes, often lay-offs end up being bad for the company, not just the employees who get terminated. Even if you're not let go, or even if you just care about the value of your vested equity, it can be quite frustrating to see this happen. And often, because layoffs are generally planned in secret, leadership explicitly precludes the possibility of getting input from the experts in their organization.
While perhaps some layoffs ultimately turn out ok, I think generally the people who go through them can tick off a list of parts of it that were ill-considered and needlessly disruptive, in part b/c of this lack of trust and communication.
I think there are two reasons: choosing to change jobs on your own gives you ability to pick a time when it's minimally disruptive to yourself and your actual family, and then the pretend "family" vibe you cite is pushed by the employer in the first place. Companies insising on a game of make-believe where the relationship between employer and employee isn't transactional makes it hard not to be bothered by the hypocrisy. I agree that on average, the tech industry isn't as bad as other industries often are, but I don't see why that's a compelling argument not to care about the fact that it still could be better. There's nothing stopping me from wanting fewer tech layoffs and better conditions for workers in other industries as well (and in some circumstances even advocate for that even knowing that it might require changes to my own quality of life to achieve that; as a trivial example, I go out of my way to tip much larger than 20% when I use Uber because I'd rather risk getting ripped off than a driver not getting paid a fair wage for the work they do for me, even if it's at my own expense).
At the end of the day, everything is a balancing act, and the amount of change most of us can make as individuals is a drop in the bucket compared to the unfairness that people have to deal with every day. We all have to make judgement calls on where to take a stand and where to play it safe to avoid making things harder for ourselves without actually making a difference that ends up helping anyone, and if people are acting in good faith when trying to make those choices, I don't see any value in criticizing what they end up deciding. If anything, most of us in tech are probably in far more of a comfortable position to be able to speak out against employers (either or own or those in industries where workers are treated even worse), so I think there's a reasonable argument that it's more important for us to because of that. It's not a zero-sum game though; pointing out tech employer hypocrisy doesn't inherently take anything away from pointing out even worse things that other employers do.
> I go out of my way to tip much larger than 20% when I use Uber because I'd rather risk getting ripped off than a driver not getting paid a fair wage for the work they do for me, even if it's at my own expense
Honest question, as a European who doesn't fully understand tipping culture: don't you think that this might be perpetuating a culture of exploitation? Wouldn't you rather spend your money on taxis that at least have some regulations if you are afraid the drivers are getting the wrong end of the deal?
In the macro sense? Possibly, if everyone is doing what I'm doing. In my experience though, the opposite is more common; I've heard of people absolutely refusing to tip out of "principle", and then workers making sub-minimum wage don't actually get paid what they're legally "mandated".
In the micro sense, I find it pretty unlikely that I'm single-handedly making much difference personally in the New York economy. While as software engineer in tech I'm undoubtedly better off than average, I'm certainly not anywhere close to wealthy enough that even spending my entire net worth on tips would affect anything at all.
I didn't say don't tip, I said don't use Uber and use a taxi instead (and keep tipping if you want). I don't know what the situation is in NYC, but the last time I visited the US in Illinois, my taxi driver told me he also used Uber when he finished the hours he could legally drive a taxi for. To me that's scary on so many levels: both from the point of view of exploitation, but also personal safety.
The tech industry also doesn’t reward loyalty, even at big tech.
There’s a reason for the low tenure at most firms and it’s primarily due to the lack of rewarding experience and depth of field knowledge at most companies. When you have to get a new job just to get a salary increase that keeps up with inflation you are going to see a lot of job hopping when the skills of the workforce are generally in demand.
How often is it that someone leaves because they can get paid better elsewhere? Why do we think this wouldn’t drive the primary cause of people leaving companies?
Where the fuck is the company showing any loyalty to its workforce?
> Where the fuck is the company showing any loyalty to its workforce?
They have been and are out there. But all it takes is a change on C level and cost cutting suddenly is everything, loyalty a thing of the past. That is, you cannot count on loyalty anymore, even if the company you are working for is currently showing it (or seems to).
Yeah I don't see the big mystery here. People leave to keep up with cost of living or get away from toxic elements in their current workplace that are otherwise difficult - if not impossible - to change by staying. It's not something we want to do, it's something we have to do for one good reason or another. If we had better rights and meaningful raises to improve or even sustain our quality of life, the job hopping would surely decrease. The layoffs and the reason for job hopping are both attributed to actions on the employer's side.
For almost every job I've had, I would have been more than happy to stay there if it provided the career growth that job hopping provides. Companies seem to deliberately make internal promotion far more difficult than just job hopping to L+1.
> The tech industry also doesn’t reward loyalty
Anecdotally, I’ve heard of many cases of “up or out” in FAANGs, which in other terms is a negative preference for loyalty.
(This, in fact, is one of the reasons people working in those companies perpetually seem to be practicing interview questions and Leetcode every day.)
>Where the fuck is the company showing any loyalty to its workforce?
I mean by that definition, they wouldn't be hiring much, so you don't see them o. n the radar.
Big tech employees have been abandoning companies the second they can get higher TC for decades, and as soon as the companies start firing a very small fraction (in a lot of cases people who were coasting or incompetent) its a problem of morality?
You can really see what people are made of when they face adversity. Good luck.
Big tech employees are a fraction of all tech employers and employees. There’s problem so systematically pervasive that you see this across the board. Companies do not value long term retainment of employees up and down the size spectrum and it’s very clear in how they behave.
They don’t award experience and depth of knowledge in any way that is indicative of fostering retention
Big tech employees have been doing that because they see new hires (who have themselves switched from another big tech company!) get a lot more comp than their meager raise. Don't blame the workers from reacting to the signals that company is sending through its own deliberate actions.
The thing is, the tech industry is also an outlier in a sense that the quality of the job you find varies massively depending on (1) the timing, sometimes literally by a few weeks and (2) whether you already have a job or not.
And so, layoffs are not "just another bump" in people's career. They represent a major net negative for people who would otherwise have much more control over the trajectory.
I've worked over 12 years at the same company. Finding a new job would be difficult as remote pays lower and isn't the best fit for me, my area isn't known for tech job, my spouse doesn't want to relocate, I work for one of the biggest employers in my area (fewer choices outside the company), and we are seeing the highest sector unemployment since the dot com bubble. Oh, and my disability makes it all worse. My job has been an absolute hell hole for the past 2 years, but internal and external job opportunities have been extremely limited.
I guess there are a broad range of perspectives and how loud people are is going to depend on their perspectives. Some reasons to dislike layoffs:
- visas may be dependent on employment, and can make changing jobs harder. In the United States, lots of visa rules are at the discretion of the government (eg how long one may live in the United States on an employer-sponsored visa while unemployed)
- the recent (and dot-com era) tech layoffs have been cyclical: many companies are in layoff-mode or hiring-spree mode at the same time. The time when many companies are not hiring is the worst time to be thrust into the job market
- people may have other job security worries – big tech companies tend to always be growing so it is worrying if they are laying people off instead of moving them from a failing business line to a new one
- in general some people may have a lot of anxiety about changes to income. If you are applying for new jobs while currently holding another, there is much less pressure than if you’re unemployed and need to find a new job (and possibly at a pay cut requiring outgoings to be reduced) before you run out of savings, especially if you don’t have much in savings compared to outgoings, which may be the case for some tech workers (some people spend a lot, or have much of their wealth tied up in property or have a family which requires spending more on eg housing or school fees). The much-worse consequences of failing to get a new job may increase the pressure/stress/discomfort
- this reveals an obvious truth about where the power lies in ‘engineering-focused’ companies and people don’t like it
- people can see a layoff as being like a firing and therefore be unhappy due to hurt pride (or worries about being less desirable in the job market)
- the lack of agency in a layoff is unpleasant. It is quite different from choosing to apply to other jobs.
It's a chicken and egg problem. If people feel they could have a meaningful career in a given place, they would stay longer. When you see your teammates getting laid off one after the other - including people with 5-10 years of seniority and history of good performance, you start to wonder whether you should have any sense of loyalty to the company.
I joined my company with the naive hope there would be some sentiment of family/community and that I'd do a big chunk of my career there. But after seeing how they treat employees, I'm looking for the way out.
> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
1) Because layoffs are a timeline not in your control.
Leaving a job under my timeline is very different than suddenly being out of a job on somebody else's timeline. On my timeline, I know what my financial situation is and have likely planned around it. Layoffs, on the other hand, can catch people at vulnerable points. Even if you don't get laid off, you will likely have hoarded cash and adjusted major purchases just in case you did.
2) Because most "tech" workers are NOT in a chronic state of job hopping.
Most people working "tech" are in boring businesses doing 8-to-4, have a mortgage, a spouse, and maybe a child or two. They have friends and support networks where they are. They are reasonable at their job, but nothing outstanding that would set them apart from the masses. Moving to another job in the same area is probably not an easy task--either the area has a single big employer or the scattered "tech" jobs are kind of rare. And even if the area has another job, your commute may change from reasonable to absurd. In the worst case, your spouse also gets laid off since tech companies are like sheep and will do layoffs simultaneously for "reasons". Now, you may have to completely leave the area to find a new job.
This all sucks for people who are just getting by day to day.
3) Unless you have really good personal networks right now, job hopping is really difficult.
Sure, senior people can just call up "so-and-so" and wind up with an interview tomorrow. Junior people, not so much.
2 way street. you say "it's laying off a bunch of people who were gonna dip in 6 months to a year anyway."
to the new grad, it's "wow half my team just got laid off when the company seems to be doing fine, i guess i better not get too comfortable here"
Because a lot of tech workers today aren't actually job hopping and instead get very cozy in a job and a team and a career trajectory, which feels unfairly ripped away during layoffs for reasons that don't feel connected to their personal performance.
Because of two things I can think of:
1. People like to control when they leave a company and join a new one. Most people will have a new job lined up, papers signed, before they put in their resignation at their old job. Getting laid off means a scramble to find something new. There's generally a big power imbalance between an employer and employees; the employee having the power to interview around and leave on their timetable is one of the less common cases where the employee has control over their own destiny.
2. While sometimes layoffs are isolated to a company, at other times (as we've seen over the past several years) it's indicative of an industry-wide trend. In this case, employees should definitely be worried about layoffs, as there well be a lot of their fellow workers competing for a smaller number of job opportunities.
Have you ever seen a tech company where the workers actually stay? Where you can find employees who have been there for up to 30 years?
I have. You know what striking difference I found with BigTech and their layoffs? These companies don't do layoffs. They are stable, employees feel secure and can evolve in their career without leaving. You know what employees say about their company? "It doesn't give the highest salary, but it's safe and rewarding, and you can actually evolve in your career". Turns out that if people are actually happy, they stay.
> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
I know lots of people hop jobs to get promoted. It's understandable too: promotion has become a prestige. It hurts to see coworkers get promoted yet oneself stays at the same place, let alone promotion is the only way to get a larger package. Personally, I think the promotion culture, especially the one popularized by Meta, is pretty ruinous to the tech companies, as many people exclusively focused on getting promoted. That means first write less code but draw more boxes, then draw fewer boxes and write more docs, and then write fewer docs but go to more meetings. Soon it's hard to distinguish a high-level engineer from a technical PM, from a director (except that the IC does not have direct report), or even from a program manager. The end result is that the company gets more bloated, slows down every day, and produces bullshit systems. When those ICs go out to interview, all they can do is throwing around a few terms and fail miserably on even the most basic questions.
Many of the stereotypes you mention are for startup founder / early employee types.
That's not everyone, it's just who's on HN.
Most employees of these companies are just regular people wanting regular jobs.
What % of the your coworkers have been there 5+ years?
100% (I have owned and worked at my own company for 10 years)
Anecdotally, I've also worked at many startups that became big companies through acquisition and Let me tell you - J&J has a lot of employees who have been there more than 5 years, thousands. They also had several big layoffs of such people during the process.
I work at salesforce. 100% of my immediate team and gotta be over 50% of my broader team. We’ve barely hired since 2020.
There is attrition and there are layoffs. With attrition someone leaves every year or so, you part on good terms, and the company hires a replacement on a similar level and location.
Layoffs means reducing headcount, your team ends up weaker than it was, and everyone is left wondering if they are next.
I think many people at big tech companies like Facebook truly drank the koolaid there, and when they got laid off it laid bare that the companies they worked at were just companies. Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc are no better than Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, or whatever other 20th century company they had come to represent the answer to. I think a LOT of people had really tied their identities up in being a big tech employee and when they got laid off it was like being cast out of paradise
To be fair, Facebook was a really really great place to work for the five years I was there. Given that, it's not surprising that people got comfortable.
Like, I've gone from 200 connections at FB to less than 100 over the years of layoffs.
> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
Most of us job-hop because we have to, not because we want to.
There's a class of people in the tech industry who like to write blogs about how fun and fulfilling it is to constantly change jobs and roles. Those people are highly visible but not representative. Most humans find constant change and uncertainty stressful, not exhilarating.
[dead]
I’ve been at my company working in tech for 19 years and I hate the pushing of job hopping as a norm. Job hoppers have no skin in the game. They don’t need support what they build, they don’t get to see where it fell short… they really can’t learn from their experiences and mistakes. What they do isn’t in the best interest of the company, it’s just enough (an MVP if you will) to add to the resume so they can leverage it for a bump in pay on their next job.
I see wave after wave of job hoppers hired to “transform” the organization and all they ever do is repeat the same old mistakes, which we could tell them if they weren’t too arrogant to listen.
Every job hopper I’ve worked with has simply been a distraction to the greater goals of the organization to serve the customer. I’ve lost all patience and respect for the people who practice it, and the companies that set themselves up in a way which encourages it.
I don’t know how we find our way back, but I think companies and employees would all be better off with some stability and more long term thinking.
I think the solution for this would be for companies to proactively raise wages in order to keep up with the market.
Yes, but it also takes some level of patience on the part of the employee.
Corporate bureaucracies often move slow, and they also want to see you can do the job first. I’m seeing most younger people don’t seem to have patience for this.
They also grossly overestimate their knowledge and ability. I’ve seen a significant number of people talk like they mastered a job after 1 year, then they stared asking me how they could get on my team doing what I do. I did the job they were doing for 10+ years. The reason they think it’s easy is because I defined the processes of how to do it all, wrote all the documents on how to do it, made a training program they went through, and worked with other teams to remove a lot of the toil. I then started building tools to make it easier for anyone off the street to do a lot of the work, and do it at scale. Thats why I have the job I have; it wasn’t given to me, I created it out of a desire to make the team better after realizing we could only go so far if I just worked faster. They didn’t see any of that.
For those that seemed interested, I’d give them the tools they needed to help, to see if they were the type to do this kind of stuff. I’d provide feedback, answer questions, or do anything else I could to help them. Out of the dozen or so who asked, only 1 person has done it to a limited degree. Thats why companies don’t just offer it up quickly and easily. A lot of people talk, but not many back it up.
I just performed a job hop. I've stayed in the same job for nearly 4 years and I'd be happy to stay if I wasn't being underpaid. I think I've performed pretty well and I know I've had good feedback from colleagues, I've told my voss multiple times that I like my job but I feel like my pay isn't developing fast enough. My raises have been 7% for the first two years and 4% the last year.
So when my team lead quit I decided to look around to see if I was right to think I was underpaid, and the first place I applied offered me more than a 20% raise. I think I've been patient, but I'd much rather have money now that later.
What is the market?
Is it possible that "the market" has wages that are higher than the company's revenue per employee?
I think if you're at a company for more than a year then the chances are you need to support what you build. Also, how do you know you work with a "job hopper" until they leave? You always have to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're committed to the cause. It feels like you got burned at some point in the past but I could be wrong.
LinkedIn can show a trend pretty well. Sometimes they stop at some point, so I can be proven wrong. In other cases the person left, came back, and left again.
The last one was the chief architect on a project I was assigned. She turned the org upside down, left the day after her bonus hit, came back 6 months later, turned the org upside down again, and again left the day after her bonus hit. If she comes back a 3rd time I won’t be engaging.
I’ve been burned by these people a lot. They have absolutely obliterated the culture and the stability of our infrastructure, and in a few short years destroyed what I spent a decade helping to build. They replaced it with fragile systems without any kind of support model, which now get full re-writes every year… just because.
Really you dont see the difference between the little guy who has a family and barely affords rent and food doing all the extra work and calculating and saving to make the risky jump when he feels comfortable, vs a giant corporation sitting on 10 years of runway no matter what they do indiscriminately cutting and shoving dozens of "little guys" into unplanned for stress and upheaval?
I think job hopping happens for the same reasons layoffs do: short-term thinking on management's part. I've been an engineering manager for 8 years now and have observed that a) giving an external candidate a $10-15K bump during negotiations is fairly easy while b) giving that same bump to an existing employee is practically impossible. Engineers learn that moving every 2-4 years is the way to keep their salary growing, while the same companies that claim to not be able to pay them more happily dish out even more money to hire their replacements.
Keep in mind that only the most extreme, financially focused workers are doing what you describe. Like ones that are young and single.
In addition, let's not pretend thos also isn't by design from the companies. They stopped doing tenure based rewards and are harder than ever to get a raise from. Those people are simply reacting to the terms the companies set.
> Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axle of layoffs when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
When I leave a job, I leave on good terms, they're always sad to see me go but understanding, and I always give my employer 6 or more weeks notice with the additional offer that they can still reach out to me for help if they need after that for as long as my memory remains helpful. A couple even took me up on my offer and asked to pay me for my time.
The time I got caught in a layoff I had the door slammed in my face literally minutes later and barely two weeks severance contingent on signing away rights. So, fuck me I guess.
Maybe the workers who complain understand that circumstances are not always equal.
I get the point, but I don't think that's universally true. Especially in the less glamorous corners of the tech industry -- yes, you have some younger people looking to bounce, but most of the people who actually keep the lights on have full lives outside of work and all things being equal, they'd rather stick around than deal with the hassle of finding a new job. They're only going to leave if you create a toxic work environment or underpay them by double-digit percentages.
For those industries, I don't think they're getting much from the layoffs besides the short-term "we did layoffs" C-suite bonus. If you're in the Widgetmaker Control Systems industry, why do you want to make your workforce think they have to leave in 3-4 years?
I think your idea is a good faith argument, but it's a fallacy: high turnover on a job because of stiff competition for labor is not a "tech culture" issue, and it's not at all the same impact on a person as changing due to a layoff.
That's kind of a chicken and egg issue, isn't it? Why is it that employees can get more money/promotions from a company they have no relationship with, than from a company where they've already been working for multiple years and have more company-specific knowledge than their replacement will? Unlike with government work, years at the company isn't really considered when deciding who layoffs are going to hit. You're proposing that tech workers should loyally stay at the same company for 10 years, make less money, and then get laid off just as easily anyway?
> Why is it that employees can get more money/promotions from a company they have no relationship with, than from a company where they've already been working for multiple years and have more company-specific knowledge than their replacement will?
Short form: Lack of headcount at the various levels, and the responsibilities at the different levels would skew to "staff developers doing junior tasks because there are no juniors."
--
Many times promotions need an available headcount at that level. The promotion also reflects a change in responsibilities.
The company couldn't have an entire team of staff engineers thinking about things without writing code - so there's an entire setup for "this is how much is budgeted for these roles and these responsibilities."
You could have headcount for 20 developers (1:3 junior to mid), two tech leads, and a staff level architect. That doesn't you could hire / promote 23 staff and have them writing code.
So when a mid level progresses, it isn't always possible to say "you're a tech lead now" as that would mean fewer developers writing code... Unless you're also going to get to the point where your 23 staff engineers are also being tasked with writing the unit tests as if they were a junior developer still learning the codebase.
So in many cases, the mid level developer looking for more has to go somewhere else.
This isn't as much of an issue in a large company where there's more room to move between teams and new positions opening as attrition happens (in the organization I work for, attrition is most likely to happen from retirement).
There's also the aspect of not every company has the same revenue. If you are at the point where you want to make more and the company can't budget for that... then you're looking somewhere else.
This is an interesting question to ask, though I personally would not attribute it to "culture" as much as it may be a product of the environment people are put in. From my experience, there are a lot of jobs that make it difficult to continue past a few years, so job hopping is the inevitable outcome of that. I think many companies need to examine why they have a lot of turnover instead of attributing it all to individual employees.
And to be frank, layoffs are scary for any industry, because they usually are correlated with layoffs at other companies. A rising tide lifts all boats, but a sinking tide is difficult to escape. You might be laid off at a time when there is no other job to hop to.
> there are a lot of jobs that make it difficult to continue past a few years
This has been a lot of my career. All my long, successful jobs have lasted around 2-3 years, and it's the time it takes for the company to realize the initiative wasn't worth it. I count four of these stints where I left, and the team was essentially dissolved within a year. I'm not saying I was the key person for the project; I just saw the writing on the wall.
It's been career limiting not having a large-scope project on a growing team, but I don't know if this is something about me, something about the projects I'm a good fit for, or the reality that a lot of projects and teams don't survive 5 years, and I've been exposed to some survivor bias of smart people who have gotten lucky.
That is a great example of what I was talking about.
Another example is the changing nature of the contracts people are hired under. I'm a scientist, and a lot of positions are inherently term-limited. You end up with a lot of organizations with two different groups of employees: employers who have worked there for decades, and employers who are temporary and work there for a few years hoping to be converted to permanent. Just like in the situation you describe, if you end up on a project that just isn't working out, that does not bode well for your own prospects. That has nothing to do with your own capabilities or how hard you worked on the project. And just like you mention, a lot of the "permanent" people have survivorship bias and do not really understand that they ultimately got lucky and timed the market well.
(Or many of the permanent people were hired as permanent staff originally and do not understand the conditions under which new staff are hired.)
It's an outlier because unlike other service industries the software has global presence. An app written by software engineers laid-off 3 years ago will still run by itself with exceptions like servers running out of disk space. Unlike other services industry tech workers get laid off for:
1. When the product has failed market-fit and company is not raising anymore capital.
2. When the backlog has been cleared.
Tech workers get more pay by job hopping.
Tech is a huge field. If you work in big tech or well-known companies, it is common to job-hop. If you're at something more established, traditional, or mid-sized, you'll probably find lifers.
Additionally, I think fewer people are job-hopping considering the market is so competitive. I would expect new grads to start staying at their first job for longer, too.
I agree with parts of what you say. I’m a career contractor or job hopper. I like it this way. I also am aware of the volatility of the industry. I prefer hopping and getting 20% pay bump each year. This more than offsets the risk of being laid off and staying a few months without income.
I resent the fake legal douche move of falsely asserting "low performance" as the rationale for their cuts.
Some people work hard and take pride in their work. And on top of their gaming down our wages with h1b workers and low benefit contracting they have the gall to assert we're low performers when what they want is a $20 million bonus for their execs.
But yeah, I see your point.
Well, getting fucked out of your 401k money 6 months before it vests stings some.
Is that an average time given a 12 month vesting schedule?
edit: Actually curious about the dead comment. What companies have multi year 401(k) vesting?
Every company I have worked at or seen does a match on a 12 month schedule or less.
Are they thinking of stock options?
IIRC Amazon has a 2 years 401k match vesting period.
Interesting.
per this article, Amazon 401k has a cliff vesting on matched funds at 3 years of employment. After reading around, it seems like 3 years is the legal maximum for 401k cliff vesting, with 6 years permitted for incremental vesting.
https://www.consiliowealth.com/insights/breaking-down-amazon...
Two years is more typical.
[dead]
Different groups of people. Some confidently job hop, others live in fear of losing a comfortable job.
There are deep differences in expectations and attitudes in these areas, driven by family, culture, and upbringing.
i agree with this. However…
It’s worth mentioning (as a public FYI) that it’s not smart to _expect_ to stay with a company for 10+ years, from a risk mitigation perspective. At least not in 2025.
It’s kind of like picking a stock. Purposely picking just 1 stock for your portfolio carries great risk. Likewise, picking 1 job and/or 1 tech stack and hoping for the best is also high risk. It’s smart to at least dabble in new trendy technology for 1-2 days a month. Maybe review basic leet code questions once a year. Maybe every 2-3 years, apply somewhere else and go through the interview process strictly for practice. Who knows, maybe you’ll get a great offer? Just examples of what one can do to reduce the risk when a layoff occurs.
Regardless of what your culture taught you, try to reduce your risk. It might be outside your comfort zone, but better to be uncomfortable than unemployed. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket (one company, one tech stack). Keep your interview skills a _little_ sharp so that you don’t panic if a layoff occurs. It’s just common sense.
I agree. Jobs can go away at anytime for any reason. What really hurts is when people think their devotion and sacrifice means it wont apply to them. Set expectations accordingly.
Because it's usually only true in your early 20s. Then you find a place and stay. These people bragging about company hopping every 3 or 4 years don't do that for 20 years.
> when most people are in a chronic state of tech job hopping?
Citation needed. The vast majority of people in tech that I know do NOT job hop. So please, I need a citation, not your feelings.
Citing an airline for longevity is a bit disingenuous.
I’m not sure how it works with support staff, but aircraft crew have contract structures that so heavily favor seniority that most pilots and FAs will never leave a major willingly during their career.
Your observation, to me, seems more like: tech companies reward new employees over old, airlines do the extreme opposite.
In tech, consultancy usually last between 3 months and 18 months, so one can have many consulting positions of under 2 years.
I don't work in Silicon Valley, nor pure tech, but in many industries, the quickest way to climb titles and pay is to move to a new firm. Plus you can avoid the friction of asking for a better title or pay as your current firm. (And getting a "no" is horrible for your self-esteem.) Can you blame these people for leaving a job for better title/pay? I cannot. Better: I would expect HN to applause! "Stick it to the man!"
Depends on the country, in many European countries job hopping is not well seen regardless of the industry.
I mean in all fairness, I move around because I’m looking for a place to stay - if I’m not enjoying myself at my job, why would I stick around? And conversely, when I find a spot I like, why job hop?
And besides, the last time I was laid off, it was from a place I’d been at nearly 5 years, a place that did feel almost like family - that’s why I stayed as long as I did.
Layoffs save money. They work for that purpose. Perhaps the blog post assumes some other purpose. I am not getting it. This appears to be nothing more than complaining, not "real talk". But being published from a domainname like "thehustle.co", nonsensical gibberish comes as no suprise.
If the title was "Tech Companies Don't Work", then this might be a good segue into discussing layoffs. For example, layoffs could be evidence of so-called "tech company" dysfunction or mismanagement. But, for some, the "outlier amounts of money" suggest these companies do "work". If the companies survive after layoffs, then clearly layoffs do "work" for the purpose intended.
Maybe in your early years when stability doesn't matter to you. When you have a mortgage, a family, and obligations then you care about your job. Putting food on the table and paying bills becomes your highest priority. As to tech industry as an outlier, it's not so much that as it's not yet been reigned in yet. Technical jobs are just another tool to execute a business mission and once utility is gotten from AI to effectively reduce costs then costs will be reduced. That means bye bye to big salaries and hello to new reality. So enjoy the gig while it pays.
Kind of sucks when you have stock…
The average tenure of an employee at HP is 6.6 years (source: Google AI) to pick a company that may be outside your bubble. And the lifelong career holding older employee at a legacy enterprise tech company is the kind of worker who is most adversely affected by an unexpected return to the job seeking pool.
It's not controversial, it's the truth.
BTW I worked for 6 years at one company, then I started job-hopping every 2-3 years. Much better for career.
Because not every company gives severance during layoffs. As someone who got RIFed (again - fourth time in my 15yr career), this is the first time I've had severance, and the first time I had a notice period that wasn't just "till the end of the month". As such, layoffs are traumatic just on their own.
Adding more rapid-fire context (for the sake of brevity):
* Parents changed jobs every few years growing up, which meant a new city, new home, new schools, and a complete cycling of relationships (forcibly out with the old, forcibly in with the new)
* I watched layoffs in non-tech sectors gradually go from tech-style severance packages, to no packages beyond the required WARN notice period payouts, to filing the notices and hoping nobody asks, to now just paying out any damages after-the-fact in lawsuits
* I spent ~15mo unemployed during the "Great Recession" of '08, ending up having to move to another region of the country for work and spending a night homeless, followed by six-months couch surfing, then another month in a hotel before finally having an apartment again
So all that put together, layoffs and job changes are incredibly traumatic experiences I do my best to avoid at all costs. I am one of those "lifers" who would much rather hunker down for a good wage today, buy a home, sock away savings, and work my way up an internal career ladder than throw myself into an entirely new workplace, colleagues, culture, and standards every year or two. I claw for multiple roles in an org (at the most recent one, I was juggling roles on Private Cloud & Public Cloud, Governance Councils, leading a CaaS ops overhaul, plus other PoCs) specifically to make myself as indispensable as possible and position myself on the internal promotional ladder, because I'd rather stay with one org provided I can eke out a modest living and take care of those I care about (myself included).
Now all that aside, there's also the reality that wage growth from job hopping hasn't turned out to be as big as folks thought. The real growth comes from career promotions, which companies hate doling out internally for profoundly stupid and arbitrary reasons (hence job hopping). I get the impression most folks would stay put if they could get the growth in their career they wanted, but companies would rather hire someone externally to fill a spot than promote someone internally operating at that level; I am very much in that group myself. Heck, we're seeing that now with folks not leaving jobs because they're having difficulty finding that growth (in comp and title) elsewhere, as everyone kind of knuckles down for tough times ahead. That taste of stability will create more "lifers" as you put it, especially when the world outside is increasingly unstable; it's natural that humans (and most animals) will seek stability in times of crisis, taking only as much risk as necessary to preserve their survival.
Something the article doesn't get into is the knock-on effect of layoffs in future business: if workers are let go for what they perceive to be arbitrary or irrational reasons, they're less likely to want to do business with that company again in the future. This is particularly why tech companies offer such good severance packages, as it's their mea culpa of sorts by trying to buy themselves a good reputation on the way out the door. When everyone is doing it though (like the current layoff cycles), it becomes a broader disgust or distaste for established vendors in general, and those workers - when they land a new role - are likely to want to migrate off their employer's products unless their career is tied to it somehow. This can reduce business after cuts had already been made, potentially putting an organization into a cycle of self-harm wherein more cuts are made in response to declining business, which then causes more declines in business, which leads to more cuts, etc. This in turn leaves a huge opening for new startups to enter the hole left behind by established players, undercutting them on pricing and providing better service.
So taking all of that into context when reading the article again, and it paints a pretty telling picture of widespread mismanagement at companies doing unwarranted and highly traumatic layoffs. If the only thing your leadership can do to grow the business is to layoff staff, that's a pretty telling sign that business ain't doing so great in general and leaders are out of ideas to improve it.
[dead]
"Why do tech workers get so wrapped around the axel of foreclosure when most people are in a chronic state of moving house?"
> After the early-2000s dotcom bust, Bain researchers found that stock prices for S&P 500 companies that had no layoffs or laid off less than 3% of their workforce increased an average of 9% in the next year. Meanwhile, stock prices were flat in companies that laid off between 3%-10% of their workers, and prices plummeted 38% for companies that laid off more than 10%.
Failing companies go through layoffs. Companies like Sun Microsystems, Kodak, Sears, Circuit City, Kmart all went through lots of layoffs. But everyone knows that's not what killed them.
> But everyone knows that's not what killed them.
Another addition I'd like to add here is more often then not wrong people get booted while the "dead weight" tends to stick around and becomes even deader due to a motivation fall from the layoff. So maybe it doesn't kill, but for sure exacerbates an already bad situation.
We are a small team in big company, and management that made wrong decisions is still somewhere there but not my direct management, still getting same paycheck, car, cards and benefits but new managers (that accepted to take over and got brand new car for 100k€, cards and bonuses, bells and whistles) started to layoff workers so we know this is the end for my team, and of course they will do whatever it takes to "save the product", but not fix the the real issue... lack of good developers to fix terrible bugs in our product.
That’s really the key part: if the managers who created the problem are still there, layoffs will just make it worse. There are cases where getting out of a dubious business line can lead to long-term benefit but I’ve seen that a handful of times compared to losing useful people while the bad managers failed upwards.
That's basically the story of Philips. They go through a tough period and choose to divest a "dubious" line of business to focus on higher margin products. The new company, freed of Philips management, goes on to surpass the revenues of the parent. That's how ASML and NXP were born. Signify (Philips lighting) is getting reasonably close.
If your small team in a big company does not directly generate money, then you’d definitely be ripe for elimination. Time and time again we’ve seen examples of trams that are critical to supporting various revenue generating parts of the company while not directly making money themselves get cut as an “obvious” way to save money when only looking at the books. Been there.
The thing is, ending a product that's not making money shouldn't mean eliminating the workers. Those were people you picked, brought in, and have adapted to your culture.
It always strikes me as weird when a product fails and the decision is to eliminate everyone from the product manager down... and then make no other changes. Then they bring in completely new people for whatever the new product line is. Sometimes, sure, an individual or group might cause a product to fail that should otherwise succeed. But it's weird to default to the production team. Is it a design problem? A maintenance problem? A product price problem? A sales and marketing problem? A management problem?
Like, the Pontiac Aztek did not do badly because one welder from Mexico screwed it up. It failed because it was ugly. It was ugly because the styling didn't survive the requirements to use the same parts as the Buick Rendezvous and the same basic platform as the Pontiac Montana. The process of making that vehicle fit into GM at that time killed the product. Today the Chevrolet Equinox, a direct descendent, is one of the best selling vehicles on the road at a time when there's a lot more competition.
[flagged]
> Time and time again we’ve seen examples of trams that are critical to supporting various revenue generating parts of the company while not directly making money themselves get cut as an “obvious” way to save money when only looking at the books.
Love how your typo turned into a beautiful metaphor for infrastructure being cut.
Save the trams!
Some are kind to eng ICs, you’re not laid off from the company just given time to join another team. As you can still be a high-performer with context on company culture/tech stack while on a non-revenue-generating team.
Even if mostly the “right” people are laid off, laying off a wrong person can have a cascading effect.
Good people like to stick together. Get rid of a couple and the rest will start to leave.
Even if, from the company's perspective, if lays off all the "right" people, some of those people will be "wrong" from the point of view of other people on the team. Maybe the company didn't value a certain person, for corporate or HR reasons, but there's always a chance that person was a valued team member for human reasons.
Layoffs will lead to people leaving, regardless of how surgical or random they are.
Exactly. Somebody who is universally hated by their co-workers should just be let go. Nothing to do with a layoff. So everybody who is around has some reason for actually being there. In a well-managed place, that is.
> Somebody who is universally hated by their co-workers
How many times have we seen a company fire whoever they consider "dead weight" but keep the universally hated guy because he's a 10x rockstar whatever?
I've seen the opposite happen: fire the unsocial guys and keep the social guys that do absolutely nothing but flame and troll on slack.
A 10x person who brings down 20 others to a small fraction of their potential and causes other rockstars to leave is still net-negative. Good management understands this.
(And I'm not sure why I'm downvoted for this. Nothing about that should be controversial?)
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/we-fired-our-top-talent-be...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15474893 (2017) (133 points | 130 comments)
Exactly. So the company keeps the guy everyone hates after laying off people that get along. The next people to leave the company are the ones disgusted by the move.
Depends on the company. I've seen the opposite case were such a person was let go, much to everybody's relief. Some people had to clean up his mess, which was genius in the sense that it worked flawlessly, but nobody else could maintain it, so he had locked in a minimal bus factor. Which makes such a move harder to execute, but the earlier the better.
Unfortunately, optimizing for not getting yourself laid off is not the same as optimizing for max productivity. In many ways, they're quite opposite.
Indeed. Like everyone from Lake Wobegon, I think that I am effective at my job. One of the most productive things I can do is to strangle bad ideas in the crib. This is not a popular role. Killing someone's pet initiative can make enemies. Yet, it can save countless weeks/months/years on doomed-to-fail efforts.
Working to not be laid off usually means just keeping your head down and going with the flow.
This happened to me. There was a layoff, I got overwhelmed with work that had to get picked up, lost motivation, and burned out.
The key takeaway for me is that layoffs are an effect, not a cause, of company failure.
The quoted text is a good example of this. If a company is struggling strategically or economically, and doesn't do a layoff, it's just going to struggle more, and fail more quickly. Companies that aren't laying people off are likely not even considering layoffs, because their businesses are actually doing well.
So, it's pretty obvious to me that companies in that cohort would see the biggest stock price appreciation, because layoffs are an indicator of poor future performance.
Layoffs are an effect of unsustainable success.
If you can lay off people without cratering the company, it means you hired too many people in the first place.
There is the question of if layoffs saved the company enough to save itself or improve? And with that data you could say layoffs by themselves don't.
Today the question is why companies making good profits are making layoffs. And looking at the damage they cause is relevant in trying to predict company performance
> And with that data you could say layoffs by themselves don't.
I think that is one inference too far? Layoffs may have saved some of those companies from bankruptcy. The Bain study is looking at share price performance and offers no data that would resolve that question.
> There is the question of if layoffs saved the company enough to save itself or improve?
They at least secured management a final big bonus for dealing with that, so management and shareholders cash in a bit on the way down.
If the layoffs are taking a company which could be stably growing to one which is going downhill - in that case the execs actually hurting their long term compensation.
But i get it, it's like junk food for execs, easy to do, crisp in the action (even if not in the effects). But consumed carelessly its bad for company health
There's a big tendency to look for culprits whether layoffs, PE, MBAs, or whatever. But a lot of companies just made wrong bets or were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Kodak was never going to survive in anything like its pre-digital form.
Yet, those who makes those wrong bets are generally paid very generously and they are generally not those who suffers from the consequences
You skipped the second part of my comment. Yes, senior execs at large publc companies--assuming they didn't do anything actually criminal or stupid related to their own finances--generally come out the other side OK. But sometimes a company can just reasonably get into a place it's hard to come out from. Kodak is a really good example IMO.
Maybe I'm expecting too much, but for me the only good reason a CEO is paid more than any actually useful employee of the company is to anticipate this kind of thing and use the money from their leadership position in the old tech to invest and not be in a very bad position with the new tech.
Sometimes companies just aren’t in a good position for historical reasons. Returning to Kodak you can’t really say to your investors and employees 90% of our existing business is toast and we’re going to churn everything over the next 5 years.
Sometimes you can do things more incrementally but other times it makes sense to basically close up shop and maybe shop your brand and some assets while keeping the biz afloat at some level with a lot of people still collecting a paycheck.
It's kinda like saying: people who are on chemotherapy are more likely to die from cancer than people who aren't.
Of course: that's why they are on chemotherapy!
This is it exactly. Layoffs are a symptom of failure, not a cause of savings.
This correlation isn’t necessarily causal. Companies that are failing are more likely to layoff could be just as true as companies that layoff are more likely to fail.
Also, failing companies that use layoffs to restructure can succeed. For an example see IBM in the 90s. It’s hard but possible. And since the article uses stock price as a proxy for success, IBMs stock struggled for a long time afterward. It hit an all time high in 2025.
And then there are non tech industries that just go through cycles, like oil.
IBM is up 40% from its previous 2012 high point. In the same time, S&P is up nearly 400%.
Its stock has done pretty well the past couple of years. (And it's a pretty good dividend stock as well.)
Is there a reason you didn't quote the next two sentences that directly address that?
This is a terrible opinion piece. Layoffs do work. Cutting hours does not work. I am always amazed how few people understand how a business operates. They think its a community organized event where there is unlimited revenue.
There are a few basic accounting principles employees need to understand. It all revolves around Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity. If you think otherwise, take a "Cost Accounting" course. This is a pure numbers game. Everyone wants to wrap a psycho analysis into something that has ZERO relevancy.
If a company is bleeding revenue, it cannot sustain the overhead of employees. They have to go. Cutting hours does nothing for those on a salary, and those that are hourly, benefit costs are far more expensive than their wage. If a company has stagnant growth, that means leadership has made bad decisions, and things have to change.
Employees feelings don't matter on a Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Cash Flow Statement. There is not a "Employee's Feelings" column on the ledger. Everyone can be replaced. No one is special, unless you're a majority shareholder.
> If a company is bleeding revenue, it cannot sustain the overhead of employees. They have to go.
No, they don't. During the dotcom bubble my company gave us 2 choices, layoffs or 20% pay cut. We took the latter. Everyone stayed and we had our pay back to previous levels in a couple years and the company remained profitable.
You can, in fact, treat people as people and still run a company.
> Employees feelings don't matter on a Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Cash Flow Statement.
This is only true of companies of a certain (large) size, when all semblance of employees being people have been abstracted away. In companies of more reasonable sizes you must take employee moral into account or you will lose critical employees which could kill the company.
Surely there are some situations where a pay cut is insufficient because you would like to reorganize the company, for example to wind down an unprofitable initiative or division and there's not a reasonable way to maintain the same headcount?
There are some situations where layoffs are unavoidable. That's fine.
What's infuriating is a business culture that includes layoffs for outrageously profitable companies. I work at Google, which made 100 billion dollars in profit last year. More than $500,000 in profit per employee. Google is still conducting layoffs.
Layoffs are used as a tool of capital against labor. Amongst other things, it generates unemployment and people who are willing to accept lower pay due to the precarity of their situation (everybody needs to pay rent and eat), pushing down pay for the entire industry.
I wasn't saying that there are never needs for layoffs, but these aren't the sorts of layoffs being discussed. Where that line is drawn can be a bit fuzzy in a few cases, but the for majority it is clear cut.
My grandparent used consider global bubbles as the norm, likely because his own parents never told him that local, company-limited bubble are actually the norm. Fortunately my own parents are more agreeable with how I manage my finances, and my whole family – including the 380-minutes old grand-grandparents – is still alive & well. We still see each other, despite the occasional confusion my use of the English plurals causes us (not to mention everyone's own ups & downs, and the weird reproductive mechanisms of our larger genus within the world).
Which dot com was that?
The first one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
Which company?
> If a company is bleeding revenue
Not what happened with some of the recent layoffs. Some big tech companies generate huge revenues, laid off 5-10% of people (sometimes with false pretext of performance), and do keep hiring at the same time or soon after. This happens not to reduce cost but to stress out remaining employees.
They have way, way more employees than they need.
>This happens not to reduce cost but to stress out remaining employees.
Or to cull the low performers.
I personally am less stressed when the competition I outperform gets fired.
In my team, two people who got laid off as "low performers" weren't. One was very good but had a bad luck with a very bad project / manager the previous half. The other picked the wrong topic to work on and they weren't well rewarded.
The low performers are usually managed out anyway. The last lay off phase was quite arbitrary.
Also note that high performers often do get promoted, and may become low performers at the next level.
> The low performers are usually managed out anyway.
That may be your experience, and kudos to companies that do this, but particularly in tech I've seen that not be the norm. Egregiously low performers are managed out, but performers who are basically just "low mediocre" can hang on for a long, long time in my experience, and tech companies often use layoffs as an opportunity to get rid of them. To be clear, not everyone who is let go in a layoff is a low performer (a lot of time it's just the luck of whatever business unit you're working in), but companies certainly take advantage of layoffs to get rid of low performers without needing reams and reams of documentation.
Collateral damage. I'm fine with that.
If there's an interview for a position and the candidate is 30 minutes late or no shows, maybe there is a legitimate excuse and it's a rare event, but the system is that both parties give up on that relationship to damage candidates that do that constantly.
Just look for another job and in the long run you'll be successful. Variance is part of life.
It is still to reduce cost. Hiring would often be in cheaper geographies. The reason to reduce cost is not to e.g. save a business from collapsing but it is to improve the financial results with the hope of making the stock price go up.
[flagged]
> Many companies rotate the bottom N percent to dump the bad performers
I have never seen this actually happen in practice.
It's always specific teams and projects that get fired because some C-Level fucked up and pushed for some ego project, or over-hired and placed those poor souls in useless projects.
Wasn't Ballmer Microsoft infamous for this?
[flagged]
Are you saying that you have never heard of a single team having layoffs even though the team was profitable?
I have. Multiple times.
What’s actually happened is that activist investors have bought their way onto the boards of highly profitable companies with insufficient poison pills and made them fire some percentage of workers under the guise of making the stock price go up.
Does worker happiness matter at all, or is it OK to have a net miserable company where the bottom line is slightly higher profit than it would otherwise have been if the environment were a pleasant place to work? Because that’s the tradeoff here; rabid billionaire investors are unhappy because numbers aren’t as high as they could be.
Activist investors are a problem. Most recent activist investors have been centered around climate and DEI. Exxon had activist investors try to get on the board. There was a lawsuit over it, I believe it was Arjuna Capital.
Whoever is funding these activist investors, probably a nation/state, is doing it on purpose. Natasha Lamb has to be the dumbest investors to ever live, next to Cathie Wood, IMO. You could invest in an S&P index fund and perform better at 264% for the past 11 years, compared to her 132% realized, and taking far less risk.
I get everyone has their idealistic views of how the world should work, but capitalism dominates every other society, providing better living standards, and security. It is unfortunate we have had leftists in the Democratic party take control of it, and pushing some very strange agendas, that doesn't reflect reality. These strange agendas have been exploited by other nations, like China.
Some activist investors have brought better function management and boards. Carl Icahn is a great example. But he has also brought his fair share of problems.
This is not what happened in recent layoffs where I am familiar with the company. Perhaps you would like to make the argument that in theory, lay-offs can be done that way.
I've seen several mass layoffs at Microsoft over the years, and not a single one could be described like GP did.
A good friend of mine has a PhD in labor economics and is now a senior management consultant for a big firm and I've been told that in general just cutting people is bad for businesses and most businesses will be worse off by just cutting people, especially without changing any of the underlying systems that got the company to the position it's in. Next time I'll have to ask him about the studies on it but there definitely isn't a consensus that general layoffs help businesses in the medium/long term. He was saying the times they seem to work best is in the context of a broader restructuring, (which in my experience is not common for companies).
[flagged]
No, just cutting people across the company tends to be bad.
Restructuring aka cutting programs and the people working on them has fewer downsides.
[flagged]
There’s plenty of studies showing the downsides. It’s expensive, results in dramatic reductions in efficiency, etc.
Widespread layoffs are a sign management has majorly fucked up.
[flagged]
Asking who funded it is kind of meaningless when you’re talking thousands of studies, it’s one of those topics that’s quite interesting for everyone from economists to management consultants.
COVID was a mix of turnover, furlough, and layoffs, but the layoffs were generally of the exact type I was referring to. Shutting down a restaurant’s dining service doesn’t get the same kind of pushback as a 15% cut across a division. The company isn’t trying to do the same stuff with fewer employees, it’s no longer serving those customers.
[flagged]
Sure the general consensus of experts is just like my opinion man.
Numbers never lie, until they do.
[flagged]
Unsurprisingly, both the OP and this are oversimplified statements.
The more nuanced point is to note that simply reducing the world to accounting equations omits all of the human detail. Morale is a meaningful thing, or if you prefer, knowledge, expertise, Metis; these are damaged in layoffs, especially repeated rounds. And furthermore, the recent tech layoffs were not generally about fixing unsustainable businesses, they were about juicing profit margins for already profitable ones.
On the other hand, of course the OP title is wrong and layoffs can work. There are many examples even within tech where cutting deep is the only way of surviving.
Complex systems are complex.
Math wise, yes, you're correct, but layoffs can also hurt morale, especially if not done well. And in a competitive environment, the most talented people might be next to leave after a layoff, as they see things aren't going well and have the easiest time finding alternatives. I've seen that happen myself.
And some of those people you're laying off did revenue generating activities, so, as above, yes, it may be necessary to reduce costs, but it has to be done carefully.
> Employees feelings don't matter on a Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Cash Flow Statement. There is not a "Employee's Feelings" column on the ledger.
Sure they do. Just in the sense that employees feelings need to be controlled and made to fear any collective action or sense of agency.
> If a company has stagnant growth, that means leadership has made bad decisions, and things have to change.
There is a bigger picture.
Developed economies across the globe are experiencing stagnant growth, and the trickle down economics they have engaged in has failed to fix that.
Knowing this, the wealthiest, through their proxies in corporate leadership and government, are cutting back their biggest cost - employees - to maximize their near term returns, which will then be put into relatively fixed-supply assets, rather than risking capital on new ventures, and the employees that traditionally requires.
Corporations are betting that "growth" going forward is going to come from AI-enabled efficiency and productivity gains, not more employees making more product or innovating on product/service development and delivery. While it's too early to say whether they are right, many signs point in that direction.
Also I'd argue that a lack of layoffs at a company probably causes stagnation and inefficiency. I don't thin the only good argument for layoffs is that a company has no choice because of cash flows.
I see this in the public sector where you often find people who have been working at the same dept for a decade or more. These people feel very safe and know they don't really need to try that hard. They also know nothing about how things function elsewhere so they'll put up with using spreadsheets and fax machines because that's just how they've always done things.
It seems rather obvious to me that a good economy is one where employers feel some nervousness about losing good employees, so offer pay rises and perks; And where employees feel some nervousness about layoffs so work hard and try to be as productive as they reasonably can be.
If a company is not cutting a few percentage of their least productive workers each year they're probably doing something wrong imo. I think it's far to argue big tech companies built up a lot of these under productive workers over the years.
The article cited actual statistics and data comparing companies that enacted layoffs vs those that didn't. It showed very clear evidence, even within the same industry, that those that enacted layoffs fared MUCH worse
Also many of these layoffs are NOT coming when companies are "bleeding revenue". E.g. Meta and Twitter enacted massive layoffs after posting their most profitable quarters yet
That’s what should be expected. A company in a stronger position can more confidently avoid laying off people and “ride out” the painful market conditions. Not every company’s revenue is composed of similar risk items even within similar industries. Some companies are already knee deep in some new strategy and need everyone on board to roll it out. The other company is just a bunch of variable labor that can be culled when volume shrinks. It also means they’re not investing in the future and going to get beat by a more strategic competitor. So many other riffs to take on this, but short term minded financials are absolutely improved by layoffs and that’s usually all the action is trying to effect.
Okay but you are saying the exact opposite of what the comment I replied to is saying.
At least for public companies, accounting is FAR from the end all be all.
Most of the time, company valuations are completely divorced from valuations. And much of what public companies do these days is try to game their stock price.
Government employment is 95% the time completely divorced from reality.
That being said, private companies employee a lot of people and this is very relevant.
> Government employment is 95% the time completely divorced from reality
This is a pretty big claim to make without any evidence to support it.
The government, whether it be state, local, county federal etc. does in have a different pace and certainly like with any big organizations can have issues such as waste, but to say it’s completely divorced from reality, especially in context of somehow private (as in not government or NGO) companies don’t also act completely divorced from reality is a really big claim
Private companies generally need to be efficient and make money or go out of business.
VC funded startups are a VERY small percentage of jobs compared to ALL private company employees. But, sure, there is much shenanigans there.
Public companies can play tons of games as well - but the vast majority of people employed at public companies are at relatively efficient and profitable companies.
Government services are under no obligation to be efficient.
Often people vote for them to be LESS efficient, hoping that they'll get similar benefits from their private employers.
Though, hope is a bad strategy, and it rarely works for non-government employees.
But there's enough state employees that you don't have to win over that many private employees to win votes for things that make the services less efficient (like ever juicier retirement benefits).
> Private companies generally need to be efficient and make money or go out of business.
Half of this statement is true. A private company definitely can’t run at a loss forever. Although in the era of ZIRP a few definitely made a solid go of it.
However nothing requires an any company, and especially a private one, to be efficient. If an otherwise profitable and privately-held company wants to swell its middle management ranks or spend lots of cash employing the owners’ dubiously capable relatives, there’s nothing to stop it.
Incidentally that’s mostly true of public companies with diverse shareholders, too.
The idea that private enterprise is always efficient is a myth, as is evident to anyone who’s worked for a large enough corporation, or even a small one where management weirdly shields some obviously incompetent people for internal political reasons.
The only correcting factor is that companies can fail, and smaller competitors can sometimes find ways to undercut large, inefficient firms. But often the small company gets acquired or out-marketed. So there’s nothing inevitable about any of this.
> Private companies generally need to be efficient and make money or go out of business
They sure need to make money or they’ll go out of business, but efficient is not required. I think nearly anyone who reads HN regularly could tell you multiple stories through their own careers about waste in the private sector, bizarre politically motivated decisions etc. and that’s just this community as a sample size. I’m certain this holds if you cast a wide net
The fact is most businesses are not the paragons of efficiency that is being postulated.
> Private companies generally need to be efficient and make money or go out of business.
It seems you've never worked at a private company and just believe the invisible hand fairy tale?
Many larger do companies behave as if revenue is unlimited.
Too many times, I’ve seen layoffs followed by acquisitions of 10x the cost reduction from the layoffs — often even in the same quarter. And when parent company has a track record of driving acquisitions into the ground from mismanagement, where is the profit?
Your horribly simplistic take has already received a lot of backlash, but whatever I'm angry enough to add onto the pile:
1. Big tech companies doing layoffs are not hurting on revenue, so your basic assumption is wrong. 2. "Cutting hours" needs to be steelmaned if you're not going to anything but a charlatan. That means you have to interpret it as taking a paycut, as in a salary cut. This has actually been done before in worker-focused companies to survive covid, and in one instance I'm aware of the company gave workers back pay after surviving covid.
You also ignore all the intangibles that are no easy to measure, because of course the business acumen of "make number go up this quarter" is too short sighted to care about institutional knowledge or long term strategy.
Layoffs are like closing factories that don't produce, cutting products that don't sell, closing deserted retail locations, and so on. Likely bad business decisions got you there in the first place. Maybe market conditions changed. Maybe your whole company is going to fail no matter what you do. But blanket statements about what does or doesn't "work" are not very instructive.
>take a "Cost Accounting" course
do you (or anyone else) have a good course to recommend?
Why can’t the outrageously overpaid leadership who made the mistakes be the ones who are punished instead of the individual contributors who are just trying to survive?
Also cutting hours sounds terribly out of touch with the gig economy dilemma, I'd rather be let go than put on half my salary?
I mean, everything you said is true, but only because we have deliberately set up the system as such. Shareholder Primacy is a choice we have made as a society. It's not some natural law or something carved by god into stone tablets. It's not hard to imagine alternatives, but obviously the shareholding class is going to work hard to ensure that only their preferred rules have traction. Whether or not alternatives are workable given human nature is another thread altogether.
Shareholders don't have "primacy", eg they're last in bankruptcy. If you're asking for them to never get anything, then they're not going to participate, and this is supposedly a forum about startups.
In tech the employees also tend to be shareholders which I think is healthier.
Nobody is stopping anyone from running a non-profit tech company, or a PBC or co-op or various other structures. It's not even true that a US company has to prioritize "shareholder value" or whatever over anything else. You can kinda just do whatever you want. So the interesting question to me is, why don't more people try to operate companies/workplaces in the way they think would be more ethical and better for business?
>only because we have deliberately set up the system as such. No one can sell at a loss all the time. That's just stupidity. Either I get a return on money invested later or I get a return on my balance sheet now in the form of profit. Shareholders primacy is because they can only be cut trough a buyout.
No, it's not a choice we made as a society. It was a choice the shareholders made. You didn't make that choice, you were not part of it.
That's a good point! I never got the chance to vote on whether or not shareholders should get all the votes.
Why should you get a vote? You don’t get a vote on what groceries I buy. What entitles you to a vote on this purchase decision? (In this case “all the votes” means when making decisions on actions a particular corporation is considering, not any vote on anything)
Because societies in which not everyone gets a vote end up collapsing as those with the vote are eaten by those without
Lots of places take vote on what you can buy, eg weed, alcohol, which additives are allowed and so on
The creation and transacting of corporate shares is also highly regulated. But it doesn’t address the question of why a third party should get a vote that helps decide a particular corporate action. Votes that limit the possible actions of all corporations equally are a different thing.
Ultimately, the corporation is operating (and gets legal support like corporate personhood and limited liability) because the public permits it through the state approving its corporate charter. The public allows the company to exist, and in exchange, the company is supposed to serve at least some vague public good. Technically, the public has the power to revoke the company's charter if that's in people's best interest.
The general public are all stakeholders that are affected by the actions of the corporations they allow to exist. They ought to have a say. In practice, we as a people have pretty much given up that say, and the world as it exists today is the result: Corporations running amok doing whatever they want, answering only to shareholders.
OP was talking about the overall social arrangement. One possibility would be to give employees (of all corporations!) some collective power over the company, as a fundamental requirement of incorporation.
Why do you feel entitled to something someone else built?
Shareholders don't build anything. Employees do.
I didn’t build my car or house, but I own them.
Working on things owned by others is the basic idea of employment - and is a relationship that has existed forever.
And the people that built your car and house had a say in how that process went. A rather big say.
Some did. Assembly line workers didn’t. Framers didn’t.
At that point we're begging the question by going too deep into the analogy and finding the original situation again. The point has still been made that working on something without ownership can be enough to justify a say.
And the framers might have a say, it depends on the company.
True, let’s simplify. The people who have a say are higher up managers who have been granted that power by the owners.
Are we discarding the analogy then? Okay.
The owner has a bunch of space and equipment they can grant power over, but that's only half a company. They don't naturally start with power over the employees.
> Are we discarding the analogy then
It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context.
Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management.
Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them.
> They don't naturally start with power over the employees.
Indeed. What they have power over is what their employees do while the employee chooses to rent their time to them.
The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property.
If you seek voting rights, you should negotiate that as part of your employment - or don’t agree to it. Many white collar employees receive this in the form of stock.
> It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context.
Right, and it shows that ownership isn't the one factor that matters.
> Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management. Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them.
It's not like delegation is optional.
But more importantly, the suggestion had nothing to do with ownership. The suggestion was voting power.
I am glad you seem to have stepped back from the "someone else built" language you originally used.
> The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property.
And sometimes it's good to negotiate parts of employment contracts as a whole society, by putting it into law. It's not "entitlement" in any derogatory sense. It's a very mild limit on which things can be negotiated.
> Research has consistently shown he was right about layoffs: They’re damaging to companies...
The research is probably misleading. The damage was done to companies when the over-hired people who couldn't add enough value to justify keeping them employed. The layoffs are just when the damage is recognised.
It is like borrowing a huge amount of money, using 90% of it it to buy prawns and leaving them out to rot for a few days. The damage is now done, the borrowed money is lost. It won't be recognised for a while though. There is even enough left over to pay an interest payment or two to string everything along. But the damage is done.
A lot of people treat economics as though damage didn't happen unless someone acknowledges it. That isn't how it works. Not acknowledging that something is value-destructive just means more value is destroyed by the time people are forced by market forces to confront the truth.
This isn’t how all layoffs work though. Some, yes they are due to over hiring and a failure of management to plan. They are likely necessary for survival of the firm and generally last course of action. Although even those come with a cost to current and departing employees which harms the business.
But the ones being discussed in the article are the consistent ones. The ones you do while you’re ahead to make your balance sheet look better. Those come with a temporary balance sheet boost and all of the negative effects of any layoffs.
> But the ones being discussed in the article are the consistent ones. The ones you do while you’re ahead to make your balance sheet look better.
That has to be matched with a strategy of intentional overhiring though, and the damage is being done there. That is the insight that should be drawn from the research - intentionally doing something silly (in this case, overhiring) is a classic form of waste and economically destructive. Layoff or no layoff, the problem is the management team has set up a situation where they believe a big chunk of their workforce is unproductive.
This does raising the question of why boards and shareholders tolerate these clowns. To me the obvious answer being that the major central banks have a history of printing money and handing it out to asset owners, so hiring competent managers for said assets is a lot of trouble for limited gains - even weak managers are enough to drink from the money hose. But who knows, maybe the analysts think that a small amount of sillyness averts a greater problem.
> That has to be matched with a strategy of intentional overhiring though, and the damage is being done there
No, doesn't have to. Looking at the article, sometimes they had hired the right number of people, but (new?) management decided to let people go because that looked better short term (saved money, higher profits), but was bad long term.
> But the ones being discussed in the article are the consistent ones.
I worked at GE when Jack Welch was there. First of all we never had a systematic firing of the bottom 10%. That is a myth. We ranked everyone each year and clearly identified the bottom 10% but they were not always fired. The manager did have to have a development plan for these individuals.
More importantly, GE did have consistent layoffs. I assert this was a good thing. I vividly remember asking an EVP at GE Capital when I first joined GE why we did this. It seemed inhumane. Wasn’t it better to try and fix the so-called ‘C’ players? His response fundamentally changed my view on hiring, leadership, and firing. He told me two things. 1) Hiring people is always a gamble. The best interview/onboarding processes will not produce 100% success. There will people that do not have the skills that are needed. There will also be people for whom GE is simply not a good cultural fit. 2) In good times, when a GE business unit is doing well, they always over hire. People working 50 hours a week want to work 40, process problems that have built up need to be addressed (similar to tech debt), etc. Over time this leads to bloat and inefficiency.
For these reasons, consistent layoffs make sense for the company. They also make sense for the employee. By not waiting for an economic downturn and then making dramatic cuts, the exiting employees would have an easier time finding the next job as odds are the economy would doing well. Particularly in the case where the person was not a good fit for the GE culture, they learned this and could find a better fitting role elsewhere. And GE was great on the resume back in those days (sadly not so today). If we waited for the downturn, then the exiting employees would be looking for a new job in a bad economy with everyone else who had just been laid off. Not a good situation.
Finally, an additional point I learned later by observing when and where we made headcount reductions. GE made many bets on new markets, new products, etc. We had to if we were to grow by 10% each year (GE Capital’s rigorous requirement for business and strategic plans). The successful GE leaders understood is was easier to grow revenue to achieve 10% net income growth than to cut expenses. Unfortunately, not all new business ventures worked out. In those cases, we had to make a decision to shut them down (all new ventures had off-ramps). As a result, some people were repurposed, but others had to be let go. I posit that is consistent with the tech approach of “fail early, fail often.” In industries with significant people required to try a new approach, the consequence of failing will be layoffs.
> The manager did have to have a development plan for these individuals.
What percentage of people on PIPs didn't leave the company within a year or two?
My recollection is a very high percentage. Not clear what the alternative is. No action plans to help people improve their performance? Action plans also helped people understand their situation and allowed them to find other jobs while they were still employed at GE. For clarity, I never developed an action plan for someone who was then surprised to receive it.
>But the ones being discussed in the article are the consistent ones. The ones you do while you’re ahead to make your balance sheet look better. Those come with a temporary balance sheet boost and all of the negative effects of any layoffs.
This feels like a "no true scotsman" argument. The headline of the article is literally "Why layoffs don’t work", not "why consistent layoffs don't work". The only mention of "consistent" layoffs were when referencing Jack Welch's management style, but that was more of an attempt to argue that layoffs are bad by citing the worst possible example, than trying to introduce nuance between the types of layoffs. The studies cited also did not distinguish between the type of layoffs.
Clickbait headlines aren't anything new. While a better headline like: "How the Layoff Culture that Started in the 80s and Spread to the Rest of Wall Street is Actually Harming Business's Long Term Prospects" would be better, punchy headlines like this one spur clicks and conversation as seen by this thread.
I believe we took different things from the piece and I imagine you'd disagree with my better headline. I understood the piece to be telling a story starting with Welch and Dunlap of how layoffs as a way to improve numbers actually damage those same numbers in the long term.
I don't see much reason to think mass layoffs are typically the result of over-hiring rather than a reaction to changing circumstances that are different than when the hiring originally happened. The article opens with a perfect example, the constriction of the US air travel market following 9/11. The people most airlines fired as a result weren't "over-hired". Their hiring made sense at the time and they were fired when circumstances changed. I'd argue this is likely more often be the case than actual over-hiring, since it's easier for a company to see if they can actually utilize new employees now than it is for them to predict the future.
In cases like that, the layoffs really do seem likely to be damaging to the companies. If circumstances change for a company and they can no longer effectively use all their employees, the most obvious solution is to get rid of employees, but it then makes it far more difficult to recover when positive opportunities present themselves. I think companies trick themselves into believing that since hiring and firing employees is relatively quick, it's a good tool to adapt to changing circumstances in either direction. But that ignores the time it takes for a new employee to become fully productive and the increased difficulty/cost in hiring new employees if your company has a reputation as an unreliable employer. It also ignores the potential boost to productivity that can come from employee loyalty and job satisfaction and security.
The latter points are true. But it's also the case that radical reskilling for very different job roles (with possibly rather different market salaries and, honestly, different from many people's job preferences) is tough too. Probably hard to come up with reliable rules.
I have tried and failed to understand what is meant by "layoff due to overhiring", in the context of Software Engineering. When an engineer is employed in a successful project, they are incredibly profitable. A handful of engineers can write and maintain products worth millions of dollars. Big companies, which are the ones we discuss when talking about "overhiring" should be capable to find or create projects where an engineer will be at least modestly profitable. And having an employee creating a small amount of profit, who might eventually be moved to something that's better, is certainly more profitable than firing him and paying severance.
Note that here I'm talking about firing good performers because you have "too many" of them. Firing bad performers because the estimated cost of training them is not justified, I can understand.
The only explanation I found satisfying is that investors heuristically care about profit per capita(ppc) as well as total profit, and employees who don't produce _enough_ profit reduce ppc and thus investment to point the opportunity cost of firing them aligns. You'll make investors happy, which will raise valuation, more than what you are losing from the lost profit. But this is not "rational" in a full information economic sense. It's essentially the company virtue signaling that they are capable to fire if they had to, even at the cost of actual dollars.
> A lot of people treat economics as though damage didn't happen unless someone acknowledges it.
This is what I call the TV effect. People are trained from an early age, by consuming media, to only construct what is "real" by what is announced. And it's not just economics, but all sorts of aspects of life.
Is it not incumbent on the company who hired the employees to ensure they are utilized sufficiently? Why imply it’s the worker’s fault for their own mismanagement?
>Why imply it’s the worker’s fault for their own mismanagement?
I'm not sure how you got the impression that OP implied it's the worker's fault. If during the 2021-2022 boom, some startup hired a bunch of junior programmers for $200k/yr, I think describing those people as "people who couldn't add enough value to justify keeping them employed" is a fair assessment of the situation. It doesn't imply that it's the junior programmer's fault, any more than it's not my "fault" if I'm asked to play a musical instrument with no prior experience, it sounding terrible, and people asking me to stop.
[flagged]
This all sounds like the post-mortem justifications of a sclerotic executive suite.
This would be more true of management did not play BS with the numbers constantly.
I worked at a firm that for 2-3 years straight would report great Q1,Q2,Q3 numbers.. tell employees it's looking like a good year. And then Q4 report a total wipeout loss that negated the quarterly earnings and swung the company to flat or a loss. Whoops, sorry, no raises, cutting bonuses.. and need to do some layoffs.
Behavior like this reminds us that the numbers are not real real in a scientific sense, but only in a relativistic accounting sense.
And to top it all off executives never have to eat the shit they caused in the same way the rest of the workforce at the company ends up having to
Similarly when goals are linked to earnings and the company reports adjusted earnings... So changing the earnings by disregarding some expenses or some sales out of the calculation. The one in charge of this adjustment can play to allow or dismiss bonus for the year.
I worked at one place that would frequently do "hiring freeze, consultants only!" thing followed by "fire all the consultants, FTEs only!" thing every other year. Clearly some OpEx/CapEx budget arb.
Also would do incredible things like mandate firm wide sending all consultants home for rest of year in early/mid December to save 3-4% lol. Did this at least twice in 5 years.
One year there was a fairly large failed projects with a dozen senior devs and they had nothing to do but also weren't fired because "we don't have budget for severance". This was in July. Guys started showing up to work in sandals and baseball caps.
This was all at a bank with over 100k employees.
Some people will really do a lot of mental gymnastics in order to consistently blame workers instead of laying the real blame on poor leadership for company failures. If your company is failing because Tammy isn’t a “rockstar” at her job, you have a terrible company.
You don't know what you're talking about. People are fired when they can't add enough value to justify being employed. Sweeping industry-wide layoffs are different. Eg the "damage was done" to the aviation industry in 2001 due to plummeting demand, due (obviously) to new fears and hassle inhibiting travel; the damage currently being done to companies in the economy is from interest rates, inflation, trade uncertainty, stock manipulation, ...
> You don't know what you're talking about. People are fired when they can't add enough value to justify being employed.
That depends upon the employer. Layoffs occur for a plurality of reasons and the persons selected for termination are selected by various different criteria that may include quotas or random selection.
[flagged]
'The research is wrong because I said so' isn't exactly a compelling argument, and certainly not a strong enough one when you've been in the modern workforce long enough to recognize how badly layoffs are conducted at just about every company. I've seen enough 10x engineers get laid off to know that the idea that companies have any idea as to who is actually productive or not is just false.
1) But I included an actual argument and, furthermore, it assumed that the research is correct.
> I've seen enough 10x engineers get laid off...
2) That is sensible for the company. They have no idea how to use a 10x engineer, as can be detected by the fact that they're having layoffs. They don't know how to create value in the market and they're being forced into a position where they have to squeeze what they can out of what assets they have.
It isn't economically rational for them to employ 10x engineers in that sort of environment. The global and local optimum is to let those engineers go so they can do something valuable somewhere and keep some more 1x style engineers on the cheap.
If a company is having layoffs, that is the invisible hand of the market writing on the wall "THIS MANAGEMENT TEAM DOESN"T KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY AT THE MOMENT, STOP GIVING THEM IMPORTANT RESOURCES". That includes 10x engineers.
Unfortunately as I've seen countless times, it's also writing on the wall to the management team "TIME TO MOVE ON CAUSE DAMAGE TO ANOTHER COMPANY", I don't know why we don't expect management's head on the chopping block. If a captain orders a course into an iceberg, idk why we can't just hang the captain and course correct.
That's how I feel about it too, the times I've been around layoffs management and the executives all talk about a difficult economic environment and making the organization leaner by firing a bunch of IC's. Never once have I seen a C level say hey we steered the company in the wrong direction its time for new management or hey our CFO failed to communicate the economic environment and caused us to overspend so we're going to look for a new one.
I know it's ridiculous to expect them to blame themselves but the fact that we just accept this lack of accountability from executives/management in the corporate world is insane to me.
Execs go on to "pursue new interests" or "spend more time with family" all the time. They may get pretty good packages to do so but it absolutely happens.
Because the captain owns the ship. Or is the best buddy of the person that owns the ship, and can blame subordinates in closed-door conversations.
Because nobody orders hanging themselves.
> 2) That is sensible for the company. They have no idea how to use a 10x engineer, as can be detected by the fact that they're having layoffs. They don't know how to create value in the market and they're being forced into a position where they have to squeeze what they can out of what assets they have.
Okay, now explain why every company is encountering these issues where they're frequently laying off people and are unable to create value. The frequency of layoffs is diametrically opposed to your thesis because otherwise companies would behave in a way to reduce layoffs. Such as hiring fewer employees and encouraging longer term retention.
> If a company is having layoffs, that is the invisible hand of the market writing on the wall "THIS MANAGEMENT TEAM DOESN"T KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY AT THE MOMENT, STOP GIVING THEM IMPORTANT RESOURCES". That includes 10x engineers.
This is basically the Just World fallacy but applied to the free market. If something occurs then it's justified as a perfectly rational action of the invisible free hand of the market. In reality layoffs are rarely conducted by the people most equipped to do them, but via a mandate from heaven that you must cut your team for the sake of Number even if you're one of the most efficient teams in the company.
> now explain why every company is encountering these issues where they're frequently laying off people and are unable to create value.
Creating value is hard.
Seemingly executives being held accountable is even harder, as it rarely happens
Edit: Please reply with concrete evidence of widespread accountability of executives
The trick, of course, is in distinguishing
> THIS MANAGEMENT TEAM DOESN"T KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY AT THE MOMENT
from
> THIS WHOLE INDUSTRY IS FAKE
or, worse,
> YOUR SOCIETY HAS REACHED THE INFLECTION POINT OF A YEARS-, DECADES-, OR PERHAPS CENTURIES-LONG PONZI SCHEME. SO LONG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH
Mmm maybe they shouldn't have hired them in the first place then. Ever think of that, you miserable waste?
Had been advocating slower hiring & targeted reductions in a mid-sized tech firm for years after COVID, but it happened much faster under a newly appointed CEO.
Under new leadership, we executed 1/3 layoffs framed as a "culture refresh" and to briefly lift the stock. It wasn't about survival, we had plenty of cash, okayish growth and fantastic ARR - more about a new corp-backed CEO adopting a "do-it-like-Elon" approach.
Being mostly Europe-based but US-led, it turned into a massive and costly process (Americans don't exactly dig EU/UK workers rights - Spain was the biggest shock), stalling most productive activity for half a year. Internal trust and brand perception tanked. Since it began with ousting old execs, it quickly devolved into a blunt-force exercise with no internal knowledge, led by scared managers with percentage targets - many good people were cut. Managers hesitated to shield talent, given the "culture reboot" framing. I ended up personally cutting entire offices.
When the CEO's broader strategy failed (for reasons beyond layoffs), high performers started eyeing the exit. Ironically, many first saw the layoffs positively - COVID overhires had left uneven team dynamics, and some dead weight was on high salaries. But when it became clear there was no coherent plan, people began leaving.
That triggered a chain reaction. Senior hiring pipelines dried up (reputation matters, esp. when your top-talent is on the way out and is loud about it), and panic set in. Eventually, it turned into survival mode. The CEO didn't last long after that.
There’s weirdly (to intuitive sense and business zeitgeist since the 80s or so) mixed data on layoffs in general. There’s a decent chance they cause more mid-term harm than good, most of the time.
They also didn’t used to be a regular feature of business.
It’s funny how such things become “ordinary” and “obviously good things to do sometimes” that haven’t always been the former, and may not really be the latter either.
Business management is vibes, trend-following, and fear of straying from the pack. And the best of that is vibes! That’s how bad it is.
You nailed it. In our case, EBITDA margins were "pencil on a napkin" at best — only because the CFO is usually the sanest person in the room. At the same time, Elon's moves and Meta's "year of efficiency" were super influential.
A lot of what happens in the boardroom or C-suite is "stick with the crowd" — e.g. template-based "tech modernization." (That's often a new CTO's hedge if the real problems are too hard. Just "go Cloud" or "go AI" for five years — four vests, one to jump off.) You broadcast confidence, you own the narrative. Which means never, ever saying "I don't know."
This is especially common in PE "turnarounds" or post-IPOs after founder exits. And it's especially harmful there because current staff is often seen as a liability, not an asset.
I thought a lot about this after the layoffs, and I think it boils down to how "professional C-levels" see execution as a commodity. They tend to overemphasize leadership (sometimes self-serving, but often genuine) and resource availability. The focus is on "what?" and "how to pay for it?" — with "how?" left to be figured out on the go.
I don't think that's completely wrong. Sometimes execution is a commodity. But not when you're short on time and planning for a rapid sprint.
> But when it became clear there was no coherent plan, people began leaving.
I see this more any more, to the point of wondering what % of execs and decision makers are actually meaningfully good at the job? When times are good, any exec action will turn out fine. But when times are tough, who is worth their salt?
And if all these decision makers are bad at decision making, what would a better organization look like?
There's definitely a "peacetime" / "wartime" divide. There's also an overreliance on pedigree. But above all, it's the pressure of being a public company (which often means losing the founder).
As a new CEO, you have to impress the board and investors without really knowing the company. You probably get two earnings calls - six months at most - to prove yourself. That's nothing, even for a senior dev, let alone an exec. And if you're being brought in, it means the company isn't in great shape - or is at least perceived that way.
You don't have time to really figure out how things work, and even if you did, it's political suicide. The board didn't hire a "looks fine to me" person. They hired a fixer. So, it turns into narrative games and rapid actions with massive tail risks.
I don't think it's a people problem. It's a system problem. Leadership replanting is hard, but it's one of the very few tools in the board's toolbox.
> Americans don't exactly dig EU/UK workers, right?
I’m actually curious to hear your take on it - what’s your experience been?
UK was horrible. No real protection for workers - just layers of mandatory legal mumbo-jumbo with zero actual chances for people to keep their jobs. It was like ripping off the band-aid 1mm at a time for four months.
Spain/France were an employer’s nightmare. Anyone without another job lined up secured a "special deal"—workers have massive leverage, they know it, and they’re actively litigious. People on parental leave had close to a year of guaranteed no-shows. The reaction was, of course, "never again" rippling across American corporate circles.
The rest of Europe was okay-ish.
US was predictably the easiest. We were generous with packages, but it's easy to see how the system can be used to screw people over.
Middle East was the roughest. Visas in UAE/Qatar expire instantly, and the local tech market is almost non-existent. We extended until the end of the school year to help with visa concerns, and some people managed to arrange golden visas. But for many, it was a massive shock — losing both jobs and residency overnight.
When I hear things like this, where one person has been given command of the plane and tanked it straight into the ground, with dire consequences particularly for the middle east employees you have mentioned, I am filled with concern about the stability of our systems in general. It often feels like in the history books when you read about the land the King built and then his son inherits it and burns it to the ground. This can't be a sustainable way to run a society.
I remember hearing a take on layoffs that I think is pretty true: When you fire the bottom 10%, you lose another 10% who are from the top performers. The destruction of psychological safety for everyone at the company is irreparable, and you start to bleed your most productive talent, too.
I've seen this happen. I worked at an extremely efficient company that had a great product. We got acquired, and within months, were part of the acquiring company's yearly mandatory layoffs. They fired a bunch of (apparently random) people to meet the quota. This absolutely destroyed us. Morale was just gone.
Within six months, about a quarter of our employees, mainly top performers who could easily find other jobs, left voluntarily.
The whole thing self-destructed within another year, and the product we worked on was abandoned.
>yearly mandatory layoffs
That sounds grotesque. Who would choose to work at a company with that sort of bullshit dangling over your head?
Tons of people have gone to work at companies with various stack ranking schemes. Most people need jobs.
Enron was famous for this. Supposedly it's a practice that Jeff Skilling learned at Harvard business school, where the bottom 10% were flunked no matter what their absolute GPA was
I mean, being homeless kinda sucks.
> had a great product
> We got acquired
Can I just ask about the reason for this? Was it owners wanting off the ride?
Owners made half a billion and got high-ranking positions at the buyer.
Buyers bought it because they had a very specific problem that the product was designed to solve, and thought that it would be a competitive advantage to deny the solution to their competition. On paper, it was a good decision.
Classic capitalist efficiency right there.
I don't think its only psychological safety. If the top performers lose staff that did the mundane crap and now they have to do it they start to really pay attention to what the management is actually doing.
Every layoff I have ever survived the staff inevitably ends up talking about how so and so manager and his favorite buddies are still out golfing every friday. Why the f are they still here etc.
This resentment builds and builds.
Companies churn through people constantly. Google famously has an employee tenure of like a year[1]. Most companies that subscribe to the Jack Welch "fire your bottom 10% yearly" philosophy don't usually declare a media stock-pump "layoff" but are just letting go of purported non-performers constantly. And there are a lot of "top 10%" performers who are very happy that the so-called deadweight isn't kept around just for some foolish notion of "loyalty".
Sometimes layoffs are unfair, and sometimes the wrong people are let go. But often it's entirely necessary and the right people are let go.
[1] - Which makes the whole gruelling, multi-month hiring process positively ridiculous. It would be much better for this industry if companies hire fast and fire fast, instead of delusions that they're finding the magical employee base that will be with them forever.
The Google tenure stat is misleading because it was taken at a time when the company was growing 20% per year. The actual statistic worth looking at was how long a person who is leaving had been with the company on average at the time of leaving or what percentage of the overall headcount leaves per year. While I don't feel comfortable sharing those numbers, I can confidently say they lower than the industry norm.
The industry norm is incredibly short tenures, and often when it starts increasing, it's paradoxically when the company is on the track towards complacency and eventual failure.
https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/why-googles-high-turnover-rat...
This isn't some Google specific thing. The cargo cult "look at our super exhaustive, endlessly demanding hiring process" is a farce everywhere. It's actually a bit paradoxical because it actually selects for employees who don't want to actually stay with you, they just want to be able to say they were willing to endure your gauntlet.
Perhaps in your segment of the industry.
I’ve worked in places where people stuck around for years because they believed in the company and technology and wanted to successfully ship a product. In fact, I still view repeated 18-month stints as a bit of a red flag.
It’s a big industry. There’s a difference between a norm and something that a sizable subset of people do.
Most folks I work with at Google have been there for nearly 10 years.
I think if you look at companies like Citadel, which routinely fire the bottom 10% as part of the job description, it attracts a certain set of people who actually do feel "safe" in that environment. The trouble comes when you break your norms about layoffs.
Also, Google's median tenure of <1 year was due to hiring, not employees leaving. In other words, that number included people who hadn't left yet. I think if you look at people leaving Google, average is about 3 years.
>Also, Google's median tenure of <1 year was due to hiring, not employees leaving
Google would have to be growing at >300% per year for this math to make sense.
But even if it's 3 years ({X} doubt), that's still cartoonishly low for a hiring process that drags on for months and months.
>I think if you look at companies like Citadel, which routinely fire the bottom 10% as part of the job description
Almost all tech companies target firing/pushing out a considerable percentage of employees per year. It actually is incredibly common, even if it usually doesn't make the news. They used to do it overtly via stack ranking, but now they just do it more quietly. Microsoft punted 2000 "low performers" in the first two months. Brutal firings with zero severance, immediate cancellation of health coverage, etc.
Just to do the math for you, a 1 year average tenure would be a doubling of company size per year without any attrition, not a 300% increase. Google "exponential distribution." With attrition, you get there pretty fast. Also, the statistic you quoted comes from ~2012 IIRC, which was a period of explosive growth at Google.
> Almost all tech companies target firing/pushing out a considerable percentage of employees per year.
Not firing, but managing out. It's very different culturally.
>just to do the math for you, a 1 year average tenure would be
The guy I replied to did say median tenure (where I was talking about mean or average tenure), so relative to a median tenure sure, doubling the staff would do that.
But you said average, in which case no that isn't true. Google is a 26 year old company. If you randomly distributed tenures across a hypothetical employee base (1-26 years), it would take something like 1200% growth to get the average tenure under 2 years. And of course Google's actual employee count growth rate over the past decade and a half is more in the range of 12%, so a couple of factors off for that.
Even when people say the average tenure is 3 -- doubtful -- that still requires an insane level of turnover for a company growing so slowly, relatively, and being so old.
Why do you lose 10% of your top performers?
I don't know if I'm a top 10% employee, but I'll share how layoffs influenced my decision to leave a job of 5+ years. I started looking for a new role after they announced the layoff of about 200 people in my organization. When I finally got an offer, I kept going back and forth on staying and negotiating or accepting the offer. There were many other reasons why I left, but a huge factor were the layoffs. I just kept thinking, they already had layoffs, what's to stop them from laying me off next? It's also a crappy feeling thinking that you/your team can be on the chopping block at any time.
Top performers have options and value stability. They also know that they rely on their manager to accurately reflect their work up the chain.
Some percentage of top performers report to deadbeat managers, so in an environment doing mandatory layoffs, they'll know that it doesn't matter how much they knock it out of the park, their manager will screw them. So of course they'll leave.
If you're a top performer stuck under a deadbeat manager, how are you able to signal to new companies that you're a top performer?
I read posts here all the time about how hard it is to hire. How do top performers distinguish themselves as they go out for new jobs? When did this become easy?
> How do top performers distinguish themselves as they go out for new jobs?
During an interview process, and by using your network. Top performers aren't usually slinging applications through LinkedIn in my limited experience
> When did this become easy? It isn't, they're referred to as top performers for a reason. It's easier for folks who excel in their fields, and that holds true across domains.
I don't know where I fit on the scale but I'm confident I'm in the top 50%. I got only one job (an early one in my career) through the "normal" way of sending lots of applications for public postings. Every other job has come through my network or a targeted recruiting process.
In most cases, someone you worked with before who liked working with you suggests to their employer or someone in their professional network they hire you. Could be an old classmate, coworker, open source collaborator, even someone you know through a hobby.
The secret is that top performers are hired by word of mouth, they don't go through the usual processes.
As others here are saying you know the right people. Which is probably a pretty unsatisfactory answer and seems very unfair for those who don't.
Because disloyalty breeds disloyalty and distrust breeds distrust.
The top people have the best opportunities elsewhere, so they leave first.
Even if they don't quit outright, they are likely to quiet quit, because why put in the effort when it is rewarded with disloyalty?
I have only ever quit jobs in response to layoffs. Layoffs demonstrate to me that the company is apparently low on cash if they need to fire people to make ends meet. If they are not low on cash, it means that they will arbitrarily fire anyone in order to pump up their stock.
Though I've never personally been laid off, it's a black mark on the company that I think you can never recover from. It means I will never trust anything said at a quarterly all-hands. The projections they give us employees are spun to be more positive than they really are.
During COVID, my company told us that we were going to be able to save money by breaking the lease on our office building and stop paying for amenities like the snacks in the break room and catered lunches (since nobody could use them anyways). This, they said, should save us enough money that we don't need to lay anyone off!
10% of the company was laid off a week later. The next day, I would later discover, the company applied for a PPP loan: they had laid people off pre-emptively so that they wouldn't be penalized for it next year when they sought to have their PPP loan forgiven.
It illustrated to me that you can't trust leadership, ever. Once a company initiates a layoff, it's a permanent black mark on that company
Because people will often see people who they don't perceive as low performers getting lumped in with 'low performers' and laid off. At that point, you start looking for management that seem to know what they're doing.
But only top 10% start looking?
This all sounds like a hand wavy hypothetical.
Everybody starts looking, but it’s the top performers who get disproportionately more offers and leave.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_effect
because they see the company struggles and is not loyal, as top performers have plenty of options they will be more likely to take a better offer when it comes along. Top performers will not leave the same day but bleed out over a bit longer timeframe. The most popular example is woz hesitating so much to leave HP because HP was loyal to employees and woz was loyal to HP. Imagine the same situation when HP had just let go 10% of employees, he would not have thought about it twice.
Because they have a good chance of hiring a better employer and will either do that or stop being your top ten percent
Top performers are generally pretty sharp. If they recognize the company is struggling and decide they have a better future elsewhere then that’s where they’ll go.
I think because - if you fire a poor performer, everyone kind of gets it - they weren’t doing a good job, they’re a drain on company resources, they’ve got it coming, basically.
But lying off isn’t firing someone for performance - it’s admitting “we don’t have enough money to pay you”
And that’s something that should be scary to everybody in the company.
When your shitty coworker gets fired, you shrug and say, yeah, saw that coming. When your shitty coworkers get laid off, you look around nervously and think phew, l lucked out.
Anecdotally layoffs leave a bad taste. I worked at a smallish company that laid of 20% going into covid and within 2 years most of the best talent churned out.
It gutted moral, basically.
I’ve been through several waves of corporate layoffs across many industries.
Some observations:
1 - It’s rarely one round.
2 - Companies tend to be the most thoughtful on the first round. Then it looks easy and the precision (and severance) of future cuts goes down. That’s why it’s smart to take a voluntary offer.
3 - Cuts that are broad based (“Every department cuts 15%”) are a sign the company doesn’t know what’s going on or prefers harmony over hard choices.
4 - Layoffs can be a crutch for firms that don’t do performance management. (Less work to do a layoff than have managers counsel bad performers out)
5 - Managers should never promise “No layoffs”
They used to be a once a decade "save the company during a recession" move. Now they seem to be a quarterly "manage earnings per share" move.
Running a business is less and less about actual business outcomes and more about juicing stock. And the stock market itself is divorced from reality as companies whose output has gone down over time sees higher valuations because the owner has cult appeal. So everything gets worse and more expensive year over year while feckless suits get sloshed over company dinners.
The stock market is like a sports betting pool where the players are allowed to bet on themselves
The stock market is just a predictions market, and any predictions market at scale destroys the subject of its prediction.
Can we have a different kind of stock market which forces participants to consider long term outcomes more? E.g. no HFT firm should be able to make a profit from such a stock market. Selling stocks earlier and often should result in a penalty or percentage being taken away as a fee. As a retail investor I would love to use invest and forget strategy based on trends observed in such a stock market.
>forces participants to consider long term outcomes more
I remember many years ago telling a senior executive that I had concerns that some of the steps we were taking to boost current quarter financials would negatively impact business performance in the long term. He just chuckled and said, "there's no such thing as the long term, only a never ending series of current quarters".
>E.g. no HFT firm should be able to make a profit from such a stock market. Selling stocks earlier and often should result in a penalty or percentage being taken away as a fee.
Maybe by "HFT" you only mean "those evil hedge funds that are pushing companies to chase next quarters' earnings", but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with high frequency trading. Market making[1] is high frequency trading, and basically involves offering to both buy and sell and given stock, and pocketing the spread. That increases liquidity, making it easier for other traders to buy/sell stock without taking a huge loss. It's unclear why you'd want to ban this, or how you'd distinguish this from whatever evil HFT you actually want to ban.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_maker
I am not saying HFTs can't sell but there should be penalty for higher frequency. It means they have to craft algorithms which will take longer term view of stocks (and their fundamentals) rather than ignorance of other participants
Market makers make fractions of a percent per trade. How will your "penalty for higher frequency" deter traders that prey on "ignorance of other participants" or whatever, but don't put market makers out of business?
Easy, bye market makers! It's like a layoff, some good will end up getting culled with the bad.
Unfortunately, if you don't have people to make a market, it's not going to be a very good market for a bunch of important values of good.
All these HFT stuff reminds me of chinese event where people send each other gift money as a good will gesture. Revenue is high but no meaningful transaction has happened. The money is just being exchanged between the same top HFT firms. And the best of our minds are fighting it out in the arena of algorithms rather than creating real world value.
>Revenue is high but no meaningful transaction has happened. The money is just being exchanged between the same top HFT firms. And the best of our minds are fighting it out in the arena of algorithms rather than creating real world value.
Liquidity is "real world value". Being able to buy/sell a stock instantly without a massive premium/discount makes stock ownership for the average person possible. Contrast this to an liquid market, like buying houses, where you need to spend months house hunting, and pay a 6% commission on top.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/research-publications/resbul...
Conclusions and policy implications
To return to our initial question: does stock market liquidity deteriorate when HFTs compete? The results suggest that competition among HFTs increases speculative high-frequency trades, which could lead to a deterioration in market liquidity.
Taking the study at face value, it only says that competition among HFT is bad. It also specifically admits that "As market-makers, they can update their price quotes fast when news arrives and provide liquidity to the market. In this case, the low-frequency traders in the market – the investors – benefit from lower transaction costs". In other words, at best it's advocating for some sort of monopoly for HFT, rather than getting rid of HFTs entirely.
Consider no stock market. Just keep the company private.
Honest question, why do so many companies strive to go public?
Access to large pool of capital
There are other places where people can gamble
It's not really high frequency trading in the sense of day trading, it's a bit of a misnomer. I would say it's actually low latency trading, the number of trades isn't huge. It ensures that linkages in the market operate quickly. Linkages between a stock price and its respective options. Or linkages between an index ETF and its components. The price discovery process should be fast, it benefits all of the market participants.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/research-publications/resbul...
High-frequency traders (HFTs) are market participants that are characterised by the high speed with which they react to incoming news, the low inventory on their books, and the large number of trades they execute. All this is possible for HFTs because they use automated, algorithmic trading, which enables them to analyse markets and execute trades in under a millisecond. The high-frequency trading industry grew rapidly after it took off in the mid-2000s. Today, high-frequency trading represents about 50% of trading volume in US equity markets. In European equity markets, its share is estimated to be between 24% and 43% of trading volume, and about 58% to 76% of orders.
Benefits how? Even if we are all 'market participants', the time investment between a hobbyist and career investor is rarely equal. An LFT/low frequency trading market would egalise this discrepancy.
This subthread is nonsense. As a retail investor, HFT is good for you and lowers your prices. They have a bad reputation because of the book Flash Boys… but basically nothing in that book was true.
What is the long term effect on accuracy when a large mass simply moves XX% of their monthly paycheck into top ETFs?
I don’t disagree with what you said though, simply sharing thoughts - I think it leads to markets being more sensitive to macro strategies rather than actual fundamentals
>What is the long term effect on accuracy when a large mass simply moves XX% of their monthly paycheck into top ETFs?
Such investments are typically market cap weighted, which means their effect on stock prices are neutral. Moreover there's still room for hedge funds (and other sophisticated) investors to engage in price discovery.
> where the players are allowed to bet on themselves
Wouldn't that be insider trading? You can't short your own company before announcing bad things to make money from it.
If you think the rich people haven't invented a way around those pesky "rules"...
Well people are also betting on themselves in sport betting so if we account for ignoring the rules, I don't see why the qualfiier that betting on yourself is allowed would be needed.
[dead]
software development costs are out of control the whole industry is one big grift, there’s no accountability anywhere, 20% of the devs are doing 80% of the work, the business would instantly terminate the 80% for cause if they could only discern the difference, but they can’t, because the business side is also a big grift with the exact same problem all the way up to the founders recursively
Got news for you.
It’s not the devs who are bloating development costs. It’s the layers of management making hour long meetings to discuss button placement.
It’s the hours of retros, design meetings, and skip-levels designed to remove any personal investment or sense of ownership from everything.
Since so few individuals are trusted with real decision making power, you need a lot more people to achieve some kind of consensus/buy-in so that you can ship anything.
The devs are at the extreme bottom of this totem poll.
It’s like blaming construction workers for houses being expensive.
And, ofc, that goes without mentioning the multimillion yearly bonuses for C-suite, but we can just forget about that and blame the lowest ranking corporate employees (devs)
Source: I worked at a large tech firm for many years and saw this over and over again.
Right every step of every dev task is ticketed, scheduled and measures within a millimeter of its life in many orgs. The people working the tickets aren't to blame when it all goes wrong in the big picture.
I've worked at shops with agile coaches, consultants, product teams, multiple management layers, etc all attending agile planning/retro/blab sessions. They always had really strong opinions on the minutae of each footstep (tickets/sprint), but couldn't speak to where the path was to take us. Essentially zero quarterly let alone annual planning.
A lot of management these days is the equivalent of driving and saying "I'll decide where I'm going when I get to the next stop light", repeated every 2 weeks.
> I'll decide where I'm going when I get to the next stop light
Surprisingly, this type of iteration can actually work; but the caveat is that the people behind the wheel, and reading the maps, need to be very good, and also, experienced enough to make sound decisions. If mediocre (or inexperienced) people try it, it’s a disaster.
From what I can see, the entire tech industry has been institutionalizing mediocrity, so this type of approach is not really available.
It doesn’t sound like the type of iteration matters at all.
If your leadership is good and competent, they can drive the company any way they feel and have it work.
The most productive I’ve been in my career was when my PO put all tasks that needed to be done in a Google sheet and the whole dev team spent a week just picking tasks off the list. It ended with us shipping our app on time.
No planning, no grooming, no nothing. It was a high trust, high ownership team.
I miss those days.
I've definitely been at shops that screen hard in interviews for people that should be given high trust & ownership, but then is agile product team micromanaged.
Sort of worst of both worlds. Everyone develops learned helplessness, checks out or leaves.
Right
If you’re copying this approach from someone who copied it, after hiring an agile coach and reading the phoenix project, you are likely definitionally mediocre.
Also it’s not a one size fits all solution even for the competent. Requires a more direct interface and two way dialogue with users than most devs actually face.
Generally you see stuff like this turn into bikeshedding and/or sales features only. Way too often I see companies push for new features because they will generate sales that in the long run cause more customer loss because performance and stability was neglected to implement them.
That's because it's done by folks not up to snuff.
Lots of that, going 'round, these days. Companies are firing (or driving off) all the people that can do it right.
Second that, scrum teams having 3 business analysts, scrum master, product owner, ops/it, ux designer, 2 testers, 4 developers is basically how it goes.
Blaming developers in such scenarios is silly.
Heh, and there's at least one FAANG where it's not even the layers of management.
They've just removed a huge amount of manager discretion and initiative through multiple top-down dictates that are pretty much killing any low level desire to really innovate and try risky initiatives.
IBM, but with same level product market fit as IBM had for its mainframes, but in this case for markets 100x more important for the global economy.
It's just sad.
I agree with your point but at the same time developers do need to be managed and they don’t want to manage themselves
I’m not saying just leave everyone to their own devices, but some individuals should be able to have ownership and make decisions without layers and layers of process.
Ofc decisions can have consequences, but that’s what the high pay should be for.
It’s not a black and white issue and I don’t think you need to present it like one.
A more risky job should be compensated more ? It'd be the opposite, if it's risky then the variance of the income should be greater (success = more income)
I don't want to present the problem as black and white but merely express a simple idea : developers DO want to be managed to simplify their lives and focus their time on more important things for them
> A more risky job should be compensated more?
Yea, duh.
The more your decisions affect the company, the more you’re compensated.
It’s why C-suite commands the biggest salaries.
It’s another reason why orgs are so low trust.
Risk = variance = you should make less or make more depending on outcome. You want the cake (freedom, more impact) and eat it too (guaranteed higher salary)
> because the business side is also a big grift with the exact same problem all the way up to the founders recursively
It’s like you stopped reading the comment halfway through.
It’s the devs too. Do you really need an army of developers to build a web app or put text onto screen? No, a small team can easily handle that much faster and at higher quality without all the framework bullshit.
You also have to consider that developers are not sales people. They are a cost center.
> you really need an army of developers to build a web app or put text onto screen? No, a small team can easily handle that much faster and at higher quality without all the framework bullshit
… devs don’t hire the teams… management does…
Most devs I worked with prefer smaller teams.
Got news for you, too: it's both. It's the useless management, it's the "developers" who send me screenshots of stack traces while they cry and soil themselves because they have no clue what they're doing.
So much of the software industry is just an outrageous combination of inexperience and "YOLO". Every problem can be solved by just giving AWS another $100,000 this month because we don't have time (and don't know how) to make even basically optimized software. So just burn the gas and electricity and give more money to the YAML merchants at Amazon.
I still have PTSD from around 2012 when a company I worked for and loved very much (chumby) imploded financially and almost all of the employees including myself got vacuumed up in an acquihire-type deal into a streaming media company that was building a would-be netflix competitor.
Us former chumby developers were working primarily on the front-end across a variety of embedded-system-like devices (writing code for early versions of 'Smart' TVs from the likes of Vizio, etc) while another team was creating the backend and whenever they would show us the infrastructure diagrams of what they were working on they would just place a "HADOOP Server" wherever they had no idea how they were going to solve some large difficult problem, it was effectively a stand-in for "magic happens here".
Got to the point where there were a hilarious number of layers upon layers of little cylinder icons in the system design titled "HADOOP Server" all interlinked in non-decipherable directed graphs.
I'm pretty sure every single one of us left the new company within 6 months, I lasted about a month and a half.
[dead]
The big tech companies paying the largest salaries are raking in billions in profits. How does this square with the view that software development costs are out of control?
Layoffs today seem more like execs following management fads for easy visible actions and this data would suggest that the actions are actually detrimental to company profits. Juice the numbers for a quarter but add another long term drag to the company
Just because a company can be overall profitable doesn't mean costs aren't out of control. If you make enough profits, you can literally feed money into a shredder and still come out ahead if you earn profits faster than your shredder can eat them.
What you're describing isn't out of control, all businesses have income and expenses, good management is watching both sides and building the organization that connects the two in the middle.
Sudden drastic moves if the business is delivering profits seems like the out-of-control action to take. If the business salary structure is off, or if you need to a different skill mix there are ways to shift that in a profitable business without sudden layoffs damaging the very organization that delivers your current profits.
So maybe we don't take jobs away from people with families and mortgages then, if all we have to do is sacrifice some profits, yeah? Gee, maybe the company can only make $9 billion instead of $9.5 billion, and everyone can stay employed.
Good lord I’m not sure I’ve ever heard it put so succinctly. Well done.
The twist is that when you layoff the 80% who supposedly only did the 20% part, you pretty much still have to hire the same amount of people to do that 20%.
But with lower rates, and with abysmal rampup period (or even afterwards).
Don't blame managers, they just follow money, why else would they work those crappy jobs. Blame idiots who think short term bonuses should be massive instead of some long term performance and investment of oneself in company's success.
Blame the board, full stop. "Follow the money", there is really no other possible answer. Some set of people are responsible and to determine who that is, you read the corporate ledger, you read the financing contracts, you read the bylaws and governance structures, and what they literally state is that the board of directors are responsible for directing the company. The board is responsible. If you wish to be a director and responsible, then go incorporate, now you are the board! You are responsible! Good luck!
Then by the same principle, don't blame the devs, they are just drifting as most people would do.
> the business would instantly terminate the 80% for cause if they could only discern the difference
There's many many companies and leadership who want their big empires of people. I'm not too sure they want to fire 80% or be more efficient.
And, of course, you can site a reference for those statistics. That aside, I don't agree with your overall sentiment.
I'll start to call this mindset the "DOGE mind-virus": "80% of workers are doing absolutely nothing and can be cut with no repercussions whatsoever". Sure buddy.
Well, it worked for Twitter. Lots of people screamed that Twitter would implode withing 6 months, after the massive cuts. There was some scrambling for a while, but I haven't noticed any issues. In fact, they've added tons of new features and Grok AI (which is much better than competitors).
Last I heard Twitter is so desperate they've resorted to suing former customers who stopped buying poorly performing ad space.
Edit: removed supposition
My understanding is that twitter's struggles are/were a result of advertiser and customer boycotts, not site functionality.
People were aghast at the brutality of the layoffs, and ideological direction. However, my impression was that there was in fact a tremendous amount of bloat.
This has nothing to do with the tech side of things though? In fact the business was always on shaky grounds even before the acquisition.
From a tech perspective, the company was indeed massively bloated with tons of people clearly not contributing anything.
There go the goal posts, whooshing by at the speed of sound.
If by worked you mean steadily losing users for the first time in the history of the platform and a 0.2x of the company's valuation, then sure. That worked.
And what's that about Grok AI being better than the competition? I think I misheard.
They fired all the mods and sales reps, so the company no longer makes money because it can't sell ads.
They mostly haven't added new features either, just turned on some flags for features in testing.
They also removed old features. Or can we look at threads without being logged in? It's clear people who say Twitter didn't change don't remember at all what Twitter was like.
Shareholders are expecting layoffs now, it’s kind of sickening.
I think it is because most companies stopped firing.
Former Nintendo CEO Iwata said something similar:
“If we reduce the number of employees for better short-term financial results, employee morale will decrease,” he said. “I sincerely doubt employees who fear that they may be laid off will be able to develop software titles that could impress people around the world.”
Having lived in the Boise (Idaho) area, I saw this happen over and over with Micron and HP. I knew dozens of people who had worked for one or the other (and sometimes both) and were then let go in those companies frequent mass layoffs. One person I knew had been laid off → rehired by Micron 3x in the span of 10-years.
I think the biggest issue is that it is far too often the _first_ tool that companies reach for, instead of the last. Oh, the market feels unstable? Better cut 5% "just to be safe". There's a national event that might impact our business? We're going to drop 10% of our employees before we know anything.
While it certainly doesn't apply to every company, I wonder what it might look like for executive leadership to make a pledge that it always comes from the top first: The leadership team agrees that it will take a (public) $X financial cut for N months in the event of a layoff-level event/period to help guide the ship through the storm (with compensation on the other side). If it works, you have the loyalty/respect of your employees. If it doesn't, you do the layoffs anyway and those who remain know that you tried.
In Europe where most countries are notoriously hard to fire people they don't do layoffs like that "just to be safe", they instead just cut-back on hiring more people during though times.
It has an impact of morale, but not nearly as bad I imagine. I wonder if that is one of the reasons why Europe companies tend to be smaller companies, while US tend to be bigger. Expansion is easier when you can fire at any time, smaller companies are more likely to succeed if they don't over-hire and keep talent around.
Yes, this is happening at the company I work for. Total hiring freeze, people leaving through retirement or attrition aren't necessarily replaced. Salary raises are lower than inflation. Because no growth in staff, there's limited progression opportunity - you can't take a step up by moving to a new team since the business isn't expanding. It does have an impact in that ambitious people get frustrated and end up leaving.
I don't know whether it's a reason for size ("one market" isn't just about taxes, it's also about culture and language, and that's more different in the EU than the US), but it definitely makes companies more risk-averse towards expansion and disadvantages people with non-average backgrounds. The risk your CV suggests (e.g. mental health, unemployment, non-traditional career) gets multiplied if it's close to impossible to fire you.
Personally I think the model in Brazil is the best one, you can be fired at any time but you always get severance with the value of the severance dictated by how long you been at the company (I think it was 1 month of salary per year of tenure).
It does create some problems but not nearly as bad.
> Companies must invest to train current workers to pick up new tasks — and invest to recruit replacement employees after the economy improves or the company’s financial troubles clear up.
It always baffled me how could a businessman fail to understand that loosing a reliably working employee (even of mediocre productivity) is like shooting your own leg - resulting in having to look for a replacement, train them and hope (certainty is value worth money as well) they are going to be as good. To me it seems it is always better to increase the wage to avoid losing people already working for you so you save yourself from the hassle.
[dead]
The layoffs are not the issue. It is the decision makers who took the two decisions to both over-hire and then mass-fire shortly after. GM is a great example. The company was the largest and one of the most innovative car manufacturers in the world. It doesn't stand a chance against BYD today and it is not by a lack of money (though maybe with a C-suite change).
So my opinion is, yes, the damage is done (or being done) but like GM, it'll probably take 10-15 years until we are in the visible territory. Maybe a bit shorter because this is tech.
GM is a great example, Intel as well, that its rarely the engineers fault. You can have great talent but if management is dead set on bad decisions over & over, theres nothing to be done.
And the decision to overhire/overfire, set bad strategy, etc all resides in the C-Suite who rarely fire each other or themselves when it all goes wrong. It's only the employees that suffer for every mis-step.
> It's only the employees that suffer for every mis-step.
They benefit for the overhiring mis-step.
Not necessarily. If you give up a good job to join a firm that has over-hired, its only obvious in retrospect that you took a bad risk.
This hits home. I wish there was a way to gauge “retrospect” before actually suffering from it. I’m now usually quite weary of “we’ve had to get yet another loan of 60 mil, after 6 years in business because we don’t know how to make a profitable business” also known as a series C or whatever.
I don't work full-time for startups, because of this. I was contracting for a startup last summer for about 6 months. They paid really well, but after researching the company, they were on their 3rd round of funding. The estimated yearly profits were a sliver of this, meaning they were burning through VC money hoping for an acquisition or somehow massively increasing profits. The product was also in a very crowded space with lots of competitors.
They had 3 other contractors working on the same functionality and they were all let go within a couple of weeks, because I could get it done 2X faster and without many integration issues.
I would have gladly kept working as a contractor, but when I refused a full-time work offer, they cut all contact off with me.
I would talk to the FTE frequently and they were always overworked and on multiple teams.
These are great because often the founder managed to take money out at one round of funding or another and is insulated from downside.
GM is not innovative. Tesla is innovative. GM is a creaking giant that was bailed out and is reliant on trade barriers to have any domestic customers. Nobody outside the US wants any American cars except Teslas or ever has. They have a terrible reputation except amongst muscle car enthusiasts who like them for reasons other than their actual quality.
Even their foreign brands are widely considered bad cars: "barely Holden' together" etc.
> one of the most innovative car manufacturers in the world
Off topic, but I'd like some more specific thoughts regarding what you are aware of for specific automotive technologies that GM has innovated over the past decades, to make this statement.
Intuitively, GM cars do not do well internationally, have been known to have creaky interior build quality, have silly features like turning the reverse lights on when you unlock the car in a parking lot, and are not competitive on a scale of luxury compared to their European and Japanese counterparts.
I agree with you that most American cars are junk. I hate all these same features plus others like the weird headlight controls, parking break on the floor in non-trucks, not to mention the loose feeling brakes and steering.
Traditionally, GM sold other models overseas through brands like Holden or Opel, but these have all been sold off or shut down over the past decade or so except in China. GM now has a much heavier reliance on trucks and SUVs in the North American market. They sell some of those same product overseas still, but in much smaller quantities than before.
If not for tariffs, we'll all be driving BYDs in a decade.
STFU about GM. People who buy their cars love them, and I don’t trust folks that HN would like to be the designers on the C9 corvette.
I've been through several layoffs, on both sides of the coin. The one consistent factor I've seen is managerial incompetence. Management will fail to provide any leadership or guidance to employees, then blame them for not being productive enough. They can't see their own incompetence, so they blame hiring practices and keep ratcheting up interview difficulty. It's like corporate America has evolved to protect the ego of the managerial class.
Does anyone here understand the "The consistency of layoffs" graphic?
The best guess I have is that the number of layoffs in each year is indicated by some sort of measure of the "overall height" of that slice of the image, so e.g. somewhere around 2020 the number is very large. But it's not at all clear, and it's especially not clear which if any of the various small-scale ups and downs we are supposed to take seriously if this is how it works.
It's a good candidate for the worst statistical graphic I've seen this year. (The opening-door one earlier in the article is another.)
Truly a terrible graph.
Don't work to do what? If you think layoffs are about efficiency or saving the company, at least in tech you couldn't be more wrong. Companies like Meta and Google have done multiple rounds of layoffs despite being insanely profitable and never taking a loss.
The real purpose of layoffs is to get people to do more work for the same or less money (by firing people and distributing their responsibilities to those who remain) and to suppress wages because nobody is asking for raises when they fear for their jobs.
Big Tech is really out of ways to grow their business. The only way they can keep growing profits is by cutting costs and the biggest cost is labor. It's really that simple.
"Kelleher wasn’t around to see them. He died in 2019."
That's how it works. You have someone who is a great leader who started a company and treated their employees well, then the behemoth corporation waits for them to die to start gutting their values. It happened at my company. It's basically just a lite version of a private equity takeover.
The other question is why C-suite does even need to tell the respective division management to lay off employees if the actual goal is cost reduction. Shouldn't they impose a budget reduction target instead and trust them to allocate the savings between capex, opex and salary budget according to specific situation at hand?
>> why C-suite does even need to tell the respective division management to lay off employees if the actual goal is cost reduction
You answered your own question. For a lot of layoffs, cost reduction isn't the goal; it's disciplining the workforce who were increasingly assertive at work about direction and conditions.
It’s honestly probably not that evil.(generally. There are definitely evil orgs out there)
It’s just the easiest way to make the stock price go up.
Layoffs caused twitter to bump in price. Same with Microsoft when they laid off all those game devs.
C-suite don’t care about profit or losses in tech, just the stock price.
In the 2010s, hiring devs increased stock prices. In the 2020s mass firings do.
It’s just money. Simple as.
[flagged]
The C suite wants to take the blame, so the people you deal with face to face can honestly say the decision was taken out of their hands.
> actual goal is cost reduction
For many companies the largest cost is labor. Also in many companies, managers amass power by the number of people they manage. If the C-suite doesn't explicitly push for layoffs they will likely not happen, causing them to not reduce costs as quickly as they wanted.
Nah I've been in meetings before where it was asked "if we can find these ten million in cloud costs and licenses, can we retain staff?" and the answer was "no, because those are different buckets."
Regarding "managers try to amass staff," I've seen some of that for sure, but it's not universal and acting like it's some kind of iron rule of organizations is an op.
Most managers are evaluated based on the impact their organization is having, not the size of it, unless the firm is incredibly poorly run.
What does happen, and where these layoff edicts come from, is that the executives fear the management is more loyal to their directs than they are to leadership. They feel that if they want to inflict something on the workforce they have to "force" management's hand, because otherwise management will resist.
But then you will still get short-sighted layoff decisions getting made, only by directors instead of C-suite.
> Nothing kills your company’s culture like layoffs,” Kelleher once said.
Or maybe the culture is already rotten before the layoff. I've seen so many companies in the bay area have become so bloated and bureaucratic. Directors and VPs have very senior engineers who exclusively go to meetings to "align". Directors who report to directors who report to directors who report to VPs who report to VPs who report to VPs. PMs and engineers and managers are all gatekeepers who focus exclusively on ensuring that a project will not fail before it is even conceptualized. Distinguished engineers draw bigger boxes and pass them to Principal Engineers who draw smaller boxes and pass them to Senior Staff Engineers to draw even smaller boxes until a poor E5 or E4 engineers implement the whole thing. We have so many professional box drawers, expert meeting goers, seasoned report writers, fierce gatekeepers, anything but engineers who can implement systems end to end. As a result, a 6-month one-person project gets finished half assed by a team of 60 with 5 layers of report chain. A 3-week project requires 3 months of approval and another three months of PoC.
In such case, what can a company possibly do to at least survive a little longer, even in hope of improving its culture? I guess layoff is not a bad answer.
This whole article is selection bias:
> There are findings that suggest layoffs lead to both short-term and long term issues, including: > - A 2x as likely chance of bankruptcy compared to companies that haven’t done layoffs.
Obviously! Because a huge number of the companies undergoing layoffs are about to go under and are using layoffs as a last ditch survival effort.
The author may be right, but every fact and figure presented in this article fails to distinguish between healthy companies in healthy industries using layoffs as a lever to increase stock prices, and layoffs happening in industries/companies that are collapsing.
"After the early-2000s dotcom bust, Bain researchers found that stock prices for S&P 500 companies that had no layoffs or laid off less than 3% of their workforce increased an average of 9% in the next year."
Do non-science journalists just not know about correlation vs causation? Does it really not occur to them that maybe the companies that didn't do layoffs were healthier and that's why they overperformed? Wouldn't a 10 year old know that?
How would you correct for it? As someone who works with ten year olds, they would ask you what causation and correlation is.
They might not know those words, but intuitively know that stuff like "ice cream trucks cause heat waves" make no sense.
I was being hyperbolic about the ten year olds, but that's funny.
Correcting for it: I don't know. It would be very hard. You could try to control for variables like profitability, etc., but there are so many and you don't know what you don't know. But the correct response to absence of valid data isn't drawing conclusions from obviously bad data.
It just cracks me up that one paragraph later the author points out:
"Mass layoffs are often symptoms of unsound business strategies and don’t do anything to cure the larger problem."
and yet somehow didn't see that that sentence alone proves his previous one was pointless.
One big problem is layoffs cluster around events like the dot com bubble, the financial crisis, or covid, so there are weird things happening. You might be able to look at companies' quarterly profits to identify healthy companies that remained healthy, but still did layoffs.
Yeah, I don't think you could meaningfully prove the hypothesis.
[flagged]
Because it's a very common logical fallacy. You're also describing sample bias, someone who wholeheartedly agrees with the article probably has little to discuss.
Layoff are like hammers: When needed, in the hands of someone skilled, they work perfectly well. But such situations are sadly rare, compared to frustrated idiots grabbing hammers to get their quick "Hulk Smash!" dopamine hits.
When it is your money making payroll, than the perspectives rapidly shift.
If your Labor doesn't tangibly produce quantifiable profit, than you must furlough staff to stay in business. Assigning fault in such situations is a fools errand, as everyone suffers losses in the end ($18k to $45k in lost training resources per person etc.)
Best of luck, =3
But surely the billionaires in their lavish lifestyles, they're the ones that really know how to run a frugal enterprise.
The article doesn't actually explain why. It claims that they don't work and supplies statistical evidence. But why don't they work? I've only really seen speculation...
i think he is saying that its the stock market, that is stressing the value of short term gains. That's why stocks are rising upon news of layoffs.
Have you ever been laid off?
Yes. And your point being ...?
Because layoffs are not done to make company great but to make sure shareholders and execs preserve their wealth. It's never about company or people or technology - it's always about money, power and wealth.
A couple weeks ago Google announced more layoffs in their HR and cloud divisions. They have $100 billion cash on hand, literally more than any other tech company, and much more in longer term investments.
In round numbers, that's enough money to cover roughly 10,000 employees for 25 to 50 years (depending on how much you think the salary averages out to).
Regardless, the CFO said one of her priorities this year was more cost cutting.
It's a business, not a jobs program
Did I suggest it was? Apparently you missed the topic of this thread: According to the article, layoffs are bad for business.
I was pointing out that there doesn't seem to be an immediate need for layoffs at Google, based on the fact they have more money on hand than some small countries. Even with horrible future revenue projections, that seems like a reasonably large buffer.
But now that you mentioned it, there's nothing wrong with a corporation looking out for the long term interests of their employees. It would actually be smart for Google to act like a "jobs program" and retrain staff, or find work until the business cycle comes back around.
(Brandolini's law is alive and well.)
People are overthinking this.
It's about power, and inculcating fear.
The CEO who "cuts" people at a company is like the Aztec priest who plunges the knife in atop the pyramid. The bloody spectacle is the point. It's as much about everyone who's watching as it is about the specific victim. It says, "I can do this to you. I can inflict pain without reprisal. Behold my power."
That's the whole point. Who is afraid of whom?
These people have the money. We depend on that money in order to live. They are reminding us of that fact. Now they demand obedience and harder work. 40 hours? Not enough. Elon sleeps at the office, why don't you? You have to be "super hardcore".
Partly, this is punishment for the challenge that was raised to CEO power from around 2016 to 2022. CEOs have been furious that they have felt fear of their workers. Now they want those workers to feel fear. In interviews, Andreesen has said almost exactly this, if not in quite so many words.
A similar theory is at the root of Fed policy, which hinges on the idea of a "wage price spiral". In their view, inflation is caused not by the accumulation of capital within a price-insensitive upper quantile, or by the constriction of economic chokepoints by consolidation, but by workers' ability to bargain for higher wages. The solution to inflation, they essentially come out and say, is to put workers in their place.
There is a united front here. It is about who fears whom, the end. It is about your emotional state. In a literal sense, it is terrorism.
So in that sense, yes, layoffs work. Are you financially independent? No? Are you afraid? Yes? Then they're working.
The premise that CEOs are stewards of companies is flawed. Their pay exploded over the period covered in this analysis. Hurting companies doesn't matter to them.
A large airline like southwest is one thing but I’m always so surprised at how much over hiring we do in software companies.
Every problem/opportunity seems to just need a few more headcount.
Lots of managers are actively trying to increase their headcount for self promotional reasons.
The whole thing seems really counterproductive.
And right now companies are doing the same thing with overseas hires, always assuming more is better
IMO its both ends. Overhiring and layoffs are both indicators that managers need a strategy change. Unfortunately Wall Street boys don't understand that employee productivity is directly correlated with stability. People don't actively try to improve how they work if they expect to be switching a job or getting laid off. You need employees to build a sort of nest where they want to be most productive in. Both overhiring and laying off is extremely destructive to the company because you increase volatility in social dynamics.
Layoffs are a blunt instrument. I don’t know if al layoffs should be seen through the same lens. I see layoffs as signals from the companies. They see the future as unsure and so they want to reduce costs. That should be an immediate layoff for the ceo and his team
> That should be an immediate layoff for the ceo and his team
Maybe not quite that, but investors and the board (hah!) should ask really hard questions about how they got there.
I can't believe no one here is talking about how horrible these charts are.
The most direct way that the U.S. government can control inflation is via layoffs of federal workers. Private companies are jumping on the bandwagon to get rid of hires made during more booming times. The fact is that higher interest rates have cooled down investments, which factors into the decisions made by companies to fire staff. Note though that companies which actually build stuff, like Apple, are adding jobs, instead.
> The most direct way that the U.S. government can control inflation is via layoffs of federal workers.
I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Civilian employees are less than 3% of federal spending, so it won't have a measurable effect on spending. Some employees, like IRS employees, bring in revenue.
The more fundamental question is: If mass layoffs are so necessary, then who’s responsible for the unnecessary mass hiring? In any mass layoff, fire that person first. Get to the root of the problem.
I feel that companies just repeat discredited strategies because they are conventional wisdom, and no amount of explaining why layoffs don't make sense will stop them from laying off.
It's mostly about conformity. They heard that all the serious companies are laying off. So they've got to lay off too. Can't be seen breaking convention.
With big tech, a few years back when over-hiring was the conventional wisdom they were for that too.
I find layoffs very context sensitive.
Atleast 2 of the fast growing companies I have been a part of have had serious layoffs that were very successful in cutting dead weight that had accumulated because of fast and loose hiring and poor middle management. So it can be done well.
By and large though they are a sign to jump from the soon to be sinking ship... so it's very important to know what kind it is and act accordingly.
This article’s main point is that companies who do layoffs subsequently have poor financial performance relative to companies who don’t.
Well obviously.
It’s like saying surgery doesn’t work, because people who have recently undergone surgery are more likely to be experiencing health issues.
Unfortunate click bait title for such an important topic. The various metrics quoted of why companies without layoffs appear to do better do not address the idea of underlying causes such as companies doing better do need mass layoffs while companies not doing as well likely to reduce expenses with actions to include layoffs.
The article compared companies within the same industries (e.g. the airline industry) which faced the same problems
the key phrase of the article is "Nothing kills your company's culture like layoffs"
I think that company culture stands for a framework that enables internal cooperation within the company. Now i am not sure if cooperation is currently valued over internal competition in the tech industry, but my impression is that the opposite is the case for most shops. So the question is: how did we get here? what are the factors that have led to the prevailing choice of priorities?
The article says its the stock market that values short term gains over anything else. Now maybe its really because running fast and breaking things is the only way we know how to do things in tech?
The tech layoffs are the results of couple of years of exuberance that happened right after 2020. Companies are laying off and we are getting back to trendline. Nothing to see here.
I wish those departments tasked with busywork would be able to build skunkworks inside these dysfunctional molochs and be able to keep what they create. Fired into becoming a startup.. a man can dream.
I watched up close a multinational try to create a shunkworks and the ugly result was a lot more shunk than works...
Nothing kills your culture like layoffs, but what if the culture has been overtaken by a whole lot of getting nothing done while collecting pay?
Layoffs are not about cost, they are about power. The economic result is just confirmation.
A large company in actual financial distress will sell off a division.
They work to get quarterly profits up/losses down, and that's really all the matters to stockholders who want to decide to hodl or sail.
Most places I've seen could cut 50-80% of people and maintain or even grow output.
Will they cut the right 50-80%? Chances are close to nill.
And the article is right that layoffs curb morale. Then again, what hurts morale even more, especialy for your true performers, is not laying of the incompetent, the 0 net contribution carreer ladder climbers or the pfiepdom pyramid seat fillers and the bloated 'management support' departments.
What hurts morale the most is when layoffs affect teams and people who are clearly not "underperforming". I've seen some star devs getting swiped up into mass layoffs, and that is incredibly demoralizing because it hammers home the point that it doesn't actually matter how good you are at your job, how much esteem you have with colleagues etc. Not even your manager will be able to help you if the entire team gets canned.
When your choice is basically having someone incompetent on the team vs not having the guys who carry it the most, I think most people will take the former. Incompetence can be managed to minimize damage, but there's no substitute for lack of competent people.
Fully agree with you on the impact of firing competent people. I think you severely underestimate the impact of not firing or even promoting the incompetent or the zero or negative contributers.
Hmm Goldman has been trimming 5% or so every year, and looks they have been doing fine so far.
what about layoffs that balance hiring elsewhere - laying off in NA hiring in India.
"Companies who enact them as part of a broader change in strategy, Cascio says, fare better than those who enact them simply to cut costs."
Ah, the old strategic realignment PR BS. "Its not cost cutting because our C levels are clowns and screwed up. Its a strategic realignment for AI investment ". Lol. Didn't Salesfarce and Fakebook both use that one?
When will AI replace upper management? It can't do any worse.
This blog post is wrong, it also just doesn't matter in practice. Nobody who is making this sort of decision is going to give this kind of obviously false argument a second thought. When you're the one that actually has to make decisions that matter you're going to be better at ignoring bullshit. The audience for this is just people wanting something to upvote that sounds good to them - driven by motivated reasoning.
> “You could blame the workforce,” he says, “or the managers and leaders who are leading that workforce.”
They often do fire large swaths of middle managers - when Musk bought Twitter cutting out the middle of the hierarchy and the orgs that didn't need to exist was a big part of it. It's the same with DOGE. After the twitter layoffs they've shipped more features, faster, with better margins (and he fired the CEO). Meta and Coinbase over hired during the covid 'zero interest rate phenomena' and had to fix it. Reducing hours instead is a joke - I find it hard to believe anyone being honest takes that seriously.
Seems like a clear case of correlation != causation.
Of course layoffs are correlated with bad company performance. I dont know if they help, but i would expect the pattern either way.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
Americans perplex me (and I am one) we live in the most capitalist focused economy in the world and yet everyone acts that they are guaranteed a job. Sorry, but even in "socialist countries" in Europe / rest of world this is not even the case. Then the country turns around and elects someone like trump - thinking collectively someone like that will improve this situation?
Especially the FAANG folks - they get pissed when getting fired from there like DUDE you are literally in the top 0.01 of earners on the planet get over yourself. Poor financial planning and overleveraging yourself are not excuses when you get laid off / fired!!!
Just go read stuff on Blind for more of what I am talking about... i.e "got laid off... nervous to retire with 7 million?!?" like hey, some of us here will probably never see that kind of money in our entire lives
The top comments read like HN of a decade or two ago when armchair exporting was rampant.
Paraphrasing: "I, an engineer, am smarter than an economist therefore the article is wrong."
Nothing of value to be found at the top of the comments.
No, we’re saying the majority of economists are more likely to be accurate than this particular economist.
Combine that with temporarily-embarrassed billionaires and it's a recipe for disaster. Every last asshole here is hoping for a fat exit for some ReactJS garbage that probably just grinds up poor people into McDonald's hamburger meat; of course they don't give a shit about actual workers with actual lives, whom layoffs predominantly hurt.
I've been laid off, eight months after a hiring blitz for the exact division I worked for. Now, I could've told them the acquisitions they did were stupid and that the products were never going to be profitable, but I don't live in Manhattan, so those decisions are above me. But that didn't stop them from juicing the stock price and ruining our lives anyway.
Fuck these companies. They could do better, and they choose not to. And every last sycophant here is complicit.
The article lists down why layoffs don't work, but companies keep doing it, so it must be working for them.
I hate layoffs (from both perspectives), but the article sounds like whining "we shouldn't break up".
The alternative of furlough only works if everyone else is doing it. If everyone else fires left right and center, the people being furloughed will still have low morale.
I think it's better to avoid it in the first place, by not over hiring, as others have pointed out.
I think you’re right that it’s better to avoid these issues in the first place, but your perspective on furloughs instead of layoffs seems a bit fatalistic. I think a company that did rolling furloughs (and importantly was transparent about the whole process) would probably maintain pretty good morale, especially if the rest of the industry is laying people off. But yeah singling people out for furlough would probably be a big morale hit
[dead]
There is a theory about large complex systems which seems to be true in biology and maybe applies here. Intentional downsizing during times of stress works when it preferentially targets defective or dysfunctional components of the larger system. The system improves because the worst parts were removed.
Layoffs don't help companies unless they can reliably remove the worst parts. At most large public companies, the cancerous bureaucracy protects itself and the parts removed are closer to median performers, or even above-median performers. The system gets smaller and less efficient.
Layoffs can be necessary to get the company to fit through a certain sized hole (in the form of cash flow constraints), but it won't be better at what it does on the other side of the hole, it will just continue to exist.
Layoffs work when there is an accurate discriminating mechanism for who stays and goes. The best example of this (outside of private equity turn-arounds that are not widely known) is Twitter. Outside engineering talent was brought in as an oracle, immune to Twitter's bureaucracy. It reliably discriminated between value-adding and not. As a result, the company became incredibly lean and even consistently profitable.
By the late 1960s, software projects had finally reached a certain size, and the particularities of managing these large projects were discussed at NATO software engineering conferences, and codified by Fred Brooks in 1975 in the Mythical Man Month. The upshot being, software projects at corporations can't be run in the same manner as non-software projects. Yet at Fortune 500 companies today, and in the past two years that includes at least some of the FAANGs, you see them trying to run software projects and treating programmers in the same manner they treat non-programmers, and it doesn't work.
I just happened to watch some old talk or interview with Gabe Newell recently, and he said industry thinking at the time Valve was founded was of a certain kind, and Valve took the opposite approach from the industry - the industry was looking to get cheaper programmers, and Valve went the other way and looked for the most expensive programmers, and so forth. Valve has probably less than 400 people working there (don't know the 2025 headcount), but makes billions a year in profit.
Large tech companies are inefficient and have very poor engineering productivity but this is largely for systemic reasons. They definitely do not have any mechanism for identifying high performers.
The basic problem they face is that they pay a fixed wage for complete IP ownership (horrible deal) and so they intentionally do not measure and reward actual performance because they do not want to compensate high performers based on the value they create.
There isn't really a solution because these companies are making rational profit maximizing decisions, it just happens that mediocrity and managed decline of locked in revenue streams is profit maximizing for them.
> they intentionally do not measure and reward actual performance because they do not want to compensate high performers based on the value they create.
Ten years ago, an oft-repeated quote: “you’re not paid what you’re worth, but for the value you create.”
In light of that, is the argument that performance is institutionally obscured so that devs don’t realize how much leverage they really have? I can see traces of that in seeing shipped products as less the result of one/few devs working hard and more as multiple teams, as you now have two levels of personnel abstraction to diffuse potential leverage (individual/their team, and the teams among themselves).
If you work in an org the share of the success of something that you could claim is really abstract. In some sense the cleaning lady can put claims on "my" success.
Most stuff I have done would probably be worthless without the sale people and customer relations in place. Like 0$ value.
Well, it goes both ways: a fixed wage for complete IP ownership is great if your main dev skill is "bringing key stakeholders into conversations at the appropriate time".
There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to think Twitter's financial performance improved after going private.
Could I be missing something, but are you seriously promoting layoffs? You must be trolling by using twitter as functional example of why they work? I think sometimes I miss sarcastic tones and I really hope i did with this one
I think Twitter is a bad example to use, since so much other "direction changes" could arguably shadow the reduction in workforce.
Outside engineering is not ever an oracle, and it has its own interior motives and bureaucracy, firing people is generally a one way street.
Twitter has literally issued authoritarian threats to advertisers to come on its platform or else because of how much its valuation has dropped and how much money has been lost - this is the worst example of "engineering oracle fixing things" I could possibly imagine.
lmaoooooo buddy "oracle" implies they know something; the people brought in to fire people at Twitter spent almost no time in determining who was good or even how the company worked, completely undermining your thesis. It was madness: people were instructed to print paper copies of their code to bring into an office, like it was 1995. Remember geohot in a Spaces saying "the main problem with Twitter is that you can't run it locally?", as if any company of that size has run that way at any point in the last decade? Additionally, the horrible communication and chaos made it even harder for performers to perform. As others have pointed out, its stock lost a ton of value, it performs worse financially, and as a product by virtually every other metric has gone to hell (outages, CSAM safety, spam, bots...).
You tell a decent story at the start, but your choice of example couldn't be worse.
twitter is just about the worst example you could have used - by wide margin…
It depends if you mean keeping Twitter the service operational or Twitter the product relevant.
neither can be comparable to what twitter was - not service not product
Twitter was profitable before the takeover and now it is not
Maybe we disagree about what "profitable" means. Posting an authoritative source, so others can decide for themselves.
https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/twtr/financials/
I don't have that much of an experience analysing similar reports, but it seems to me to be a healthy and growing company?
If you mean a negative cash flow and operating income - it doesn't mean much, as we need to know why.
Taking into account the jump in "Revenue", positive "EBIT" and so on, I would imagine that it was because of some sort of "strategic investment", like some acquisitions probably?
What am I missing? I would definitely be happy with such reports if that was my company.
The parent only provided financials from before the acquisition.
Unless I'm missing something, your data you've voted seems to be pre-acquisition.
Also, by all accounts their revenue has dropped so much they're having issues even covering the loan payments, much less having enough for any semblance of profit.
So over the 4 years before the takeover they had a net profit of $1.3 billion. What's their profit been in the 4 years since?