Deutsche Bank staff sent home as 18,000 job cuts begin
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Effectively the company made the decision and then a few folks in HR were involved in hiring an outside firm to handle everything. Even internally few in HR knew what was coming until that day.
Most decisions were entirely high level based on really simple calculations "this whole group", "anyone in this group that is X" and such.
Pretty easy to do if you make it easy.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-01/empty-des...
They basically had an all hands meeting for everybody in our office. We went to the main auditorium and the CEO gets up and basically says, "The company has been struggling so we're closing this office. Please hand your ID to the security people as you leave. Details will follow about how to get your personal belongings mailed back to you."
And that was it. Pretty brutal to say the least. Some 400 jobs just evaporated in a few minutes. It was an eye opener for me on working for a medium sized company. You just never know when it could be your last day.
18,000 unnecessary staff amassed over the years.
Edit: *Not all of them were unnecessary of course.
The fact that Deutsche Bank is cutting 18K jobs is quite bitter, because the mass of people is quite large. I wonder if other banks are planning such layoffs and if we will have to expect more mass cutts.
We won't get out of this as long as we see unemployed people as the plague, in the meantime we'll see a surge in bs services (uber, deliveroo, hellofresh, &c.)
What are you talking about? "Management" sees unemployed people, especially those with actual skills, as a great asset. They provide a downward force on wages. It's only other laborers who see them as competition and a problem.
I'm shocked.
Afaik you're the only one defending this position.
> laborers who see them as competition
More like people getting their tax money through unemployment benefits.
No one thinks "God damn I love all these low skilled workers, they're such a good thing for our economy". Juts look at the US, lowest unemployment rate in decades because somehow it's the only metric that counts now, even if that means that the lower 5% has to work 2 full time jobs to make it work.
Yes. Yes they literally do. They also figuratively do when they say things like "You're replaceable so get back to work".
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul...
The former criteria would mean eliminating most of the entertainment industry, because although it is useful, it isn't really necessary for life or an economy is it? But yet that's a terrible idea because entertainment is useful and people want it.
Do we _need_ to be able to get toilet paper delivered in 2 hours by amazon ? Do we _need_ food delivery services ? Do we _need_ spotify ? Do we _need_ netflix ?
You must think people had a miserable life not even 50 years ago, imagine, no cell phone, no taxi unless they're at voice reach, no on demand food, what a shock.
Hire 3 people for any one role because clients are paying the fees and that way you can tolerate a vacation or a firing.
How general the skills learned on the Sales and Trading are?
The call center jobs are just being cut and/or the salary has been dropping rapidly since 2008.
1. The type of people that would rather call than use an app are getting older and will eventually stop calling
2. The type of problems automation can solve is removing the need for a live person.
It opens the door to $40,000 office jobs, but that's about it.
I have a CS degree from a non-ivy but well known private engineering school in the Cambridge / Boston area. CS students obv seem to have no issues, but I was always curious what kind of work / salary "business" or "finance" degrees would fetch. It's hard to place my position on the subject since I know a number of talented and intelligent non-engineering majors with the above qualifications, but an order or magnitude more complete idiots who partied their way through college and think their $40 haircut is more of a bargaining tool than actual skills.
I have some visibility to a bank that grew from a community bank to a fairly sizable regional bank in the US, but it is still largely a consumer type bank with individual account holders / businesses. Almost everything they do as a "bank" is very much what anyone might think a bank is. It's surprisingly simple how they operate and everyone at the bank is on the same page.
At large banks I see what seems more like a whole lot of speculation, tax management, random opportunities etc.... seems like that easily can get out of hand.
I think their current goal is to refocus on that.
1. Retail banking
2. Commercial banking
3. Investment banking
4. Investment/money management services
5. Proprietary trading
6. Other random financial things
Retail banking is mostly what you're thinking of for your community bank. That is consumer deposits and loans (for cars, houses, etc). And possibly small business loans, lines of credit, etc. (though at some banks, these are part of commercial banking instead). These things are typically handled at the local branch level.Commercial banking is for larger corporate customers. The bank generally offers more services in addition to deposits and lines of credit. They may include loans, foreign exchange, treasury services (cash management), payment services, etc.
Investment banking is sort of related to commercial banking. Generally speaking, it revolves around arranging financing (rather than providing it as commercial bankers would do). It includes things like bond issuences, mergers & acquisitions, private equity deals, etc.
Investment/money management services may include an actual brokerage operation, custody services, and high-net-worth money management/investment advisers. Services range from do-it-yourself-online to we-handle-everything-for-you-so-you-don't-have-to-think-about-it. Part of this will often be the production of analyst reports and market forecasts, though this is sometimes outsourced.
Proprietary trading is where the bank uses its own money to trade or invest in various securities. This is distinct from investment services in that they do not use client money and thus must be segregated into a different group by law.
Finally, there are a slew of random financial services that some banks do and some banks don't. In terms of size, they can be very large (or even dominate) to a rounding error on their books. Everything from trust accounts to credit card issuance, from tax prep to reselling insurance.
And really finally, there are a number of internal groups that are specific to banks. Two that come to mind are compliance and risk management. IT often also has quite a large headcount (though often spread out in different business units).
Each bank organizes itself somewhat differently so take what I wrote with a grain of salt. Sometimes the same product may even fall under different departments in different countries because of regulatory issues.
It would be interesting to see how they manage the different returns and approaches to each.
We've seen companies struggle with say a traditional business who is reliable but don't bring in massive jumps in income where another business does, and then the obvious conflicts that come with that.
"Show HN : AI React developer for 99USD/month"
That's like saying: "nuclear engineers take note, once we solve cold fusion, we'll be next"
Solving AI is more like solving flight.
Before flight was solved, leading experts believed it would be impossible. Same could be said for the moon landing.
Hackernews crowd seems to be in denial about how true AI would make most of them redundant.
Current AGI efforts amount to cargo cult science where experimenters create increasingly vast neural networks and hope some kind of intelligence/consciousness magically emerges.
So far "AI" seems to be a combination of if statements, neural networks, and linear algebra - which is great for specialized tasks! But light years away from the way humans can pick an area and self-teach.
Believe it or not, not all of HN is atheist either, so that means many people believe the human mind is more than just a biological Turing machine/neural network and that there is some sort of "spirit" or "soul" if you will that accounts for our first person consciousness experience. Hence, without a spirit/soul, you'll never be able to create a conscious computer.
That said, however, we do already know quite a bit about how neural nets work, both biological and artificial. One of the things we know is that they are most certainly not a Turing machine -- they are associative memory machines. That is, memory and processing are one and the same.
Most (all?) current artificial neural nets have fixed interconnects between neurons. One thing we do know is that biological brains change which neurons connect to which other neurons. And as far as I'm aware, we don't know how that's done or what drives it except in the most general terms. This lack of plasticity (not sure if that's the appropriate term) in artificial neural nets is, IMO, a major blockage in the road to an AGI..
IMO, "intelligence" is an emergent of a complex, malleable, neural network that has been exposed to the right environment. I suspect both are necessary.
And finally, we don't need an AGI as "smart" as humans (we have plenty of humans, after all). But even one as "smart" as a bright dog would be very useful. I don't think most religious people think dogs have souls, so I don't see how souls are an issue.
Really? I was taught growing up that all life has a soul/spirit. It's what sets life apart from machines or other non-living matter. Sure, a dog's spirit might be a lesser one than a human spirit, but it still has one...