Execs just feel like they need to retreat to the safety of euphemisms in these kind of announcements, after first boasting about how well the company is doing, of course.
Tech companies in China had similar mass layoffs in the past few years, which prompted many highly skilled tech workers to seek formal opportunities in state controlled companies/entities. Why state controlled companies you might ask, well, because those companies rarely perform this type of layoffs. Once you're one of their formal employees (not employee of contract), you're set safe for life. And even if some "difficult change" has to happen, those state companies will try to compensate the effected workers with other (often equal, sometimes better) opportunities.
I know Chinese state controlled companies are heavily criticized by western view points, but you have to admit, they treats their own people fine.
I'm reminded of a history of Nigeria I encountered recently: https://youtu.be/E2HJbi-AG54?t=603. The Nigerian government basically ran the economy. If you wanted a good job, you worked for the government. For most people, getting elected was key to living a cushy life, and once won, the office was used to spread favors and wealth to one's friends, family, and tribe, while losing office in a subsequent election meant going back to poverty because private jobs simply didn't exist. This, of course, was a recipe for widespread corruption.
From the video: "Control of the government has been desperately important not only to avoid being oppressed by rival tribes but also because the massive role of government in the economy has made politics the preeminent route to prosperity as well as power whether for individuals, tribes, or regions. As of 1964 governments at the federal, regional, and local levels employed more than half of the wage earners in the country. Government also allocated large sums to the various regions which is also to say to the various tribes. In 1961 for example the northern region containing more than half the population of Nigeria paid only nine percent of the personal income taxes while it received 45 of the money allocated to the various regions by the federal government. At the same time the western region paid 64 percent of all personal income taxes and received less than one-fourth of the funds allocated by the federal government to the various regions. In tribal terms though Yoruba were subsidizing the house of Fulani and other Northern groups."
Whatever you might think about the unfairness of being laid off, I promise you that a growing government bureaucracy is not the solution you think it is! The government is just as self-interested as any corporation, the difference being the government gets to use force to compel you to do what it wants, while at least a corporation has to ask for your business.
Presumably when we weren't throwing billions of dollars at 2 x 20 year wars that accomplished nothing. The DoD is the largest single employer in the world.
By comparison, I'm way, way less concerned if Health or Education Depts. have more people -- a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a Littoral Combat Ship, (which is already obsolete). It would be nice of HHS and Education had more funding and legal mandates behind them, though...
(Just think about it: Surely Germany has more than a million government employees? If Croatia had over four times that in absolute terms, more than its entire population would work for the government.)
Remove the words "Silicon Valley" and I agree with you.
This is exactly accurate and there’s nothing amoral about that. The flip side is a job is just a way to make money and when it’s no longer wanted or needed, the employee is free to dispose of it
Too many years of "zero" interest rates has resulted in some warped thinking.
Tech/IT is too valuable to be ditched altogether, so we are not going back even to the 80s or 90s. But collapse is appropriate for the kind of lean times ahead: companies getting bought on the cheap, investments evaporating, projects shelved, jobs (or even careers) lost.
It's a way of distancing yourself from the blame. "Mistakes were made" instead of "we made mistakes". Or "a suspect was killed in an officer-involved shooting" instead of "a policeman killed the suspect". "Teammates were impacted" instead of "we laid people off".
It's like saying "shit happens, who knows who's to blame" when we all know who's to blame.
The tech industry culture around the Bay Area has been extremely hostile towards debate and diversity of opinion for the last two decades.
Cuz now it's gone, and all that's left is Big Corporate. Basically NYC but with that California faux niceness. I'll give the New Yorkers this: they'll tell you to eat shit and die on the street to your face, but they don't fake it; they respect others enough to stab you in the front, not in the back.
Something similar with IBM recently: "IBM posts biggest annual sales increase in more than a decade, announces 3,900 layoffs" [1]
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ibm-posts-biggest-annual-s...
What is with this "save our babies!" attitude towards people who are
- Well off
- Highly skilled
??
Personal responsibility and equal opportunity are how we got to iPhones, toothpaste in every corner store, and a store on every corner.
???
B) If the problem is that one profession lacks a union, wouldn't the more natural solution be to start one? Problem solved!
Employees get paid a salary to work. That's it. That's the agreement. There are no expenses passed down to employees - you're just making that up.
Sometimes the expenses get passed down, but I'll agree that's rare. However I have had employers bill me for my uniforms, and I ain't talkin about the military.
Just like you can "just leave" an abusive relationship, but instead much of the system is abusive to their employees.
"Getting laid off" is not a risk. Wasting 2 years for nothing while bleeding income _is_ risk.
If you don't agree, then why would you work for an employer when you could take your own risk?
re why work for an employer when you could take your own risk: generally speaking the odds of losing a job due to layoff are still less bad than the odds of a bootstrapped business failing, even if attempting to start a business was a realistic option, which it is not for many people.
That's the risk. They destroy the bonuses and benefits of their workers to fuel their own rat race.
You are simplying the situation by thinking about everyone as successful unicorns. Most companies and founders are not.
(naturally this is all meant for F500 companies which post a lot of profits, start ups need a different mindset.)
So are you saying that, in the multi-million VC-fuelled start-up climate of the last couple decades, founders haven't made sure to pay themselves at least the same salary as their employees?
If you are, I'm not buying it. And if you're not, i.e. if you admit that they did, your point falls to pieces.
Which includes the employees. They want the cool tech, the stock options, the prestige of working at FAANG or some new startup, the all-you-can-eat cafeterias... the price of working in a fast-moving, always-changing industry is that you're likely to be on the receiving end of some of those changes.
Want to be protected from layoffs? Take a salary cut and work for the government. Or be the most incredible software engineer at a boring as hell credit union or community college.
I certainly don't wish for anyone to be laid off and I know, from personal experience, that it can be tough. But by choosing the startup or FAANG world and enjoying all the benefits, you're practicing guaranteeing that you'll be affected by some adverse outcome, somewhere along the line. Accept it and move on.
It also seems the job wouldn't have existed without someone willing to take the risk? I myself weigh risk in my decisions frequently. I am full aware that a layoff (or firing) is possible every time I accept a job. I'm also fully aware of what my employers obligations are to me. I'm not sure I've ever felt that my employer 'owed' me more than that. Maybe my life would be better if I did?
Layoffs on this scale are understandable, maybe even justifiable, in the case of a 2008 style market crash.
Layoffs on this scale do not feel understandable or justifiable given that many of the companies are extremely profitable, were hiring during, and have continued to hire afterwards. Add to that the prevalence of stock buybacks and the sheer scale of recent hiring and the question becomes why should the employees be the ones to feel the consequence of this behaviour?
The often billionaire CEO tearing up over how hard it was for him to fire thousands of people but "is using it as an opportunity to take responsibility for his mistakes" is simply the cherry on the cake.
A reputation for sticking with employees, even through a layoff, makes a company more attractive.
It increases trust between employer & employees. Trust increases the efficiency of any collaboration.
From that point of view, severance payments are not noble handouts but compensation strategies to reduce the overall payroll cost.
From a capitalist perspective, the paternal employer-employee relationship is one of mutual benefit. Ensuring that the the employee's incentives align more closely with their employer's. At the same time it acts as (an arguably weak) justification for corporate profit, a comfortable and loyal employee is one who does not concern themselves too much with where the rest of the money is going.
The idea of the relationship as transient and adversarial directly opposes this. When companies force their workers into precarity, while at the same time making record profits, there ceases to be a justification for accepting that profit in the eyes of the worker. Eventually leading to some kind of societal response.
The difference is that in a capitalist system (with a constrained money supply; an even monetary playing field), when you get tossed out, you can get back up and you still have a chance to compete. In this system, when you get tossed out, it's game over (feels like slow withering away, a constant struggle to stay afloat).
The winners' wealth compounds infinitely beyond the point when it becomes impossible to compete against them. Billionaires are earning enough passive yield on their diversified portfolios that some of their businesses become useless appendages and they can afford to run them as a hobby, at a loss... Yet nobody can compete against those businesses; they're essentially subsidized by the money printer which serves as a compounding interest machine for the billionaire.
No real business which relies on profits from its economic activities can compete against a business which is funded by an infinitely compounding source of wealth.
Given that money is taxed by governments each time it hops between economic participants, it can barely hold onto a tiny fraction of its original face value after just 10 hops (at that point, almost all of it will be back in the hands of government)... It can't stray too far from the government money printer. But that's not a concern for billionaires who earn their yields almost straight out of reserve banks.
I'm curious as to how the hypothetical Capitalism would avoid quickly collapsing into a much more extreme version of the current state of affairs. Capital producing more capital seems built into the system, without strict controls on capital accumulation I don't see how the end result could be anything other than monopoly.
Said friend told me numerous stories about how he gave positive references or call his friends in other companies for positions for coworkers who were laid off, during his tenure in IBM.
Helping people who lost their jobs because of reasons which they can't control is being a good person, for once, too.
These are people. This could be you, or your friend, espouse, mother, sister... And just because you can bounce back, it doesn't mean this is okay.
Even if they have money saved and can use that to find a (hopefully) better next job, that's not easy or guaranteed.
It seems that this "criticism" is more like jealousy than anything else. If they were not earning a bit more than others then we can feel bad for them. Otherwise let's pretend it's fine and yell "screw them".
Meanwhile the rich fucks are still getting richer even with the "risk" they take. Not sure how that can even count as risk, given these VCs are all multi-millionaires that can afford to fail multiple times over in the first place.
But it's somehow easier to hate the person that makes a few more bucks than you, than it is to hate the money hoarders that control the lives of so many of us.
Yes they are people, but a company is NOT responsible for them. Where does this come from? An employee has an employment relationship and not a friendship and while it certainly sucks to be let go, it's not the company who is the bad guy.
From what I see, you can't take off your personal morale views from business decisions.
> Meanwhile the rich fucks are still getting richer even with the "risk" they take. What even has that anything to do with what parent is saying? Or the topic we are discussing?
Is in your opinion no company is allowed to let go people, except if they pamper them with a big severance package? Sorry, but your post reads very childish and naive.
Have you talked to anyone from HR in the past decade???? It's all "we're one big family" this, "bring your whole self to work" that. The company trying to brand itself as a good guy and not as a money making vehicle goes both ways.
>Yes they are people, but a company is NOT responsible for them. Where does this come from? An employee has an employment relationship and not a friendship and while it certainly sucks to be let go, it's not the company who is the bad guy.
I agree the company is not fully responsible for them. But they have to have some degree of responsibility. There's an enormous power imbalance in play here and right now companies can just ditch people like garbage and increase stock prices at will just because they can.
The reality is that people don't choose to work. You either work or starve. So when we give companies that much power over our lives, I believe they should have a responsibility for those they employ.
> Is in your opinion no company is allowed to let go people, except if they pamper them with a big severance package? Sorry, but your post reads very childish and naive.
I don't quite get this. My point was that we've been conditioned to believe that letting people go is okay and it's every person for himself.
But you immediately go to the other end of the spectrum saying we can't ever let people go? That's quite childish and naive in my view.
There's a whole range here between basically zero consequences (what happens today) and you can't let people go. But once again it comes back to the conditioning that we all have that this is the system and there's nothing we can do about it. If we can't even imagine how it could be different, nothing will ever change.
Imagine it happened to my sister. So what? Are you expecting me to get emotional or angry at her employers? I wouldn't. What is there to be angry about?
For whatever reason, American tech workers appear to think they should get 5-10x the median income or more, also get stock in the company, also have flexible work/life hours and also be "looked after" (what does this mean? More money?) after they're fired.
They're clearly in a bubble.
They did not say how their late-stage investing turned out, but supposedly not as well, and that's why they won't do it anymore.
Now that interest rates are going up, the financial risks have increased and the follow up rounds are drying up a bit (less IPOs, series B, C, etc.). Meaning the cost is higher and exits are becoming a bit more rare and less lucrative. And also, there is less chance of offloading not quite profitable late stage investments to more conservative investors. A lot of these unicorns still fail. They just fail a bit later after early investors cash in. Somebody pays for that. Usually not the early investors.
no, they are good at giving money to people
investing implies ROI
That's a very incorrect suggestion. It reminds one of how people like to pretend that Elon's money is because his family had an emerald mine. Do you think that a significant percentage of wealth inheritors go on to immigrate across the world and invent electric cars and reusable rockets? Same thing with YC and the investment climate.
I'm not an insider and I don't personally know any of their principals. But I have followed their work and read what they write, and I am absolutely certain they are considerably above the mean when it comes to intellect and operational ability.
I also suspect they have benefitted to some greater or lesser extent that is unknown to me from connections in government. But like it or not thats part of how the game works, so if you want to be at the top of the game you have to play ball.
Nudging policymakers in a favorable direction on legislation that could effect your portfolio is the most obvious, but there are tons of other examples as well.
I'm not arguing that this is a primary driver of YC's success (I don't know the extent, if any, of their government influence), but you'd be silly to think that political connections can't benefit an investor.
[1] when lending to veterans, which the company in question did
Well, would he be a billionaire, if he didn't inherit an emerald mind?
> Do you think that a significant percentage of wealth inheritors go on to immigrate across the world and invent electric cars and reusable rockets?
What portion of people who inherit no wealth whatsoever, do that? What portion become billionaires? Well, that can't be that hard to find out:
https://ips-dc.org/the_self-made_hallucination_of_americas_r...
Looking at forbes 400, 22% have backgrounds with inheritances up to 1 million, 11.5% over 1 million, 7% over 50 milllion, and another 21.25% earned their way onto forbes 400 through inheritance alone. So that leaves 22% of forbes 400 maybe not having inherited that much, although the category is shared with people who inherited up to 1 million.
That's just regarding inheritance, there's also the simple side effects of growing up in a wealthy family such as having the best educational (read: networking) opportunities money can buy, having the best healthcare on earth, being well fed, etc.
I think thus it's very easy to guess that Elon would not be a hundred billionaire, or billionaire at all, if he was the exact same brain born to some working class family in south africa.
Yes, because he didn't inherit an emerald mine.
There are many brilliant people in South Africa who are born into wealth and none of them have reached the same heights as Elon Musk.
Even if it were the case, wouldn't your argument then predict that there would be many people MUCH wealthier than him because they were born into the vast riches and privilege that is America and Europe?
Jeff Bezos used to work as a cook at McDonalds in his teenage years.
Ugh, I'll be honest, I'm kinda tired of this "debate." We're really going to keep peddling the myth that any hard working joe can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become a billionaire? That's the tale we're telling with a straight face in 2023?
- Oprah Winfrey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey)
- Howard Schultz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Schultz)
- Ralph Lauren (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Lauren)
- Larry Ellison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison)
- Kenneth Langone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Langone)
- David Murdock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Murdock)
- Alan Gerry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gerry)
- John Paul DeJoria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_DeJoria)
The pandemic period was the best example - monetarily, that was the last 12 years compressed into a 2 year window. The amount of money in the system was so immense that anything and everything was being funded at absurd valuations.
It doesn't though, since your claim is bullshit. Elon's wealth is absolutely based on his parents' success.
I'm not actually saying that he's not a great business tycoon, he clearly is based on track record. Plenty of people have the kind of base resources he had without amounting to anything. Either they don't bother to even try or are too stupid or too unlucky too succeed. His parents wealth is still the catapult that launched him to his current success.
There are plenty of people who could have done what he's done but did not because of lack of resources.
With X.com he did quite a bit than invest as all of the other cofounders left prior to launch. By the time they merged with cofinity Elon was the only one of the original team.
But a lot of middle-class people try and fail to create any kind of business.
The reason is that it takes more than money and education to build a business.
Money and education are necessary to build a great business, like electricity is for your home, but insufficient, as your home also needs good construction, running water, etc.
Elon's inherited wealth and excellent upbringing were necessary for his Tesla and SpaceX success, but far from sufficient.
If a good rich childhood was all that's necessary to commercialize electric cars, reusable rockets, and fast satellite internet, then we'd have a lot more of these kinds of amazing products as millions of people have good rich childhoods.
What he did invent is the snake oil salesman pitch. Oh wait, actually... he did not invent that either.