←back to thread

The great displacement is already well underway?

(shawnfromportland.substack.com)
512 points JSLegendDev | 6 comments | 12 May 25 14:32 UTC | HN request time: 1.184s | source | bottom
Show context
JohnMakin ◴[13 May 25 18:34 UTC] No.43976144[source]▶
I’m not trying to be unsympathetic in this comment so please do not read it that way, and I’m aware having spent most of my career in cloud infrastructure that I am usually in high demand regardless of market forces - but this just does not make sense to me. If I ever got to the point where i was even in high dozens of applications without any hits, I’d take a serious look at my approach. Trying the same thing hundreds of times without any movement feels insane to me. I believe accounts like this, because why make it up? as other commenters have noted there may be other factors at play.

I just wholly disagree with the conclusion that this is a common situation brought by AI. AI coding simply isnt there to start replacing people with 20 years of experience unless your experience is obsolete or irrelevant in today’s market.

I’m about 10 years into my career and I constantly have to learn new technology to stay relevant. I’d be really curious what this person has spent the majority of their career working on, because something tells me it’d provide insight to whatever is going on here.

again not trying to be dismissive, but even with my fairly unimpressive resume I can get at least 1st round calls fairly easily, and my colleagues that write actual software all report similar. companies definitely are being more picky, but if your issue is that you’re not even being contacted, I’d seriously question your approach. They kind of get at the problem a little by stating they “wont use a ton of AI buzzwords.” Like, ok? But you can also be smart about knowing how these screeners work and play the game a little. Or you can do doordash. personally I’d prefer the former to the latter.

Also find it odd that 20 years of experience hasnt led to a bunch of connections that would assist in a job search - my meager network has been where I’ve found most of my work so far.

replies(20): >>43976259 #>>43976303 #>>43976353 #>>43976380 #>>43976637 #>>43976752 #>>43977119 #>>43977214 #>>43977247 #>>43977438 #>>43977464 #>>43977541 #>>43977653 #>>43977728 #>>43977806 #>>43977828 #>>43977966 #>>43978694 #>>43979741 #>>43981729 #
harmmonica ◴[13 May 25 19:35 UTC] No.43976752[source]▶
Pure speculation, but I wonder if it's not so much AI as tech companies realizing they actually can do more with less. And, again, I have no evidence to back this up other than "feels," but I swear when Elon bought Twitter and cut so much of the workforce that's when sentiment seemed to shift materially. I wonder if that wasn't a bit of an "aha" moment for mega tech and tech in general. It's like all the major companies said maybe we don't need as many people as we have. Of course people are going to debate whether the changes at Twitter had a monumentally-negative impact (they may very well have in terms of revenue, but I'm not so sure in terms of absolute or even relative profit).

Of course, as a sibling comment, I think, said it could be the end of ZIRP. But maybe the truth is it's end of ZIRP, seeing a "peer" shed employees en masse and not fail outright, and AI.

Twitter deal in 2022. Headcount by year for a few (not suggesting this data supports my theory; just sharing to reality check)...

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/META/meta-platform... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/numb... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/number-... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MSFT/microsoft/num...

Edit: grammar

replies(7): >>43976860 #>>43977178 #>>43977327 #>>43977477 #>>43977782 #>>43977954 #>>43979868 #
1. jaredklewis ◴[14 May 25 01:48 UTC] No.43979868[source]▶
I’ve heard this Twitter example bandied about tons of times, but I’m always confused. To be clear, I’m generally sympathetic to the view that there is tons of bloat at tech companies and big companies in general.

But I’m confused by Twitter being an example because:

1. Twitter went private so we don’t really know how well or poorly the business did after making the massive cuts

2. The little information we do have indicates that advertising revenue significantly declined after the acquisition

Since Twitter financials are private we can only speculate, but my best guess would be that Elon took a bloated, unprofitable business and turned into a lean, unprofitable business, which doesn’t seem all that impressive to me.

What about this story warrants it being dragged out into every conversation about businesses cutting bloat, I cannot understand. People seemed genuinely amazed that Twitter was able to keep the site online without ever acknowledging what an absurdly low bar this is. Like I can light money on fire and keep a site online too; it’s the making money part that is the tricky bit.

replies(3): >>43980049 #>>43982259 #>>43993724 #
2. harmmonica ◴[14 May 25 02:19 UTC] No.43980049[source]▶
Just to clarify, I didn't trot it out initially because it's amazing (though at the size of Twitter I personally am kind of amazed; I thought it would be hard to keep it as stable as it's been with that much of a headcount reduction, but you're right about the opaqueness of the financials, although, really, not completely opaque re Fidelity write downs; it's been... not great).

That said, the trotting out was just to point out the coincident timing between when Elon started the cuts, and how aggressively he cut, and when other mega cap tech started slowing or even laying off workers. You might say "but none of those other companies clipped 80% of their folks," but that would be somewhat suicidal to do as a public company. But a high-profile trigger like that influences folks to take a harder look at how and why they're deploying personnel.

Last comment, when you heard what Elon was doing were you just like "wow, that's a lot of layoffs" and then went about your day? Or did it reinforce your view that "there is tons of bloat at tech companies..."? Do you really think the leaders at these companies are ignorant about that reality and that your opinion is unique? No offense, but I don't. They knew they were bloated. To steal another commenter's metaphor, there's all this overstaffing in the air, a combustible vapor of sorts. And Elon's reduction at Twitter lit a match.

replies(1): >>43980800 #
3. jaredklewis ◴[14 May 25 04:27 UTC] No.43980800[source]▶
Maybe it was a catalyst, I buy that because CEOs and thought leaders are still talking about it.

I just don’t understand why it would be. It’s an example you can’t learn anything from (since the company is private). But even if Twitter were still public, all the variables are confounded with the fact that the CEO is also a chaos agent, political operator, and potentially insane.

Sorry if my comment came off as attacking your post. I think your observation of the effect the Twitter cuts had on others is probably right. I am more criticizing the unscientific thinking of the people that claim to have taken a lesson from Elon’s management of Twitter.

replies(1): >>43981169 #
4. harmmonica ◴[14 May 25 05:37 UTC] No.43981169{3}[source]▶
No need to apologize. I thought your reply was thought-provoking and I think that’s why we’re all here—to share and learn from each other.
5. pjc50 ◴[14 May 25 08:34 UTC] No.43982259[source]▶
People were very skeptical that the site could even be maintained with that drastic a headcount reduction. Seems to me like the outcome was:

- site stays up and has sufficient ability to recover from outages

- can still deploy features in the frontend

- can't deploy features in the backend (look closely; mind you, Old Twitter absolutely sucked at product innovation too)

- moderation deliberately cut down

- due to some combination of increased unpleasantness, boycotts, and the personal brand toxicity of Elon, the advertising revenue is down

- site was levered into an unofficial US cabinet position (!), we have yet to see how lucrative that is. Maybe it includes a free jet.

6. xrhobo ◴[15 May 25 11:00 UTC] No.43993724[source]▶
The part missing is that Musk massively over payed for the bloated unprofitable business.

I would think Twitter is profitable with the cuts that were made it is just not nearly profitable enough to justify the investment.

Non-negative cash flow from operations but lighting money on fire when you add on the debt that was used to purchase the company.