←back to thread

209 points htrp | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.416s | source
Show context
idkwhattocallme ◴[] No.44444622[source]
For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them get there drives home it's just a paycheck, do your job, but know it can and will end when convenient for the company. I know folks will argue, low performers, but really. This "productivity apps" company hired them, onboarded them, made $82B in profit, surely they can figure out how to uplevel folks. Also how do you have a layoff every couple of months for 3 years. Thinking about the middle class in the previous generation, it was unions that effectively ensured a labor job meant a secure future. I wonder if that's the solution (again).
replies(22): >>44444692 #>>44444744 #>>44444872 #>>44445007 #>>44445352 #>>44445600 #>>44445621 #>>44445705 #>>44445722 #>>44445743 #>>44445758 #>>44445853 #>>44445888 #>>44446540 #>>44446696 #>>44447236 #>>44447339 #>>44447678 #>>44447824 #>>44452199 #>>44452368 #>>44457573 #
runjake ◴[] No.44444692[source]
Didn't Satya or somebody state in recent months that it was a tactic to get rid of low performers? I believe Meta is doing something similar.

Edit: Allegedly not.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-microsoft-c...

"Nadella addressed the recent layoffs, clarifying that the decision was not based on individual job performance. “This is a structural change, not a reflection of how people were performing,” Nadella explained. He emphasized that Microsoft is shifting its strategic focus, with a renewed emphasis on artificial intelligence (AI), which the company views as a key driver of its long-term vision and growth."

replies(4): >>44444757 #>>44444824 #>>44444978 #>>44445520 #
atomicnumber3 ◴[] No.44444757[source]
Also, if it were actually about "low performers", this wouldn't be in the news. They'd just be terminated during/before perf review.
replies(2): >>44445521 #>>44446853 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.44446853[source]
Somehow on places like HN, people aren't worthy of a job, it is the inverse of Peter Principle, keep firing the low performers until they land a job where they manage not to get fired.
replies(1): >>44448711 #
atomicnumber3 ◴[] No.44448711[source]
That's literally how capitalism determines wages, yes. I too have critiques of capitalism. But I often refrain from enumerating them on every single comment that relates to labor because otherwise we never get to actually discuss labor in its current context.
replies(1): >>44451804 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.44451804[source]
Fortunately there are other ways to determine wages.

Not every society expects people to achieve maximal performace on quarterly OKR, while management foreman's play rythmic cadence drums and whip slashes.

replies(1): >>44459321 #
1. atomicnumber3 ◴[] No.44459321[source]
Ok sure, dude I am with you, I am a socialist. But this doesn't help us navigate the existing system we have to work in until we can finally establish a truly socialist society.
replies(1): >>44471534 #
2. pjmlp ◴[] No.44471534[source]
It is a matter who we chose to vote on, the unions we empower, the fight for sensible work protection laws.

Then again, European socialism is already too left for US capitalism mindset.