Hacker News Reader

Comment by lcw | Hacker News Reader

I think this is just a matter of opinion. When something severe happens it's natural to not use the most harsh term to describe the event. It doesn't seems like something malicious.

When describing a death many people will say "they are no longer with us" instead of describing the circumstance of death. When talking about traumatic events we as a society have a natural propensity to not use triggering words. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that unless it's hiding information. As described above no one is hiding anything because we all understand what happened.

View on HN

Death is inevitable, unexpected, unplanned, usually caused by things beyond human control. Layoffs are a planned thing explicitly done by one human to another in order to increase corporate profits.

Layoffs are often a choice between letting a small percentage go or causing the entire company to go out of business.

Do you have some data to back that up? I'm not sure if a small percentage of employees are so expensive as to be the tipping point for a company to go out of business.

Employees are one of or the most expensive part of doing business for many. I guess you could google Gross vs Net margins in various companies or industries as an example (maybe here[1]). But layoffs aren't merely firing people, they are "firing people and not re-hiring for their positions or work." So it's often closing out on entire product strategies, such as the case here with YC.

[1]: https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile...

> Employees are one of or the most expensive part of doing business for many

Not debating that. I'm debating:

> Layoffs are often a choice between letting a small percentage go or causing the entire company to go out of business

Show me a company that MUST let go a SMALL PERCENTAGE of its workforce in order to not go out of business. Meaning a company which is hanging by a thread and that thread is (again) a small percentage of the workforce. Because if a small percentage of the workforce is expensive enough to provide you with the runway you need to continue doing business, that runway is short enough that the company will cease to exist anyway, so the point is moot.

Layoffs are a consequence of business decisions by a specific corporate entity.

If someone died in a mining accident and their employer sent their partner a letter saying “It appears they’re no longer with us”, that would not be well-received (to say the least). Euphemisms are only appropriate in the right circumstances.

I'm willing to accept this for a company that has verifiable issues that are not just accounting fuckeries (aka owners pulling cash out of the company by having a 2nd company that nominally owns the office building, patent licenses, overseas shell companies): consistent losses, lack of cash, you get the idea.

But for companies pulling in profits to the tune of millions if not billions of dollars in profit?! Their leadership should be terminated before even the lowest performing employee instead of getting paid bonuses for ruining the lives of thousands of people who made their bonuses possible by putting in the work.

If they had stated this exactly as you did it would have been a lot more honest and forthright

When someone is accidental, blameless or unexpected, like someone suddenly dying, it's entirely natural to use something like "passed away". Not the case when someone is directly responsible - "X was murdered by Y" is quite common, I believe?

Perhaps you could argue over the use of "impacted", but the use of passive voice is pretty objective. "We impacted 17 roles today" or perhaps "I impacted 17 roles today" is, well, it's still pretty bad, but at least it takes some responsibility.

I agree with you, but I think a passive voice is used correctly in that sentence you are referencing. It puts the emphasis on the impacted employees and then goes on to speak to their contributions. This takes away the company for a moment from the conversation to discuss the "impacted teammates". They were using an active voice up till that point.

Please don't compare death with layoffs. One if an inevitable but tragic part of life the other is an inevitable but tragic part of keeping the shareholders happy.

I think the whole notion of companies doing things "for the shareholders" is vastly overblown. Doesn't it make perfect sense on its own that YC realized the late-stage game was not working out, and that they were not going to be able to use those people effectively on other work?

> I think the whole notion of companies doing things "for the shareholders" is vastly overblown.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I don't share yours. Everything makes sense with the proper framing. My guess is that this has more to do with perception than with actual business needs. I can try as well: Doesn't it make perfect sense that in the current context it's very easy to justify cutting costs which if done during normal times would signal trouble/mismanagement?

>"It doesn't seems like something malicious."

No it seems like weaselicious to me.

“They are no longer with us” is widely understood and very unlikely to be ambiguous. If you said “they were impacted” I would lodge the same complaint.

HR might have an issue about disclosing private personal information about their embarrassing medical digestive system disorders, and implying they were fired for being full of shit.

https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/what-is-fecal-impa...

> When describing a death many people will say "they are no longer with us"

Fussell describes (in Class) this kind of talking-around situations as a "low" marker (in a class-signaling sense). The "high" version is to just plainly state "X died" or "X is dead". Similar for describing things like pregnancy.

Not sure what significance this has for corporate communication, and I'm also not sure how true it is (though all the things he described that I do know about were remarkably accurate) but, well, there's that I guess. Regardless, I'm not sure that kind of avoidant language is natural (though possibly it is, and it has to be trained out to get the more-direct "high" version—but I suspect either preference is mainly a socialization thing).

"John is no longer with us" is a completely reasonable thing to say, unless it's coming from the person who shot John.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com