What’s different about these layoffs
stackoverflow.blog
stackoverflow.blog
After surviving layoffs at smaller companies I've seen first hand the slow toxic death that follows.
I will never not see layoffs as a symptom of management that is profoundly sick in some manner.
Suppose you do have the ability to precisely predict supply and demand. What would you do if demand is predicted to increase for 5 years and then, decline for the following 5 years? Would you hire people to meet the increased demand? Would you keep them on payroll indefinitely after the 5th year?
I was offered a position at the start of of year at a start up. They ended up withdrawing but not because they didn't want me, I have now received a new offer from them (identical to the previous one), but they received some of their funding from a FAANG which demanded that they also apply a 10% headcount cut otherwise they would pull funding.
There is always some amount of churn, and you can manage headcount cuts without laying anyone off.
> I will never not see layoffs as a symptom of management that is profoundly sick in some manner.
Supply and demand can change quickly and unexpectedly. Making sweeping statements such as all layoffs could have been avoided seems naive.
Many "leaders" have stated that their business is growing, they have good cash reserves, but they felt they had to cut now. This isn't a downturn or a crisis, and it's not demand changing.
If we were in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of a recession, and everyone was bleeding, I think your statement makes sense. But if they have to lay off 10%+ of their workforce because they can't raise another multi-million dollar round, what does that say about their long-term business plan?
You aren't making a point, you're arguing to argue.
1. Use precise predictions of supply and demand to make huge amounts of money in stocks, commodities, etc..
2. Easily pay for whatever employees you want.
They are stating a fact WITH a citation, but it annoys you?
I never understand this false outrage, honestly. Females and minorities have minuscule numbers in tech, and having a modest attempt at growing numbers has a big backlash. And in THIS case, the fact cited is that disadvantaged people are MORE likely to lose their jobs.
They're also an editor for the newsletter:
"Journalists can be broadcast, print, advertising, and public relations personnel, and, depending on the form of journalism, the term journalist may also include various categories of individuals as per the roles they play in the process. This includes reporters, correspondents, citizen journalists, editors, editorial-writers, columnists, and visual journalists, such as photojournalists (journalists who use the medium of photography)." [0]
>but I guess scare quotes around journalist fits the picture you are trying to draw better?
No drawing any pictures here, they're technically considered a "journalist". QED. The scare quotes are there because journalists "collect/gather information in form of text, audio, or pictures, processes them into a news-worthy form". Except nothing that SJWs opine about is news-worth, hence the quotes. QED.
>They are stating a fact WITH a citation, but it annoys you?
They are not stating facts, and the citation does not have data that supports their conclusions.
>I never understand this false outrage
I'm not a child nor a leftist. Don't misinterpret annoyance with neo-Puritanical performative Wokeism with "outrage".
>Females and minorities have minuscule numbers in tech
This is objectively false.
>having a modest attempt at growing numbers has a big backlash.
"People are upset because they're targeted by my brand of racism/sexism. I don't get it!"
>And in THIS case, the fact cited is that disadvantaged people are MORE likely to lose their jobs.
They're not disadvantaged, and they're overrepresented in the roles that are being reduced (HR). Remember your rule: "any inequality is inequity". Glad they can fire some of these women and hire men in HR since men are underrepresented in these roles.