How many people are really required to keep the lights on and even create new things vs. how many people have been hired and now laid off to drive the stock price?
How many people are really required to keep the lights on and even create new things vs. how many people have been hired and now laid off to drive the stock price?
I understand it takes some mystique of brilliance off of CEOs, CFOs and founders and make them seem rather ordinary. However I'd say this is a fact known to most who have given few thoughts about how real world works and how luck / random fluctuation can play a major part in outsize success in life.
Of course media can't really put in such plain language as it would just blow up million narrations about man and woman came up on top when all the odds were stacked against them.
And in the states, cobra can be expensive. Not everybody can run barefoot.
Edit: forgot, might have to scramble re immigration upon layoff.
Based on whatever laws protect you as an employee, I don't see why people bet such a large portion of their lives on their employer.
My spouse died recently and I was left to care for a toddler by myself. It was rough. I could not work anymore and after some period of unpaid leave, my employer proposed to end our cooperation. I think it was fair. They had paid me well for my work and I was smart enough not to blow it all on big cars and other useless things.
Highly paid specialists complaining about the big tech layoffs are either in a better position than me (usually they either have no dependents or have a spouse to help with either the mortgage or the kids), or their bad situation is entirely self-inflicted by their reckless spending.
If you have to keep enough money for two things insurers are adept at not covering in a row you may as well save all your premiums to get there faster.
Trust. If you want people to want to work for you, you shouldn't be seen getting rid of people for no reason at all.
Source: I just left Red Hat unrelated to the layoffs.
In my estimate it takes an intermediate software engineer "new hire" about 6 months to get to a point where they can add measurable value and it probably takes 2-3 years to maximize their experience/contribution ratio. From then they can still ramp up but it's a longer curve.
Rehiring some random person, if you already had a good person in the role that you're firing, is just plain dumb.
Likely most CEOs do not understand that.
On the other hand, keeping a person that's not a good fit is just as plain dumb. That's true regardless of the state of the economy but doubly true when times are hard.
A typical ROI on new initiatives in tech can be anywhere from 2 to 5 to even 10 years. I.e. companies that are going to be successful some years from today need to be working on that event horizon. Companies that have laid off less or no or "token" amount of people, while maybe also still hiring (there are companies like that), are likely those that think like that.
I don’t think Adobe has had general layoffs yet
How Adobe’s CFO is avoiding mass layoffs: ‘We don’t want our employees worried about when the next shoe is going to drop’
https://fortune.com/2023/03/22/adobe-mass-layoffs-tech-industry-trends/