Not to mention complete and total population collapse. China and Russia are doomed to an almost certain extent.
6,844 karma · joined March 18, 2013
Very likely not, but what else could they have done to deal with demand other than hiring more people for a few years?
Yes. Also the fact that ChatGPT's UX and design leaves much to be desired. They could add/improve the product in so many obvious ways. I wonder if they either 1.) don't care, or 2.) have plans to, but are holding off until they take on a subscription fee.
Are they doing anything different than what was available in a Sears catalog 50 years ago?
Yeah I was surprised by the number. I have a relative that makes anywhere from 1.5x to 3x her annual salary on her annual bonus working for a US finance company.
> Maybe this is an example of managing expectations. Mercedes-Benz paying four-figure bonuses to employees is noteworthy largely because they're paying more than expected. Meanwhile, I see people who earn significantly more being unhappy because their compensation was less than some number they expected.
The tradeoffs are essentially this. In the US you can make orders of magnitude more money on salary, bonus and stock compensation. However, you get essentially zero employee protections. Meaning you can be fired without cause and without severance at anytime. You have no legal right to things like maternity or paternity leave, and you have no legal right to affordable health insurance coverage.
About as accurate as you could be I think.
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/44vaFvFLaHvRi9aaYW2Iq1?go=...
> collusion is not needed
It's not explicitly needed. However, rest assured there's a mutual understanding among all big tech executives that the next few years are going to be incredibly profitable for them.
Think about it. They can do layoffs as many times as they want. This forces lower wages. They can still use inflation, the pandemic, the recession, and war as an excuse to keep raises low (or non existent). They can keep current employees in fear for several years.
If you run a VC backed business my suggestion is 24-30 months of runway is a good starting point.
As far as individuals go, it's not a bad idea to mirror this advice. Have essentially 2 to 2.5 years of income saved in the event that you get laid off and can't find a job for a long time. Hopefully it never comes to that, but it never hurts to be prepared.
I believe we're going to double dip. We already dipped before the holidays. We'll see one more very painful quarter, which may not be Q1, but Q2 or Q3. From what I've seen, Series B+ is essentially impossible right now unless you're in the top 0.0001% of companies. Even then, if you're that operationally efficient, you might even hold off on funding until you can pull a higher valuation in 24-36 months.
As far as tech layoffs go. I think this has been coming for nearly a decade. Companies have been hiring at what seemed an insane pace for so long that it just became the norm. My personal opinions on Elon aside, he proved how bloated a lot silicon valley tech companies are/were.
You're misrepresenting what I said, and are being disingenuous. See my comment here → https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34332925 - I was not advocating for poking or prodding.
> Lastly, this doesn’t imply that it’s a sign of desperation, but reach out to your reports. Ask them if they think the meetings are effective, and raise your concerns. They’re an equal partner in this meeting, and should be for their benefit just as much, if not more than your benefit.
Thanks for the incredibly obvious advice.
> Honestly, given your comment, “But for the love of god, don't schedule a recurring meeting just so they can tell you things that are easily gleaned by reading a git commit.” tells me that you don’t actually understand what an effective 1:1, nor team meeting is. If you’re stuck a dramatic reading of the status reports, you failed to set the expectations of the meeting, and should learn how to run effective meeting. There are literal books written about this.
I'm being absolutely serious. I do not believe effective meetings exist. At least not how meetings are typically defined in the modern workplace. They are solely for the purpose of creating the illusion of work. I've read many literal books on the topic, and believe them all to be mostly trash.
This was my interpretation of the comment I was replying to. Here's what they wrote "A good people-person manager can get the employee to bring up things they otherwise wouldn't think of.". To me, that's a nice way of saying poke and prod. I'm not advocating for that.
> When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration.
That sounds fine to me, but why schedule a recurring meeting to do this? I'm not against meeting up with people and shooting the shit. I'm not against bringing up and discussing issues. I'm not against helping someone grow and flourish in their career. What I'm saying is that 1v1s are a horrible way to do any of those things. Recurring meetings in general are a horrible way to get anything constructive done. My suggestion is to be more proactive in how you manage. Don't wait for a 1v1 to discuss things. It's the same for all-hands. I despise all-hands meetings with a passion. It's a horribly inefficient way of setting company-wide expectations, doing an announcement, or whatever it is executive teams use all-hands for now.
> The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting.
This is incredibly easily solved by having open office hours. It achieves the same goal without the stress inducing event sitting on the employee's calendar for them to worry about hours before and after the meeting.
As a manager, I DESPISED doing 1v1s at my old company. We don't do them at my new company. It's an incredible waste of time. Create a culture that allows employees to come to you when THEY need to. If this isn't within the realm of possibility, at least make 1v1s optional for employees that just don't have anything to discuss every 1-2 weeks. Some people just like to do their jobs and get paid. As a manager, you should be able to see what your people are working on. If you have questions about it, ask them. But for the love of god, don't schedule a recurring meeting just so they can tell you things that are easily gleaned by reading a git commit.