• techt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      He’s saying lay off to 150k, not by 150k. He says getting down to that would be a 20% reduction, so that puts the then-current headcount at ~188k, so get rid of about 35-40k people.

        • techt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          50
          ·
          10 months ago

          35k is a pretty huge amount better than 150k. Are you just trying to say that it sucks either way? Because that I agree with, but when we criticize things, we should at least have the numbers right.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yes, I’m saying he’s a psychopath regardless of the numerical error. He’s talking about destroying the livelihood of tens of thousands of people, just so he can make some more money he doesn’t need, and could never spend. So it doesn’t really matter if it’s 30k, 40k, or 150k. He would propose anything that benefits him personally, regardless of the suffering it causes.

            • Miaou
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              10 months ago

              If you work at Google you’ll probably bounce back just fine.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Kinda glad I work in government/heavy industry. The highs aren’t very high and the lows aren’t very low. I will never be rich but I also will never be unemployed for over a week by choice.

                  • Miaou
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    And those sectors would gladly hire people from the tech sector, but yeah no one will pay you 300k for writing JavaScript

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          You don’t think firing 150,000 people is better or worse than firing 40,000? Ok.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            I’m saying his complete disregard for these employees as people, with families, and lives, is unaffected by the difference. He’s proposing to fire 30,000+ people so that a number in his portfolio can grow. A number that he doesn’t need, and will never spend. He’s a fucking psychopath, regardless of it being 30k, 40k, or 150k.

    • AlexisFR
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      But he’s still correct. Having too many people on way too inflated salaries isn’t good business sense. Over hiring can hurt people’s careers, too.

      • EnderMB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        I work in tech.

        The average time a software engineer, regardless of level, stays at a big tech company is around 18-24 months. That, surprisingly, hasn’t changed with the market slowing. Many are still taking jobs at a higher level at smaller companies, or leaving to do other things.

        Given the severance paid out for many of these employees, alongside the operational damage caused, it’s likely that the people they laid off or forced out would have already left for another role. Funny enough, many of the companies that laid thousands of people off are still hiring external candidates, or people on boomerang deals to return to the company after 6-12 months.

        It was always a short-sighted move, triggered by everyone else doing the same thing. While you’re not wrong, I don’t have enough faith in these companies to run things for the benefit of their current employees.