Man worth $7.48B says Google should cut 28,000 more people after layoffs(sfgate.com)
sfgate.com
Man worth $7.48B says Google should cut 28,000 more people after layoffs
https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/billionaire-hohn-more-google-layoffs-17736530.php
102 comments
Of FAANG, only one company hasn't had major layoffs this year.
Apple has never in the last decade had any trouble recruiting top tier personnel, but now that advantage has significantly increased.
To me, that's a great reason to be long AAPL and short whatever companies give into the nonsense this guy is peddling.
Apple has never in the last decade had any trouble recruiting top tier personnel, but now that advantage has significantly increased.
To me, that's a great reason to be long AAPL and short whatever companies give into the nonsense this guy is peddling.
Time will tell what Apple will do here. Seems a bit too early to say "Apple won't be doing any layoffs", at least according to some sources.
> first disclosed from an email to AppleInsider [...] says that some Apple retail channel employees who work in places like Best Buy stores have received a thirty-day notice about their rights as it pertains to a layoff
> It's not clear what percentage of the workforce is affected. It's a notable enough volume of firings to be able to glean the information from multiple sources, however.
> A second part of the initial email suggests that Retail Customer Care employees will be notified later on Friday, and over the weekend. We could not verify independently that this will happen, however.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/01/20/layoffs-in-some-o...
Seems like a very small layoff so far, hitting Apple retail employees working for Apple but in resellers (so not Apple Store employees, but Apple employees none-the-less), but maybe they are just starting small. Again, time will tell.
> first disclosed from an email to AppleInsider [...] says that some Apple retail channel employees who work in places like Best Buy stores have received a thirty-day notice about their rights as it pertains to a layoff
> It's not clear what percentage of the workforce is affected. It's a notable enough volume of firings to be able to glean the information from multiple sources, however.
> A second part of the initial email suggests that Retail Customer Care employees will be notified later on Friday, and over the weekend. We could not verify independently that this will happen, however.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/01/20/layoffs-in-some-o...
Seems like a very small layoff so far, hitting Apple retail employees working for Apple but in resellers (so not Apple Store employees, but Apple employees none-the-less), but maybe they are just starting small. Again, time will tell.
> Of FAANG, only one company hasn't had major layoffs this year.
So far.
So far.
Apple showed restraint in hiring over the pandemic to a greater degree than the others.
Hohn is a German word that fits pretty well here
"Sir Christopher Hohn A British hedge fund manager knighted by the late Queen Elizabeth II says that Google and its parent company, headquartered in the Bay Area, should lay off more people after axing more than 12,000 people."
Title should read: "Upper class hedge fund manager thinks engineers make too much money, wants it for himself".
Title should read: "Upper class hedge fund manager thinks engineers make too much money, wants it for himself".
He was brought-up working class. His father's a Jamaican-born mechanic who moved to the UK in the 60s. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The class-war stuff probably isn't helpful.
He is currently upper class by virtue of his net worth and literal title as a knight.
A bit off topic, but a knighthood doesn't make you upper-class. In England, the real upper-classes are landed nobles with hereditary titles (who will look down on any parvenu with a knighthood and a few billion).
Also most of the upper class don't have much money left, those houses cost a fortune to maintain.
Then I guess he should stop engaging in class war, shouldn't he
Let's be honest, a big part of the goal of the fed action and these layoffs is to even the playing field between labor and capital. Silicon Valley type engineers especially were getting dangerously close to escaping precarity (and did in a lot of cases). Now the FAANG club gets to the join the rest of the precariat in the "I'm constantly worried about losing my job, probably shouldn't be too ballsy with my vacation or ask for more money" world. Obviously the $ values are higher than a lineworker at Ford, but lets be honest if you are a mid level dev with a family in silicon valley your standard of living is the same or below that line worker in the 70s.
> even the playing field between labor and capital
No, the goal was to keep it tilted in capital's favor. Which group wields greater decision-making power? Which type of income is more lightly taxed? Capital vehicles (corporations) have almost all of the rights and practically none of the responsibilities - or vulnerabilities such as mortality or geographic limitation - of human laborers. Yes, the playing field needs to be leveled ... the other way.
No, the goal was to keep it tilted in capital's favor. Which group wields greater decision-making power? Which type of income is more lightly taxed? Capital vehicles (corporations) have almost all of the rights and practically none of the responsibilities - or vulnerabilities such as mortality or geographic limitation - of human laborers. Yes, the playing field needs to be leveled ... the other way.
I wouldn't count among the downtrodden proletariat the extremely well-paid Silicon Valley engineers who sell themselves to rapacious advertising companies. This is one elite individual saying something other elite individuals don't like.
This is elite class war, it’s turning the low income against the high income to the benefit of the wealthy and elite. Software engineers are no doubt better off than the vast majority of people, top 3% easily when looking at income but most of them are still “wage slaves” and their luck can turn. Pitting us all against each other is the goal.
The goal is to make silicon valley engineers part of the downtrodden proletariat. Lots of jobs used to be high paying until they weren't.
[deleted]
Someone making $1m a year would need to work 7,400 years in order to be worth as much as this dude. Silicon Valley engineers are certainly well off but they are in nowhere near the same class as the kinds of people who are worth $7.48B.
[deleted]
The battle between capital and the labor is class warfare.
Maybe so, but traditional left-wing thinking would put Silicon Valley engineers firmly in the bourgeoisie—a group that pretends to have interests in common with the proletariat, but doesn't really. If it is class war, you guys really aren't on the same side as your nannies, cleaners, gardeners, dog-walkers, and people serving food in your free cafeterias. Their interests are very different, even if it pleases you to think defending your elite benefits somehow helps them too.
It seems lots of people commenting here want Google to be a sinecure program for superfluous engineers. They're ardently pro-capitalist when it comes to startups and VC money and fleecing the proles with predatory advertising. But curiously left-wing and we're-all-in-this-together when their privileges are threatened.
It seems lots of people commenting here want Google to be a sinecure program for superfluous engineers. They're ardently pro-capitalist when it comes to startups and VC money and fleecing the proles with predatory advertising. But curiously left-wing and we're-all-in-this-together when their privileges are threatened.
They might have a lot more in common with the gardeners and carpenters if these hedge funds have their way. Capital is much better at capturing wealth than laborers and that's the core structural issue.
Do we know that the people laid off by Google, or advocated for layoffs by this billionaire, don't include the cleaners, gardeners and people serving food in the free canteen?
I think painting this as a "capitalists vs the left" thing is reductive and unhelpful. Personally, speaking as someone who Americans would probably consider extreme-left, I very much agree with your second paragraph, but I don't see this as "capitalism vs the left", I see it as the elite rich abusing their position to the detriment of everyone else. A story as old as time.
I think painting this as a "capitalists vs the left" thing is reductive and unhelpful. Personally, speaking as someone who Americans would probably consider extreme-left, I very much agree with your second paragraph, but I don't see this as "capitalism vs the left", I see it as the elite rich abusing their position to the detriment of everyone else. A story as old as time.
He obviously should pay himself less so there is more money for the real value-generators. Owning Google stock doesn't help them do anything, but coding, testing, operating, marketing certainly does.
[deleted]
Man who "paid himself nearly $2 million a day in 2022" says google pay their staff too much ...
I read the article and don't see where he says that. I do see that he thinks Google has too many staff, but not that the payment level is too high.
And frankly, if the son of a mechanic can get to the point of earning $2m/day, that's an indication that he has some amount of clue.
And frankly, if the son of a mechanic can get to the point of earning $2m/day, that's an indication that he has some amount of clue.
> “management should also take the opportunity to address excessive employee compensation.”
He has a clue how he should be paid more, yes.
Google is worth as much as it is because it can afford the best engineers. If it can't, they'll go elsewhere and it won't be worth that much. Obviously they should all be replaced with offshore contractors.
He has a clue how he should be paid more, yes.
Google is worth as much as it is because it can afford the best engineers. If it can't, they'll go elsewhere and it won't be worth that much. Obviously they should all be replaced with offshore contractors.
I saw a quote from him a few weeks ago where he did say they were overpaid.
> wants it for himself
“wants it for his investors”
His job is to advocate on behalf of his investors to get the best return he can. For this service he is well paid. We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job, successfully. Just because he is rich doesn’t mean his argument is wrong.
“wants it for his investors”
His job is to advocate on behalf of his investors to get the best return he can. For this service he is well paid. We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job, successfully. Just because he is rich doesn’t mean his argument is wrong.
>We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job
W.T.F.
I mean I hate to bring up the analogy, but at the Nuremberg Trials we hung people for 'just doing their job' because just following orders can lead to millions dead and other completely and totally terrible outcomes for humanity.
W.T.F.
I mean I hate to bring up the analogy, but at the Nuremberg Trials we hung people for 'just doing their job' because just following orders can lead to millions dead and other completely and totally terrible outcomes for humanity.
This is the first time I’ve heard Google layoffs equated to the Holocaust.
Not equated, just noting the that the "doing my job" argument is the same. If it isn't, do elaborate. Yes the jobs are different, as are all jobs from each other.
They aren't referring to Google layoffs, the evil people are the hedge fund managers.
Just because he's advocating on behalf of investors doesn't mean his argument is right either. I think the better question is wtf does a hedge fund manager know about running a tech company and why should we give any credence to his ideas about staffing?
I'm not saying he's right or wrong. I'm saying he isn't wrong just because he's rich, or just because he's a hedge fund manager. Both are ad hominem attacks and ignore the actual arguments that Google needs to trim down.
What's the 'actual argument' here? He's essentially saying that he'd make more money if Google had less costs, and one way to cut costs is firing people. That's it.
He doesn't go into any detail outside of "fire people and pay the ones you don't fire less"
He's just a parasite on society who wants to suck more blood.
He doesn't go into any detail outside of "fire people and pay the ones you don't fire less"
He's just a parasite on society who wants to suck more blood.
Not to worry. HIS job is increased shareholder value. Google was 92 USD when the layoffs were announced. Currently it's 93 dollars.
Surely if it drops back below 92 he'll change his mind ...
Surely if it drops back below 92 he'll change his mind ...
The argument has been made recently by this guy and others that Google grew its ranks second only to Facebook during the pandemic, that it’s performance per employee today hasn’t justified the growth, and that it should stop putting money to inefficient uses given that suddenly there is an opportunity cost to capital with the ending of ZIRP worldwide.
Seems reasonable to me. We learned how inefficient conglomerates are back in the 60s/70s.
Seems reasonable to me. We learned how inefficient conglomerates are back in the 60s/70s.
But that's the extent of the argument, and if you take away all the unsupported claims, it boils down to, "Google has more employees than it did, those employees cost a lot, Google should fire employees to lower its cost"
Do they? How much money did they lose this past quarter?
Well isn’t it obvious that if they make the same amount after the layoffs as before, then they lost in the last quarter whatever they paid employees who weren’t adding to the bottom line?
Obvious but wrong. Only salespeople and M&A dealmakers add to the bottom line. All engineers and marketers are cost centers. One acquistion can add billions to revenue. Taking a charge for impairment of good will after a Waymo vehicle kills a busload of Girl Scouts would have nothing to do with that many employees. Earnings changes due to currency fluctuations also have nothing to do with employment. Oh yeah, customers using more or less of paid services doesn't reflect at all on employees either.
> We need to stop demonizing people for doing their job, successfully.
Even when their job is to actively hurt you, your family, and those around you?
Even when their job is to actively hurt you, your family, and those around you?
chairmanwow1(3)
Other people:
> I don’t like this guy’s job.
You:
> But it’s his job.
Right, they already said that part. They still don’t like his job.
> I don’t like this guy’s job.
You:
> But it’s his job.
Right, they already said that part. They still don’t like his job.
Not exactly.
Other people:
> This guy is wrong because of his job and the fact that he's apparently good enough at it that he's become rich.
Me:
> Neither of these facts has anything to do with his argument. He's neither right nor wrong based on his job or his success at his job.
Other people:
> This guy is wrong because of his job and the fact that he's apparently good enough at it that he's become rich.
Me:
> Neither of these facts has anything to do with his argument. He's neither right nor wrong based on his job or his success at his job.
His investors would also be better off investing their money through a fund that doesn't charge 2 and 20 to hold Google stock. Maybe his investors should redirect their focus when it comes to cost-cutting?
Why don’t we assume his investors make decisions in their own self interest and that you probably aren’t the right arbiter of what they’d be better off doing?
[deleted]
You’re right. To be a success capitalist, you need to be maximally greedy at all times. If you’re not greedy enough, someone else will just come and replace you
According to his wiki bio he comes from humble origins so the upper class barb isn't that helpful.
The "person worth $B" idiom has always bothered me. He isn't "worth" $7.48B. He "controls assets valued at $7.48B".
Did he write a letter in 2021/2022 recommending not to hire so many people?
That's not his decision to make.
Google leadership decide how to allocate people and resources.
Some areas are bloated, but others definitely aren't. Goog has 10x staff per capita (not linear scale) as a comparable MAAN_ I work at.
They definitely don't have enough in GCP and have a track record of under-resourcing support and engineering. It should be high-status department that doesn't pinch pennies, but they do. AWS OTOH is high-status and rarely touched by layoffs because it's both critical to running the company and highly-profitable.
Google leadership decide how to allocate people and resources.
Some areas are bloated, but others definitely aren't. Goog has 10x staff per capita (not linear scale) as a comparable MAAN_ I work at.
They definitely don't have enough in GCP and have a track record of under-resourcing support and engineering. It should be high-status department that doesn't pinch pennies, but they do. AWS OTOH is high-status and rarely touched by layoffs because it's both critical to running the company and highly-profitable.
There's a lot of ad-hominem attacks against this guy, including implied in the title.
Not much analysis as to whether or not he's right...
Not much analysis as to whether or not he's right...
The fact he wants to go up to 20% layoffs as it's a "round number" is telling.
I do see that as odd given what he proports to be but what do you get out of it? I was thinking that this guy goes with his gut feeling and happens to get lucky from time to time.
He likely doesn't have a deep understanding of the numbers, just thinks it's overstaffed and 20% reduction sounds good cause it's nice and round.
Indeed.
https://youtu.be/UOYi4NzxlhE?t=87
It's a useful skill, but not worth 7.48B IMHO. They say hate the game, not the player. But then, the players have chosen this game, and often don't want it to change.
https://youtu.be/UOYi4NzxlhE?t=87
It's a useful skill, but not worth 7.48B IMHO. They say hate the game, not the player. But then, the players have chosen this game, and often don't want it to change.
He believes that a major company is overstaffed and needs to cut 1/5th of its workforce in the current economic climate.
He may be qualified to make that call or be as unqualified as any random person off the street.
Apart from this, what is telling about it?
He may be qualified to make that call or be as unqualified as any random person off the street.
Apart from this, what is telling about it?
When people pick numbers because they "look nice" it's apparent they didn't down hundreds of hours of analysis on the companies divisions and which bets seem viable, where things are redundant, and come up with any real signal (like Buffet would). If they had, they almost certainly wouldn't conclude "it's exactly 20.000% should be gotten rid of, pick whichever 20% you want"
Personally, I am always more suspicious of 20.1% in this context when someone is obviously trying to bullshit with fake precision in a context that is inherently not that exact.
20% vs 21% is basically meaningless in this context. We can't run it a 1000X or see the counterfactual to know what figure would be more correct.
I just take 20% to mean "a good chunk" and much preferable to a style of fake precision you seem to think is better here.
20% vs 21% is basically meaningless in this context. We can't run it a 1000X or see the counterfactual to know what figure would be more correct.
I just take 20% to mean "a good chunk" and much preferable to a style of fake precision you seem to think is better here.
It's rich so of course he's qualified. /s
Why do we listen to these people with no experience in the tech field and no knowledge of how google works internally?
Why do we listen to these people with no experience in the tech field and no knowledge of how google works internally?
He doesn't actually say that in the letter, that is just the journalist's phrasing: https://www.tcifund.com/files/corporateengageement/alphabet/...
It's all just figures on a spreadsheet to him.
Figures on a spreadsheet... set to round all numbers to 10% boundaries? I don't trust that any real analysis has gone into this.
To do any real analysis you'd need an org chart, head counts, and a P/L with much more granularity than Google publishes. He has none of these. The people with all of those chose 6%, and even that seems to have been largely due to pressure.
This guy is only pressuring, there's no data behind this, no reasoning, nothing smart or worth listening to.
To do any real analysis you'd need an org chart, head counts, and a P/L with much more granularity than Google publishes. He has none of these. The people with all of those chose 6%, and even that seems to have been largely due to pressure.
This guy is only pressuring, there's no data behind this, no reasoning, nothing smart or worth listening to.
Right, I mean a very simple spreadsheet that doesn't actually capture how the company works. Like, a toy spreadsheet. "20% looks nice—let's go with that".
Damn everyone here is a capitalist when wages are spiraling and employers are handing out RSUs and IPOs pop, but when the first recession comes suddenly we're all the proletariat.
Haha, had the exact same reaction when reading the top comments here..
Google, along with rest of FAANG are massively over staffed, which they could get away with in a zero-interest rate economy when money was super-cheap, but not anymore.
They could all cut 70%+ without significantly hurting their revenue growth, which makes all the economic sense in the world in the current environment.
Google, along with rest of FAANG are massively over staffed, which they could get away with in a zero-interest rate economy when money was super-cheap, but not anymore.
They could all cut 70%+ without significantly hurting their revenue growth, which makes all the economic sense in the world in the current environment.
Look at government finances for 5 seconds. We will be back to 0% interest rates in less than 2 years. For the same reason as explained in margin call:
"Its just money; its made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong. And it's certainly no different ..."
Because if we aren't back to 0% in ~2 years the government will be doing its job without money, proverbially killing people just to get something to eat.
So I guess, given your comment as that being the cause of huge wages, that's great news for most people here!
"Its just money; its made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong. And it's certainly no different ..."
Because if we aren't back to 0% in ~2 years the government will be doing its job without money, proverbially killing people just to get something to eat.
So I guess, given your comment as that being the cause of huge wages, that's great news for most people here!
> They could all cut 70%+ without significantly hurting their revenue growth
Short-term, maybe. But as things start to fall apart, their revenue would surely stop to grow at the same rate.
Short-term, maybe. But as things start to fall apart, their revenue would surely stop to grow at the same rate.
I doubt it. Having too many employees is a huge drag on an organizations rate of innovation. Company politics start to run the show.
Agree, having too many employees is a huge downside, overhead gets incredibly high very quickly. But having too few is also a downside. Trick is to balance it for what you need, something many companies seems to adjust for right now :)
I've spent the whole boom thinking big-tech workers were nuts for not organizing while times were good.
Everyone takes the weekend for granted because they were not the ones fighting for it to be available to them. They don't know how it was when you were forced to work every day of the week (maybe you got lucky and got Sundays off, maybe also Monday if you were very lucky but uncommon), without the weekend, so then you're bound to repeat history.
Thank god for the modern invention of the weekend thanks to unions, labor movements and all the campaigns, I'm sure most people cannot imagine life without it. But it is a relatively recent invention.
Thank god for the modern invention of the weekend thanks to unions, labor movements and all the campaigns, I'm sure most people cannot imagine life without it. But it is a relatively recent invention.
It's much worse than that. Not only were these downtrodden developers earning $400k+ in total compensation, but they were doing it writing literal panopticon surveillance apparatus adtech platforms, or addiction-inducing heuristics for social media platforms, or optimizing packet delivery for mindless streaming video consumption.
And not a single one of these people will ever look in the mirror and ask "are we the baddies?"
No self-awareness whatsoever.
And not a single one of these people will ever look in the mirror and ask "are we the baddies?"
No self-awareness whatsoever.
And still read comments against setting minimum wage at some liveable levels. These are likely different people, but still it is somewhat weird to read either of the comments.
You see though, if workers received the full value of their labor as wages instead of having it taken as profit, we would eat our cake and have it too.
Probably not a great example when most tech companies are failing. Should workers pay to work in an unprofitable startup?
People love to say they want full value of their work. They just don't want to take any of the risk. So, they let someone else build the multi billion dollar company first before making demands.
Very few people put their labor where their mouth is.
Very few people put their labor where their mouth is.
I think there’s a lot of wiggle room in so-called “capitalism” for things like workers’ rights. Capitalism doesn’t just mean “literally any action of an owner of means of production is okay” (or if you insist it does mean that, then you’ll indeed find a lot of people won’t identify with that definition of capitalism).
.. yawn, next. these socio/psychopaths have zero relevance.
TwoNineA(1)
Breaking: man with no experience building products concludes that he knows better than those who do it every day.
This is of course a common bias people have, not understanding what others do, but it's also exacerbated by a) being a privileged white man, b) his paycheck depending on it, and c) that analysing a company's numbers gives some investors a false sense of understanding the company – because they "understand" their investment they think that translates to understanding internals.
This is of course a common bias people have, not understanding what others do, but it's also exacerbated by a) being a privileged white man, b) his paycheck depending on it, and c) that analysing a company's numbers gives some investors a false sense of understanding the company – because they "understand" their investment they think that translates to understanding internals.
Thank you for bringing gender and race into the conversation. That's exactly what was missing here.
He's not claiming anything about product, there is something to be said for fiscal discipline and paying for 200,000 people with an unclear purpose (direct Pichai quote: "hired for a different economic reality", aka "unable to plan ahead for more than a few months"). But I still don't understand where were these smart frugal influential shareholders a year ago, when the overhiring could have been corrected without damaging the company's reputation and people's careers.
> This is of course a common bias people have, not understanding what others do, but it's also exacerbated by a) being a privileged white man
What does his skin color have to do with this? You could have just simply said "privileged multi-billionaire".
What does his skin color have to do with this? You could have just simply said "privileged multi-billionaire".
I was being a little facetious, but there’s some truth in it.
White men have a lot of privilege, that’s fairly well accepted, and something I know from first hand experience. That privilege is what leads to things like mansplaining and overconfidence in one’s own opinions, or even deeming one’s own opinions to be facts. It leads there because the privileged are less likely to receive pushback on their ideas, more likely to receive praise, or even funding for their ideas, and society treats them as overall more correct.
Huge generalisations of course, but so is most of this thread.
White men have a lot of privilege, that’s fairly well accepted, and something I know from first hand experience. That privilege is what leads to things like mansplaining and overconfidence in one’s own opinions, or even deeming one’s own opinions to be facts. It leads there because the privileged are less likely to receive pushback on their ideas, more likely to receive praise, or even funding for their ideas, and society treats them as overall more correct.
Huge generalisations of course, but so is most of this thread.
Watching WFH tech evangelists being sincerely stunned that GloboTechInc fired them over email (gasp) is not just ironic, but should be instructive.
What did you guys think would happen?
That the company who hired you to build a surveillance monopoly on the internet was going to look out for your best interests?
On a long enough timeline, many SWEs will engineer their job out of existence. Those left over will have to compete with the mythical 10x engineer and the latest AGI shitbot that can debug code all day long without ever having to take a bathroom break, or maternity leave.
To those affected: don’t capitulate to, or engage with the pity machine. It’s all cope. Those jobs, that headcount, is never coming back.
Take your skills and go build something you actually have true equity in.
Godspeed code monkey.
What did you guys think would happen?
That the company who hired you to build a surveillance monopoly on the internet was going to look out for your best interests?
On a long enough timeline, many SWEs will engineer their job out of existence. Those left over will have to compete with the mythical 10x engineer and the latest AGI shitbot that can debug code all day long without ever having to take a bathroom break, or maternity leave.
To those affected: don’t capitulate to, or engage with the pity machine. It’s all cope. Those jobs, that headcount, is never coming back.
Take your skills and go build something you actually have true equity in.
Godspeed code monkey.
He could be doing this only for selfish personal interest in his stake in Google, but that ALSO has no bearing on whether or not he is right about this. He could be both right about this AND have a selfish personal interest. Or he could be wrong about it, but either way this is a bad take that lacks critical thinking.