LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/16/microsoft-owned-linkedin-lays-off-nearly-700-read-the-memo-here.html
293 comments
Don’t you know?
We 10x engineers are so special that we are waving off offer after offer and that will never end.
Not only will that never end, but luckily I’m so perfect that I’ll never experience a disability or need any accommodation that I can’t just code or build myself.
I mean even then, certainly you had a good enough exit at your first company (like anyone good) that you could basically retire whenever.
I mean, you know it boils down to this: just be a better software engineer and you’ll never have to NEED a union. The only people that need unions probably suck at algorithms and think Kubernetes is too hard.
Live in emacs or starve is my motto
We 10x engineers are so special that we are waving off offer after offer and that will never end.
Not only will that never end, but luckily I’m so perfect that I’ll never experience a disability or need any accommodation that I can’t just code or build myself.
I mean even then, certainly you had a good enough exit at your first company (like anyone good) that you could basically retire whenever.
I mean, you know it boils down to this: just be a better software engineer and you’ll never have to NEED a union. The only people that need unions probably suck at algorithms and think Kubernetes is too hard.
Live in emacs or starve is my motto
I know this is said in jest, but I just want to remind people there is no such thing as being too valuable to be a member of a union. LeBron James is in a union. Tom Cruise is literally striking right now as part of the SAG-AFTRA union strike. Unless John Carmack happens to be reading this, I guarantee you are not close to being as valuable an engineer as LeBron is a basketball player or Cruise is an actor.
I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make, had LeBron James and Tom Cruise made a choice to join a union? Was the not joining an option for either of them? From what I know you cannot play in NBA nor you can play in Hollywood w/o being a union member. From what I can imagine each of them would do much better w/o being a union member if they are as good as you described them.
>had LeBron James and Tom Cruise made a choice to join a union?
Yes
>Was the not joining an option for either of them?
Yes
> From what I know you cannot play in NBA nor you can play in Hollywood w/o being a union member.
That isn't true. It is much harder in Hollywood than in the NBA, but some people decide to not join or leave the union. Jon Voight is the most famous example that comes to mind. He continues to work despite quitting SAG-AFTRA. It is also more common for actors who live in cities where non-union productions are more common (outside of LA and NYC).
Yes
>Was the not joining an option for either of them?
Yes
> From what I know you cannot play in NBA nor you can play in Hollywood w/o being a union member.
That isn't true. It is much harder in Hollywood than in the NBA, but some people decide to not join or leave the union. Jon Voight is the most famous example that comes to mind. He continues to work despite quitting SAG-AFTRA. It is also more common for actors who live in cities where non-union productions are more common (outside of LA and NYC).
>It is much harder in Hollywood than in the NBA
Can you expand on this, what is "harder" exactly? They don't enjoy the benefits of the union or they cannot get high paying roles? Also, are you implying Jon Voight is not a SAG member, if so, I'd like to see your sources because from what I can find he is a member while being in dispute with it (also shows how great the unions are).
And as far as NBA goes, not being a member is irrelevant as you are still paying dues and obey union regulations, fun fact I've found looking for this: Michael Jordan was not a member of the union and does seem to do better than LeBron James, e.g. there are those "Jordan" shoes which seem to do much stronger than "LeBrons".
Can you expand on this, what is "harder" exactly? They don't enjoy the benefits of the union or they cannot get high paying roles? Also, are you implying Jon Voight is not a SAG member, if so, I'd like to see your sources because from what I can find he is a member while being in dispute with it (also shows how great the unions are).
And as far as NBA goes, not being a member is irrelevant as you are still paying dues and obey union regulations, fun fact I've found looking for this: Michael Jordan was not a member of the union and does seem to do better than LeBron James, e.g. there are those "Jordan" shoes which seem to do much stronger than "LeBrons".
The unions have power in the industry and they work to maintain that power. That includes trying to establish rules making it difficult for union members to work non-union gigs and vice versa. This gives incentives for studios to make their productions union jobs which strengthens the union.
An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work because people generally don't want to deal with these headaches. However, actors can certainly have careers without being in the union. This is easier in places like Chicago or Atlanta were there is still a decent amount movie/TV production, but a lower percentage of the work is union work.
Jon Voight is a "fees-paying non-member". He is not part of the union. He has to pay dues whenever he wants to work union jobs.[1] Same as your NBA example.
I think you are mistaken about Michael Jordan. He opted out of union's shared licensing agreement[2] which is just one of the many benefits of the union. Have you found something that says he completely left the union?
[1] - https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/voight-gets-nom-i...
[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/01/sports/sports-of-the-time...
An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work because people generally don't want to deal with these headaches. However, actors can certainly have careers without being in the union. This is easier in places like Chicago or Atlanta were there is still a decent amount movie/TV production, but a lower percentage of the work is union work.
Jon Voight is a "fees-paying non-member". He is not part of the union. He has to pay dues whenever he wants to work union jobs.[1] Same as your NBA example.
I think you are mistaken about Michael Jordan. He opted out of union's shared licensing agreement[2] which is just one of the many benefits of the union. Have you found something that says he completely left the union?
[1] - https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/voight-gets-nom-i...
[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/01/sports/sports-of-the-time...
This response is thoughtful, but I'm not sure why you're bothering. The other guy is playing the lazy "just asking questions" game.
>An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work
This does not make membership an option, does it then? This is exactly the reason programmers like myself oppose the unions. Bringing up SAG in this context seems to be counter-productive to me but you can do that if you think this increases union's support somehow.
So I was wrong on the Jordan's membership, then who was playing in NBA without being a member if you say it's possible?
This does not make membership an option, does it then? This is exactly the reason programmers like myself oppose the unions. Bringing up SAG in this context seems to be counter-productive to me but you can do that if you think this increases union's support somehow.
So I was wrong on the Jordan's membership, then who was playing in NBA without being a member if you say it's possible?
>This does not make membership an option, does it then?
Yes it does. You are just redefining the meaning of "choice" now. There is always going to be pros and cons to any choice including this one. What do you want the non-union membership to look like? There are obviously going to be downsides to not joining the union or else there would be no reason to join the union and if there was no reason to join the union, it wouldn't exist.
Yes it does. You are just redefining the meaning of "choice" now. There is always going to be pros and cons to any choice including this one. What do you want the non-union membership to look like? There are obviously going to be downsides to not joining the union or else there would be no reason to join the union and if there was no reason to join the union, it wouldn't exist.
There can be different kinds of downsides. Not getting union pension plan is one kind of downside, not being able to get hired because union contract mandates preference to union members - another. Which kind are we dealing with here? If the second one then membership is practically a requirement to non-marginal employment, unless you're a superstar that can choose their own projects and doesn't need any security or continued employment.
Well, you said it's not true that you can play in Hollywood and NBA w/o being a union member. Apparently either it's true (even Joh Voight you gave as an example has to become a member to do Hollywood production as in pay dues and follow uinion regulations) or there is no choice, up to you.
>even Joh Voight you gave as an example has to become a member to do Hollywood production as in pay dues and follow uinion regulations
I already provided a link that proved this wrong. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but that other commenter is right, you aren't engaging in this conversation in good faith.
I already provided a link that proved this wrong. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but that other commenter is right, you aren't engaging in this conversation in good faith.
Same here, you came out and claimed there is no forced membership in NBA and SAG, which I took in good faith and did some research. It appears that no, you really cannot play in NBA or Hollywood without being a member in some sense (paying dues, obeying regulations but not having the right to vote). Now you are trying to present this as if union is completely voluntarily and not being a member having grave consequences is just some coincidence and my bad faith...
Just look at the amount of sincerely antisocial comments that boil down to effectively what I wrote above
It’s disappointing but not surprising
It’s disappointing but not surprising
Yes, unsurprisingly I've had these exact sorts of conversations at work (gamesdev).
Some of these people truly, truly believe that they are so gifted and so talented that the work opportunities will simply never dry up.
Some of these people truly, truly believe that they are so gifted and so talented that the work opportunities will simply never dry up.
If work opportunities dry up, how the union would help? Unions don't create work opportunities, they only can redistribute who gets the ones that are still there - e.g. by excluding nonmembers or by mandating that less senior members will be fired first, etc. Given that, why "these people" would be sure they aren't ones who'd get the short straw?
Do they have a choice? I mean, can you work jn the industry and not be member of the union and not strike? Would you have trouble getting hired if you chose not to be a member?
LeBron James is also underpaid, at least his NBA salary. That's why he chose his team based on whatever would be best for his "brand" so he could make real money.
He has the third highest annualized salary in the league, at $47.6 million. Curry is the highest paid at $52. Durant is second at $47.65.
He's definitely been underpaid in the past, but I'm not seeing it in his current contract.
He's definitely been underpaid in the past, but I'm not seeing it in his current contract.
> LeBron James is also underpaid, at least his NBA salary.
By what logic?
By what logic?
The NBA has a cap on how much each player can make (around $50M this year). Lebron could be, say, worth $100M/yr, yet they can't be paid this. I'm guessing that there are around a dozen players in the league worth more than the max salary.
$50M is not underpaid for any profession, that sounds like a sizeable salary regardless of what you do or the sacrifices you have to make.
It's "underpaid" in the sense of like, if teams would pay him more in the absence of the salary cap, which the other posters kindly reminded me of, then his "true" salary is higher than his current.
NBA has maximum contract sizes in its CBA. James (and many others) get the max contract allowed, which is why the best players choose teams for reasons other than money.
Ah, salary cap, forgot about those.
The comment you replied to was only two sentences, one of which described “by what logic?”
I'm all for unions (going as far as organization attempts at my company)... that said, in all my conversations there is one big thing that people seem to miss, which separates tech unions from automotive or sports unions: The type of work we do and how we're compensated for it.
Our work is closer to tool and die makers, we make money printers that keep running without our day-to-day involvement.
Let's take S3 as an example. AWS S3 was started with 10 engineers or so (according to Andy). AWS S3 is now an organization with over 800 SDEs alone, that headcount costs well over $300MM per year (still excluding all the SDMs, Ops, QAs, PMs, TPMs, DCAs, etc also involved). That headcount made sense as the product exploded with new features, hardware, regions, etc etc... but the "greenfield" new feature development pace is likely an S-curve, and we are now on the slowing side that will only continue to slow.
How many SDE hours/year are needed for S3's steady state operation? How do companies compensate skill for rapid growth, and then transition to their steady-state needs? What changes in terms of headcount and/or compensation, if anything?
(Of course this isn't about S3, the same questions apply to any software product)
How would unions operate in this environment? It seems quite different than, eg Boeing's manufacturing unions with the long lead times and relatively stable production volume/labor needs.
(There are also interesting questions for shareholders - what happens if S3 lays off 90% of their SDEs? Where would those people go, what would they be most valuable working on - how "safe" is S3's revenue as competitors and startups hire their layoffs?)
Our work is closer to tool and die makers, we make money printers that keep running without our day-to-day involvement.
Let's take S3 as an example. AWS S3 was started with 10 engineers or so (according to Andy). AWS S3 is now an organization with over 800 SDEs alone, that headcount costs well over $300MM per year (still excluding all the SDMs, Ops, QAs, PMs, TPMs, DCAs, etc also involved). That headcount made sense as the product exploded with new features, hardware, regions, etc etc... but the "greenfield" new feature development pace is likely an S-curve, and we are now on the slowing side that will only continue to slow.
How many SDE hours/year are needed for S3's steady state operation? How do companies compensate skill for rapid growth, and then transition to their steady-state needs? What changes in terms of headcount and/or compensation, if anything?
(Of course this isn't about S3, the same questions apply to any software product)
How would unions operate in this environment? It seems quite different than, eg Boeing's manufacturing unions with the long lead times and relatively stable production volume/labor needs.
(There are also interesting questions for shareholders - what happens if S3 lays off 90% of their SDEs? Where would those people go, what would they be most valuable working on - how "safe" is S3's revenue as competitors and startups hire their layoffs?)
This is exactly like the entertainment industry and it is the whole reason the Hollywood unions have fought so hard to get and maintain ongoing compensation via residuals.
An actor usually spends a few weeks working on a movie and then the studio profits in perpetuity off that work. Tom Cruise finished filming Top Gun: Maverick years ago, but people are still streaming, renting, and purchasing that movie bringing in massive profit for the studio.
An actor usually spends a few weeks working on a movie and then the studio profits in perpetuity off that work. Tom Cruise finished filming Top Gun: Maverick years ago, but people are still streaming, renting, and purchasing that movie bringing in massive profit for the studio.
> Tom Cruise finished filming Top Gun: Maverick years ago, but people are still streaming, renting, and purchasing that movie bringing in massive profit for the studio.
This is also true of the original Top Gun, released ~37 years ago. Very little software has that kind of long-term earning power, further supporting the idea that software work is not all that unique as work goes.
This is also true of the original Top Gun, released ~37 years ago. Very little software has that kind of long-term earning power, further supporting the idea that software work is not all that unique as work goes.
It is as of yet unclear if software will reach that long term profitability. Video games certainly can have it though. I've purchased copies of games which were coded before I was born. Tech is still a young and growing industry where we find new use cases every day. As this slows and as software is perfected this may change. If someone designs the perfect email app it may just be able to run in steady state for decades. We haven't seen that but it may be a reality at some point in the next two decades.
Video games are probably closest to books; in fact, much of software is probably "bookish" in general - lots of it written for particular purposes, sells well enough to have been done, disappears into the long-tail.
A few major breakout successes become historical and bought long after the fact, but the majority do not.
A few major breakout successes become historical and bought long after the fact, but the majority do not.
>sells well enough to have been done
Most books almost certainly lose money for the publisher. It's more complicated from the author's perspective given that people write books for a variety of motivations but, certainly, most books are doing well to earn out their advance which can easily be only $1,000 or so.
But, as you say, even those that sell "well enough" initially fall off pretty quickly. And some sorts of titles such as non-fiction about current tech stacks or software versions have a very limited shelf life.
Most books almost certainly lose money for the publisher. It's more complicated from the author's perspective given that people write books for a variety of motivations but, certainly, most books are doing well to earn out their advance which can easily be only $1,000 or so.
But, as you say, even those that sell "well enough" initially fall off pretty quickly. And some sorts of titles such as non-fiction about current tech stacks or software versions have a very limited shelf life.
The residual model is very interesting for tech... It's complicated by software refractors over time (kinda leading to compensation questions similar to those around genAI)
I actually never thought of it like this. Thanks for the analog.
Besides labor unions focused on collective bargaining for the purpose of guaranteeing wages (shame that working conditions are brought up less often), seems like it might be helpful even just to have something akin to the AMA or ABA, a professional organization that advocates for software engineers, except without the credentialist gatekeeping perhaps. Like an IEEE/ACM with teeth.
FWIW I think those are all great questions that need exploring. One thing I'm hoping comes out of this recent push for unions is having more opportunities to explore different types & structures, rather than the tiny handful of massive, well-established unions which has been the state for the past 40+ years.
It’s difficult to see unions as anything but a failed model. What they advocate for, workers’ rights, is noble. But the divisiveness they employ makes them a political distraction. We need workers’ rights in law for everyone. Not just those who are in a union.
1. It’s pretty much only in the US that there are union workers and non union workers in the same field. If you haven’t already guessed, this is entirely a ploy by corporations, and the US govt to weaken unions by creating differences where none exist.
2. Unions rarely, if ever, negotiate rights only for their own workers. The massive union protests prior to COVID asking for minimum wage increases didn’t ask for minimum wage increases only for union workers. They asked for federal and in some cases statewide increases in minimum wage which would affect all workers.
3. A lot of the research shows that higher union salaries also translate into higher non-union salaries, so union efforts also very directly help non union workers.
2. Unions rarely, if ever, negotiate rights only for their own workers. The massive union protests prior to COVID asking for minimum wage increases didn’t ask for minimum wage increases only for union workers. They asked for federal and in some cases statewide increases in minimum wage which would affect all workers.
3. A lot of the research shows that higher union salaries also translate into higher non-union salaries, so union efforts also very directly help non union workers.
> pretty much only in the US that there are union workers and non union workers in the same field
China. India. Japan. Korea. Pretty much all of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Unions are prevalent in Northern Europe [1]. That's it. That's the exception.
Outside Northern Europe, countries with great workers' rights [2] have between one in four and one in six people in unions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_comparisons_of_t...
[2] https://www.globalrightsindex.org/en/2023/countries
China. India. Japan. Korea. Pretty much all of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Unions are prevalent in Northern Europe [1]. That's it. That's the exception.
Outside Northern Europe, countries with great workers' rights [2] have between one in four and one in six people in unions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_comparisons_of_t...
[2] https://www.globalrightsindex.org/en/2023/countries
Maybe if China had labor unions their software engineers wouldn’t be working 996.
> Maybe if China had labor unions their software engineers wouldn’t be working 996
Again, you're ignoring that countries with terrific worker protections have, on average, low union penetration. The one is uncorrelated with the other. In America, unions principally serve as a distraction. We periodically throw a few industries a bone while most workers get zero protection.
Again, you're ignoring that countries with terrific worker protections have, on average, low union penetration. The one is uncorrelated with the other. In America, unions principally serve as a distraction. We periodically throw a few industries a bone while most workers get zero protection.
Individually, workers have very little bargaining power. Collectively, we have a lot of power. So unless you’re arguing that workers would deliberately argue for fewer protections, I don’t see how not having collective bargaining could lead to more workers’ rights.
The fact of the matter is, God gave us Sunday off and unions gave us Saturday off. Unions were the reason child labor was banned in the U.S. We have worker’s comp and the 40 hour work week was standardized. None of those things would’ve resulted from the benevolence of profit maximizing corporations.
The fact of the matter is, God gave us Sunday off and unions gave us Saturday off. Unions were the reason child labor was banned in the U.S. We have worker’s comp and the 40 hour work week was standardized. None of those things would’ve resulted from the benevolence of profit maximizing corporations.
> unless you’re arguing that workers would deliberately argue for fewer protections, I don’t see how not having collective bargaining could lead to more workers’ rights
Unions are inefficient--only those represented get benefits. And they're unnecessary. Most countries with good worker rights have low union penetration. Unions in America are a dead end. They let electeds toss a bone to the ten percent of Americans in a union while delaying broad reforms.
Unions are inefficient--only those represented get benefits. And they're unnecessary. Most countries with good worker rights have low union penetration. Unions in America are a dead end. They let electeds toss a bone to the ten percent of Americans in a union while delaying broad reforms.
Unions are the only path to success when Congress is operating in a degraded governance state. Do you know how many worker hours will be exhausted in suboptimal labor conditions waiting for Congress to pass human labor protections? Strong legislative labor protections would be wonderful, but they are not on offer in the present day United States.
Congress won't function until the cohorts who vote for representatives unwilling to champion broadly popular policy or labor protections dies out. That's going to take a hot minute, even assuming a death rate of 1.8M voters over the age of 55/year.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-you-need-to-kn... (Control-F "Figure 1")
Congress won't function until the cohorts who vote for representatives unwilling to champion broadly popular policy or labor protections dies out. That's going to take a hot minute, even assuming a death rate of 1.8M voters over the age of 55/year.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-you-need-to-kn... (Control-F "Figure 1")
> Unions are the only path to success when Congress is operating in a degraded governance state
Congress is divided, but still generally productive [1]. Expanding labor protections simply isn't a political priority. Also, this can be done at the state and local levels.
> Do you know how many worker hours will be exhausted in suboptimal labor conditions waiting for Congress to pass human labor protections?
About as many as there are laid off writers? Ten percent of Americans are in unions [2]. Doubling union membership in a year has less effect than waiting ten years to pass protections into law.
[1] https://datainnovation.org/2023/01/visualizing-congressional...
[2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf
Congress is divided, but still generally productive [1]. Expanding labor protections simply isn't a political priority. Also, this can be done at the state and local levels.
> Do you know how many worker hours will be exhausted in suboptimal labor conditions waiting for Congress to pass human labor protections?
About as many as there are laid off writers? Ten percent of Americans are in unions [2]. Doubling union membership in a year has less effect than waiting ten years to pass protections into law.
[1] https://datainnovation.org/2023/01/visualizing-congressional...
[2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf
The only divisiveness I see (after many years in many different union shops) is planted by corporate flaks in an attempt to divide and conquer the other side of the negotiating table.
> But the divisiveness they employ makes them a political distraction. We need workers’ rights in law for everyone. Not just those who are in a union.
And how do you propose we align around such things? It seems like you’d need to organize your labor pool and possibly position yourself to bargain collectively, perhaps?
And how do you propose we align around such things? It seems like you’d need to organize your labor pool and possibly position yourself to bargain collectively, perhaps?
No no, you see, all bureaucracy is evil, and thus organized collections of workers-- necessitating an organizational bureau --is evil.
If you read my magnum opus, Chronos Shuffled, you would see that individual negotiation by an enlightened majority will reach the same common goal if... um... everyone individually pursues the exact same agreed upon goals...
...shit.
If you read my magnum opus, Chronos Shuffled, you would see that individual negotiation by an enlightened majority will reach the same common goal if... um... everyone individually pursues the exact same agreed upon goals...
...shit.
> all bureaucracy is evil, and thus organized collections of workers-- necessitating an organizational bureau --is evil
This is the distraction I'm talking about. Unions, in this century, have been effective at one thing: dividing voters from organizing around labor reforms in law.
This is the distraction I'm talking about. Unions, in this century, have been effective at one thing: dividing voters from organizing around labor reforms in law.
I really don't understand how you reconcile that with unions pushing for federal and state wide wage / benefit increases that cover non-union employees as well. You need a structure with which to organize labor power. Call it whatever you want—whether it's a union or a soviet or a syndicate it's the same idea.
Voting is literally just the bare minimum bottom of the barrel scraping. You have to also agitate for things to be on the ballot, and there is plenty of pressure to be applied outside of the purely electoral lens. A union gives people a direct benefit for organizing while trying to improve conditions for workers in general.
Voting is literally just the bare minimum bottom of the barrel scraping. You have to also agitate for things to be on the ballot, and there is plenty of pressure to be applied outside of the purely electoral lens. A union gives people a direct benefit for organizing while trying to improve conditions for workers in general.
> how do you propose we align around such things?
For one, get tech workers to vote. Ironic detachment from politics still appears to be a thing for many in our industry. After that, this is political organization 101. For all the tech unions we do have, I haven't seen them try to expand workers' rights broadly. Because why would they. That's the competition.
For one, get tech workers to vote. Ironic detachment from politics still appears to be a thing for many in our industry. After that, this is political organization 101. For all the tech unions we do have, I haven't seen them try to expand workers' rights broadly. Because why would they. That's the competition.
> But the divisiveness they employ makes them a political distraction.
What divisiveness? Most news I hear about unions paints them as a negative without backing anything up.
> We need workers’ rights for everyone. Not just those who are in a union.
Agreed, but we have to start somewhere. If unions are able to push for some type of labor benefit, then good for them.
What divisiveness? Most news I hear about unions paints them as a negative without backing anything up.
> We need workers’ rights for everyone. Not just those who are in a union.
Agreed, but we have to start somewhere. If unions are able to push for some type of labor benefit, then good for them.
> What divisiveness?
Unions are fundamentally about putting workers and management into separate categories. (And unionized workers on a pedestal above others.) In an industrial context, this makes sense. In a start-up, it does not.
Unions are fundamentally about putting workers and management into separate categories. (And unionized workers on a pedestal above others.) In an industrial context, this makes sense. In a start-up, it does not.
This is so fundamentally wrong I don’t even know where to start.
By definition of function, employees and shareholders are at diametrically opposed incentives if the organization prioritizes return on capital over all other things.
If you are in an organization, where in the majority of the ownership is held by the people who have funded it, then at the starting point, it is already adversarial unless you are an equal partner in equity.
Since the vast majority of organizations are set up as such, and unless you have a controlling interest in the organization from a legal stock perspective, then you are in a position of no power to start with, and it will continue that way until you become a significant shareholder.
Unions are required to provide the collective action necessary to counter the overwhelming legal power of shareholders in the current structure.
By definition of function, employees and shareholders are at diametrically opposed incentives if the organization prioritizes return on capital over all other things.
If you are in an organization, where in the majority of the ownership is held by the people who have funded it, then at the starting point, it is already adversarial unless you are an equal partner in equity.
Since the vast majority of organizations are set up as such, and unless you have a controlling interest in the organization from a legal stock perspective, then you are in a position of no power to start with, and it will continue that way until you become a significant shareholder.
Unions are required to provide the collective action necessary to counter the overwhelming legal power of shareholders in the current structure.
Dividing exactly who from whom?
There are some tech worker unions (like at NYT) but not enough.
A relevant book that recently came out but I have not read is You Deserve a Tech Union by Ethan Marcotte
https://abookapart.com/products/you-deserve-a-tech-union
A relevant book that recently came out but I have not read is You Deserve a Tech Union by Ethan Marcotte
https://abookapart.com/products/you-deserve-a-tech-union
My first job was at a tech company with a union. Boeing.
It was ridiculously bad. I've never worked with less talented people. One of my coworkers did nothing, at all, for 2 years. But with 17 years of experience, he couldn't be fired.
I carried the team, but they couldn't pay me what I was worth or promote me. I left as soon as I could.
It was ridiculously bad. I've never worked with less talented people. One of my coworkers did nothing, at all, for 2 years. But with 17 years of experience, he couldn't be fired.
I carried the team, but they couldn't pay me what I was worth or promote me. I left as soon as I could.
I've worked at a few non-union shops that were the same way. I don't think the existence of a union is a large factor in that regard. I think the size of the company is.
Was it the union that was the problem or was it that you were working for a Dinosaur that hadn't been required to operate in today's high-tech world? Experience has shown that AT&T and Disney are the same sort of thing when working in tech, yet they don't have unions. But what they do all have in common - they are old companies that formed well before the internet.
Disney is a very big company. Maybe there are parts of it that our dinosaur-like but there are other parts that are doing the sharpening of the cutting edge. They'll fall behind every so often but then they catch back up and have been known to pass ahead.
When I was at Boeing, there was a story that a worker slugged his supervisor. The worker was fired, the union got him reinstated.
Boeing is a big company with a lot of inefficiency, but there clearly was inefficiency due to union rules. For one thing, layoffs went by seniority, not merit.
Boeing is a big company with a lot of inefficiency, but there clearly was inefficiency due to union rules. For one thing, layoffs went by seniority, not merit.
Maybe the issue was with company being a dinosaur instead of it having a union?
Been in a similar environment as an intern. Can concur was worst professional experience of my life. Very glad I experienced this early on to avoid whenever possible for the rest of my days.
Staff couldn't even be disciplined without going through the union rep and everything was based on seniority... with no other reason.
That business no longer exists... its competitors that were non-unionized are still thriving.
Staff couldn't even be disciplined without going through the union rep and everything was based on seniority... with no other reason.
That business no longer exists... its competitors that were non-unionized are still thriving.
People love simple answers to complex problems. Unions are such an example. The core idea behind a union makes sense - it's legalised extortion. Unions have codified in the law the ability for everyone in the union to hold the owner of property at ransom until they meet the union's demands. The only counterweight is the threat of bankruptcy, which ruins everything for everyone, but because the ideology of labor is very anti-business, they don't really care about that anyway.
Very few intelligent, educated people are part of unions, so they have no idea how they actually work. As I am against extortion, I am against unions.
Very few intelligent, educated people are part of unions, so they have no idea how they actually work. As I am against extortion, I am against unions.
Based on this comment I am not convinced you know how unions work, either.
> The core idea behind a union makes sense - it's legalised extortion.
How is it extortion, legal or otherwise?
How is it extortion, legal or otherwise?
The extorty part is when the company is not allowed to hire other people to replace the striking workers.
Whereas the employee is free to go to work for some other company at any time.
The rules are not in balance.
Whereas the employee is free to go to work for some other company at any time.
The rules are not in balance.
There are very few cases where the company is not allowed to hire other people. They may have a hard time, but it's generally allowed.
> Whereas the employee is free to go to work for some other company at any time.
And generally the employer is free to fire people at any time. And to forbid employees from working elsewhere.
I don't think your examples hold up to scrutiny.
> Whereas the employee is free to go to work for some other company at any time.
And generally the employer is free to fire people at any time. And to forbid employees from working elsewhere.
I don't think your examples hold up to scrutiny.
They don't? Employers cannot fire striking employees. Or fire any that may look like retaliation for union activity.
> And to forbid employees from working elsewhere
That's simply not true.
> And to forbid employees from working elsewhere
That's simply not true.
> They don't? Employers cannot fire striking employees. Or fire any that may look like retaliation for union activity.
Who said anything about that? Scab labor is an extremely common thing. How you come to the conclusion that "the company is not allowed to hire other people to replace the striking workers", I'm entirely unsure. For two very popular examples, both in the air travel industry, both pilot's strikes and ATC strikes have had "other people hired to replace striking workers", with varying degrees of notoriety (being at Boeing, I can't imagine you being entirely unaware of either).
> That's simply not true.
Many employment contracts have "no moonlighting" clauses. Only two states specifically forbid them: Washington, and Washington DC (and Washington's policy only affects lower-paid workers) (https://sbshrs.adpinfo.com/blog/7-faqs-about-moonlighting-po... and https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/employer...)
Who said anything about that? Scab labor is an extremely common thing. How you come to the conclusion that "the company is not allowed to hire other people to replace the striking workers", I'm entirely unsure. For two very popular examples, both in the air travel industry, both pilot's strikes and ATC strikes have had "other people hired to replace striking workers", with varying degrees of notoriety (being at Boeing, I can't imagine you being entirely unaware of either).
> That's simply not true.
Many employment contracts have "no moonlighting" clauses. Only two states specifically forbid them: Washington, and Washington DC (and Washington's policy only affects lower-paid workers) (https://sbshrs.adpinfo.com/blog/7-faqs-about-moonlighting-po... and https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/employer...)
Moonlighting is not the same thing as getting another job elsewhere.
The ATC was a special case. It was illegal for them to strike, they struck anyway, so Reagan fired them.
"It shall be unlawful for any employer willingly and knowingly to utilize any professional strikebreaker to replace an employee or employees involved in a strike or lockout at a place of business located within this state. 1134.2."
The ATC was a special case. It was illegal for them to strike, they struck anyway, so Reagan fired them.
"It shall be unlawful for any employer willingly and knowingly to utilize any professional strikebreaker to replace an employee or employees involved in a strike or lockout at a place of business located within this state. 1134.2."
I think the notion of "we are all going to quit and/or refuse to work if employer doesn't do (or does do) x" is arguably pretty extortiony. One could also argue it's just makes the market hyper-efficient by signalling the reaction of the supply of labor to a change in the asking price very quickly and directly.
I genuinely don't know why employers do not hire non-union employees in such circumstances; I think most of us assume they "can't", but would like to hear from someone who actually knows.
I genuinely don't know why employers do not hire non-union employees in such circumstances; I think most of us assume they "can't", but would like to hear from someone who actually knows.
It's no more extortiony than how employers treat their employees.
Collective bargaining is pretty much the only tool workers have to even begin to correct the power differential between employer and employee. Ideally, it allows employees and employers to negotiate on more equal terms than is otherwise possible.
Collective bargaining is pretty much the only tool workers have to even begin to correct the power differential between employer and employee. Ideally, it allows employees and employers to negotiate on more equal terms than is otherwise possible.
> Collective bargaining is pretty much the only tool workers have
No, it isn’t. There is the individual threat of quitting. And there are the courts.
No, it isn’t. There is the individual threat of quitting. And there are the courts.
Ridiculously naive take. And both of these on an individual level are so diluted as to basically be meaningless.
1. An individual quitting at a company where they are one single cog doesn't impact the company in any measurable way.
2. The court system in the west gives an asymmetric level of power toward the corporation, an individual has neither the time, the money, or the ability to navigate an ongoing protracted lawsuit with a corp that dwarfs them in all three aspects.
1. An individual quitting at a company where they are one single cog doesn't impact the company in any measurable way.
2. The court system in the west gives an asymmetric level of power toward the corporation, an individual has neither the time, the money, or the ability to navigate an ongoing protracted lawsuit with a corp that dwarfs them in all three aspects.
> both of these on an individual level are so diluted as to basically be meaningless
I've personally used both to extract concessions from employers.
In any case, my general point is that we need more protections in law for workers. Unions are a good way to distract from that.
I've personally used both to extract concessions from employers.
In any case, my general point is that we need more protections in law for workers. Unions are a good way to distract from that.
Neither of those are effective for the vast majority of workers.
Unions are extortion in the same sense that a utility company or something like Amazon is extortion; I need to agree to some terms and conditions and pay up, or they’ll stop providing service.
Which is to say, most ongoing services in a capitalist country are provided under the “threat” that if you break the deal you agreed to, you’ll have to look elsewhere to get that service going forward.
Which is to say, most ongoing services in a capitalist country are provided under the “threat” that if you break the deal you agreed to, you’ll have to look elsewhere to get that service going forward.
you are associating a top-ten US Defense contractor with "being in a tech union"
You were at Boeing
The biography for Ethan marcotte says he is responsible for “responsive web design”, which looks like he made wrote some book in 2010 about the topic. But didn’t actually write the browser code, specifications, frameworks or anything that actually allows responsive web design. Not was he involved in any of the first examples.
Kind of tangential but that seems like a resume stuffer at best and stolen valor at worst.
Kind of tangential but that seems like a resume stuffer at best and stolen valor at worst.
He coined the term and wrote a lot of the early guidance for designing responsively for the web. Most of that is common knowledge now, but back in 2010 he was definitely on the cutting edge.
https://code-cwa.org/
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1706 ("Treasury Department Releases First-Of-Its-Kind Report on Benefits of Unions to the U.S. Economy")
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-wor... ("Feel the benefit: union workers receive far better pay and rights, Congress finds")
https://newrepublic.com/post/175274/gallup-poll-two-thirds-a... ("Poll: Majority of Americans Support Unions and Support Strikes | A new Gallup poll shows Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of labor unions.")
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/27/unions-tech-industry-labor-... ("Push to unionize tech industry makes advances")
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/15/microsoft-union-truce-techs... ("Microsoft, meanwhile, announced last year that it would not stand in the way of any workers who wanted to unionize.")
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-first-labor-union-vid... ("Microsoft recognizes its first U.S. labor union as video game testers organize")
> Microsoft president Brad Smith has twice in recent weeks told me that Microsoft is simply doing what it sees fit for its own relationship with workers and not trying to push others. However, labor leaders see Microsoft's move as a potential model for others.
> "I won’t say that it was completely easy for Microsoft to do this but they did it," Christopher Shelton, president of Communications Workers of America, the union organizing at Activision, told Axios.
(last I checked, Microsoft owns Linkedin, but I could be mistaken; I am not uneducated on the challenges and downsides to organizing, but am also not so uneducated and inexperienced to think the power imbalance doesn't require improvement; maybe an individual can do better solo occasionally, but that's luck and not what the data shows)
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1706 ("Treasury Department Releases First-Of-Its-Kind Report on Benefits of Unions to the U.S. Economy")
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/us-union-wor... ("Feel the benefit: union workers receive far better pay and rights, Congress finds")
https://newrepublic.com/post/175274/gallup-poll-two-thirds-a... ("Poll: Majority of Americans Support Unions and Support Strikes | A new Gallup poll shows Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of labor unions.")
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/27/unions-tech-industry-labor-... ("Push to unionize tech industry makes advances")
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/15/microsoft-union-truce-techs... ("Microsoft, meanwhile, announced last year that it would not stand in the way of any workers who wanted to unionize.")
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-first-labor-union-vid... ("Microsoft recognizes its first U.S. labor union as video game testers organize")
> Microsoft president Brad Smith has twice in recent weeks told me that Microsoft is simply doing what it sees fit for its own relationship with workers and not trying to push others. However, labor leaders see Microsoft's move as a potential model for others.
> "I won’t say that it was completely easy for Microsoft to do this but they did it," Christopher Shelton, president of Communications Workers of America, the union organizing at Activision, told Axios.
(last I checked, Microsoft owns Linkedin, but I could be mistaken; I am not uneducated on the challenges and downsides to organizing, but am also not so uneducated and inexperienced to think the power imbalance doesn't require improvement; maybe an individual can do better solo occasionally, but that's luck and not what the data shows)
The time to negotiate your severance is when you're hired.
You are forgetting the root cause of why all the tech layoffs happened.
Between mid 2020 and early 2022, tech was the place investors were willing to pay any money even at a ridiculous P/E. It wasn’t because the value proposition suddenly shifted to tech but money was plentiful and looking for places to go and tech was the place that could give you high return.
Fast forward, US Fed has decided there is too much inflation and consumers need to slow down so they are shrinking their balance sheet. Investors suddenly are getting 8% return basically without any risk. Why would you invest in tech and all the volatility when you can get that return. Suddenly companies that could raise money and rollover their debt in peanut interest expenses are seeing money has dried up.
There is one and only one responsible for this mess. Central Bankers. They had absolutely no idea what they were and are talking about including very basic things such as where would inflation and interest rate go in short term. In 8 months, they went from “we need deflation and we foresee low interest till 2024” to largest inflationary environment since 1980s and highest interest rates. And of course they face no consequences. #EndTheFed
Between mid 2020 and early 2022, tech was the place investors were willing to pay any money even at a ridiculous P/E. It wasn’t because the value proposition suddenly shifted to tech but money was plentiful and looking for places to go and tech was the place that could give you high return.
Fast forward, US Fed has decided there is too much inflation and consumers need to slow down so they are shrinking their balance sheet. Investors suddenly are getting 8% return basically without any risk. Why would you invest in tech and all the volatility when you can get that return. Suddenly companies that could raise money and rollover their debt in peanut interest expenses are seeing money has dried up.
There is one and only one responsible for this mess. Central Bankers. They had absolutely no idea what they were and are talking about including very basic things such as where would inflation and interest rate go in short term. In 8 months, they went from “we need deflation and we foresee low interest till 2024” to largest inflationary environment since 1980s and highest interest rates. And of course they face no consequences. #EndTheFed
I have worked for companies with tech unions. You can only negotiate the terms ahead of time because as a union you don't get a heads up before a mass layoff. The terms I saw were usually not that good. Usually they only had severance pay linked to years of service with a cap at 5. In some places that's barely more than the local law requires.
On my own I have been able to negotiate stock as well. Unions won't touch that.
On my own I have been able to negotiate stock as well. Unions won't touch that.
A union would have done nothing other than accelerate the process. We need laws that if a job is off-shored the company is penalized heavily, where it makes it painful and unbearable.
Meddle with the free market? INCONCIEVABLE!
A free market is one that is protected. Unfortunately nothing in the USA is protected. Our borders, our jobs, our votes. Those in control only care about themselves.
Economic protectionism is mostly just a form of socialism (save for those sectors where it can be supported by a natsec rationale).
Me and many others are cool with socialism. Are you?
Me and many others are cool with socialism. Are you?
Socialism means worker ownership of the means of production; it has nothing to do with 'economic protectionism' by the state.
You might want to read up on that.
Socialism is an incredibly broad term in practice, a typical sound bite dictionary definition hints at this:
Socialism is an incredibly broad term in practice, a typical sound bite dictionary definition hints at this:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
> Socialism means worker ownership of the means of production
Isn't that trending towards a definition of communism? Socialism could mean a lot of different things; economic protectionism is a market inefficiency designed to champion things like jobs over corporate profits, and was a policy choice made by some socialist governments in the latter 20th century.
Isn't that trending towards a definition of communism? Socialism could mean a lot of different things; economic protectionism is a market inefficiency designed to champion things like jobs over corporate profits, and was a policy choice made by some socialist governments in the latter 20th century.
So says the Neo-capitalist.
What free market? We haven't had a free market in decades.
Do you mean specifically in tech or in the broader sense? There’s probably a good case that there has never been much of a free market in the latter
A union would have also changed the distribution of who was laid off. Basically, fresh grads who have very little seniority would be the ones kicked to the curb. Whereas MS had the option to lay off exactly who they wanted...maybe it was certain teams, maybe they laid off a lot of people whose compensation no longer matched with their contributions.
Not MS, but I was at a big tech co that recently did layoffs, and a lot of the Super Senior Staff Distinguished Wizard SWEs, who I always wondered "What exactly do you do?" got laid off.
Not MS, but I was at a big tech co that recently did layoffs, and a lot of the Super Senior Staff Distinguished Wizard SWEs, who I always wondered "What exactly do you do?" got laid off.
Why?
because these people are being replaced with off-shore hires from India and China.
So? Are you implying that those developers can’t compete with US developers?
How about US developers can’t compete with offshore developers?
Average Indian earns $571/mo. Even if devs earn 2x average you’d be able to hire at least 3 for just the average SF/NYC rent a developer in the US has to pay let alone taxes, benefits, etc.
Not particularly good for the country or economy long term; is the end game to destroy the US and start over paying people here $571/mo?
Average Indian earns $571/mo. Even if devs earn 2x average you’d be able to hire at least 3 for just the average SF/NYC rent a developer in the US has to pay let alone taxes, benefits, etc.
Not particularly good for the country or economy long term; is the end game to destroy the US and start over paying people here $571/mo?
Why isn’t it good for the country?
Are you implying not having access to semiconductors built elsewhere or goods built elsewhere wasn’t a net positive for the US?
The idea that software development was immune to this inevitable change is nonsensical.
Are you implying not having access to semiconductors built elsewhere or goods built elsewhere wasn’t a net positive for the US?
The idea that software development was immune to this inevitable change is nonsensical.
US developers are far better than Indian developers, but they can't compete on wages. The cost of living is too high in this country.
How about Silicon Valley developers being outsourced to Missouri?
I don't understand what the dunk is supposed to be here. Plenty of unionized companies have layoffs.
OP is talking about the terms of layoffs (as in the severance package) rather than about layoffs in general.
Unions probably have better severance packages but how many times is a typical worker laid off in their life?
There are costs to increasing the cost of a layoff. It means corporations will rely on credentialism more, and take fewer risks. I'd rather live in a world where you can jump into software without a college degree, but maybe have to save a little money at your very well paying job than one that only hires college grads with a 3.5 GPA but you get a generous severance package.
There are costs to increasing the cost of a layoff. It means corporations will rely on credentialism more, and take fewer risks. I'd rather live in a world where you can jump into software without a college degree, but maybe have to save a little money at your very well paying job than one that only hires college grads with a 3.5 GPA but you get a generous severance package.
I worked for 5 jobs or so in my decade of experience. Every single one had layoffs (usually 10%+). Layoffs aren’t that common in tech until now but were always prevalent in the “industry”.
I think there is a large difference between number of employees who have worked at a company that had has layoffs, and number of times they were laid off.
Assuming your experience is representative of every company (I don't think it is) then every company lays off 10% of their workforce every 2 years.
Assume a random distribution (I don't think this is true) that means the average worker get laid off once every twenty years. So you're looking at 2 lay offs a career. Savings should be sufficient for this. Policies or agreements like this just make good hirs cheaper, and bad hires more expensive.
Assuming your experience is representative of every company (I don't think it is) then every company lays off 10% of their workforce every 2 years.
Assume a random distribution (I don't think this is true) that means the average worker get laid off once every twenty years. So you're looking at 2 lay offs a career. Savings should be sufficient for this. Policies or agreements like this just make good hirs cheaper, and bad hires more expensive.
I'm willing to bet that LinkedIn's severance terms are significantly more generous that what a standard union shop can negotiate for its members.
When my father was pushed into early requirement, he got a full years severance and has his pension was topped up to 100%.
Do you think the LinkedIn people will get their pensions fully paid out?
Do you think the LinkedIn people will get their pensions fully paid out?
Companies like Google & Salesforce paid out 6-8 months of severance (more depending on tenure) and accelerated remaining stock vests, so not all that different.
First waves of layoffs are famously more generous with their severance agreements than the following ones.
They are already not as generous as they could be (for example, Google on January 20th boasted about accelerated vesting for the notice period of US employees that would be laid off... But employees in other regions didn't get the same terms)
...and they are going to get worse and worse, with future layoffs
They are already not as generous as they could be (for example, Google on January 20th boasted about accelerated vesting for the notice period of US employees that would be laid off... But employees in other regions didn't get the same terms)
...and they are going to get worse and worse, with future layoffs
>employees in other regions didn't get the same terms
Yep, that's what happens when you have labor laws that dictate the terms. It cuts both ways.
Yep, that's what happens when you have labor laws that dictate the terms. It cuts both ways.
You're doubly wrong:
1- the laws dictate minimum terms for the agreements, they don't put ceilings on the maximums
2- the regions in which employees got shafted in that way aren't the regions in which employment laws are stricter
1- the laws dictate minimum terms for the agreements, they don't put ceilings on the maximums
2- the regions in which employees got shafted in that way aren't the regions in which employment laws are stricter
> 1- the laws dictate minimum terms for the agreements, they don't put ceilings on the maximums
That's not how it works in many jurisdictions: if a company does a round of layoffs and exceeds the terms ... those are the new terms going forward for that company.
That's not how it works in many jurisdictions: if a company does a round of layoffs and exceeds the terms ... those are the new terms going forward for that company.
Do you have any reference for this? In which jurisdiction does it work like that?
2 months + 1 week per year at LinkedIn. Not good based on my experience with tech layoffs over the past few decades.
Compare to union shops though?
I know of some factories that shut down for annual maintenance for several months every year, and they lay everyone off. There is another factory (same company) that works opposite months of the year so in theory people are laid off and just switch between the two factories, but depending on schedule and work needs you can be out of work for a while.
I also know big projects often hire union labor (electricians, plumbers), and lay them off at the end of the project. I have no idea what the terms of this are.
I know of some factories that shut down for annual maintenance for several months every year, and they lay everyone off. There is another factory (same company) that works opposite months of the year so in theory people are laid off and just switch between the two factories, but depending on schedule and work needs you can be out of work for a while.
I also know big projects often hire union labor (electricians, plumbers), and lay them off at the end of the project. I have no idea what the terms of this are.
You're comparing situations in different industries with different economics, never mind the union situations.
But that is the context if your read up a few levels we were told union shops have layoffs all the time. We cannot compare them is my point.
I believe the implication is that those layoffs have better overall terms.
Better overall terms than what? As far as I can tell there's no information available yet on what kind of severance package these people got. It's definitely not in the source article.
When FANNG companies payout upwards of $1M/year/engineer - seems hard to understand why an employee would need a union.
Those companies are absolutely not paying out 1M/yr to the average engineer. Only a small handful of engineers make that much money.
Let's start with on-call, some companies ask to always be on-call to whatever extend the local law permits. No weekend for you.
That doesn’t happen at LinkedIn. I don’t totally understand what I would have to gain from a union when I feel like my employer treats me really well. The union feels like unneeded overhead
When the NBA pays its players tens of millions of dollars a year - seems hard to understand why an NBA player would need a union.
The NBA is an extreme outlier case where even the NBA wants there to be a union because any single player can have drastic negative repercussions.
Theres virtually no other business that yields so much revenue from only ~10 people (5 on court players and 5 bench players).
If Lebron decided to not show up to a bunch of games, this would have massive repercussions for the entire league & TV contracts.
Theres virtually no other business that yields so much revenue from only ~10 people (5 on court players and 5 bench players).
If Lebron decided to not show up to a bunch of games, this would have massive repercussions for the entire league & TV contracts.
Heheheehehe!!!
aaa_aaa(3)
> LinkedIn is now ramping up hiring in India, according the person familiar.
So, laying off people in the US and hiring in India?
So, laying off people in the US and hiring in India?
Is anyone really surprised? Did you think the end result of the WFH movement was going to be companies continuing to pay you to live out of your Bay Area house?
Anecdotally, in my circles, most truly thought that this won't have an impact in the compensation levels. Always struck me as incredibly short-sighted and your comment is actually the first I see that explicitly states what I thought as well.
There is still an argument that, if you truly want top talent, then that top talent might actually want to live in high COL locations like NY or whatever.
There is still an argument that, if you truly want top talent, then that top talent might actually want to live in high COL locations like NY or whatever.
> Anecdotally, in my circles, most truly thought that this won't have an impact in the compensation levels.
I mean, even if it does, it’s not that big of a deal. Fewer people propping up a ponzi scheme of a real estate market that tries to soak up as much surplus as it can get its hands on
Also, fewer incentives to remain in the US with its shitty excuse of a health care system and public school system
Edit: and shitty life expectancies in the US as well compared to developed countries. Also shitty work culture
I mean, even if it does, it’s not that big of a deal. Fewer people propping up a ponzi scheme of a real estate market that tries to soak up as much surplus as it can get its hands on
Also, fewer incentives to remain in the US with its shitty excuse of a health care system and public school system
Edit: and shitty life expectancies in the US as well compared to developed countries. Also shitty work culture
In the US maybe, but there is plenty of top talent in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Pune etc. A couple decades ago they would have all been lining up to immigrate to the US, but with the impossible visa situation and a thriving local startup scene no one really wants to leave anymore.
There are a lot of great labor in India, but great does not come cheap. Cheaper than the bay area, or even the midwest, but still not cheap by world standards. You can pay engineers in Germany for similar or less in total compensation. (but good luck finding them)
Yeah but you have strict labour laws in Eu, which basically dont exist in india. This is wet dreams of the corporations.
For great labor it doesn't matter as great engineers know they can demand better treatment. For a average engineers you can get by with a lot more.
This may be true, but finding these workers will be much more difficult. An American with a CS degree from a state school is a known entity, more or less. Someone with a 9.5/10 GPA from an Indian school is a question mark.
> no one really wants to leave anymore.
According to what exactly?
According to what exactly?
I've had private equity people tell me prior to the pandemic that if a job can be done from home, then it can be done from India. It basically makes sense to me. I know the common rejoinders about time zones (which ignores that there are plenty of cheaper countries south of the US) and culture/language, but I suppose we'll see if the FAANGs can overcome those issues; many companies have gone before in this regard.
It's one of a few reasons I prefer in person work.
It's one of a few reasons I prefer in person work.
> I know the common rejoinders about time zones
Cheat code: most engineers in India will agree to work US hours if they're compensated accordingly. "Compensated accordingly" is still well below even the lowest US engineering salaries, and still in the top 1% income percentile in India.
Cheat code: most engineers in India will agree to work US hours if they're compensated accordingly. "Compensated accordingly" is still well below even the lowest US engineering salaries, and still in the top 1% income percentile in India.
For small companies it can be hard finding the "right person" and retaining them remotely in India - but for large companies they've worked out many of the kinks and issues and it's quite powerfully productive now.
Anyone who ignores that is falling victim to "how it used to be" not "how it is now" - just like the American car manufacturers who slept on the horrible but improving Japanese manufacturers decades ago.
Anyone who ignores that is falling victim to "how it used to be" not "how it is now" - just like the American car manufacturers who slept on the horrible but improving Japanese manufacturers decades ago.
But this doesn't make sense because there's been outsourcing for over 20 years by now and this is clearly not true. And having somewhat better tools for teleconferencing doesn't materially change the situation.
[deleted]
Might want, yes, but there is probably more top talent in the world than available housing in those high COL locations.
I would be expect the result to be zero because companies respond to financial incentives, not cultural "movements". Do you really think driving to an office will stop this?
No people thought they could cash Bay Area paycheques while working from low cost rural areas with WFH.
There is one advantage to Bay area when WFH: you can go into the office on request. I go into the office every 3 months or so - it is only a 7 mile bike ride. Sometimes things are better handled in person (I don't live in the Bay area). WFH with the ability to get into the office in a couple hours is valuable. Once you cannot get into the office easily if you need to you are worth less even if the need to get into the office is rare.
If you need to go to the office once every 3 months you can fly in from anywhere in the country. No need to live within commuting distance for that.
I cannot fly and be there with 2 hours notice though. Sometimes flights are full and you can't get there at all with less than a few weeks notice. Often you can, but the cost for same day tickets can be very high.
Planning months in advance is done all the time, but it is hard. It is always easier to plan if you can look at the current most urgent project list and pick the top item. if you have to plan what will be on top in a few months that is a lot harder.
Planning months in advance is done all the time, but it is hard. It is always easier to plan if you can look at the current most urgent project list and pick the top item. if you have to plan what will be on top in a few months that is a lot harder.
To me the biggest advantage of WFH is that I can choose to live in an area that fits my lifestyle and needs. If a company says "you can work from home but be near the office so that we can call you in whenever we want with zero notice" then that isn't really a remote job. In fact it is the worst of both worlds, because you lose the flexibility of being remote as well as the community and perks of an office.
If "near" is a couple of hours that seems far better. Rather than spending 15-20 hours a week commuting you pop into an office once or twice a month, costing an average 2 hours a week, perhaps avoiding rush hour too.
There are lots of in betweens i'm not going to call any right or wrong, just that whf with fairly quick access to the office is a useful one.
I feel like if US companies are proven to off shore jobs they should take a massive tax hit the same year. Like you are required to pay 5 years worth of the salary of the job you off shored into unemployment or retraining funds.
Funny you say that because this was part of the NAFTA agreement (I know this agreement doesn’t apply to India). I knew engineers that went to college with sponsorship from this agreement when they were laid off as technicians from off shoring due to the agreement. This absolutely should be the status quo.
If there are global markets for products, they should be global markets for employment.
There is no global tax system so you don't have this effect you think you have.
The global market for tech products isn’t that much lower friction than tech employment. India has a lot of tariffs. China has the great firewall and the “local partner” shakedown. US has export controls of many high tech products.
Tariffs may reduce volume slightly but not margins. I doubt Apple is selling it's devices at a loss.
Companies outsource because they think they can find better workers in another country (where better is some combination of better skills, lower compensation, or harder working). Fair enough. We should welcome that kind of competition, it makes everyone better when we fairly and do our best.
They also outsource because they think they can take advantage of lax labor and/or environmental regulation in other countries. We should impose tariffs to level the playing field when countries don’t have these sort of regulations.
Competition keeps us honest and innovating, it shouldn’t be avoided, it just needs to be fair and non-exploitive.
They also outsource because they think they can take advantage of lax labor and/or environmental regulation in other countries. We should impose tariffs to level the playing field when countries don’t have these sort of regulations.
Competition keeps us honest and innovating, it shouldn’t be avoided, it just needs to be fair and non-exploitive.
Protectionism doesn't make an economy more prosperous. Quite the reverse, it makes an economy uncompetitive.
I used to think so, before I understood that we live in a mercantilist world economy. I still think protectionism would be bad in a less distorted economy, and I think it's bad in as-distorted an economy as ours (because people who are subjected to pressure are more likely to be adaptive and dynamic), but it's harder to make the case, don't you think?
Protectionism means you're protecting inefficient industries. In a global marketplace, this means industries in other countries will out-compete yours.
What I meant is that in mercantilist world you do have asymmetrical protectionism, and that has real-world effects that require more thought than simply standing by the free market position, because it's not a free market even if you try on your end.
There are no perfect free markets. But the closer you can get to them, the more beneficial they are.
Protectionism hurts yourself just like trade sanctions and embargoes hurt the other guy.
Protectionism hurts yourself just like trade sanctions and embargoes hurt the other guy.
This just really isn't true empirically.
What ends up happening is that countries cannot jump start industries that are already established and competitive in other countries. For countries to get into the renewable energy game, for example, they need to subsidize local industry and put a good bit of government capital on the line to the get to a point where they're productive at globally acceptable levels.
Countries don't need to pick _the_ cheapest products from around the world; getting good-enough local work that provides high value-add and keeps foreign currency reserves from going overseas is something that's objectively preferred by most of the global population. Most people are most definitely willing to accept +/- 15% cost of living changes in order to live in places with good employment and quality tax-funded services and infrastructure over having cheap imported crap.
What ends up happening is that countries cannot jump start industries that are already established and competitive in other countries. For countries to get into the renewable energy game, for example, they need to subsidize local industry and put a good bit of government capital on the line to the get to a point where they're productive at globally acceptable levels.
Countries don't need to pick _the_ cheapest products from around the world; getting good-enough local work that provides high value-add and keeps foreign currency reserves from going overseas is something that's objectively preferred by most of the global population. Most people are most definitely willing to accept +/- 15% cost of living changes in order to live in places with good employment and quality tax-funded services and infrastructure over having cheap imported crap.
> This just really isn't true empirically.
But it happens every time.
> For countries to get into the renewable energy game, for example, they need to subsidize local industry and put a good bit of government capital on the line to the get to a point where they're productive at globally acceptable levels.
If it was profitable to invest the capital, there's plenty of capital eager for something profitable to invest in. Having the government forcibly extract tax money and use it to invest pretty much guarantees it will be a lousy investment.
Currently, Washington State imposed a massive gas tax of $.50/gallon. The state is investing a big chunk of that into hydrogen electrolysis plants. The only people who are going to make money off of this are the contractors getting rich off of the construction projects. The state is pretty much guaranteed to get a negative ROI off of it.
But it happens every time.
> For countries to get into the renewable energy game, for example, they need to subsidize local industry and put a good bit of government capital on the line to the get to a point where they're productive at globally acceptable levels.
If it was profitable to invest the capital, there's plenty of capital eager for something profitable to invest in. Having the government forcibly extract tax money and use it to invest pretty much guarantees it will be a lousy investment.
Currently, Washington State imposed a massive gas tax of $.50/gallon. The state is investing a big chunk of that into hydrogen electrolysis plants. The only people who are going to make money off of this are the contractors getting rich off of the construction projects. The state is pretty much guaranteed to get a negative ROI off of it.
Usually they out-compete yours because they burn coal and you have to buy solar, they commute in packed trains while you drive tesla to work, they live in tiny apartments, while your house has a backyard and frontyard.
Protectionism is not a fix for comparative advantage. Regardless of the motives for protectionism, it will make your economy less competitive and less prosperous.
The East Asian Tigers being a major counterexample:
https://hir.harvard.edu/the-east-asian-miracle-where-did-ada...
It's basically Ha-Joon Chang's whole deal-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Samaritans:_The_Myth_of_Fr...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hajoon-c...
https://hir.harvard.edu/the-east-asian-miracle-where-did-ada...
It's basically Ha-Joon Chang's whole deal-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Samaritans:_The_Myth_of_Fr...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hajoon-c...
East Asia switched to free markets, which is where their prosperity came from.
Completely unsubstantiated non-response. At least post a link, name a contrary authority, cite some evidence, do something.
That would be very easy to circumvent.
You can describe effectively the same software engineering job in a way that sounds completely different. "close a project" of the old team, etc.
You can describe effectively the same software engineering job in a way that sounds completely different. "close a project" of the old team, etc.
I think you'd get the same result with a lot less overhead by just increasing corporate taxes a fraction of a percent (or just enforcing our current tax laws better) and making vocational training schools tuition-free.
Assuming they pay their taxes and this is how we have to enforce it by a lawsuit which costs the government more.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/11/irs-says-microsoft-owes-an-a...
If the corporate tax would increase then it might be cheaper to litigate.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/11/irs-says-microsoft-owes-an-a...
If the corporate tax would increase then it might be cheaper to litigate.
Should California impose massive tax hits to businesses that move jobs to other states?
Google is doing the same thing. Same as my own employer.
Funny that some people think "if we work in the office more, companies won't outsource jobs as much".
Funny that some people think "if we work in the office more, companies won't outsource jobs as much".
Maybe not, but from the company’s perspective if you’re not in the office then it doesn’t matter how far away you are (with some time zone restrictions maybe, but remote work heavily relies on async communication anyway). So they’ll look for the cheapest labor they can get away with.
I guess you can now have RTO in India though?
I guess you can now have RTO in India though?
> they’ll look for the cheapest labor they can get away with
Don't you look for the best deal when you buy things?
That's how markets work.
Don't you look for the best deal when you buy things?
That's how markets work.
Yes, I am very much aware of that. My point is that as a worker if you really push for remote / WFH policies, it can backfire on you because location isn’t a constraint anymore. Why pay someone in the Bay Area when I can pay someone in Idaho? Or in this case India. I’m not saying I like it or prefer it, but it makes sense.
If people can work effectively from home, they can work effectively from their homes in Hyderabad.
Bold of you to assume it's the same people, that will deliver the same quality of work
20 years ago when the first wave of outsourcing to India happened, a lot of the engineers there were not great. Nowadays there are amazing engineers in India also. They do know what they are worth though, so you cannot low ball them. But they are still working for quite a bit less than Bay Area folks.
My experience is that qualified engineers in overseas markets are not significantly cheaper than American engineers when all costs are factored in.
Doesn't need to be the same quality if it's 1/5th the price.
Businesses care about profits - not quality.
Businesses care about profits - not quality.
That will only last so long until consumers reject the terrible quality and move on to another, higher quality competitor - so the wheel will continue to turn and high quality developers will still be hired to produce high quality work.
An Indian employee's salary being 1/5th of an American's, doesn't mean their cost to the company is only 1/5th. There is a general organizational/overhead cost to taking on more people. This cost, for one additional person, may be higher than even the American's salary
In order to get a baby in 1 month just hire 9 women!
I can be at my companies HQ in 2 hours, when the need arises…
Any reason it will work out better this time than it did the last time outsourcing was the new big thing? In my anecdotal experience this is just a rehashing of the last outsourcing craze with a new crowd and will end up the same way.
Microsoft has also been outsourcing parts of core development of other products, like dotnet and Windows components.
This is something my company's internal RTO channels seem to have missed. What if large corporations really *did* collect enough data during covid to justify working from home? Now faang can justify outsourcing the rest of US based jobs.
Force RTO in the US, replace those who leave with less expensive resources.
Force RTO in the US, replace those who leave with less expensive resources.
This is actually a brilliant bit of insight/tinfoil that I'd totally missed, largely because all the things that FAANGs have been saying to justify RTO have been so daft.
You're totally right, though. If the data shows that RTO has negligible benefit — or even, say, just a marginal 5-10% benefit — then the logical move is to force RTO for the most expensive headcount (since a 5% boost there will be the most valuable) and then hire globally-remote headcount for all the rest.
That... really feels quite grim, the more I think about it. Time to go stare at my early-retirement spreadsheets and see where I can squeeze out some more velocity for myself, I suppose.
You're totally right, though. If the data shows that RTO has negligible benefit — or even, say, just a marginal 5-10% benefit — then the logical move is to force RTO for the most expensive headcount (since a 5% boost there will be the most valuable) and then hire globally-remote headcount for all the rest.
That... really feels quite grim, the more I think about it. Time to go stare at my early-retirement spreadsheets and see where I can squeeze out some more velocity for myself, I suppose.
Why wouldn’t they? It’s like 7-10x cheaper.
The difference is much lesser 7-10x in big tech (Google, Amazon, Msft, etc). Big tech's Indian offices pays about 1/3 to 1/4 of what they would earn in the company's USA office. Levels.fyi will corroborate this.
Yes, while the average software engineer in India might earn 7-10x less than in the US, this isn't the case within major tech companies.
Yes, while the average software engineer in India might earn 7-10x less than in the US, this isn't the case within major tech companies.
Salaries are 1/4th - but you also don't have as high of pension / payroll costs as in US.
At l3 & l4 - when you factor in benefits (including health care costs), 401k matching, payroll taxes - it's probably 1/5th or less.
At l3 & l4 - when you factor in benefits (including health care costs), 401k matching, payroll taxes - it's probably 1/5th or less.
Fair points, 1/5th is a good estimate.
Pay in India is variable. They have a lot of great engineers who make good money - not what they would in the US, but the difference is not that much. They also have a lot of "engineers" who shouldn't be engineers doing the simplest tasks who may 10x less than they would in the US. If you just need a simple web app that is just like every other web app except with your logo you don't need the great engineers.
Google L3 SWE in BLR: 36k
https://www.levels.fyi/offer/4bb28696-b3a9-430e-af6b-87e139b...
Google L4 SWE in BLR: 64k
https://www.levels.fyi/offer/3631ce80-f5fa-41e3-bd22-192a98a...
Google L3 SWE in Bay Area: 236k
https://www.levels.fyi/offer/8cb64099-ffcf-437f-baa3-a88ae7d...
Google L4 SWE in Bay Area: 260k
https://www.levels.fyi/offer/4468e21b-6650-4e6c-948b-e90ea1d...
That's a difference between 4x and 6.5x
I think that your 3x difference is definitely a lower bound, and it'll be closer to 6.5x than to 3x or 4x most of the time (though I don't see aggregated data per-company, per-region in levels.fyi (but I didn't bother logging in)
https://www.levels.fyi/offer/4bb28696-b3a9-430e-af6b-87e139b...
Google L4 SWE in BLR: 64k
https://www.levels.fyi/offer/3631ce80-f5fa-41e3-bd22-192a98a...
Google L3 SWE in Bay Area: 236k
https://www.levels.fyi/offer/8cb64099-ffcf-437f-baa3-a88ae7d...
Google L4 SWE in Bay Area: 260k
https://www.levels.fyi/offer/4468e21b-6650-4e6c-948b-e90ea1d...
That's a difference between 4x and 6.5x
I think that your 3x difference is definitely a lower bound, and it'll be closer to 6.5x than to 3x or 4x most of the time (though I don't see aggregated data per-company, per-region in levels.fyi (but I didn't bother logging in)
Salaries in India have increased a lot-- they used to be one-tenth that of Silicon Valley but now they are more than one-third and closing in on one-half
Lmao they wont allow remote work in the west but are fine with remote work elsewhere.
Who says the overseas positions are going to be remote?
Overseas means remote from the main office. So regardless if they will be forced to be on site at their overseas office they will still be remote compared to their us office.
And guess what - those bros in the us that wanted to be onsite to be creative will now have to communicate clearly with their remote colleagues in india whether they like it or not. But the idiots took away the rights of those in the us while those above them gave zero shits about them anyway and moved lots of jobs abroad.
The winers here? Indians. Good luck and enjoy scuttlebutt, if still employed, suckers.
And guess what - those bros in the us that wanted to be onsite to be creative will now have to communicate clearly with their remote colleagues in india whether they like it or not. But the idiots took away the rights of those in the us while those above them gave zero shits about them anyway and moved lots of jobs abroad.
The winers here? Indians. Good luck and enjoy scuttlebutt, if still employed, suckers.
There would be communication overhead between teams. If companies are willing to take that, then they shouldn't have any argument against remote work irrespective of location and timezones.
Communication overhead between teams is very different from communication overhead between individual people on a team.
That or they are opening local offices overseas and expecting people to work on site there.
The new doublethink
Damn. The market is already so tough for software engineers right now and the supply of engineers is going to increase again. I don't see how wages can drop lower than they are now. I think some engineers may have to consider a career in construction, plumbing, retail or other. Software development is just not worth the hassle and strain. Not to mention that it has become laborious, repetitive and inefficient without much autonomy in terms of choice of frameworks, tools, etc... Software development appears to have become a low-status, menial office job. Not to mention that we are now extremely replaceable; not only because of AI (which makes developers more productive) but because of standardized frameworks like React which allow juniors to churn out features fast with limited knowledge of software development; this means that seniors can often be replaced with juniors.
Maybe security will be the next big thing? All these juniors churning out code using frameworks but not understanding what's really going on under the hood might introduce more security vulnerabilities. Not to mention all the disgruntled, jobless developers who might turn to hacking to make ends meet.
I guess people who are really into software development may want to consider moving into consulting, management or teaching. I also noticed a lot of bs jobs opening up dealing with regulations and compliance.
I remember when I joined the industry in 2012, being a developer was very special; you would interact directly with the company directors, you could choose all your tools and frameworks or even build your own from scratch. You could also decide to focus on back end or front end as there was no clear separation in responsibilities. I guess that's the downside of joining an industry which essentially didn't exist 50 years ago; you never know how it's going to end up. It's not like being a lawyer or doctor which has remained high status and high pay for thousands of years.
There's a whole social architecture designed around propping up lawyers' and doctors' pay by constraining the supply of graduates and imposing artificial requirements. On the other hand, software developers tend to be extremely compliant and willing to work overtime for free, not interested to unionize, you don't even need a degree (very low bar to entry), etc... The highly compliant, overworked ones force the rest of us to match them in their degree of compliance and overwork to remain competitive. It's really a sad race to the bottom.
Maybe security will be the next big thing? All these juniors churning out code using frameworks but not understanding what's really going on under the hood might introduce more security vulnerabilities. Not to mention all the disgruntled, jobless developers who might turn to hacking to make ends meet.
I guess people who are really into software development may want to consider moving into consulting, management or teaching. I also noticed a lot of bs jobs opening up dealing with regulations and compliance.
I remember when I joined the industry in 2012, being a developer was very special; you would interact directly with the company directors, you could choose all your tools and frameworks or even build your own from scratch. You could also decide to focus on back end or front end as there was no clear separation in responsibilities. I guess that's the downside of joining an industry which essentially didn't exist 50 years ago; you never know how it's going to end up. It's not like being a lawyer or doctor which has remained high status and high pay for thousands of years.
There's a whole social architecture designed around propping up lawyers' and doctors' pay by constraining the supply of graduates and imposing artificial requirements. On the other hand, software developers tend to be extremely compliant and willing to work overtime for free, not interested to unionize, you don't even need a degree (very low bar to entry), etc... The highly compliant, overworked ones force the rest of us to match them in their degree of compliance and overwork to remain competitive. It's really a sad race to the bottom.
This is one of the more perplexing takes I've seen, assuming this isn't satire
Yeah, I agree that the trend is pretty bad... And little will fundamentally prevent things to get as bad as the parent describes
But construction and retail? Really?
We are paid multiples of what people working in those sectors are being paid :/
But construction and retail? Really?
We are paid multiples of what people working in those sectors are being paid :/
for spinning on a chair no less
Having data fluency, code fluency, you are already a valuable asset in many horizontal moves in tech companies and large companies with unavoidable tech bureaucracy - move to a sales role and now you can actually answer tough technical questions during prospecting or qualification without having to harass an engineer. Move to a PM role and have a better understanding of the level of effort of a task. Move to an operations role at a dinosaur conglomerate and use your scripting and automation abilities to outperform your peers and reinvent how your team works.
Learn to describe your experience and goals as a story that makes sense and is compelling.
Most white collar work would benefit from experience in software or data, whereas lifting 2x4s into place may not.
Learn to describe your experience and goals as a story that makes sense and is compelling.
Most white collar work would benefit from experience in software or data, whereas lifting 2x4s into place may not.
Wait you guys actually contemplate your "status"? This seems overly dramatic and does not match my experience at all. Software development is a very young profession and will continue to change.
I genuinely don't understand that you can, with a straight face, say that juniors with copilot can do the same work as seniors. Typing up the code is like what, 25% of time spent - during a good week!
I genuinely don't understand that you can, with a straight face, say that juniors with copilot can do the same work as seniors. Typing up the code is like what, 25% of time spent - during a good week!
That's true. It may change back to be good again. It's what we make it. Our political systems could change as well and make us more relevant again. Like if private currencies were allowed and fully embraced by governments, being a developer would probably become high status as every business may want to have their own currency. Being able to issue and administer one's own currency may be the highest status, highest leverage job imaginable. Like a financier or bank manager. Unfortunately, this is not possible in the current political environment. There is only one tightly controlled and regulated national currency and it mostly benefits lawyers, economists, politicians, CEOs, celebrities, influencers and a whole bunch of halfwits... Not developers.
You and anyone reading this that thinks like this person: I implore you to talk to as many people as you can outside of the industry. Ask them about their job. Ask them about their perks and flexibility and how they're treated by their bosses and how they're evaluated and what their prospects are for promotion.
You have not a fucking clue how good you have it. If you did, you would be too embarrassed to write a comment like this.
You have not a fucking clue how good you have it. If you did, you would be too embarrassed to write a comment like this.
I think the people coming out of those cushy corporate jobs are in for a big shock.
What you're saying is completely untrue where I live (Australia). My sister in HR earns more than me. My cousin who is a truck driver can save more money than me due to lower cost of living in rural areas and access to cheap real estate (which is not an option for me as a software dev)... My dad boasts about my truck driver cousin's achievements (as he has been able to buy his own house) and he rightly thinks I've been a gullible fool for having chosen software development as a career. I was a top dev. Now out of work for a few months. I worked for a company backed by Y Combinator. I was an early employee on a $4 billion market cap cryptocurrency project. I'm also a top percentile open source developer with thousands of stars. It's all worthless.
No no. I think you're the one who should be embarrassed. After what I've been through, I have no shame nor pride left to feel such emotions.
What you're saying is completely untrue where I live (Australia). My sister in HR earns more than me. My cousin who is a truck driver can save more money than me due to lower cost of living in rural areas and access to cheap real estate (which is not an option for me as a software dev)... My dad boasts about my truck driver cousin's achievements (as he has been able to buy his own house) and he rightly thinks I've been a gullible fool for having chosen software development as a career. I was a top dev. Now out of work for a few months. I worked for a company backed by Y Combinator. I was an early employee on a $4 billion market cap cryptocurrency project. I'm also a top percentile open source developer with thousands of stars. It's all worthless.
No no. I think you're the one who should be embarrassed. After what I've been through, I have no shame nor pride left to feel such emotions.
Not to discount your overall point, but there might be differences in cost of living disparity between Australia and the U.S. that leads to those perspectives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV7JPC2FuNs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV7JPC2FuNs
True.
- Builders, truck drivers, plumbers and miners do get paid a lot in Australia. Miners are typically paid a lot more than even the best software developers.
- Australia's economy is founded on immigration and a constant influx of wealthy foreigners are propping up the property market which inflates property prices and rents... Especially in big cities where developers are forced to live for jobs.
- It's almost impossible to get funding in the software industry. The very few channels of funding available in large urban centers are extremely risk-averse and seem artificial. By the time you qualify to get funding, you already don't need it anymore.
It's a perfect storm. Almost as if all the economic forces were specifically aligned to maximize harm against software developers. I had actually left for Europe (which has its own issues) but after the big crypto crash, I had to come back and it was even worse than when I left because now there were many immigrants competing for tech jobs and driving down wages and those same immigrants also helped to drive up house prices and rents... Double slap in the face.
- Builders, truck drivers, plumbers and miners do get paid a lot in Australia. Miners are typically paid a lot more than even the best software developers.
- Australia's economy is founded on immigration and a constant influx of wealthy foreigners are propping up the property market which inflates property prices and rents... Especially in big cities where developers are forced to live for jobs.
- It's almost impossible to get funding in the software industry. The very few channels of funding available in large urban centers are extremely risk-averse and seem artificial. By the time you qualify to get funding, you already don't need it anymore.
It's a perfect storm. Almost as if all the economic forces were specifically aligned to maximize harm against software developers. I had actually left for Europe (which has its own issues) but after the big crypto crash, I had to come back and it was even worse than when I left because now there were many immigrants competing for tech jobs and driving down wages and those same immigrants also helped to drive up house prices and rents... Double slap in the face.
Relax, the market is fine. Tech salaries haven't taken a hit. A few thousand people (out of many millions) got laid off, and most have already found jobs again. A third of the initial wave of tech layoffs got rehired within a month (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/why-some-young-laid-off-work...). No need to join a plumbing class just yet. Take an online AI tutorial instead.
I think that’s a bit drastic to switch to a diff career entirely. Have you tried looking for software engineer jobs in non-big tech roles like in insurance companies and boring things like that?
They don’t pay a million dollars but still pretty reasonable. Then again I don’t have super high expenses so ymmv
They don’t pay a million dollars but still pretty reasonable. Then again I don’t have super high expenses so ymmv
Am I missing the sarcasm?
Even if what you’re saying is true about the SWE job market which I doubt what SWE would completely switch career paths to become a plumber and not just find a related IT position?
Even if what you’re saying is true about the SWE job market which I doubt what SWE would completely switch career paths to become a plumber and not just find a related IT position?
> “As we continue to execute on our FY24 plan, we need to also evolve how we work and what we prioritize so we can deliver on the key initiatives we’ve identified that will have an outsized impact in achieving our business goals,” LinkedIn executives Mohak Shroff and Tomer Cohen wrote in the memo.
Is this standard business communication lingo for layoffs?
Is this standard business communication lingo for layoffs?
Complaining about this stuff every time it comes up feels kind of tired, but at some point why do they even bother stating anything at all? I wonder if these execs could just use some internal biz-speak chatbot to generate this nonsense.
Well, they ran whatever calculations they run, and it came out that they need to reduce spending. They decided the best way is to lay off people. It's not like there's a special story each time - it's pretty much always the same story. It sucks for people affected, but there's nothing new or different about it, from time to time.
This is one of the worst examples of 'biz-speak' I've ever come across adding insult to injury for those 700 workers being let go.
Such memos aren't written for people who were fired but the people who are left. Basically "you're lucky to be here, now get to work on reaching your goals."
Would it feel better if they hired a talented writer to write an heartfelt eulogy about how the loss of every single one of these 700 people makes their heart bleed tears of eternal sadness? Nobody would believe it. Everybody knows what it is about - they decided they have X people employed, and they want to have X-700 people employed. That's the beginning and the end of it. If you work for a small company, you will have personal relationship with decision makers, but in a corp where there are several zeroes in staff counts, that doesn't happen. So I don't think there's a point of being insulted about it - it's always going to be "we need less workers, and today it means less you".
This seems like corp-speak 101.
You aren't doing layoffs.
You're adjusting to a new market to maximize current opportunities.
You have to always look at the bright side.
You aren't doing layoffs.
You're adjusting to a new market to maximize current opportunities.
You have to always look at the bright side.
I would have liked it if they worked in "synergistic" and "paradigm" tbh. /s
It’s difficult to get that rich blow hard into that few sentences. I mean it takes a LOT of effort to get that much meaningless drivel into some kind of coherency that can be supported if you read it real slow. So… I’d say this is more top 10% of standard blowhard layoff notices. Definitely more blowhard than the standard stuff. This took honest blowhard talent.
Shroff and Cohen definitely deserve like a blowhard gold star for that. Rarely do you see such voluminous perniciousness that so effectively masks the real world consequences of ending peoples gainful employment. Real skill. Take notes.
Shroff and Cohen definitely deserve like a blowhard gold star for that. Rarely do you see such voluminous perniciousness that so effectively masks the real world consequences of ending peoples gainful employment. Real skill. Take notes.
Short answer is: in memos, yes. You will note that in the interviews, also depending on audience, the executives may be a little less corporate:
"We don't have room for bystanders, we don't have room for people who want to stand on the sidelines,"[1]
[1]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/citigroup-outlines-layoff-pro...
"We don't have room for bystanders, we don't have room for people who want to stand on the sidelines,"[1]
[1]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/citigroup-outlines-layoff-pro...
But they won’t change me to another team because some Spotify model and long lived team bullshit and I’m forced in the sidelines
Translation: We suck at running and leading a company so we are going to prioritize showing investors we can still return dollars to them this quarter by letting go of some peons.
ChatGPT would have shown more empathy than this bland statement.
Is that language actually useful to anyone? Don't you always need to evolve and prioritize, or is that a brand new concept to LinkedIn?
It gets proportionally easier to say such things with a straight face as the size of the exec's golden parachute increases.
I know it's not a apples to apples comparison, but the same parent company nonetheless. Not a good look after closing the deal on 69 billion for activision blizzard. Couldn't have set aside one of those billions to keep people employed a while longer MSFT?
The parent company wants to know the viability of each business unit independently, one subsidizing another would obfuscate what's working and what isn't.
And secondively, teams/orgs get bloated and keeping them larger than they should be hinders their progress.
And secondively, teams/orgs get bloated and keeping them larger than they should be hinders their progress.
"Broken down there are 137 Engineering management roles and 38 Product roles being reduced. Additionally, there will be 388 role reductions across our Engineering team"
Companies have cut back on recruiters a while ago, so I guess they stopped money on linkedin.
I wonder what areas will be impacted next.
Companies have cut back on recruiters a while ago, so I guess they stopped money on linkedin.
I wonder what areas will be impacted next.
I guess they'll be updating their LinkedIn profile then. But seriously: while I hope they will land on their feet this might be a sign that there is finally an opportunity to start a competitor on a leaner basis.
> For those who are directly affected by these changes, you will receive a calendar invitation within the next hour
Is it just me or does this suck a lot? Thousands of people unsure about their fate, refreshing their calendar, checking for... the lack of an invite? So much added stress and anxiety.
Surely they could send two versions of the email, specifying to each person if they are affected or not.
Is it just me or does this suck a lot? Thousands of people unsure about their fate, refreshing their calendar, checking for... the lack of an invite? So much added stress and anxiety.
Surely they could send two versions of the email, specifying to each person if they are affected or not.
> Thousands of people unsure about their fate, refreshing their calendar, checking for... the lack of an invite? So much added stress and anxiety.
> within the next hour
This is great. One hour? Last time we had layoffs I was watching my calendar daily for weeks! There was no timeline at all. I had anxiety every morning logging into work. I think that was a huge part of the burnout I'm currently experiencing.
> within the next hour
This is great. One hour? Last time we had layoffs I was watching my calendar daily for weeks! There was no timeline at all. I had anxiety every morning logging into work. I think that was a huge part of the burnout I'm currently experiencing.
At least there was a timeline. Last layoff at my company said invitations would be sent later today. No timeline on when. So people were sitting around all day wondering if they still had a job.
"Today I had to say goodbye to my fellow LinkedInians. I am truly grateful for the 2 years I spent there creating value for shareholders of MSFT. Being pushed by my managers to excel and being able to learn from Satya Nadella's memos made it some of the most impactful years of my life. ETC ETC. Please refer me at your company. Thanks." - 700 linkedIn posts appearing today.
And? You'll be doing the same thing when your number gets pulled...
I certainly wouldn't, no.
> creating value for shareholders of MSFT
I laughed at this part. If being grateful about increasing shareholder value (without a mention of increasing value for users) is a common attitude there, that explains quite a lot about why LinkedIn is the way it is.
> creating value for shareholders of MSFT
I laughed at this part. If being grateful about increasing shareholder value (without a mention of increasing value for users) is a common attitude there, that explains quite a lot about why LinkedIn is the way it is.
Reaching out for referrals, yes. Praising the company that threw me out on the street. No thanks.
90% of work is performative bullshit anyway. LinkedIn is the epitome of performative bullshit.
This is my fault. I finally unsubscribed from one of their annoying pointless emails that I never open this weekend.
5% quarterly revenue growth during an exceptionally tight quarter and they're cutting jobs? What on Earth?
Nadella is not happy with 5%!
> LinkedIn is now ramping up hiring in India, according to the person familiar with the matter.
There it is
There it is
Mohak & Tomer excel at writing meaningless corporate-speak.
Does LinkedIn still use Ember? LinkedIn is one of those companies that pivot to [new framework] every six months to keep their engineers happy. I guess its cause the product is so boring.
I have said it for years.
There are too many great software engineers for bad management to use.
When product and software management works well, one side effect is the realisation that we don't need to be so many software engineers.
But that is just experience the ladt 20 years.
There are too many great software engineers for bad management to use.
When product and software management works well, one side effect is the realisation that we don't need to be so many software engineers.
But that is just experience the ladt 20 years.
Surprising. LinkedIn, even more than Google, was the biggest retirement home. You went there if you wanted to while away time being “blocked on another team” and stuff like that while being paid quite well.
Is another round of tech layoff contagion starting?
This might be the start of the recession. So many businesses out there with little to negative return on invested capital are looking at what happens if revenues decline and they need to borrow money in a "high for longer" interest rate environment. I don't think this one is just tech, but tech is a large part of the problem.
Yes, unfortunately.
>"We did not expect to share this important update with you all in the midst of such challenging times, but in the spirit of creating clarity, Tomer and I wanted to share some news regarding changes we are making to our orgs....Tomer and I made these decisions with deep consideration - Mohak & Tomer"
Is it normal for a CEO like Satya Nadella not to write this email? Kind of off-putting that MSFT is keeping its hands clean here. Mohak and Tomer aren't making this decision.
Is it normal for a CEO like Satya Nadella not to write this email? Kind of off-putting that MSFT is keeping its hands clean here. Mohak and Tomer aren't making this decision.
Communication should be sent out by whoever made the decision and was in control of the outcome. LinkedIn operates almost completely independently from Microsoft, so it is appropriate for their leadership to be the ones taking the hit.
Why not Ryan Roslansky then. Surely he's the one that made the call if anyone at linkedin
MSFT generally has a hands off approach to acquisitions if the company delivers on financial metrics set by MSFT.
Conversation probably started by Satya asking the LinkedIn CEO to just reduce X$ expenses and the LinkedIn leadership made these specific changes.
Conversation probably started by Satya asking the LinkedIn CEO to just reduce X$ expenses and the LinkedIn leadership made these specific changes.
LinkedIn negotiated its own independent P&L from Microsoft. If anything, it's a little weird that it didn't come from Ryan, but it seems like they likely announced layoffs a while back... and Product & Eng waited a while to actually make the cuts.
[deleted]
In 2 years they are going to hire again and AI integrations everywhere, because it costs too much
Couldn’t come up with enough new things to add to user profiles to justify 700 engineers
The older I get the less enthusiastic I get about government regulations with a few exceptions.
First, ones that balance the cost of negative externalities, clearly not being accounted for in the behavior of market participants.
Second, ones that increase the information about a market (transparency) so that all participants can make better decisions.
To that second end I would really love to see governments force companies to report headcount on a per role basis and anonymized compensation data about each of these roles on a monthly basis.
That way would could more easily contextualize posts like this one.
Second, ones that increase the information about a market (transparency) so that all participants can make better decisions.
To that second end I would really love to see governments force companies to report headcount on a per role basis and anonymized compensation data about each of these roles on a monthly basis.
That way would could more easily contextualize posts like this one.
Hopefully they get a free subscription to LinkedIn Pro (or whatever it's called) in their severance.
[deleted]
...right?