Twitter Layoff Started Today(linkedin.com)
linkedin.com
Twitter Layoff Started Today
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ingridjohnson_twitter-layoffs-started-today-there-are-activity-6950869057071980545-1Q4t
355 comments
>> I'm not that old, but even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand)
Well I am old, and I don't remember the time you claim to recall.
I've never championed a company brand and I just threw up in my mouth a little even typing that.
Well I am old, and I don't remember the time you claim to recall.
I've never championed a company brand and I just threw up in my mouth a little even typing that.
I'm old too. I don't think we're old _enough_.
According to my grandparents, back in the late 1940s through early 60s, I guess it wasn't rare for people to work at a _single_ company _for the entirety of their career_, fostering bi-directional loyalty.
According to my grandparents, back in the late 1940s through early 60s, I guess it wasn't rare for people to work at a _single_ company _for the entirety of their career_, fostering bi-directional loyalty.
My dad worked at a single company for his whole career (45 years).
Nonetheless, when I left my first job, he was supportive. He said "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?"
Nonetheless, when I left my first job, he was supportive. He said "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?"
>>They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?
This always comes up in such discussions, but who exactly is They here. Company isn't a conscious entity, its the people. And those people are likely saying the same things about They as you/we are.
The real deal here is we have 100% ownership of any situation in life, and we are not loyal to ourselves, given this obvious fact.
If you have an opportunity significantly better than your current job, you must make the jump. But people often change jobs for petty reasons, which don't give anything much in the longer run. On the other hand, your perfectly good growth at your current place gets interrupted. Heck stability in itself is worth a lot. It helps one focus on relationships, fitness/health, consistent savings and investments, and debt raising for some investments(like buying homes etc).
People keep talking about compounding growth, and yet keep changing their process. In fact its sticking to one thing and doing it right is what causes compounding growth.
This always comes up in such discussions, but who exactly is They here. Company isn't a conscious entity, its the people. And those people are likely saying the same things about They as you/we are.
The real deal here is we have 100% ownership of any situation in life, and we are not loyal to ourselves, given this obvious fact.
If you have an opportunity significantly better than your current job, you must make the jump. But people often change jobs for petty reasons, which don't give anything much in the longer run. On the other hand, your perfectly good growth at your current place gets interrupted. Heck stability in itself is worth a lot. It helps one focus on relationships, fitness/health, consistent savings and investments, and debt raising for some investments(like buying homes etc).
People keep talking about compounding growth, and yet keep changing their process. In fact its sticking to one thing and doing it right is what causes compounding growth.
I'm not even sure I even understand what you're saying here. It seems kinda all over the place.
"This always comes up" -- really? You always hear quotes from 60+ year old people? Somehow I doubt that.
This came from someone with a lifetime's worth of experience from one company. Naturally he might have had different experiences with a different company, but on the other hand, he at least knew people from all over.
"This always comes up" -- really? You always hear quotes from 60+ year old people? Somehow I doubt that.
This came from someone with a lifetime's worth of experience from one company. Naturally he might have had different experiences with a different company, but on the other hand, he at least knew people from all over.
My impression from reading various accounts from people with long careers in tech is that the stuff that compounds also transfers. You don't take the obsolete frameworks and libraries with you (for example), but you take what you learned about frameworks and libraries.
>even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand).
Has there ever been really any difference? I know rose colored glasses make people think times past were better in many cases, but I find no evidence that things in this regard are really any different for the majority of people.
For example, this [1] FRED historical data series shows layoff rate to be extremely flat for 20 years. BLS used to track some series also that were flat for as far as I can find data. Here's [2] a slightly different dataset that is flat back to 1967.
Any solid evidence that things have ever been any different?
> In spite of the downsides of unions, this turn of affairs is really an argument in favor of universal unionization.
Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers.
EDIT: 2 more datasets [3,4], back to 1919, still pretty flat.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDR
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13023654
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M08291USM175NNBR
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0852AUSM497NNBR
[5] https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-...
Has there ever been really any difference? I know rose colored glasses make people think times past were better in many cases, but I find no evidence that things in this regard are really any different for the majority of people.
For example, this [1] FRED historical data series shows layoff rate to be extremely flat for 20 years. BLS used to track some series also that were flat for as far as I can find data. Here's [2] a slightly different dataset that is flat back to 1967.
Any solid evidence that things have ever been any different?
> In spite of the downsides of unions, this turn of affairs is really an argument in favor of universal unionization.
Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers.
EDIT: 2 more datasets [3,4], back to 1919, still pretty flat.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDR
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13023654
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M08291USM175NNBR
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0852AUSM497NNBR
[5] https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-...
> Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers.
This seems a bit misleading from the article you referenced:
“The researchers find that, for both men and women, more union involvement in wage setting significantly decreases the employment rate of young and older individuals relative to the prime-aged group (with no significant effects on the relative unemployment of these groups). In contrast, a larger role for unions has little impact on male-female employment rate differentials but raises female unemployment relative to male unemployment.”
Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state —- and certainly is overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries.
This seems a bit misleading from the article you referenced:
“The researchers find that, for both men and women, more union involvement in wage setting significantly decreases the employment rate of young and older individuals relative to the prime-aged group (with no significant effects on the relative unemployment of these groups). In contrast, a larger role for unions has little impact on male-female employment rate differentials but raises female unemployment relative to male unemployment.”
Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state —- and certainly is overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries.
> Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state…
Exactly, I can’t think of any country who has had problems with the majority of the 18-24 year olds not being able to find meaningful employment.
Well…except for every single country where this has been the case.
It’s not like they will be sitting around with no job prospects looking at the immigrant groups getting jobs (because they have no other choice but to work) and become susceptible to some right/left wing extremist groups or anything like that.
Exactly, I can’t think of any country who has had problems with the majority of the 18-24 year olds not being able to find meaningful employment.
Well…except for every single country where this has been the case.
It’s not like they will be sitting around with no job prospects looking at the immigrant groups getting jobs (because they have no other choice but to work) and become susceptible to some right/left wing extremist groups or anything like that.
Seems like speculation / projection. If your argument about unions and extremism was supported, you’d expect to see a correlation between high union membership and “extremism”. If anything, countries with high union density (Sweden, Iceland, Finland) seem to have fewer extremist parties than low union countries like the United States, The Philippines, and Poland. In the United States, the long-term decline in industrial union power, as also seen in Great Britain during the Thatcher “union-busting” era, has presided over an increase in extremism.
So whatever effect union has in employment, it’s not the kind that is shown to lead to extremism.
Again, you cited a paper claiming that it supported that “unions == unemployment” when all it said was that unions are correlated with small increases in unemployment among the very young and very old.
What we know is that union membership is shown definitively to result in better working conditions and safety, higher job satisfaction, and higher wages across entire industries.
So whatever effect union has in employment, it’s not the kind that is shown to lead to extremism.
Again, you cited a paper claiming that it supported that “unions == unemployment” when all it said was that unions are correlated with small increases in unemployment among the very young and very old.
What we know is that union membership is shown definitively to result in better working conditions and safety, higher job satisfaction, and higher wages across entire industries.
> Again, you cited a paper claiming…
I cited no such thing but merely pulled an opinion out of my backside.
I’m really just saying that maybe it isn’t such a good idea to intentionally restrict young people from the job market because they have the exact same right to meaningful employment as anyone else.
I cited no such thing but merely pulled an opinion out of my backside.
I’m really just saying that maybe it isn’t such a good idea to intentionally restrict young people from the job market because they have the exact same right to meaningful employment as anyone else.
>Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state
No, this is never a good thing. No welfare state replaces the lost income - it may reduce the pain but does not remove it. Otherwise those people would not be unemployed - they'd be retired.
And especially for the young - each year lost is a year behind for wages their entire life as they lag in raises, promotions, skills, and opportunities.
I'm not sure why you think this is a good thing. I've never heard anyone ever claim it, and I've read and worked with econ stuff a long, long time.
Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper about the claim you made? Did you read it in econ literature?
> overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries
These only accrue to those in the union at the detriment of others not in the union and consumers at large. Unions reduce employment, have slower employment growth, and raise costs, which is borne by society. A union is a monopoly on labor, which has all the downsides of monopolies on goods or production.
Some examples:
[1] " We find that unions adversely affect unemployment rates and the growth rates of gross state product (GSP), productivity, and population, while increasing the rate of wage inflation. The impact on the employment growth rate is negative but not significant."
[2]: "We find evidence that links union influence to slower job growth during an economic recovery, a finding consistent with previous studies reporting that unions negatively affect average employment and employment growth."
[3]: Lists data for many countries and many time periods about how union shops have lower employment growth.
I could go on and on. So while there are benefits to union members, it comes at a cost to those not in the union, to economic growth overall, to employment rates and employment rate growth, and wage inflation (thereby eating up the gains of union wages to begin with). The literature is pretty clear on these effects.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-001-1012-0
[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-007-9004-3
[3] https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7250184...
No, this is never a good thing. No welfare state replaces the lost income - it may reduce the pain but does not remove it. Otherwise those people would not be unemployed - they'd be retired.
And especially for the young - each year lost is a year behind for wages their entire life as they lag in raises, promotions, skills, and opportunities.
I'm not sure why you think this is a good thing. I've never heard anyone ever claim it, and I've read and worked with econ stuff a long, long time.
Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper about the claim you made? Did you read it in econ literature?
> overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries
These only accrue to those in the union at the detriment of others not in the union and consumers at large. Unions reduce employment, have slower employment growth, and raise costs, which is borne by society. A union is a monopoly on labor, which has all the downsides of monopolies on goods or production.
Some examples:
[1] " We find that unions adversely affect unemployment rates and the growth rates of gross state product (GSP), productivity, and population, while increasing the rate of wage inflation. The impact on the employment growth rate is negative but not significant."
[2]: "We find evidence that links union influence to slower job growth during an economic recovery, a finding consistent with previous studies reporting that unions negatively affect average employment and employment growth."
[3]: Lists data for many countries and many time periods about how union shops have lower employment growth.
I could go on and on. So while there are benefits to union members, it comes at a cost to those not in the union, to economic growth overall, to employment rates and employment rate growth, and wage inflation (thereby eating up the gains of union wages to begin with). The literature is pretty clear on these effects.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-001-1012-0
[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-007-9004-3
[3] https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/7250184...
> A union is a monopoly on labor, which has all the downsides of monopolies on goods or production.
I appreciate your citation of those papers, but I feel that this is an unjust comparison -- unions raise wages for workers even outside of their industry, whereas industrial monopolies frequently depress wages and raise prices for the benefit of a privileged few (generally executives and large shareholders). Unions are, historically, a reaction to that power imbalance of industrial monopolies, and attempt to counter diminished bargaining power. Unions increase economic equality, while industrial monopolies decrease it.
This reminds me of the debate over universal healthcare -- critics asserted that it decreased labor force participation, and was therefore a failure, when others argued was that it was evidence of its success--as people who wanted or needed to quit their job, such as those also acting as a caretaker, but previously didn't yet qualify for medicare, could finally retire.
Abolishing slavery also increased unemployment, as do raising interest rates -- the youth unemployment rate is a single data point to be balanced with other economic indicators that at the end are simply tools to tell a story about the prosperity of a society. Unions density, low poverty rates, and high wages are correlated across not just states but the entire world.
I appreciate your citation of those papers, but I feel that this is an unjust comparison -- unions raise wages for workers even outside of their industry, whereas industrial monopolies frequently depress wages and raise prices for the benefit of a privileged few (generally executives and large shareholders). Unions are, historically, a reaction to that power imbalance of industrial monopolies, and attempt to counter diminished bargaining power. Unions increase economic equality, while industrial monopolies decrease it.
This reminds me of the debate over universal healthcare -- critics asserted that it decreased labor force participation, and was therefore a failure, when others argued was that it was evidence of its success--as people who wanted or needed to quit their job, such as those also acting as a caretaker, but previously didn't yet qualify for medicare, could finally retire.
Abolishing slavery also increased unemployment, as do raising interest rates -- the youth unemployment rate is a single data point to be balanced with other economic indicators that at the end are simply tools to tell a story about the prosperity of a society. Unions density, low poverty rates, and high wages are correlated across not just states but the entire world.
>I feel that this is an unjust comparison
It is not a comparison, unjust or otherwise. A union is precisely a monopoly on labor. That is the point of a union. If you google, this is a common definition in economics on what a union is.
Are you claiming a union is not a monopoly on labor? Are you claiming that this labor monopoly does not have features of a monopoly? Upsides and downsides?
In fact, in order for unions to exist in the US, they had to be specifically exempted from anti-trust laws. The original anti-trust law, the Sherman Act, was used against unions, so future laws had to specifically allow the monopoly of a union.
So yes, a union is exactly and legally and economically a monopoly.
> Unions increase economic equality
You keep parroting this claim, despite my just having shown you multiple papers clearly demonstrating that this is simply untrue. Those people now unemployed in those papers, those not getting jobs in the future because unions stagnate growth - are they now better off and more equal?
Unions change who gets what, at major cost to many people, making some of them incredibly poorer.
There is simply no free lunch here. Forming a monopoly on labor will have effects - getting more money for those in the monopoly is not going to raise all boats - and that monopoly and those in it will try to hold their income, at the expense of immigrants, of those outside the group, of society at large.
So they pass costs on to consumers as well as pushing those out of work that would compete with them. This is pretty straightforward - and demonstrated in the literature as I posted.
So yes, unions can raise pay for those in it, may have some ripple effects to others, but you cannot ignore basic economics and what losses are caused elsewhere.
If you're going to ignore well sourced, peer reviewed evidence, and not provide solid counter evidence other than your continued opinion, there is really little left to discuss.
It is not a comparison, unjust or otherwise. A union is precisely a monopoly on labor. That is the point of a union. If you google, this is a common definition in economics on what a union is.
Are you claiming a union is not a monopoly on labor? Are you claiming that this labor monopoly does not have features of a monopoly? Upsides and downsides?
In fact, in order for unions to exist in the US, they had to be specifically exempted from anti-trust laws. The original anti-trust law, the Sherman Act, was used against unions, so future laws had to specifically allow the monopoly of a union.
So yes, a union is exactly and legally and economically a monopoly.
> Unions increase economic equality
You keep parroting this claim, despite my just having shown you multiple papers clearly demonstrating that this is simply untrue. Those people now unemployed in those papers, those not getting jobs in the future because unions stagnate growth - are they now better off and more equal?
Unions change who gets what, at major cost to many people, making some of them incredibly poorer.
There is simply no free lunch here. Forming a monopoly on labor will have effects - getting more money for those in the monopoly is not going to raise all boats - and that monopoly and those in it will try to hold their income, at the expense of immigrants, of those outside the group, of society at large.
So they pass costs on to consumers as well as pushing those out of work that would compete with them. This is pretty straightforward - and demonstrated in the literature as I posted.
So yes, unions can raise pay for those in it, may have some ripple effects to others, but you cannot ignore basic economics and what losses are caused elsewhere.
If you're going to ignore well sourced, peer reviewed evidence, and not provide solid counter evidence other than your continued opinion, there is really little left to discuss.
> So they pass costs on to consumers as well as pushing those out of work that would compete with them. This is pretty straightforward - and demonstrated in the literature as I posted
The literature you posted demonstrated no such thing. Again, you're now making expansive claims that are interpretations well beyond the scope of these papers, using "first principals" and "common sense" -- they show that unions increase wages at the cost of slightly raised unemployment among certain groups. There is no free lunch, but unions eating lunch at the expense of shareholder profits is absolutely a good thing and the point. Their affect on consumer prices was not demonstrated by your literature, but I assume you're going to make the same false libertarian argument against "minimum wage" -- that it raises some consumer prices and unemployment, and therefore, should be abolished (in spite of the massive evidence that's shown that it's been radically effective at lifting people out of poverty while having little effect on both)?
Your blanket condemnation of unions is ideological.
> Unions Reduce Inequality. You keep parroting this claim, despite my just having shown you multiple papers clearly demonstrating that this is simply untrue. Those people now unemployed in those papers, those not getting jobs in the future because unions stagnate growth - are they now better off and more equal?
Ok, here's a source that supports that unions actually increase productivity, that's about 20 years more recent than the source you posted.
"In total, results suggest that right to work laws work as intended, increasing economic inequality indirectly by lowering labor power resources. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed." https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708067
Union Density Effects on Productivity and Wages "Accounting for selection effects and the potential endogeneity of unionisation, the results show that increasing union density at the firm level leads to a substantial increase in both productivity and wages. The wage effect is larger in more productive firms, consistent with rent-sharing models." https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/130/631/1898/5824627
"Decompositions based on public-sector earnings indicate that increases in union density have produced inequality that is 29 percent below what it otherwise would have been"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-997-1048-x
The literature you posted demonstrated no such thing. Again, you're now making expansive claims that are interpretations well beyond the scope of these papers, using "first principals" and "common sense" -- they show that unions increase wages at the cost of slightly raised unemployment among certain groups. There is no free lunch, but unions eating lunch at the expense of shareholder profits is absolutely a good thing and the point. Their affect on consumer prices was not demonstrated by your literature, but I assume you're going to make the same false libertarian argument against "minimum wage" -- that it raises some consumer prices and unemployment, and therefore, should be abolished (in spite of the massive evidence that's shown that it's been radically effective at lifting people out of poverty while having little effect on both)?
Your blanket condemnation of unions is ideological.
> Unions Reduce Inequality. You keep parroting this claim, despite my just having shown you multiple papers clearly demonstrating that this is simply untrue. Those people now unemployed in those papers, those not getting jobs in the future because unions stagnate growth - are they now better off and more equal?
Ok, here's a source that supports that unions actually increase productivity, that's about 20 years more recent than the source you posted.
"In total, results suggest that right to work laws work as intended, increasing economic inequality indirectly by lowering labor power resources. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed." https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708067
Union Density Effects on Productivity and Wages "Accounting for selection effects and the potential endogeneity of unionisation, the results show that increasing union density at the firm level leads to a substantial increase in both productivity and wages. The wage effect is larger in more productive firms, consistent with rent-sharing models." https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/130/631/1898/5824627
"Decompositions based on public-sector earnings indicate that increases in union density have produced inequality that is 29 percent below what it otherwise would have been"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-997-1048-x
First, you never answered why you claimed unemployed youth is a good thing. Care to explain?
Do you now agree that a union is a monopoly of labor?
And switching to RTW laws instead of unionization hits upon one of the key areas: RTW lets more people work, so those regions also get lower quality people into jobs. Lower quality people earn less generally.
From your first paper, regarding RTW laws: "previous research finds these laws to be largely inconsequential" - so: did this paper overturn all previous papers? Or did later papers still support the "largely inconsequential" part? Papers are a discussion, so it's best to look at followups, such as the more recent, more widely cited [1]: it states that RTW is not what drives inequality - that is caused in the paper by preexisting variables, that both drive inequality and the passage of RTW laws. So I guess that covers that, right?
As I showed above - union companies have slower employment growth. This is done at the cost to less employable workers - especially youth and old - as also demonstrated which you then said was a good thing, for who knows what reason.
Your second paper is the same short-sighted claim you keep making - of course wages go up for those in a union. No one disputes that. It does not address that the cost is passed on to society and to displaced workers, which is the part you seem unable to admit also happens. If a monopoly on labor drives up wages, where do you think that money comes from? Owners simply hand it over? Or does it put pressure on employment, on investment, on business expansion, on prices?
We can keep going around. I agree there are benefits to unions, but you seem unable to admit there are also costs. Do you still think there are no downsides and that unemployed youth is a good thing? Do you admit a union is a monopoly on labor?
[1] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejeap-2019-0...
Do you now agree that a union is a monopoly of labor?
And switching to RTW laws instead of unionization hits upon one of the key areas: RTW lets more people work, so those regions also get lower quality people into jobs. Lower quality people earn less generally.
From your first paper, regarding RTW laws: "previous research finds these laws to be largely inconsequential" - so: did this paper overturn all previous papers? Or did later papers still support the "largely inconsequential" part? Papers are a discussion, so it's best to look at followups, such as the more recent, more widely cited [1]: it states that RTW is not what drives inequality - that is caused in the paper by preexisting variables, that both drive inequality and the passage of RTW laws. So I guess that covers that, right?
As I showed above - union companies have slower employment growth. This is done at the cost to less employable workers - especially youth and old - as also demonstrated which you then said was a good thing, for who knows what reason.
Your second paper is the same short-sighted claim you keep making - of course wages go up for those in a union. No one disputes that. It does not address that the cost is passed on to society and to displaced workers, which is the part you seem unable to admit also happens. If a monopoly on labor drives up wages, where do you think that money comes from? Owners simply hand it over? Or does it put pressure on employment, on investment, on business expansion, on prices?
We can keep going around. I agree there are benefits to unions, but you seem unable to admit there are also costs. Do you still think there are no downsides and that unemployed youth is a good thing? Do you admit a union is a monopoly on labor?
[1] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejeap-2019-0...
> I'm not that old, but even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand).
So I'm in my mid 40s, and my earliest memories of company-labor relationship, has always been one of union crushing, layoffs, and pitting towns against each other to see which factory or mine was going to close first, before offshoring. But then again, I grew up in the deindustrializing midwest.
I'm not saying this rosey world never existed (I believe lifetime quality employment still existed in the 1960s), but it's been like this for more than half a century.
So I'm in my mid 40s, and my earliest memories of company-labor relationship, has always been one of union crushing, layoffs, and pitting towns against each other to see which factory or mine was going to close first, before offshoring. But then again, I grew up in the deindustrializing midwest.
I'm not saying this rosey world never existed (I believe lifetime quality employment still existed in the 1960s), but it's been like this for more than half a century.
In the past there were companies that treated their employees well, and also companies that didn't. I am pretty sure that all the points you mentioned are not new developments of the last 20 years.
In the present there are also both kinds of companies. Are you sure you aren't comparing the worst of today's companies to the best of the past's?
In the present there are also both kinds of companies. Are you sure you aren't comparing the worst of today's companies to the best of the past's?
> Companies literally escorting laid-off employees out of the building like criminals, on the premise that a suddenly-former employee is an incipient criminal.
It doesn't take many incipient criminals to ruin things for everyone. You'd do it to if you've ever had an employee steal or embezzle from you, and it's a lot more common than you might think.
It doesn't take many incipient criminals to ruin things for everyone. You'd do it to if you've ever had an employee steal or embezzle from you, and it's a lot more common than you might think.
This is almost strictly a US perspective.
At some point you'd figure out Americans would look around the world and start asking: "are we sure we're doing this right?".
In every place in Europe I know of, you're not escorted outside of the building by anyone. You just go at a leisurely pace and drop off your badge and stuff, put your stuff in a bag, etc.
At some point you'd figure out Americans would look around the world and start asking: "are we sure we're doing this right?".
In every place in Europe I know of, you're not escorted outside of the building by anyone. You just go at a leisurely pace and drop off your badge and stuff, put your stuff in a bag, etc.
I've still never heard of this here in Germany. Maybe it's because you usually can't fire people valid TODAY, so they still have some runway of around 3 months and then they don't feel like they need to grab stuff and run?
#4 "escorting out" is usually a result of applying #1, #2, #3 and #5 to a person and realising the affect those actions might have on them, just more good business sense!
I think that there is a cost to companies operating this way, but the cost is largely unseen or harder to account for. Arguably doing everything opposite of those points can be "good business sense" too. For example, going with the mindset of investing in your employees.. two of the points below:
> Companies using the barest of excuses, or none at all, to lay off employees The intention is to streamline everything and cut costs and improve efficiency for the business. However, doing the opposite here helps preserve tribal knowledge (possibly leading to better business outcomes). It helps improve retention because it creates an environment where employee isn't constantly optimizing for the best compensation and looking to jump ship at the first better opportunity.
> Companies lying, deliberately and freely, to employees about upcoming layoffs, in order to "stave off panic". Because it makes good business sense.
Doing the opposite leads to employees being more focused at work. Instead of prepping for the next interview, they can focus their energies on company initiatives.
> Companies using the barest of excuses, or none at all, to lay off employees The intention is to streamline everything and cut costs and improve efficiency for the business. However, doing the opposite here helps preserve tribal knowledge (possibly leading to better business outcomes). It helps improve retention because it creates an environment where employee isn't constantly optimizing for the best compensation and looking to jump ship at the first better opportunity.
> Companies lying, deliberately and freely, to employees about upcoming layoffs, in order to "stave off panic". Because it makes good business sense.
Doing the opposite leads to employees being more focused at work. Instead of prepping for the next interview, they can focus their energies on company initiatives.
I’m not that old either. At least I tell myself that. It might even be true.
One doesn’t recognize a well packaged lie overnight. Or at least I didn’t. Took burnout to realize the company I was willing to give it all for never really meant all of those sweet things it told all of us. And that was true long before I worked there. The wrapping was nicer. Have you heard of a “pension?” Some of the older employees, by tenure, would talk about them. They sounded just magical. Wonder where those went. Not the only perk that has vanished with time, but perhaps one of the most notable.
But it took too long to see it. I didn’t really want to. It hurts getting your heart broken.
One doesn’t recognize a well packaged lie overnight. Or at least I didn’t. Took burnout to realize the company I was willing to give it all for never really meant all of those sweet things it told all of us. And that was true long before I worked there. The wrapping was nicer. Have you heard of a “pension?” Some of the older employees, by tenure, would talk about them. They sounded just magical. Wonder where those went. Not the only perk that has vanished with time, but perhaps one of the most notable.
But it took too long to see it. I didn’t really want to. It hurts getting your heart broken.
> I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees
I remember that time too, back before we had armies of employees with nebulous job titles like "Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Advocate". Maybe someone realized some of these positions don't actually create any value, product, or service. Or as you put it, "Because business sense, etc." My impression is Twitter has extremely high overhead costs, and the gravy train has run out of steam.
I remember that time too, back before we had armies of employees with nebulous job titles like "Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Advocate". Maybe someone realized some of these positions don't actually create any value, product, or service. Or as you put it, "Because business sense, etc." My impression is Twitter has extremely high overhead costs, and the gravy train has run out of steam.
People can stop buying products that don't agree with them. It might not be in your financial cards but if it is a free product there is no excuse - it makes good business sense.
“ many of these folks won’t be able to sell the shares they earned.
The money they need pay bills and keep them afloat if and until they get new employment.
When severance ends, that’s it.”
It’s Twitter’s responsibility to not only offer severance, but make sure employees keep an emergency fund?
The money they need pay bills and keep them afloat if and until they get new employment.
When severance ends, that’s it.”
It’s Twitter’s responsibility to not only offer severance, but make sure employees keep an emergency fund?
Seriously. I wouldn’t be surprised if the lowest total comp was in excess of $200k/year. If you can’t have 6 months in cash sitting in a high yield savings account on that, there’s no amount of severance that will help you.
Someone who earned 150k cash and 50k stock might be able to save, but they'd probably just keep their stock as their "emergency fund". Twitter are blocking them selling that stock. Effectively Twitter are laying people off and putting a freeze on their savings account. I think it's reasonable to have a little sympathy for people in that situation.
Your brick and mortar and online savings accounts are your savings account up to the maximum insurable amount.
Your company stock is an investment that is part of your compensation.
Your retirement account has (mostly) investments, at least in the US.
Your brokerage account has investments investments.
Any investment advisor will tell you that all investments have risk. There's an upside, and there's a downside to every stock. Anyone who remembers the Dot-com bust will remember that.
Your company stock is an investment that is part of your compensation.
Your retirement account has (mostly) investments, at least in the US.
Your brokerage account has investments investments.
Any investment advisor will tell you that all investments have risk. There's an upside, and there's a downside to every stock. Anyone who remembers the Dot-com bust will remember that.
Equity isn’t an emergency fund.
Isn't and Shouldn't are different things. Also, new hires exist. Not everyone has had time to actually accumulate wealth from their compensation. Not everyone was taught financial literacy before being dumped into a high stress job. Not everyone is in good health.
I think sympathy and compassion are fine ideals to hold for any of our working class cohort.
I think sympathy and compassion are fine ideals to hold for any of our working class cohort.
>>Not everyone was taught financial literacy before being dumped into a high stress job.
Financial literacy is quite literally adding and subtracting numbers. For somebody who gets in to FAANG sort of companies with mad algorithm skills. This sort of things are a cake walk. Financial Literacy applies to people who just didn't get any education. We are talking of people who can't even read and write.
Financial literacy is quite literally adding and subtracting numbers. For somebody who gets in to FAANG sort of companies with mad algorithm skills. This sort of things are a cake walk. Financial Literacy applies to people who just didn't get any education. We are talking of people who can't even read and write.
I think treating our fellow humans like humans is more valuable than assuming they aren't capable of basic finance.
Put another way, people will behave as you treat them. Treat them like they are fools who can't do finances and they will behave that way. Expect them to do basic financial behavior and they will.
We literally make financial literacy courses free, online, without any need to even sign up. They will teach you what a bank is all the way up to 401k basics.
Put another way, people will behave as you treat them. Treat them like they are fools who can't do finances and they will behave that way. Expect them to do basic financial behavior and they will.
We literally make financial literacy courses free, online, without any need to even sign up. They will teach you what a bank is all the way up to 401k basics.
Treating people like human beings (adults) also means letting them feel the consequences of poor choices.
If someone is making $200,000 a year and is financial trouble when they get laid off (with severance), well, I reserve my tears for people who never see that kind of income their entire life.
If someone is making $200,000 a year and is financial trouble when they get laid off (with severance), well, I reserve my tears for people who never see that kind of income their entire life.
As someone who is financially illiterate, but doesn't have the time or knowhow to separate the good ones from all the spam out there... can you recommend any good courses?
MoneySmart - the official government course that covers the basics: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/consumers/money-smart/teach-m... It's intended to be instructor led but all the resources are available on that page. It is not an overwhelmingly thrilling course but it will get you through the material.
The PersonalFinance Wiki for the /r/PersonalFinance subreddit is actually very nice and covers a lot of common situations: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/commontopics
Investopedia maintains an excellent and well written dictionary on financial terms, with a mix of articles. I use this website heavily: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-term-dictionary-47697... They have a personal wealth section here: https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance-4427760 and a good place to start is: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/09/financial-respon...
If you want a software aid, YNAB is pretty good and is based on a solid set of principles. https://www.youneedabudget.com/the-four-rules/ Obviously lots of other options exist to manage your money and YNAB is not the only option, but it's a good one.
If a resource suggests any kind of particular stock picks, crypto or other "investments", it's bad. It exists to sell you a product.
The PersonalFinance Wiki for the /r/PersonalFinance subreddit is actually very nice and covers a lot of common situations: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/commontopics
Investopedia maintains an excellent and well written dictionary on financial terms, with a mix of articles. I use this website heavily: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-term-dictionary-47697... They have a personal wealth section here: https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance-4427760 and a good place to start is: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/09/financial-respon...
If you want a software aid, YNAB is pretty good and is based on a solid set of principles. https://www.youneedabudget.com/the-four-rules/ Obviously lots of other options exist to manage your money and YNAB is not the only option, but it's a good one.
If a resource suggests any kind of particular stock picks, crypto or other "investments", it's bad. It exists to sell you a product.
Thank you! These are great resources. I've started skimming through them and will learn more in the weeks to come. Just created my budget for the year, which is a great start, but I have a lot more to learn.
You don't need a course.
Save money from each paycheck. If you're just starting, put this into an emergency fund (savings account) until you have 6 month's take-home pay saved.
Then start savings in equities. You should diversify this, i.e. in low-fee index funds. Do this in an IRA or other tax-advantaged plan your employer might offer. Don't watch this too closely or try to time the market. Just invest with every paycheck.
Understand the time value of money. Don't go into long term debt for short term needs or consumables. Live below your means so you can save more and maximize compounding gains in savings/investments.
Do these things and you are well ahead of most people. If you want to get more sophisticated at that point, look for courses or professional advice, but remember pros rarely beat the market.
Save money from each paycheck. If you're just starting, put this into an emergency fund (savings account) until you have 6 month's take-home pay saved.
Then start savings in equities. You should diversify this, i.e. in low-fee index funds. Do this in an IRA or other tax-advantaged plan your employer might offer. Don't watch this too closely or try to time the market. Just invest with every paycheck.
Understand the time value of money. Don't go into long term debt for short term needs or consumables. Live below your means so you can save more and maximize compounding gains in savings/investments.
Do these things and you are well ahead of most people. If you want to get more sophisticated at that point, look for courses or professional advice, but remember pros rarely beat the market.
New hires won’t have vested equity that is blocked, so I don’t understand the relevance.
It’s also not clear that Twitter would be able to block sales once you are no longer an employee; my guess is that they can’t.
It’s also not clear that Twitter would be able to block sales once you are no longer an employee; my guess is that they can’t.
> compassion are fine ideals to hold for any of our working class cohort.
“Working class” lol. Class-wise, engineers are like the junior executives in the Mad Men era, or junior lawyers and bankers today. They are not only well compensated, but have tons of impact (and therefore leverage) as individual contributors.
The “working class” are the folks cleaning the building who are fungible commodities. You can be a 10x janitor and it won’t give you any leverage in the organization, and you have no pathway to upward mobility in the executive ranks.
“Working class” lol. Class-wise, engineers are like the junior executives in the Mad Men era, or junior lawyers and bankers today. They are not only well compensated, but have tons of impact (and therefore leverage) as individual contributors.
The “working class” are the folks cleaning the building who are fungible commodities. You can be a 10x janitor and it won’t give you any leverage in the organization, and you have no pathway to upward mobility in the executive ranks.
> “Working class” lol. Class-wise, engineers are like the junior executives in the Mad Men era, or junior lawyers and bankers today. They are not only well compensated, but have tons of impact (and therefore leverage) as individual contributors.
Anyone who relies on wage labor for their income (as opposed to earnings from capital) is working class. That is the defining feature of the working class.
Unless you could retire tomorrow and support yourself from your capital holdings alone, you're a member of the working class. (Many engineers at Twitter likely could retire tomorrow and live off their equity, but I'm guessing the majority could not.)
People love to erode class solidarity by claiming that only people whose incomes are below a certain level are working class, or that you have to "work with your hands" to be working class. Don't fall for it.
Anyone who relies on wage labor for their income (as opposed to earnings from capital) is working class. That is the defining feature of the working class.
Unless you could retire tomorrow and support yourself from your capital holdings alone, you're a member of the working class. (Many engineers at Twitter likely could retire tomorrow and live off their equity, but I'm guessing the majority could not.)
People love to erode class solidarity by claiming that only people whose incomes are below a certain level are working class, or that you have to "work with your hands" to be working class. Don't fall for it.
> Anyone who relies on wage labor for their income (as opposed to earnings from capital) is working class.
Since when is that the definition? Doctors and lawyers have never been considered part of the "working class." Software engineers, and other categories of jobs that didn't really exist in the 1930s, are more similar to those professionals than to working class people.
> People love to erode class solidarity by claiming that only people whose incomes are below a certain level are working class
You've got it exactly backward. The top 10% has been pulling away from the median American for decades now. They're beneficiaries of the same forces that have produced outsized growth for the top 0.1%. They write the software, paper the deals, put together the PowerPoint presentations, etc., that enable those trends.
The delusion among skilled professionals that they are part of the "working class," and their influx into the putatively labor-aligned political party, has had a tremendously negative effect on working class interests. They champion policies like globalization and mass immigration that benefit them at the expense of factory and farm workers. They spent divert vast amounts of political capital to social issues important to highly educated people, at the expense of economic issues important to the working class. And they make it impossible to pay for expansive social services the way other developed countries pay for them: by heavily taxing the upper middle class.
Since when is that the definition? Doctors and lawyers have never been considered part of the "working class." Software engineers, and other categories of jobs that didn't really exist in the 1930s, are more similar to those professionals than to working class people.
> People love to erode class solidarity by claiming that only people whose incomes are below a certain level are working class
You've got it exactly backward. The top 10% has been pulling away from the median American for decades now. They're beneficiaries of the same forces that have produced outsized growth for the top 0.1%. They write the software, paper the deals, put together the PowerPoint presentations, etc., that enable those trends.
The delusion among skilled professionals that they are part of the "working class," and their influx into the putatively labor-aligned political party, has had a tremendously negative effect on working class interests. They champion policies like globalization and mass immigration that benefit them at the expense of factory and farm workers. They spent divert vast amounts of political capital to social issues important to highly educated people, at the expense of economic issues important to the working class. And they make it impossible to pay for expansive social services the way other developed countries pay for them: by heavily taxing the upper middle class.
>Since when is that the definition?
That's the Marxist definition of the Working Class[0], although nowadays some Marxists would programmers, lawyers etc. "Professional Managerial Class" to distinguish them from the workerist idea of the Working Class.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Marxist_definiti...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class#Marxist_definiti...
Marx was writing in the very specific context of then-emerging industrial factory production. In Marx's dichotomy, there's workers and those that "own the means of production." That dichotomy makes no sense as applied to what we would call today knowledge workers, and it's probably a misreading of Marx to apply his terminology to them.
In Marx's dichotomy, ownership of the means of production is critical because workers are utterly dependent on that capital to be able to produce anything. That's not true of knowledge workers. A programmer, like a doctor or a lawyer, isn't dependent on a capital owner to produce the thing they sell.
In Marx's dichotomy, ownership of the means of production is critical because workers are utterly dependent on that capital to be able to produce anything. That's not true of knowledge workers. A programmer, like a doctor or a lawyer, isn't dependent on a capital owner to produce the thing they sell.
Are highly educated, highly compensated, and highly privileged folk considered working class now?
Financial literacy is something that desperately needs to be part of the curriculum in high school and I can empathize with people that will struggle as a result of their layoffs even if it's due to their own money mismanagement, but software engineers being laid off from a tech giant are definitely not working class in any sense.
Financial literacy is something that desperately needs to be part of the curriculum in high school and I can empathize with people that will struggle as a result of their layoffs even if it's due to their own money mismanagement, but software engineers being laid off from a tech giant are definitely not working class in any sense.
If someone needs to work to make ends meet, then yes they're working class. The capitalist class are those that make their income from the labor of others (The working class).
A person developing software definitionally isn't part of the proletariat or working class, they'd be defined as petite bourgeoisie. Your definition does not make sense in the archaic marxist sense nor does it represent the connotative definition of working class that is more representative of class structure in the world we're currently living in.
[deleted]
"Not everyone was taught financial literacy"
That's not how adulthood works. The world doesn't care if you learned it nor will it teach you. Besides, it doesn't take a course in finance to understand basic financial responsibility.
That's not how adulthood works. The world doesn't care if you learned it nor will it teach you. Besides, it doesn't take a course in finance to understand basic financial responsibility.
I don't understand the utility of this viewpoint.
Adults can teach themselves most things given the right tools and incentive. Your viewpoint essentially means nothing is ever problematic ever. Invasive rhinos released onto SF streets causing property damage? Why didn't SF residents learn to defend themselves and their property damage. The world doesn't care if you learn or not. Climate change leading to drought and the entire world is starving? Should have done a little thinking ahead and stockpiled food.
Adults can teach themselves most things given the right tools and incentive. Your viewpoint essentially means nothing is ever problematic ever. Invasive rhinos released onto SF streets causing property damage? Why didn't SF residents learn to defend themselves and their property damage. The world doesn't care if you learn or not. Climate change leading to drought and the entire world is starving? Should have done a little thinking ahead and stockpiled food.
The utility of this viewpoint is that adults should stop victimizing themselves when they lack the absolute basics of being an adult. The very idea of being an adult is that you no longer have somebody to hide behind. You're naked.
Despite the creativity of your rhinos scenarios, the point still stands. Somebody that did proper financial planning would be better equipped to cover the property damage.
And yes, you very much should stockpile food. I have 6 months worth, and adding. I hope you're right and I turn out to the paranoid one, that would be best for the world. But just to give a hint: where I live protesting farmers led to some empty shelves. Nothing existential, but just to share how very quickly such a thing happens and how close it was to a more serious issue. Or, perhaps consider the entirety of Eastern Africa about to face a possible famine. Or, consider Sri Lanka being totally fucked.
I don't say this to hate or judge, I say it to help. Take care of your shit, this world is volatile.
Despite the creativity of your rhinos scenarios, the point still stands. Somebody that did proper financial planning would be better equipped to cover the property damage.
And yes, you very much should stockpile food. I have 6 months worth, and adding. I hope you're right and I turn out to the paranoid one, that would be best for the world. But just to give a hint: where I live protesting farmers led to some empty shelves. Nothing existential, but just to share how very quickly such a thing happens and how close it was to a more serious issue. Or, perhaps consider the entirety of Eastern Africa about to face a possible famine. Or, consider Sri Lanka being totally fucked.
I don't say this to hate or judge, I say it to help. Take care of your shit, this world is volatile.
You seem to be suggesting that basic adult skills like financial literacy and planning for the possibility of a layoff are completely unnecessary in today's world?
Do you expect us to teach adults how to do laundry and cook dinner as well? When you’re an adult, financial planning becomes your responsibility.
Lots of places have classes for this, yes. Some would suggest making them mandatory, or emphasizing them more.
> how to do laundry and cook dinner as well
Half my coworkers lack these basic skills and they drive around in $100k Teslas.
Half my coworkers lack these basic skills and they drive around in $100k Teslas.
I remember a story from some Googler complaining how from his apartment, the next Starbucks was about a mile away, a major degradation in life quality compared to the 5 star hotel that is a Google office.
The guy can't even make coffee at home or a sandwich. Never had to do it. They are true man-childs.
The guy can't even make coffee at home or a sandwich. Never had to do it. They are true man-childs.
I find these people pathetic. An existence of Entitlement has no bounds.
As long as it has liquidity, why not.
A volatile but oversized emergency fund is not horrible. Especially if the estimated chance of needing it is low.
A volatile but oversized emergency fund is not horrible. Especially if the estimated chance of needing it is low.
It is horrible if the volatility has a high chance of coinciding with the emergency you're preparing for.
Worried about medical emergencies? Emergency fund in equities isn't terrible. But if your emergency fund is supposed to support you after getting laid off due to an economic downturn, your emergency fund is going to be a lot smaller than it was right before the emergency. And if your emergency fund is in the stock of the same company that you work at, you're opening yourself up to just not having an emergency fund in the worst-case scenario that your company outright goes under.
Worried about medical emergencies? Emergency fund in equities isn't terrible. But if your emergency fund is supposed to support you after getting laid off due to an economic downturn, your emergency fund is going to be a lot smaller than it was right before the emergency. And if your emergency fund is in the stock of the same company that you work at, you're opening yourself up to just not having an emergency fund in the worst-case scenario that your company outright goes under.
If this merger wasn't going on twitter stock would be down XX% and so would their "emergency fund". Pretty sure i heard on a podcast that twitter has historically mirrored Meta stock so that's roughly a 50% drop.
edit: over the past 6 months. so the duration of this process
edit: over the past 6 months. so the duration of this process
This sounds like the standard blackout period that public companies have every quarter to prevent insider trading. If so, it'll be lifted a few days after TWTR reports Q2 earnings later this month.
[deleted]
Once they leave the company they are free to sell the stock. They are not beholden to a stock blackout anymore.
That isn't how it works unfortunately. If the shares vest during the blackout period they're only released to the employee, or former employee, once the blackout ends.
The employees can't sell these until the blackout is lifted. Currently there is no end date set.
The employees can't sell these until the blackout is lifted. Currently there is no end date set.
I would think someone would be happy to lend you the number of shares you have blacked out for a large fee, with a contract you release that to the lender afterwards. Something like "we lend you 75% face of your blackout shares now, in return we get all your blackout shares when they're released."
Edit: Per below comment, don't do this :)
Edit: Per below comment, don't do this :)
Most of these anti-insider trading policies prevent all of the obvious "one clever tricks" by prohibiting entering into options contracts, lending, borrowing, shorting, executing futures transactions, etc.
If you could find someone to lend you cash (based on the totality of your financial situation and personal credit), that's fine. It's not fine to borrow someone else's shares and short them during a blackout.
If you could find someone to lend you cash (based on the totality of your financial situation and personal credit), that's fine. It's not fine to borrow someone else's shares and short them during a blackout.
> Most of these anti-insider trading policies
Do they contain penalty provisions beyond getting fired? They're meant to protect both the company and the people from the slightest risk of insider trading allegations, so in most cases violating the policies isn't actually illegal insider trading.
Do they contain penalty provisions beyond getting fired? They're meant to protect both the company and the people from the slightest risk of insider trading allegations, so in most cases violating the policies isn't actually illegal insider trading.
Buying options is completely orthogonal to insider trading. Options contracts are not allowed because it's written in the employee contract and that's because companies don't want you to be engaging in stock activity that goes against the company. But not because it's illegal. If you're no longer an employee, you can buy whatever you want.
If you have MNPI you can't buy or sell anything, including stocks or options, even if you don't work for the company.
If you have MNPI you can't buy or sell anything, including stocks or options, even if you don't work for the company.
Regular folks are not insiders. You can certainly pledge collateral for a loan.
I don’t recall what the terms were for TWTR but I do know my current employer prohibits using these shares as collateral for a loan, because you may default and be forced to sell them in the blackout period.
They can’t if you own them. Obviously the creditor can’t collect until the blackout is over but that can be written into the loan agreement. Those shares are your property. Insider trading is a sec thing, separate.
You can just short Twitter stock from any brokerage in the US. That is the exact same thing. As a non-employee, you can do that without issues (unless you have MNPI at which you can't do anything).
This is an asinine assumption. I doubt even 10% of recruiting employees at Twitter have a HYSA, let alone make in excess of $200k/year. As stated below [1], those affected seem to be recruitment (which lines up with the LinkedIn post's user profile saying they are in recruiting).
Even ignoring this, there are thousands of situations where layoff + stock blackout can be financially devastating even for people with "well off" jobs. The entire reason it's recommended to keep a 3-6 month emergency fund is for emergencies - surprise medical costs + reduced pay on disability if you get cancer/car accident/etc. or struggling with a dip in household income from a spouse losing their job during a second-in-two-years recession. If one of those happens to you and _then_ you're laid off, you'd probably be more sympathetic.
Over half the U.S. lives paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't require a ton of imagination to envision why even people living in the bay area working at Twitter might be in dire economic circumstances after a layoff and stock blackout.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-lays-off-third-of-talen...
Even ignoring this, there are thousands of situations where layoff + stock blackout can be financially devastating even for people with "well off" jobs. The entire reason it's recommended to keep a 3-6 month emergency fund is for emergencies - surprise medical costs + reduced pay on disability if you get cancer/car accident/etc. or struggling with a dip in household income from a spouse losing their job during a second-in-two-years recession. If one of those happens to you and _then_ you're laid off, you'd probably be more sympathetic.
Over half the U.S. lives paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't require a ton of imagination to envision why even people living in the bay area working at Twitter might be in dire economic circumstances after a layoff and stock blackout.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-lays-off-third-of-talen...
I never said I wasn’t sympathetic. It’s bullshit that they’re getting laid off. But this isn’t the 1950s. We’re on our own.
Let's pretend some of these SF twitter employees have families. $4k in rent monthly, 4k in general living expenses (these are based off median figures available publicly) A bit over $96k in living costs.
Assuming that $200k in total comp includes about 25% in stock (based off publicly reported comp packages for twitter employees), and a combined state/federal 35% tax rate... They have no spare money to save without a second income with $97,500 in take home pay.
Assuming that $200k in total comp includes about 25% in stock (based off publicly reported comp packages for twitter employees), and a combined state/federal 35% tax rate... They have no spare money to save without a second income with $97,500 in take home pay.
Yes, because income tax brackets aren’t progressive (all the income is taxed at 35%, and no standard deduction). People should definitely live a lifestyle with no slack for savings.
It’s <someone else’s> fault I couldn’t save anything with 3.5x the median household income.
It’s <someone else’s> fault I couldn’t save anything with 3.5x the median household income.
You should look at it the SF Bay Area affordable housing income requirements. You’d be surprised how many tech families qualify.
150k is the actual housing and urban development definition of low income in San Francisco. You practically need assistance at that point.
That is a bit misleading.
'Low income' is defined as a household income of 80% of the median ($166K), depending on household size. $150K only meets that for a family size >= 4. There's also 'very low' (50% median) and extremely low (~35% median.)
'Low income' is defined as a household income of 80% of the median ($166K), depending on household size. $150K only meets that for a family size >= 4. There's also 'very low' (50% median) and extremely low (~35% median.)
I think you're right with your numbers and I do have some sympathy for these people, but not too much. Living in an insane COL area like the Bay with crazy high taxes is a choice, nobody forced these people to do that. There are tons of job options in other places with a much lower COL and lower taxes.
I got the hell out of the Bay as soon as I could and would definitely never choose to live there with a family.
I got the hell out of the Bay as soon as I could and would definitely never choose to live there with a family.
[deleted]
TBF Twitter kinda did tell them to live there.
Most of your pay isn’t taxed at 35%. General expenses sound way too high if you’re excluding shelter and have a full time at home parent. This hypothetical Twitter employee family is burning money on something instead of saving.
It's a sad commentary that when the prospect of someone facing economic hardship comes up, many peoples' first thought is "but did they deserve it?"
Wouldn't it be naive to ignore context and imprudent to dismiss lessons available in this time? You can have compassion for someone AND attempt to help them learn from struggles and correct poor choices.
Even at 25% stock, it's actually closer to $120K take home based on tax bracketing.
The median home value in SF is ~$1.5 million. A typical mortgage on a home like that is ~$4-5k per month. So you're assuming folks have $25-30k in liquid cash hanging around all the time. Not unrealistic but certainly not everyone working at tech companies there has that kinda cash. And that's before you factor in other costs like property taxes, insurance, etc. that you'll need to cover too.
> $25-30k in liquid cash hanging around all the time
That's like 3-4 months of post-tax pay for a twitter engineer (and not a senior one at all). Yeah, i would expect them to be able to have that much in savings.
If someone cant accumulate roughly 15% of their annual compensation in savings, while earning $200-400k/yr, then I have no idea what else could be done here to help.
That's like 3-4 months of post-tax pay for a twitter engineer (and not a senior one at all). Yeah, i would expect them to be able to have that much in savings.
If someone cant accumulate roughly 15% of their annual compensation in savings, while earning $200-400k/yr, then I have no idea what else could be done here to help.
> If someone cant accumulate roughly 15% of their annual compensation in savings, while earning $200-400k/yr, then I have no idea what else could be done here to help.
The thing with those crazy Valley salaries that you hear about here is that a lot of the time a good amount is in the form of stock that vests on a rolling basis. So maybe you get $150K in cash and $75K in stock. After 401k, California and federal taxes, California housing costs, and California <everything costs>, I can understand how someone making “$225K” in the Valley might not be able to save a whole lot.
The thing with those crazy Valley salaries that you hear about here is that a lot of the time a good amount is in the form of stock that vests on a rolling basis. So maybe you get $150K in cash and $75K in stock. After 401k, California and federal taxes, California housing costs, and California <everything costs>, I can understand how someone making “$225K” in the Valley might not be able to save a whole lot.
> The thing with those crazy Valley salaries that you hear about here is that a lot of the time a good amount is in the form of stock that vests on a rolling basis.
This doesn't make any sense. Yes, your stock "vests on a rolling basis" the same way your salary "vests" every two weeks.
If you are making 150k in cash and 75k in stock, then you get access to 225k (minus tax) of liquid cash every year. The vesting schedule is irrelevant.
This doesn't make any sense. Yes, your stock "vests on a rolling basis" the same way your salary "vests" every two weeks.
If you are making 150k in cash and 75k in stock, then you get access to 225k (minus tax) of liquid cash every year. The vesting schedule is irrelevant.
Sure, but you have to sell it in full every single year to get that money, which means you have to forego the possibility of that stock being worth a lot more in the future. And there’s the whole “stock might go down” thing. So no, it’s not the same as cash salary.
Not selling the moment you vest is the same as deciding to purchase the stock. Even if you do it for Tax Reasons it's still a choice you're making, and there are potential downsides.
Unless you believed in TWTR and kept your stock as stock. Now it's locked up and you cannot access it.
Yup. Pretty much cut 45-50% off the top for federal and state taxes immediately. Divide the remainder between stock that won't actually vest for years and your base pay. It's way more complicated than "you're making six figures!!! why can't you SAV3!!1 too much avocado toast!"
Should people be more disciplined? Isn't it possible to do better? Sure, totally. But let's start with reality and not boomer bootstrap fan fiction.
Should people be more disciplined? Isn't it possible to do better? Sure, totally. But let's start with reality and not boomer bootstrap fan fiction.
If you are paying 45% of your income in state/federal/FICA taxes, then your after tax income is over $330,000/year.
I'm stunned really.
I'm from the Netherlands, known for its comparatively poor pay for engineers as well as high costs of living.
Despite that, from day 1, when my salary was at its lowest and I was still single, I saved 25% of my salary. A lot of years later and no longer single, I've build up multiple years in savings. Even more than that if I add my spouse. And the funny thing is that the need to do this applies less here, as unemployment benefits are relatively generous.
It just shows the dramatic difference in culture. I'm shocked how even the best paid engineers can't even manage to save 30K. 30K...are you kidding me? A single event or large expense (construction at house, car breaks down) would bankrupt you. And if your cost of living is so enormous, what the hell does 30k even do during unemployment?
If I'd earned 200K+, I'd save so hard and retire 20 years early. The US has such a spending culture.
I'm from the Netherlands, known for its comparatively poor pay for engineers as well as high costs of living.
Despite that, from day 1, when my salary was at its lowest and I was still single, I saved 25% of my salary. A lot of years later and no longer single, I've build up multiple years in savings. Even more than that if I add my spouse. And the funny thing is that the need to do this applies less here, as unemployment benefits are relatively generous.
It just shows the dramatic difference in culture. I'm shocked how even the best paid engineers can't even manage to save 30K. 30K...are you kidding me? A single event or large expense (construction at house, car breaks down) would bankrupt you. And if your cost of living is so enormous, what the hell does 30k even do during unemployment?
If I'd earned 200K+, I'd save so hard and retire 20 years early. The US has such a spending culture.
Exactly. I know people who make $50k/year that have six month emergency funds.
The key is that you started saving from the beginning. This informs all your future purchases and helps you maintain it going forward.
Many who get a high-paying job at the beginning spend to the limit of their income and then some. Very sad.
Many who get a high-paying job at the beginning spend to the limit of their income and then some. Very sad.
True, and the other discipline is that at one point I settled on a lifestyle and never upped it again, despite a growing income. So the savings rate itself also increases over time.
You know what you call someone with 1.5 million worth of assets? A millionaire. They will live, even if they have to move to "flyover country".
If they have a mortgage, they don't have 1.5M in assets. They have 1.5M in debt.
They would've put at least 150k down wouldn't they? This also assumes they just moved in. If you have a 1.5 million dollar home in SF today you likely bought it for less than that at some point in the past. These people have net worths that would allow them to buy a nice house, almost anywhere else on the planet for cash.
You're making a lot of assumptions here, none of which might be true, and which are incredibly individualized.
"I have a mortgage on a house" tells you essentially nothing about a person's finances, how they financed the house, their assets, their monthly expenses or their debt-to-income ratio.
Some people might have put 20% down, avoided PMI, have no other debt and only put down 20% because they wanted to hold onto cash. They had a good credit score, and got a reasonable interest rate.
Others may have utilized any one of a number of loan programs to put down > 5%, which they financed through loans from family, or emptying their 401K, got a not great rate, have PMI, have student loans on top of that, a healthcare debt, etc.
You have zero information beyond "well, they have a house."
"I have a mortgage on a house" tells you essentially nothing about a person's finances, how they financed the house, their assets, their monthly expenses or their debt-to-income ratio.
Some people might have put 20% down, avoided PMI, have no other debt and only put down 20% because they wanted to hold onto cash. They had a good credit score, and got a reasonable interest rate.
Others may have utilized any one of a number of loan programs to put down > 5%, which they financed through loans from family, or emptying their 401K, got a not great rate, have PMI, have student loans on top of that, a healthcare debt, etc.
You have zero information beyond "well, they have a house."
I hear there are plenty of willing buyers in the the Bay Area.
Do you think it’s a good idea for someone in a well-paying job not to have 3-6 months of expenses saved?
Nobody is forcing them to live in SF, especially not Twitter.
Nobody is forcing them to live in SF, especially not Twitter.
In the rust belt when a factory closes or when people lose their farms, they move to where it makes economic sense. But these (ex-Twitter emps) are some of the most mobile people on Earth! It is sad when someone anyone loses their source of income -on the other hand these are among the most capable of landing on their feet.
You are not getting a mortgage in that range on that house unless you're putting 600-900K down.
While saving 6 months might be possible, I would love for you to point me to a high-yield savings account.
You can only deposit 10k/yr but how does 9.62% sound?[0]
[0]https://treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_ibonds_glance...
[0]https://treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_ibonds_glance...
To add to this for next year, you can also purchase $5k more with a tax refund, for a total of $15k per year. A basic strategy is to plan ahead and over pay with your final paycheck of the tax year by updating your W-4 to withhold more to enable a tax refund if you weren't already expecting one.
To add for those that are married and/or have kids then everyone in the family can buy 10k, a trust can buy another 10k, and if you have a small business that can buy 10k.
That's not emergency fund material since there are big penalties for early (pre-12 months) withdrawal.
If you buy 10x $1000 (or 20x $500) bonds and cash out less than the full amount over the course of a year, you'll still come out ahead of whatever interest $BANK was going to pay you for the same funds in your savings account.
It's not a good emergency fund at first, but if you roll a few years into bonds then it can act as your fund after a few years.
The part of this that escapes me is that after a certain point one would more than likely have been, by historical accounts, better off the invest in equites. Then again, I am more of a proponent for emergency plans instead of just emergency funds.
However, if one wants to hold a portion of bonds and a sub-portion of said bonds happen to be I-Bonds, then I see no issues with that.
However, if one wants to hold a portion of bonds and a sub-portion of said bonds happen to be I-Bonds, then I see no issues with that.
I’d agree that long term you’d be better off with more typical investment strategies. I-bonds are good right now, but as the bulk of any young persons investment it wouldn’t make sense. Savings rates have been low for some time now so I-bonds can serve a role for emergency funds if you can get them to older than 12 months safely.
HYSA is a term typically used to describe savings accounts where the interest rate tracks the federal interest rates and is competitive with other "HYSAs". Right now 1% is the norm, and you can get that from several credit unions and banks. Some banks, however, use their name recognition to attract customers and offer lower yields. For example, a Wells Fargo savings account will not yield 1% at the moment.
The 'H' should be changed to "Higher" instead of "High" since I believe 1% is far from what anyone would consider to be a high return.
Any savings account which pays less than inflation is just paying the bank to hold your cash for you. Which is the point, saving money is bad for the economy because reasons so it must be penalized.
Literal titular HYSAs go for 1% right now, which is up quite a bit! Maybe T-bonds are better, but I'm clueless.
Nonetheless, the point is more that: you need risk-free cash to live sometimes, keeping 6 months of your current costs in a low-risk account is pretty base levels of financial literacy
Nonetheless, the point is more that: you need risk-free cash to live sometimes, keeping 6 months of your current costs in a low-risk account is pretty base levels of financial literacy
[deleted]
Ally/Marcus has 1% savings account with basically no risk. These accounts aren’t meant to grow, they’re meant to be risk free hence a relatively low rate compared to equities.
$GME
It was 30% of the recruiting team that was laid off today which almost certainly includes recruiting coordinators, sourcers and other entry level non technical roles. It is a challenging time to be looking for a job if you are a recruiter, so I hope these severance packages are generous.
You and a bunch of others in the thread are starting from the presumption that these people were very well compensated. But we don't have to make _only_ assumptions, you can look up some perhaps stale and perhaps biased self-reported numbers. The most convenient of these to access for recruiters at twitter (who seem to be the ones impacted) guess a median compensation of 137K, with around 94k of that as base. I think that base is just about at median income for SF for a single earner (though of course they could live elsewhere).
Other people in this thread are talking about what I understand to be hypothetical engineers with 400k compensation, and it sounds like that doesn't describe this situation.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Twitter-Recruiter-Salaries-... https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/BMR%20...
Other people in this thread are talking about what I understand to be hypothetical engineers with 400k compensation, and it sounds like that doesn't describe this situation.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Twitter-Recruiter-Salaries-... https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/BMR%20...
h1binfo will capture prevailing wages.
In the same spirit of "we can actually look at this stuff", I have to point out that:
- I think in general _recruiters_ are not on H1Bs. And even for jobs held by people who _are_ on H1Bs, that can be a biased data source for salaries.
- And sure enough of the info for twitter H1Bs, I see no recruiters. Plenty of engineers, a bunch of data scientists, some managers and directors, but no recruiters. https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Twitter+Inc&job=&city=&yea...
- I think in general _recruiters_ are not on H1Bs. And even for jobs held by people who _are_ on H1Bs, that can be a biased data source for salaries.
- And sure enough of the info for twitter H1Bs, I see no recruiters. Plenty of engineers, a bunch of data scientists, some managers and directors, but no recruiters. https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Twitter+Inc&job=&city=&yea...
Lots of HR roles in there which is usually where recruiters are positioned. Unless you are saying all twitter recruiters on payroll are US citizens or permanent residents. Be sure to search all years.
Even selecting all years, I see no evidence of Twitter having H1B recruiters, and I don't think this is surprising. Companies are prepared to go through the process (and can make a credible claim of needing it) only for some roles.
I see H1B business analyst which is an LCA category recruiters are classified in.
$200K in a HCOL area with a family is middle income and you’d be hard stretched to save much if anything.
I remember reading an article (SF-Bay-based), that, if you live in Palo Alto, and make $175K, you are considered "low income," and actually have access to some benefits.
I never made that much in my entire career. HCOL is pretty crazy, out there.
I wish them well.
I wouldn't bet on them being able to get new jobs as quickly as people think. It seems that every tech company is hemorrhaging jobs.
I never made that much in my entire career. HCOL is pretty crazy, out there.
I wish them well.
I wouldn't bet on them being able to get new jobs as quickly as people think. It seems that every tech company is hemorrhaging jobs.
$200K in a HCOL area with a family is middle income and you’d be hard stretched to save much if anything.
So you live like a poor person does until you've saved up enough money to deal with emergencies. Then you can live the lifestyle you desire.
It's what people have done for generations and generations. This isn't rocket science.
So you live like a poor person does until you've saved up enough money to deal with emergencies. Then you can live the lifestyle you desire.
It's what people have done for generations and generations. This isn't rocket science.
What "high yield savings accounts"??
I dont know of any over 2%
I dont know of any over 2%
Those are high yield relative to most savings accounts at the big banks.
Honestly if you’re paying a mortgage at current rates, 6 months income is an excessive amount to hold out. Assuming that’s $100k, you’re paying somewhere around $5600/year by not paying down your mortgage more aggressively.
I have a lot of sympathy for someone who’s plan for savings was “if I get fired I can”: (1) use my severance money (2) sell my stock (3) get a loan against my home
Only blackout periods blocked (2) and falling home prices blocked (3).
I have a lot of sympathy for someone who’s plan for savings was “if I get fired I can”: (1) use my severance money (2) sell my stock (3) get a loan against my home
Only blackout periods blocked (2) and falling home prices blocked (3).
Why in the US should one pay down their mortgage more aggressively in an inflationary environment? Their debt is getting cheaper.
Because there isn’t a lot of good options for a high return investment so the inflation is lowering the value of your money quickly and using it to reduce interest payments makes a certain amount of sense.
Does the US not have Mortgage Offset Accounts? An offset account is essentially a normal transaction account tied to your mortgage, but every dollar in the account "offsets" the mortgage balance for daily interest calculations. My "emergency fund" is just in one of my offset accounts, so it's saving me on my mortgage interest.
This sounds like a useful banking product but unfortunately in Canada and the US they mostly try and get us to pay the mortgage quicker and then borrow money back at a higher rate if we need to. I think this product would lead to people not using other loan products and never overpaying on their mortgage (why would you if you can offset the interest?)
Sounds like a "home equity line of credit"
It’s not really the same, that sounds like “redraw” here where you put more money into the loan but you can take it out again. Offset has all the benefit (reduced interest payments), with total flexibility. You can clear out your offset accounts anytime without penalty (redraw usually attracts a fee)
[deleted]
I'm financially illiterate. Where can I find a good high yield savings account?
E*TRADE has one with 1.40% right now [0] with a promo [1].
[0]: https://us.etrade.com/bank/premium-savings-account
[1]: https://us.etrade.com/what-we-offer/how-it-works/promo
[0]: https://us.etrade.com/bank/premium-savings-account
[1]: https://us.etrade.com/what-we-offer/how-it-works/promo
If you have money that you won't need to access for a year, I bonds currently pay close to 10%. 10K a year limit on what you can put in.
That’s not an EF or an SA.
They said they were financially illiterate. I read that as them not even knowing what they don't know.
But you do you, bitcoinmoney.
But you do you, bitcoinmoney.
The cost of a modest lifestyle in SF would strain a Twitter salary
Hoo boy, where to begin with this one. You do realize that there are people who broke into tech despite coming from extremely poor backgrounds, and use most of their take-home money to support their families, right? Or students with massive student loan debts that they are currently paying down? Or even just people from median financial backgrounds but have to support their families in a high CoL area?
That doesn't compute - if you come from a poor background your family is used to surviving with below average income - moving to a high income (>2-3x average) leaves you with enough income to save up emergency fund for 6 months. Source - came from poor background, had to support family earning 3-4x average income.
Your experience is commendable, and I'm glad you've been able to break out of lower income. But this does not match what I've seen with some of my peers.
So... I'm not sure what you are implying here. Twitter doesn't need these employees, but should keep them on payroll out of pity ?
If you need 6 months to get a job in this profession, something is wrong.
Even the slowest companies take 2-3 months to get an offer. Maybe it takes you a month without a job to be interview ready.
Honestly, the vast majority of people would be better off taking a month of work to prepare for interview full time to get a better job...
Even the slowest companies take 2-3 months to get an offer. Maybe it takes you a month without a job to be interview ready.
Honestly, the vast majority of people would be better off taking a month of work to prepare for interview full time to get a better job...
> The money they need pay bills and keep them afloat if and until they get new employment.
How will these people that were making well into six figures possibly survive?
How will these people that were making well into six figures possibly survive?
People tend to spend money in relativity to what they earn.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities...
The same forces that encourage rampant consumerism in people who can't afford it, do it to people who can afford it - and then suddenly discover that they can't.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities...
The same forces that encourage rampant consumerism in people who can't afford it, do it to people who can afford it - and then suddenly discover that they can't.
"lifestyle creep"
[deleted]
Now go look at the cost of a home or apartment in San Francisco or nearby towns. I'll wait...
I guess they'll have to lower their cost of living like the rest of us?
Moving is not cheap. Short of moving, lowering your cost of living in SF is going to be absurdly hard (especially while dealing with the mental fallout of being laid off).
I don't understand the hate towards high cost of living areas. Making a few $100k in a HCOL area is similar to making $100k in a LCOL area. You don't live like a king if both your income AND expenses are higher.
Both people in this example have a lot more in common than I'm reading into from your comments.
Both people in this example have a lot more in common than I'm reading into from your comments.
> I don't understand the hate towards high cost of living areas.
It's all the whining. These folks are privileged to have options, choose to live in certain areas, and enjoy the benefits (higher pay, more jobs if they get laid off, amenities, etc.) of those choices. But they still complain.
I honestly don't get the psychology. Is it some sort of defense mechanism for folks who don't want to admit they're the elites that they decry? Rent costs an insane amount in SF—and its driving out long time residents and minorities—because Facebook engineers make $500k/year. It's not "billionaires"--how many houses can Zuck buy? It’s the tens of thousands of rank-and-file employees making 5x the US median household income.
It's all the whining. These folks are privileged to have options, choose to live in certain areas, and enjoy the benefits (higher pay, more jobs if they get laid off, amenities, etc.) of those choices. But they still complain.
I honestly don't get the psychology. Is it some sort of defense mechanism for folks who don't want to admit they're the elites that they decry? Rent costs an insane amount in SF—and its driving out long time residents and minorities—because Facebook engineers make $500k/year. It's not "billionaires"--how many houses can Zuck buy? It’s the tens of thousands of rank-and-file employees making 5x the US median household income.
I agree that some, not all, wages in HCOL areas are very bloated. That's not always the case though and I imagine it's not the case for HR groups within Twitter.
> $100k in a LCOL area
OK, but it's very easy to live comfortably on $100k in a LCOL area. The idea that these people have no fat in their budgets is risible. Put me in charge of the books and I promise they'll be in tip-top shape in 6 months. But they'll hate me, because a lot of stuff they've been keeping in the "needs" bucket is gonna find its way into the "wants" pile in a hurry.
If you don't have an emergency fund, then you cannot afford to eat out. You cannot afford two cars. The one car you have better be a used Hyundai. You can't afford to take a vacation. You can't afford those violin lessons. Hell, you can't even afford Hulu or Netflix. Go for a quiet walk and gather your thoughts toward accumulating an emergency fund, because if you don't have one, then you cannot afford any of that stuff.
OK, but it's very easy to live comfortably on $100k in a LCOL area. The idea that these people have no fat in their budgets is risible. Put me in charge of the books and I promise they'll be in tip-top shape in 6 months. But they'll hate me, because a lot of stuff they've been keeping in the "needs" bucket is gonna find its way into the "wants" pile in a hurry.
If you don't have an emergency fund, then you cannot afford to eat out. You cannot afford two cars. The one car you have better be a used Hyundai. You can't afford to take a vacation. You can't afford those violin lessons. Hell, you can't even afford Hulu or Netflix. Go for a quiet walk and gather your thoughts toward accumulating an emergency fund, because if you don't have one, then you cannot afford any of that stuff.
In all fairness, this applies across the board. I agree with you on financial responsibility residing with the individual.
$100k in a LCOL or $300k in a HCOL is sufficient to have an emergency fund. And in the same way that layoffs in a LCOL will hurt, it hurts in HCOL as well.
I just think that the lifestyle perception that some have of people in HCOL making $300k is very inaccurate. It's not nearly as extravagant as you might think.
$100k in a LCOL or $300k in a HCOL is sufficient to have an emergency fund. And in the same way that layoffs in a LCOL will hurt, it hurts in HCOL as well.
I just think that the lifestyle perception that some have of people in HCOL making $300k is very inaccurate. It's not nearly as extravagant as you might think.
Well, I have news for you: 100K in a LCOL is a type of salary that pretty much nobody in the US, let alone the rest of the world earns. It's an elite salary. The absolute top tier for employees worldwide.
It's not hate, it's trying to get people to understand that they are elite and privileged.
It's not hate, it's trying to get people to understand that they are elite and privileged.
That's not true. Plenty of trades, nurses and other medical professionals, etc. make a over $100k/yr. Here's a listing I was looking at the other day: Lineman with a 4-day workweek at ~$110k/yr in Newport, Oregon (populatioon 10k) - https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/cencoast/jobs/3582995...
Those are...ELITE. How hard is it to understand that word?
Having lived in both, the thing that got me is that if you're left with 20% after you've paid for everything that month.. that's an awful lot more left over in a HCOL area.
But then everything seems geared towards parting you from that remaining 20% wherever you live :)
I do feel for those laid off, not everyone being laid off will have managed to maneuver themselves into the ideal position over their time at Twitter.
But then everything seems geared towards parting you from that remaining 20% wherever you live :)
I do feel for those laid off, not everyone being laid off will have managed to maneuver themselves into the ideal position over their time at Twitter.
Agree. I think money is sort of like a house. No matter how large or how much, it'll get filled or used.
Discipline in both will go a long way in not having a big house full of unused rooms and money that's not wasted.
Discipline in both will go a long way in not having a big house full of unused rooms and money that's not wasted.
$30,000 a year for an apartment in San Fran. If you can't swing that on your $250k income it's not Twitter's fault
$40k is probably a more accurate median. Still, after taxes, that should leave ~$80k money to live on/save beyond rent concerns.
40k is accurate if you only need one bedroom. Now try being the breadwinner for 4 people.
A nice (but not luxury) 2BR place, or a modest 3BR place, within 60 minutes of SF (excluding Central/Deep East Oakland) can easily be $50k/year if you moved in within last 3 years.
That’s probably close to the average (4k/mo).
That’s probably close to the average (4k/mo).
If you need 3BRs in SF, you probably have 2 incomes.
Is SF the only city in the US? What stops them from moving to another part of the country? I moved across the globe, twice for the last 12 months, with my family. It’s definitely doable.
Often visas - either that they cannot get visas to live or work in a different country, or because leaving the US would cause them to abandon potentially decades of progress towards permanent residency.
Don't need a visa for Svalbard. Checkmate!
I've been actually - considered staying - and if you haven't I'd highly recommend it. Especially a day trip up to Pyramiden. While you do not need a visa to stay in Svalbard forever, you do need a Schengen visa to get there which not everyone can obtain!
> What stops them from moving to another part of the country?
Cost. Paying early termination on your rental contract. Paying to move. First, last, and a cleaning deposit at your new place. Stocking a new place with perishables. An easy 3+ grand to move to an inexpensive town.
Loss of salary/job opportunities. You won't have the same job opportunities, nor salary ranges, if you live in a less expensive part of the country, since your new pay will be based off your peers in your physical location, not your last salary in SF.
Cost. Paying early termination on your rental contract. Paying to move. First, last, and a cleaning deposit at your new place. Stocking a new place with perishables. An easy 3+ grand to move to an inexpensive town.
Loss of salary/job opportunities. You won't have the same job opportunities, nor salary ranges, if you live in a less expensive part of the country, since your new pay will be based off your peers in your physical location, not your last salary in SF.
> You won't have the same job opportunities, nor salary ranges, if you live in a less expensive part of the country
So they will have to downgrade from an extremely privileged position to just highly privileged position. Should we open some fundraiser so they can keep their expensive lifestyle even after layoffs?
So they will have to downgrade from an extremely privileged position to just highly privileged position. Should we open some fundraiser so they can keep their expensive lifestyle even after layoffs?
Unemployed recruiting coordinator or sourcer during a possible recession, is not what I would call highly privileged..
I believe the proposal on the table was that Twitter should give them permission to sell the stock they rightfully earned, not that anyone else should fund them. The blackout on stock sales suck.
I did all of this in 2020 after the layoffs in the company I used to work for. It’s not the end of the world, it’s doable.
In my case, I couldn’t leave the country where I lived, I didn’t have the residency there and it wasn’t possible to get back home, because my home country closed the borders. I spent 3-4 months renewing temporary visa, having 2 year lease contract ahead and no job to cover the expenses. I managed to get a job, then another one, then return back home, then get an offer and fly to another country once again. My salary was substantially lower than theirs, but it somehow didn’t have a critical impact on my savings. I managed to get both of my cats through all of this, it wasn’t cheap as well. I think these guys are going to be fine, that’s my point.
> An easy 3+ grand to move to an inexpensive town.
I think 3 grand is probably an underestimate for any significant move. It cost me $1k to move ~2.5 miles across town the last time I moved.
I think 3 grand is probably an underestimate for any significant move. It cost me $1k to move ~2.5 miles across town the last time I moved.
It cost me $3000+ to move <1 mile in SF. This didn’t include any unpacking etc. $320/hr for 4 people, 10 hours plus tip. Guys worked super fast but being on a top floor of a Victorian with tight stairways and multiple beds and couches is a lot of work.
I've done both, decades ago one of my college friends had the theory that, "If it doesn't fit in your car you don't own it". Moving cost was absolutely determined by the price of gasoline.
And I've spent what, $5,000 to send a couple pieces of furniture across the country for a move because they weren't replaceable, and I had the money.
And I've spent what, $5,000 to send a couple pieces of furniture across the country for a move because they weren't replaceable, and I had the money.
I've moved across the nation with my thumb out, $20, and a tarp to tie across some trees to sleep under. It's doable on way less than $1k.
Of course it is, if you're not taking anything with you. I moved thousands of miles for $0 once, because everything I was taking fit in a suitcase that I already owned, and my flight was paid for by the company I was moving to work for. I'm talking about people who have to move apartments, and possibly families. You aren't doing that for $20.
Only 16% of SF is families with children, so that's not really representative of someone living there.
That's a valid objection to two whole words of my comment. On the flip side, 99% of SF is people who live in homes. Most of those people will have more than a backpack's worth of stuff to move.
Unless you're moving to the bush in Alaska or the desert in Namibia or something, or have some weird medical issue that requires you to bring some large special life-saving item with you for the journey, then you're in the 99% that can survive just fine selling your stuff where you are and then buying necessities when you arrive. I said doable, not that you could do it while keeping grandma's heirloom piano.
Well, I sold almost everything I had before the move. It was an interesting experience. I had 4 bags that I could afford to bring along, and at least twice more of the amount of things that I wanted to keep.
What % of Twitter? (not being facetious, honest question)
[deleted]
Those poor people who bought a $1.5M home? What will they ever do to survive?
Diversification?
Many people are extended enough that their stock is considered part of their compensation for buying a house. I know many people that sell all of their stock every month to make sure they have enough to live in the Bay Area.
What's the mortgage on a USD$2m 1300sqft house? Looks to be $11k/mo? So, total comp should be at least US$400k to be considered affordable.
Using South Bay, I don't know where a Twitter engineer would live in San Francisco...
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Sunnyvale/1063-W-McKinley-Ave-9408...
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Mountain-View/237-Houghton-St-9404...
What's the mortgage on a USD$2m 1300sqft house? Looks to be $11k/mo? So, total comp should be at least US$400k to be considered affordable.
Using South Bay, I don't know where a Twitter engineer would live in San Francisco...
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Sunnyvale/1063-W-McKinley-Ave-9408...
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Mountain-View/237-Houghton-St-9404...
I used to get paid in stock. I had a plan on file to auto-sell it every month, and then I reinvested the proceeds so I had less financial exposure to my employer. The exact scenario is if the company stops doing well, then your job is going to go away at the same time the stock becomes worth $0.
The other side of the coin is that you pay significantly less taxes if you hold on to the vested shares. They increase in value after vesting, and you structure your sales such that you take a long term capital gain. A lot of my coworkers did that, and have a lot more money than me. But it's a gamble, and you should always weigh your gambles by how badly you can afford to do.
(I hate getting paid in stock, but it's advantageous to the employer, so it will always be a thing. With auto-sale, it's a very similar risk to being paid in cash, except that you have a lot of annoying paperwork to do every year. But you just pay someone to do that.
Oh, and if you're a new FAANG hire, please just find a professional to do your taxes. I did it myself and fucked it up a number of times. The IRS does not like fuckups, and extremely competent professionals will do everything for you for a small amount of money.)
The other side of the coin is that you pay significantly less taxes if you hold on to the vested shares. They increase in value after vesting, and you structure your sales such that you take a long term capital gain. A lot of my coworkers did that, and have a lot more money than me. But it's a gamble, and you should always weigh your gambles by how badly you can afford to do.
(I hate getting paid in stock, but it's advantageous to the employer, so it will always be a thing. With auto-sale, it's a very similar risk to being paid in cash, except that you have a lot of annoying paperwork to do every year. But you just pay someone to do that.
Oh, and if you're a new FAANG hire, please just find a professional to do your taxes. I did it myself and fucked it up a number of times. The IRS does not like fuckups, and extremely competent professionals will do everything for you for a small amount of money.)
> The other side of the coin is that you pay significantly less taxes if you hold on to the vested shares. They increase in value after vesting, and you structure your sales such that you take a long term capital gain. A lot of my coworkers did that, and have a lot more money than me. But it's a gamble, and you should always weigh your gambles by how badly you can afford to do.
This depends on how the stock plan is structured.
For example, with RSUs, you pay income tax on the value of the RSUs whether you sell them or not and some companies do that tax withholding for you. The value of the RSUs on the vesting date becomes your basis. When you sell the shares is when capital gains taxes come in -- on gains above the amount they vested at.
So, there is not a tax penalty to selling RSUs the day they vest and reinvesting them -- you have to pay the income tax whether you sell them or not. If you decide not to sell them, then you do benefit from holding them long enough to make the capital gains long term gains -- but with the risk of having a lot of your eggs in one basket.
With options it can be very different based on the type of options.
This depends on how the stock plan is structured.
For example, with RSUs, you pay income tax on the value of the RSUs whether you sell them or not and some companies do that tax withholding for you. The value of the RSUs on the vesting date becomes your basis. When you sell the shares is when capital gains taxes come in -- on gains above the amount they vested at.
So, there is not a tax penalty to selling RSUs the day they vest and reinvesting them -- you have to pay the income tax whether you sell them or not. If you decide not to sell them, then you do benefit from holding them long enough to make the capital gains long term gains -- but with the risk of having a lot of your eggs in one basket.
With options it can be very different based on the type of options.
Seems unwise. You can always be fired or otherwise lose your job.
cant that be said about buying a home anywhere?
Right - it would be unwise to take out a mortgage if you miss one month of income you can't repay.
Yes, a difference is price. My 4 bedroom house in flyover country was a bit over $200k, and we had the cash from having worked for about 6 years after grad school for a flyover salary while continuing to live like grad students.
We went through a variety of simplistic formulas for "what you can afford" and entered half of our incomes to get an idea of what we actually wanted to spend.
We went through a variety of simplistic formulas for "what you can afford" and entered half of our incomes to get an idea of what we actually wanted to spend.
Holy shit, seems like bad personal finance. I never consider stock in my budget, how did this come to be?
If you have enough emergency savings then it can make sense, particularly when the majority of your income comes from stock. I'm talking about enough savings to live for a year or two even if you lose your job and your company's stock goes to zero.
At really high incomes, especially with stock vesting only a few times a year rather than every month, you can operate more like a business than a month-to-month budgeter. Keep enough cash on hand to smooth out the spikes in income. If your income is high enough to do this, you won't have a problem building the initial cushion.
What's irresponsible is living off your stock when you don't have that emergency fund.
At really high incomes, especially with stock vesting only a few times a year rather than every month, you can operate more like a business than a month-to-month budgeter. Keep enough cash on hand to smooth out the spikes in income. If your income is high enough to do this, you won't have a problem building the initial cushion.
What's irresponsible is living off your stock when you don't have that emergency fund.
People really want a house, and the banks allow it.
Plenty of spots in the East Bay that are way below your quoted hypotheticals.
Yes, you trade commute for $$, with every 10mins being worth about $7-10k (I think), and every "point" on the school rating being another $10-15k. The heat maps tend to be centered around Google, Apple and Facebook.
I live downtown San Jose, 90min commute/day, and paid $500-$600k less, but the school isn't anywhere near as good.
Parents have different perceptions of value and choose differently.
East Bay was never an option for me - can't commute by bike from there to Mountain View/Sunnyvale.
I live downtown San Jose, 90min commute/day, and paid $500-$600k less, but the school isn't anywhere near as good.
Parents have different perceptions of value and choose differently.
East Bay was never an option for me - can't commute by bike from there to Mountain View/Sunnyvale.
Twitter employees are well-compensated with base salary, and generally highly skilled. They're going to be fine, who wouldn't want to hire ex-twitter? The job market is still hot for techies.
The writing has been on the wall since Mollusk started chasing the purchase.
The writing has been on the wall since Mollusk started chasing the purchase.
Looks like it was HR/recruiters who were most impacted, though - I imagine Twitter HR folks are well compensated compared to most, but we're not talking about engineering salaries here.
Job market is definitely not "hot". I think there are still jobs out there but lots of companies are tightening up severely.
Incorrect, it's still a feeding frenzy, just not everywhere.
No guarantee about next week, but for now it's strong demand.
No guarantee about next week, but for now it's strong demand.
Aren't vested shares in a public company just shares? Once they're no longer employees, they shouldn't be subject to any trading blackout.
Yes, you are correct, some folks commented as much in the LinkedIn thread. An employer can't enforce a blackout period after they've laid you off.
Depends on the terms of the stock plan agreement.
sucks being like the normies, don't it?
Seriously. They are working for a huge name-brand tech employer, and have the best chance of getting a new job (see the LinkedIn replies), but oh yeah, if they run out of severance, and have no emergency fund (because reasons), and their shares are temporarily locked up, whatever will they do? Take out a 401k loan like a plebe?
You can't take out a 401k loan if you don't work there any more. In fact, that's one of the major drawbacks of 401k loans. If you leave employment, you have to repay the loan within a set time period, or treat it as a disbursement.
That said I agree, complaints about "what will happen when my severance runs out!" did elicit a bit of an eye roll.
That said I agree, complaints about "what will happen when my severance runs out!" did elicit a bit of an eye roll.
I'd never heard that... can you roll it over into an IRA and take a loan against that?
You technically cannot take out a loan against your IRA. You can do a withdrawal and payback though - I believe there are some tax considerations / early withdrawal risks
[deleted]
Maybe, but have you tried getting a loan approved with no income?
Its a loan against yourself
Banks still want to see evidence of your ability to pay it back.
401k “loans” are a misnomer. There’s no underwriting or leverage. It’s an unpenalized withdrawal with payback (as opposed to regular early withdrawals, which are penalized).
As discussed upthread, 401k loans are not generally accessible to unemployed people.
They'll be left to deal with serious intractable life issues, like having to switch from San Pellegrino to store-brand seltzer water.
It’s Twitter’s responsibility to not only offer severance, but make sure employees keep an emergency fund?
Wait till they get new jobs and find out that in the real world companies don't have RSUs, rooms full of toys, flexible hours, gold-plated healthcare plans, company time to work on your own projects, and free cafeterias staffed by gourmet chefs.
Welcome to the 99%!
Wait till they get new jobs and find out that in the real world companies don't have RSUs, rooms full of toys, flexible hours, gold-plated healthcare plans, company time to work on your own projects, and free cafeterias staffed by gourmet chefs.
Welcome to the 99%!
I mean, Twitter is keeping them from liquidating the shares that they already own and have vested. It's easy to imagine that keeping savings in shares of a company as opposed to cash is reasonable.
How screwed would most people be if the stock exchanges all closed down and they were fired?
How screwed would most people be if the stock exchanges all closed down and they were fired?
> I mean, Twitter is keeping them from liquidating the shares that they already own and have vested.
That's false, someone commented to that effect in the response thread on LinkedIn. Blackout periods for insider trading reasons can't apply to you if you're no longer with the company and you own the shares. It's possible their broker fucked up and has some snafus, but it is not legally possible for them to prevent you from selling shares after you've been fired.
That's false, someone commented to that effect in the response thread on LinkedIn. Blackout periods for insider trading reasons can't apply to you if you're no longer with the company and you own the shares. It's possible their broker fucked up and has some snafus, but it is not legally possible for them to prevent you from selling shares after you've been fired.
You might say that's not what should be happening, but apparently Charles Schwab is not letting them sell or move their shares. So, maybe CS is fucking up as opposed to a contractual issue, but how does that change things for the employees being denied access to their money?
That's a good point and I'm sympathetic but this seems to be an exceptionally rare scenario. Not many companies are in an extended stock-buyout phase by a private entity.
[deleted]
Agreed.
Depending on how Twitter does things, if the employees got RSU's, taxes due (federal, state, etc.) got correctly deducted on vesting.
Unless people deliberately reduced their tax deducted from their RSU's (which may not be doable), or have lots of other income on which tax is due, they won't be screwed over on taxes. And if they have lots of other income on which tax is due, they're less likely to be living paycheck to paycheck.
Depending on how Twitter does things, if the employees got RSU's, taxes due (federal, state, etc.) got correctly deducted on vesting.
Unless people deliberately reduced their tax deducted from their RSU's (which may not be doable), or have lots of other income on which tax is due, they won't be screwed over on taxes. And if they have lots of other income on which tax is due, they're less likely to be living paycheck to paycheck.
>“ many of these folks won’t be able to sell the shares they earned.
i don't see any problem here. Just do a short sell. Not being an employee anymore makes you not a subject to the short-selling prohibition for employees, doesn't it? When you get access to your long shares you can close your short simultaneously with selling the same amount of the long.
i don't see any problem here. Just do a short sell. Not being an employee anymore makes you not a subject to the short-selling prohibition for employees, doesn't it? When you get access to your long shares you can close your short simultaneously with selling the same amount of the long.
One problem is that companies like to talk about these stock grants as if they are as good as regular salary (and employees seem to play along, using terms like "total comp" and ascribing some definite dollar value to it). But they really aren't. So it is a bit of a deceptive marketing.
Always try to use your "total comp" to anchor your salary at a new job. It works when the new employer isn't public and doesn't offer liquid RSUs etc.
Going from X "total comp" to X salary is an improvement in itself. Not even to mention how that total comp is often bumped by once-yearly vests/bonuses - spreading it as salary means you get it asap and can walk more easily.
I did it earlier this year..and the public company I left tanked next quarterly earnings report. Luckily I converted that to guaranteed salary (which is now gonna hopefully anchor me for the next gig lol)
Going from X "total comp" to X salary is an improvement in itself. Not even to mention how that total comp is often bumped by once-yearly vests/bonuses - spreading it as salary means you get it asap and can walk more easily.
I did it earlier this year..and the public company I left tanked next quarterly earnings report. Luckily I converted that to guaranteed salary (which is now gonna hopefully anchor me for the next gig lol)
Last time I was at a company that had blackout periods for employee trading, it didn't apply to former employees. I quit on a Friday and exercised then sold all my options the next Monday while my former coworkers were still in their blackout periods. Hopefully it is the same at Twitter.
The blackout policies are a tiny part an employer policy and a large part an anti-insider trading policy. If you learned of what might be material, non-public information while an employee, then got fired/laid off/quit, that only puts you in the clear with respect to the employer's policy (what are they going to do? fire you a second time?) but does not put you in the clear with the SEC.
I agree. I’ve rarely had any insight into finances, so that wasn’t an issue for me. I keep my head down and write code.
The SEC won’t do shit in this case with respect to your personal shares in a company you just left.
> It’s Twitter’s responsibility to not only offer severance, but make sure employees keep an emergency fund?
Where's Twitter's emergency fund?
Where's Twitter's emergency fund?
Well, founded in 2006, they went public in 2013 when they weren't yet profitable, and finally had their first profitable year in 2018. Musk is paying a meaningful premium. So it seems like they've actually had a pretty good run of getting everyone else to be their emergency fund.
Sounds like employees planned to use vested shares as their emergency funds?
mc32(3)
Almost no information here or anywhere else. Any other source? What roles? How many?
Edit: 30% of its recruiting team: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-lays-off-third-of-talen...
Edit: 30% of its recruiting team: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-lays-off-third-of-talen...
WSJ has a piece on it. A third of the talent team, which affects fewer than 100. https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-lays-off-third-of-talen...
Explains why this is being posted on Linkedin like it's a blog.
makes sense. They've been in a hiring freeze for a while now. Not much sense paying recruiters to sit on their hands I guess.
Also, they need to remove the ideologists there first, if they want to be able to replace the ideologists in other positions.
Is there any evidence these layoffs are targeted at "ideologists"?
I've never encountered someone in tech who didn't have some kind of ideology. What is particularly troubling to you about the ideology of the people laid off?
> What is particularly troubling to you about the ideology of the people laid off?
If I were a shareholder I'd say that it isn't compatible with capitalism and I feel that would be a sufficient answer.
If I were a shareholder I'd say that it isn't compatible with capitalism and I feel that would be a sufficient answer.
What is "it"? As in the ideology, both what it is and what about it is troubling. You didn't answer the question.
You know exactly what "it" is.
You must be one of those folks who struggles to understand other people have a different experience, different priorities, and different knowledge and that you have to actually communicate the thing in your brain if you want other people to know it.
I understand, but I really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not tapped into the Twitter meta.
I understand, but I really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not tapped into the Twitter meta.
Ideologist compared to what? A normal person or a Twitter employee? I imagine pretty much every employee at Twitter is an ideologue because I have doubts that a non-ideologue would be able to stomach working there.
Slightly controversial, but I think most companies could cut the fat from their talent team by 30% and their hiring pipeline would not change. I’ve seen firsthand how a lot of recruiters operate and it’s remarkable how inefficient they can be.
I’ll second those questions; I work at Twitter and am on vacation at the moment. I saw this and immediately checked my work email and major slack channels and I see no signs of any layoffs being announced. It’s possible the person claiming it has some inside information or that the layoffs are targeting specific departments and not mine I suppose, but I’d love to see a second source or more detailed information.
For all we know, maybe a dozen recruiters were laid off during a hiring freeze. Which sucks but says nothing about the job security for the rest of the company or general company health.
And for all we know, this person isn't giving the correct information regarding blackout windows.
And for all we know, this person isn't giving the correct information regarding blackout windows.
I saw a Linkedin post from a recruiting coordinator who was laid off.
Edit: This was a different person than the author of the submitted post. Uff da.
Edit: This was a different person than the author of the submitted post. Uff da.
My understanding was that this sort of stock sale blackout is typically an internal thing to avoid insider trading liability, but if you've been laid off, you would no longer be internal and therefore no longer subject to the blackout. Is that not how it's structured here?
You are subject to a blackout when you have material nonpublic information.
IME the blackout remains until the opening of the trading window following the end of your employment.
IME the blackout remains until the opening of the trading window following the end of your employment.
Most rank-and-file employees don't have material nonpublic information, though.
Blackout periods are more of a CYA thing.
Once you leave the company, you only have to follow the actual law, not the stricter rules that the company sets for its employees.
Blackout periods are more of a CYA thing.
Once you leave the company, you only have to follow the actual law, not the stricter rules that the company sets for its employees.
> You are subject to a blackout when you have material nonpublic information.
Kinda legally yes, but some mid-sized companies enforce a trading blackout by contract and with a broker-level feature on everyone just so that they don't have to do the work of telling everyone that has that kind of information that they do. Twitter probably does this because of how the LinkedIn thing is worded.
The former employees could transfer their shares to another broker and sell them with no issue if they think they are on the good side of the law, which they probably will be after severance.
Kinda legally yes, but some mid-sized companies enforce a trading blackout by contract and with a broker-level feature on everyone just so that they don't have to do the work of telling everyone that has that kind of information that they do. Twitter probably does this because of how the LinkedIn thing is worded.
The former employees could transfer their shares to another broker and sell them with no issue if they think they are on the good side of the law, which they probably will be after severance.
That's how it worked last time I left a publicly traded company during a blackout period.
They're mid-acquisition so the rules are different atm.
so all you have to do if you have some great insider tips is to quit your company and exercise your options in some big, gainful ways?
You can still be charged with insider trading. You just won't be stopped from making the trade.
Could anyone explain to me in simple terms how it's possible to have a blackout on Vested stock?
I was under the impression that once I'm "vested" the stock is now mine and I own it like any normal stock.
Are "vested" shares something different? Could I say for example sell my shares on Robinhood if the blackout wasn't in effect or are they held by some third party?
I was under the impression that once I'm "vested" the stock is now mine and I own it like any normal stock.
Are "vested" shares something different? Could I say for example sell my shares on Robinhood if the blackout wasn't in effect or are they held by some third party?
The stock is yours, but while you are still an employee of that company, there are certain windows (usually around quarterly earnings announcement) during which you atent allowed to sell or buy. This is done as a safeguard to prevent insider trading. Once you are no longer an employee of the company, none of those restrictions apply, you are welcome to sell/buy the company stock whenever you want.
That only applies to higher management, who would know of impending layoffs.
> That only applies to higher management, who would know of impending layoffs.
Nope, that applies to anyone for whom the employment offer says it applies to.
At the previous company I worked at, we had no such rule. At the current one I work for, it applies to all software engineers. At plenty other companies, including FAANG companies like Google, it applies to all software engineers as well. Apple, for example, also doesn't allow you to trade AAPL derivative options in any way whatsoever (so you aren't allowed on your own free time and even using your own money to trade puts and calls).
In those cases, you cannot trade the company shares during certain weeks of each quarter, despite you fully owning those (even if you bought them on your own, before joining the company). Obviously, this only applies if you are still an employee of the company, once you leave you can do whatever you want.
Nope, that applies to anyone for whom the employment offer says it applies to.
At the previous company I worked at, we had no such rule. At the current one I work for, it applies to all software engineers. At plenty other companies, including FAANG companies like Google, it applies to all software engineers as well. Apple, for example, also doesn't allow you to trade AAPL derivative options in any way whatsoever (so you aren't allowed on your own free time and even using your own money to trade puts and calls).
In those cases, you cannot trade the company shares during certain weeks of each quarter, despite you fully owning those (even if you bought them on your own, before joining the company). Obviously, this only applies if you are still an employee of the company, once you leave you can do whatever you want.
This is just nonsense. Once the stock vests it is yours. Now an official SEC blackout period is different. And if you are privy to insider information then yes you can be restricted but again it is the SEC that enforces this.
This is not nonsense, you are speaking confidently on the matter that you have no idea about. This has nothing to do with official SEC blackout periods or roles where you have access to some specific insider information.
I am literally employed at one of those companies now, and all engineers get regular emails announcing the company stock blackout. Ffs, there was a mandatory training session on stock blackout periods and how it affects engineers. Ask anyone in this thread working for Google or Apple (or plenty of other companies), and they will corroborate that it is indeed the case.
For extra confirmation, you can see as much on Blind threads on the matter[0] and the official Google Code of Conduct[1]. The specifically relevant part in the code of conduct section on insider trading: "[...] periodic blackout windows when no Google employee may trade Google stock."
0. https://www.teamblind.com/post/Investing-stocks-as-Google-em...
1. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
I am literally employed at one of those companies now, and all engineers get regular emails announcing the company stock blackout. Ffs, there was a mandatory training session on stock blackout periods and how it affects engineers. Ask anyone in this thread working for Google or Apple (or plenty of other companies), and they will corroborate that it is indeed the case.
For extra confirmation, you can see as much on Blind threads on the matter[0] and the official Google Code of Conduct[1]. The specifically relevant part in the code of conduct section on insider trading: "[...] periodic blackout windows when no Google employee may trade Google stock."
0. https://www.teamblind.com/post/Investing-stocks-as-Google-em...
1. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
Companies routinely have blackout periods where employees are not allowed to sell their shares. Typically the shares from equity grants or ESPP are done by a brokerage and they can block those shares from being sold during these blackout periods.
However, when someone leaves the company, they can transfer those shares out to their e-trade account or whatnot. I've done that before and it only takes a few days. After that you aren't beholden to stock blackout periods, unless you have Material Non-Public Information, which means you will probably have to figure out if you can sell without being considered insider trading.
However, when someone leaves the company, they can transfer those shares out to their e-trade account or whatnot. I've done that before and it only takes a few days. After that you aren't beholden to stock blackout periods, unless you have Material Non-Public Information, which means you will probably have to figure out if you can sell without being considered insider trading.
Vested shares are not special in and of themselves. However employees often have blackout periods for any kind of stock they hold - ESPP, RSU, Options, etc. In many cases even stock you purchased separately with your own after-tax money can be subject to a blackout (though the company would not have a mechanism to directly block your trades you could run the risk of SEC violations).
The blackouts apply to employees because they often have insider information, even if that information may be of minimal real value. The SEC has really clamped down on tech stock trading in the last couple of decades. Those of us who had stock/options in the late 90's dot-com boom likely participated in several stock trades that would be outright illegal today.
The blackouts apply to employees because they often have insider information, even if that information may be of minimal real value. The SEC has really clamped down on tech stock trading in the last couple of decades. Those of us who had stock/options in the late 90's dot-com boom likely participated in several stock trades that would be outright illegal today.
Companies should also remove your trading window when you exit the company.
Are trading blackout windows enforced in any way other than threat of dismissal? I don't think there's any external repercussions to trading during an applicable blackout, and trading on NPMI is illegal regardless of whether it is done in or out of a window.
Usually the broker that handles RSUs for the company automatically does this. They’ll prevent you from doing such trades. You could still technically use a different broker and buy/sell but that’s probably blatant insider trading.
> that’s probably blatant insider trading.
It is only insider trading if you are basing your trades on insider information. If your only reason for selling is “I just got laid off and need the cash” then you should be fine
It is only insider trading if you are basing your trades on insider information. If your only reason for selling is “I just got laid off and need the cash” then you should be fine
Fwiw, as far as stock sales being blocked. You can probably easily bypass that if you prepare in advance.
There exists a standard stock transfer mechanism, ACATS, for basically "wiring" your stocks to a different brokerage. I think these transfers are also legally mandated to some extent.
My previous company partnered with ETrade, giving us a special account for stock awards. The main special thing about it were insane commission, order(s?) of magnitude higher than interactive brokers. I moved the stocks to IB using ACATS; it felt like ETrade tried to use stalling tactics like asking me to mail a paper form I think (I called bs), then iirc there was an error because the account was special so the transfer logic couldn't find it, etc. But after persisting I saved 100s of $$ and also the company had no control of the stock anymore (we had some earnings lock outs, not that it affected me).
The downside is that it might mess with automatic tax stuff, iirc dates-CBs got transferred but I had to redo something about these tx-es, maybe ISO stuff? Not sure if anything was missing for RSUs, I assume things like espp cost basis might get lost, we didn't have it.
Now I wonder if I should do the same for my current company stock... just in case.
There exists a standard stock transfer mechanism, ACATS, for basically "wiring" your stocks to a different brokerage. I think these transfers are also legally mandated to some extent.
My previous company partnered with ETrade, giving us a special account for stock awards. The main special thing about it were insane commission, order(s?) of magnitude higher than interactive brokers. I moved the stocks to IB using ACATS; it felt like ETrade tried to use stalling tactics like asking me to mail a paper form I think (I called bs), then iirc there was an error because the account was special so the transfer logic couldn't find it, etc. But after persisting I saved 100s of $$ and also the company had no control of the stock anymore (we had some earnings lock outs, not that it affected me).
The downside is that it might mess with automatic tax stuff, iirc dates-CBs got transferred but I had to redo something about these tx-es, maybe ISO stuff? Not sure if anything was missing for RSUs, I assume things like espp cost basis might get lost, we didn't have it.
Now I wonder if I should do the same for my current company stock... just in case.
I thought etrade had given up commissions and instead just front runs the trades..
That was several years ago. Also I think even the advertised commissions on ETrade were relatively low then too, only the stock award plan account had the ridiculous ones, hence me transfering the stock out.
From that OP thread, it seems that talent and not engineering was affected.
For us old people, what is "talent" ?
"recruitment", since labelling humans as resources is apparently inhumane
I still prefer the old word, "Personnel". I never understood rebranding to Human Resources.
Too many people identify as non-persons.
I'm not sure if I'm joking either.
I'm not sure if I'm joking either.
This is a thing, but not very common in professional settings. All the it/its entities I've met were cool, so I wouldn't mind one as a coworker.
It's because HR is associated with mundane bureaucracy tasks, whereas talent is supposed to comprise strategic that matter a lot. I tend to agree with it. They're two clearly different functions. Hiring, development, retention, vs. the boring stuff.
Shortly after starting a job I saw a spreadsheet my boss had made with a section labeled "Upcoming Resources" with my name and start date underneath. The phrasing caught my eye and it felt a bit weird to be written down like a bushel of wheat, but I certainly wasn't offended by it.
FWIW, that boss turned out to be one of the best and most empathetic people I've ever worked with.
FWIW, that boss turned out to be one of the best and most empathetic people I've ever worked with.
At a lot of companies HR and recruitment are separate tasks done by separate groups of people.
Did you just assume their humanity?
You need to take a remedial course on treating Entities of Other Existence with respect.
We'll have to get back to you on when you can register, we're a little under-entitied in the Carbon-Based Respirating Encouragement and Retention Department.
You need to take a remedial course on treating Entities of Other Existence with respect.
We'll have to get back to you on when you can register, we're a little under-entitied in the Carbon-Based Respirating Encouragement and Retention Department.
2014 called. It wants its humor back.
I also get annoyed by these rebranding. I don't understand why some people are so eager to push forward this new jargon.
Talent: the ones who hire you
HR: the ones who fire you
HR: the ones who fire you
Recruiting, and maybe HR.
[deleted]
Diversity employees
There's an urban legend (maybe true, maybe not) about National Semiconductor, and this comes from back in the good old days of "loyalty." It may not be true, but on the other hand, when I'd say "Nazi Semiconductor" to someone who had worked there, they always smiled and didn't argue with me.
The legend was, they had a fake fire drill. Then when everyone was out in the parking lot, they told certain people not to bother coming back in again.
Edit: Snopes has a "debunking" of this at [1]. I'm not persuaded that this debunks it, since the laws protecting employees were not in effect yet way back then.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-fired-drill/
The legend was, they had a fake fire drill. Then when everyone was out in the parking lot, they told certain people not to bother coming back in again.
Edit: Snopes has a "debunking" of this at [1]. I'm not persuaded that this debunks it, since the laws protecting employees were not in effect yet way back then.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-fired-drill/
I feel sympathetic but anyone that hasn't started prepping for layoffs is simply not reading the writing on the wall, _especially_ at Twitter. Elon Musk has basically said that he wants people working 40+ hours/week in the office or you can quit to Tesla and SpaceX. There have been stories for weeks about large startups having layoffs. Finally, most acquisitions tend to end in layoffs
Minimum, you should be updating your resume/LinkedIn, and you should also look at ways to cut back on costs where possible.
I'm sorry, Twitter assured the company that there would be no layoffs? Isn't that _exactly_ what Elon Musk has been telegraphing with what he's said to the press and at the town hall? Also at this point
Minimum, you should be updating your resume/LinkedIn, and you should also look at ways to cut back on costs where possible.
I'm sorry, Twitter assured the company that there would be no layoffs? Isn't that _exactly_ what Elon Musk has been telegraphing with what he's said to the press and at the town hall? Also at this point
Elon is probably not going to buy Twitter and they will have to sue him for the billion he owes them if he breaks the deal
IANAL but I don’t think the blackout window applies if you’re no longer an employee.
It often does -- basically whatever information you had, that subjected you to it, is still meaningful for a length of time. Depends on the details.
Most if not all of those employees had to go through interview hell in order to work there. It says a lot that employers are always hesitant to hire but when they fire it is because they have run out of time.
That's crazy!
I'm not that old, but even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand). Today, we have this:
- Companies using the barest of excuses, or none at all, to lay off employees. Because it makes good business sense.
- Companies lying, deliberately and freely, to employees about upcoming layoffs, in order to "stave off panic". Because it makes good business sense.
- Companies laying employees off in the most impersonal fashions possible (large Zoom meetings, automated email, SMS). Because business sense, etc.
- Companies literally escorting laid-off employees out of the building like criminals, on the premise that a suddenly-former employee is an incipient criminal.
- Companies stiffing people on severance, based on a cost-benefit analysis which concludes that the potential legal bills will cost less than a fair and reasonable severance. Because, again, it makes good business sense.
In spite of the downsides of unions, this turn of affairs is really an argument in favor of universal unionization.