Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

uacabaca t1_jed4vq4 wrote

10

ElysiumSprouts t1_jed62og wrote

What I meant is "right-sizing" The big tech companies over-hired in order to starve smaller companies of the skilled workers they needed. They brought on employees who simply were not needed and sat un-utilized to monopolize the work force. Reading the news, people got the impression that these big tech companies needed mass layoffs to downsize into effectiveness, but that's not entirely correct.

But sure, they fired workers and it harmed real people.

6

uacabaca t1_jed74jg wrote

The vast majority of big tech are severely under-staffed, with a lot of activities put on hold because of lack of personel, and engineers working well above 8 hrs per day, just to make things move. So it's not "right sizing", it's "firing" to meet the quarterly financial goals that look good for their stock value.

9

UNSECURE_ACCOUNT t1_jeebu6l wrote

If that was true why are perfectly profitable companies still firing people?

Because those employees cost more than they generate because they're not being used productively.

3

uacabaca t1_jeecmld wrote

Mmm no. Rates are increasing and so cost of money. This means less "free" money to borrow for growth, so less growth. When you foresee less growth your shareholders will demand job cuts, otherwise the stock would tank. Then you start cutting projects and firing people. The ones that remain are overburdened by the tasks that were done by the ones that were fired. So they have to work more, under the pressure of being fired like their former colleagues. In other words, workers are paying for those stocks.

How you all are believing the narrative that they are "trimming fat" is beyond me. Google, for example, made profits into the billions (1 billion can feed 10000 families for a year) and still fired.

1