[HN Gopher] Over 50% of CEOs say they're considering cutting job...
___________________________________________________________________
Over 50% of CEOs say they're considering cutting jobs over the next
6 months
Author : bluedino
Score : 165 points
Date : 2022-10-05 15:50 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.marketwatch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.marketwatch.com)
| musha68k wrote:
| Fear is the mind-killer.
|
| Just stay professional and keep an open mind and rest assured
| that by now all our economies inherently depend on all these more
| or less complex information systems FWIW.
| guiriduro wrote:
| Precisely - its clearly just that "some CEOs" like to chum the
| water with a little fear to keep staff from leaving (to become
| the 'last in, first out' somewhere else), and to create
| pressure against wage rises to enable them to freeze and make
| derisory offers to keep their wage bills down.
|
| Successful CEOs understand the dynamic you expressed above,
| however.
| musha68k wrote:
| Quickly riffing on that, not specifically going into your
| points but in general: in case of changing dynamics at a
| specific company (job-to-be-done, mandates changed, etc)
| almost nothing bad about being let go in this market even.
|
| Usually only upsides. New learning opportunities,
| remuneration, etc. Too much comfort isn't good for the good
| worker either. Think occasional cold shower and fermented
| Sauerkraut.
|
| Work on your safety belt though, but that should go without
| saying even during high times. You might miss the people,
| though you can still keep in touch.
|
| We have it very good, still fight for your worth at all
| times. Peace.
| helge9210 wrote:
| Performance boost from a lower coordination overhead might worth
| it.
| mouzogu wrote:
| laying the groundwork for an end to flexibility. somebody's got
| to buy those $15 sandwiches and $10 coffees.
| wdb wrote:
| I prefer they talk about salary raises to match inflation
| bell-cot wrote:
| Vs. what % of CEO's were considering such a cut back in the
| teens? 50%+ would hardly be surprising.
| esel2k wrote:
| I see the same where I work: Reorg and layoffs upcoming.
|
| But the second part (as much as I would like to believe it) makes
| little sense.
|
| Our company willingly sourced candidates across the globe to find
| rare talents. They won't let that effort go to waste. I would be
| more worried if you can't express what your added value is for
| the company/strengths on the market.
| bluedino wrote:
| They aren't saying 'all' remote workers.
| vsareto wrote:
| Of course the folks that hired those people are going to be
| like "we bring great talent to this company" when they get
| asked what their added value is
| fishtoaster wrote:
| Ugh, I hate stats like this.
|
| WHAT'S THE BASELINE?!
|
| It could well be that 50% of CEOs are _always_ "considering"
| cutting jobs in the next 6 months. I mean, I suspect that this
| number is higher than usual because, well, it _does_ look like we
| 're heading into a recession. But if I'm interpreting this number
| based on my perception of the recession, then this number is
| useless at the main point of this article: informing me on
| whether we're heading into a recession or not.
| kodah wrote:
| Honestly I don't think you'll get good faith considerations on
| whether we're heading into a recession. Anecdotally, I'm trying
| to buy a house in Portland. I stopped being so aggressive as I
| watched prices start falling by tens of thousands. I got a call
| from Rocket Mortgage the other day where they tried to convince
| me that market prices won't change and I should buy _now_ at a
| rate of 6.5%. This is an incredible departure from reality and
| similar to what I hear from real estate agents.
|
| This is a company that I know previously to be quite ethical,
| yet here they are doing dirty tricks. Market falls can be a
| threat to companies, but by engaging with propaganda trolls can
| influence the market and make money. Read any mortgage or real
| estate propaganda and you'll see they're all using the same
| words, false comparisons, etc. Maybe the true signal of a
| recession is the defiance of admitting there is a recession.
| r00fus wrote:
| They might be correct if the assumption is that interest
| rates are going up (but that's not clear so is definitely in
| the FUD area of propaganda techniques)
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Rocket Mortgage is literally terrible about high pressure
| selling tactics like that.
| bombcar wrote:
| I was able to find much better deals than riding the
| Rocket, all I had to do was email and (gasp) talk to
| someone on the phone. Quite easily handled.
| kube-system wrote:
| During my last mortgage search, my personal experience is
| that mortgage rates were positively correlated with the
| number of commercials I've seen for their services.
|
| I ended up asking my real estate agent for suggestions
| and she suggested a local hole in the wall originator
| that gave me significantly better rates than anyone else.
| bombcar wrote:
| Unless you have something strange, all mortgages get sold
| into the same pool at basically the same prices, so
| increased marketing spend has to be made up somewhere.
| balderdash wrote:
| Also think a key question is whether there will still be NET
| hiring, if I'm planning on hiring 10 people over the next year,
| and am thinking about letting 5 go, that is very different than
| thinking about letting 5 go and not planning on hiring anyone
| rr888 wrote:
| I'm "considering" dating a supermodel. (Though the similarity
| isn't as likely to happen)
| tootie wrote:
| I consider firing everyone after every meeting.
| f1shy wrote:
| You are actually very civil. I know people that consider
| punching everyone in the face after a meeting :)
| xnx wrote:
| Amen. "Compared to what?" is one of the most useful questions
| you can ask of any statistic.
| johncessna wrote:
| Shh, don't think, just react!
| autokad wrote:
| > It could well be that 50% of CEOs are always "considering"
| cutting jobs in the next 6 months
|
| They are not. CEOs are generally optimistic. this is a very bad
| sign. 99.99999% of knowing what someone will do is what they
| say. people try to read way too much into other things, "what
| were they really thinking? how has that changed over time?" etc
| etc. sometimes you just have to snap out of it and LISTEN.
|
| and what you hear is very bad, and far from 'useless'.
|
| as far as whether we are heading into a recession or not, we
| are not. We are already in a recession. We've had 2 quarters of
| shrinking GDP. maybe we notch a positive quarter in between the
| next negative quarter, but its a recession. stop over thinking
| it.
| koolba wrote:
| > We are already in a recession. We've had 2 quarters of
| shrinking GDP. maybe we notch a positive quarter in between
| the next negative quarter, but its a recession. stop over
| thinking it.
|
| That definition of recession is not codified.
|
| The official definition is that we're in a recession only
| after an octogenarian declares it (retroactively of course).
| permo-w wrote:
| as far as I know, a recession is codified as two
| consecutive quarters of negative growth
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| We have had two quarters of negative growth before that
| were not called a recession.
| colpabar wrote:
| The comment that you're replying to is poking fun at the
| way the biden administration responded to the report
| saying there were two consecutive quarters of negative
| economic growth. Everyone "knew" that a recession meant
| two quarters of negative growth, but we were told that
| actually it's only a recession if the people in charge
| say so. You do "trust the experts", right?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpos
| t/2...
| chasd00 wrote:
| Yeah if republicans take the house and senate we will be
| in the deepest recession evarr. If not then we'll only be
| in a mild correction.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Recessions are defined by NBER, a consortium of academic
| economists.
|
| Using the 2 quarters rule (something that has no official
| bearing) means that 2 of the last 3 recessions (2000 and
| 2020) weren't recessions.
| permo-w wrote:
| covid did not result in 2 consecutive quarters of
| negative growth? that seems improbable
| shagie wrote:
| https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm
|
| Begin using the data > Section 1 Domestic Product and
| Income > Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product > Modify >
| First year 2016 (refresh table)
| rory wrote:
| It did: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UtHh
|
| Only two though-- Q2 was so sharp that everything after
| that was recovery.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Which points to why the whole "two consecutive quarters"
| rule is not, and should not be, definitive. The country
| could see a 50% collapse in a single quarter and see 2-3%
| growth each quarter for years, and not be in a recession
| by that definition.
|
| It wouldn't be unusual for a major economic calamity to
| occur within a single quarter. Both Covid lock downs and
| the collapse of AIG/LB happened within a matter of weeks.
| OJFord wrote:
| > The country could see a 50% collapse in a single
| quarter and see 2-3% growth each quarter for years, and
| not be in a recession by that definition.
|
| But that's not receding, that's has receded.
|
| If your implied definition is slipping below the growth
| trend, then any '50% collapse' is going to ensure
| 'recession' (by this definition) for probably (or even
| hopefully) a long time.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > But that's not receding, that's has receded.
|
| A recession is past tense. One can _speculate_ that we
| are in a recession, but it 's not feasible to collect all
| the information necessary to make that determination in
| real time. The best one can do is say, "a recession
| started six months ago, and I _think_ the situation is
| better /the same/worse."
| OJFord wrote:
| Yes but 'has receded' is present perfect. My point was
| that the situation described was that of a time after a
| recession that had ended.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| The reason the government defines the recession as 4
| months is because we did not see two quarters of GDP
| decline as much as we saw 4 months of it.
|
| Shift the quarter to begin in Feb and you'd only have 1Q
| of decline.
|
| _That_ is why the 2 quarters rule is stupid _and_ why
| 2020 doesn 't fit the rule.
| rory wrote:
| It clearly _does_ fit the rule because the year _doesn
| 't_ start in February. There's no need to change reality
| so you were right.
|
| It's just a rule of thumb, not some profound maxim of
| economics.
| OJFord wrote:
| The point is that if all the bad happened in half the
| quarter, that can make quite a difference, and the
| quarter start/end date is entirely arbitrary.
|
| That said, you can apply the same to GP's suggestion of
| months, if the timescales are even shorter.
| rory wrote:
| Yeah, the cutoff points for any rule of thumb are going
| to be fairly arbitrary. I don't understand why people are
| treating this like a profound observation.
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| lamontcg wrote:
| We haven't had any increase in unemployment yet, this isn't a
| recession.
|
| Two periods of negative GDP growth without a rise in
| unemployment is unprecedented, but that is largely the result
| of bullwhip effects of the pandemic which was unprecedented.
|
| The actual recession is going to be substantially worse.
|
| The people who argue that we're in a recession right now due
| to two quarters of negative GDP growth while discounting the
| fact that every other indicator of the economy has been
| pretty healthy up until recently just makes me think "tell me
| you were too young to remember 2008/2001/1992/1982/1980
| without telling me you were too young to remember".
|
| IDK it is probably pointless to argue about this with people
| who will double-down on the strict definition that they think
| they know. Wait for another 12-24 months and let me know if
| it feels and order of magnitude worse or not.
|
| (Agreed, though, that CEOs are generally almost naive
| optimists and that when they're all pessimistic about the
| economy it can almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy)
| KerrAvon wrote:
| It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. We're going to be in a
| recession because CEOs decided six months ago that we're doing
| a recession soon and it turns out that if you lay off enough
| people and stop hiring across the economy because you think
| there's a recession coming, you get a recession!
| ren_engineer wrote:
| >informing me on whether we're heading into a recession or not
|
| look at consumer debt levels and how several major banks in
| Europe are ready to blow up, not a sign of a healthy economy.
| Unemployment rates are a lagging indicator for recessions,
| companies don't start laying people off until revenue takes a
| hit. The Fed has outright said they are going to keep raising
| rates until people start losing jobs so inflation declines.
| f1shy wrote:
| The whole article seems full of it.
|
| > Nine in ten CEOs in the U.S. (91%) believe a recession will
| arrive in the coming 12 months, while 86% of CEOs globally feel
| the same way
|
| - So what? Most CEOs I know cannot foresee what they will eat
| tomorrow. No offence, but being CEO makes you no better at
| predicting the future as the janitor. "They have, more info,
| experience" yada yada... I knew just too many incompetent CEOs.
|
| Also, what does it mean, cutting jobs... how many? why? which
| ones?
|
| Seems like content, but completely empty.
| cannaceo wrote:
| As a CEO I speak to other CEOs on a regular basis about what
| we're seeing. That means I'm clued in to my customers'
| trends, vendors' trends, and competitors' trends. I see stuff
| happening in my industry from a more holistic perspective
| than my employees. I can tell the difference between a
| revenue decline from a lack of competitiveness versus
| industry decline. You might not see us working but we talk. A
| lot.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| "The reason CEOs are smarter than everyone else is because
| they talk to other CEOs".
|
| Seems a bit circular to me.
| cannaceo wrote:
| It sounds like you're operating under the assumption that
| nothing is predictable in the economy and that we're all
| looking in to a crystal ball. In reality we're looking at
| our financials and sales trends and then comparing that
| data up and down the supply chain.
|
| We're not smarter than everyone else. No, we're just more
| clued in to what's happening with our capital markets,
| vendors, competitors, and customers.
| thegypsyking wrote:
| Hey! I'm currently an ml engineer and my dream is to be
| ceo of a mid size company one day. Do you have any advice
| for how I can move into that direction?
| cannaceo wrote:
| No advice but I can share my perspectives. I happened to
| be at the right place at the right time to start a
| company and be an early player in a new technology that
| created a multi-billion market that didn't exist before.
| I happened to have the cross-trained in the right
| combination of skills and showed up at the right time.
| Skill alone wouldn't have been enough.
|
| Try to be forward thinking about what trends might be
| coming. It used to be easier to do this but now everyone
| hops on trends quickly so it's harder to maintain a head
| start.
|
| I'm looking at my next venture right now and I'm mostly
| focused on the overall macro picture surrounding the
| growth prospects of an industry. Things like population
| dynamics are playing a bigger part of how I see
| opportunity. The best CEO won't accomplish much in a
| dying or flat industry.
|
| Ignore people who say "X is saturated". Everything is
| saturated. What matters is if the market is going to
| grow.
|
| Now I'm more focused on wealth deployment and
| preservation and trying to focus less on building new
| things. Building is where my passion is but it's high
| risk and I don't need to be taking risks anymore.
| thegypsyking wrote:
| Really appreciate The time you've put into this! I have
| no wealth or anything like that, so the road for me will
| definitely be to work like a dog for the next 10 years
| and hope someone wants to pay handsomely for what I build
| (honestly even being a senior at faang I'll never escape
| the middle class paying income tax). Afterwards I'll move
| to a lower tax/col country snd live like a king
| llampx wrote:
| This post is completely content-free. You make assertions
| that these CEOs don't know their hat from their ass, while
| you offer nothing to the contrary, no evidence or even
| conjecture or "Well, my cousin's dog told me their company is
| looking at stepping up hiring for Q4."
| revlolz wrote:
| It's a bs factoid in the first place. Most CEOs I meet are in
| a perpetual "next two years will be recession" mode. I guess
| my counter to bs stats is leveraging my own anecdote, but
| whatever I think it's prevelant enough.
| kansface wrote:
| Accuracy of prediction isn't important here. CEOs make
| budgets with allocations for new hires and raises. They also
| fire people, too. Every CEO could be 100% wrong and we'd
| still have the trappings of a recession.
| throwoutway wrote:
| Most large corp CEOs are briefed by analysts, and they're all
| probably telling them their "predictions"
|
| Here is an interesting thought experiment: if McKinsey wanted
| to force a recession, could they invoke one by telling all
| the CEOs the worst possible news and making terrible
| recommendations?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Yes they could. The economy is partly psychological. Once
| the everyday needs are met, spending on the stretch items
| can be delayed psychologically to reduce GDP.
| medion wrote:
| Isn't this what raising rates is? It's likely more
| psychological than anything.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Economists predict around a 50% chance of recession this year
| which seems a bit more reasonable.
| eastbound wrote:
| 50% seems strangely like "Either there is a recession,
| either there isn't, that makes 50%".
|
| No, really, most people have a stake one way or another,
| and when presented a chance to influence the populace, by
| making people afraid of losing their jobs and making other
| CEOs afraid of hiring like crazy, they'll say the line
| whether it's true or false.
| nostromo wrote:
| That's even funnier since the US entered a recession this
| past summer by the most common definition of the term.
| yehAnd wrote:
| Which came first; a recession or a meme of a recession.
|
| This recession is a self fulfilling prophecy intentionally
| triggered by the Fed at the behest of Congress behind the
| scenes to curtail the public meta mind technology companies
| were creating via social media.
|
| Don't stop doing. There's no reason our agency must be
| coupled to macro economic views of a coddled minority. The
| public gifts them their hallucination of being a valuable
| member of society. We don't have to coddle their figurative
| identity.
| barefoot wrote:
| I agree that we're practically in a recession and that
| our present recession was brought about from congress via
| the fed. However, that particular chain of events was set
| in motion in the 1970s with the public mandate set for
| the FOMC. It wasn't a recent secretive reaction to tech
| companies.
|
| Do you mind expanding on your statement that the current
| actions of the fed/congress are a reaction to technology
| companies?
| anonporridge wrote:
| The news doesn't exist to give you an accurate model of
| reality.
|
| It primarily exists to give you a believable model that
| promotes behavior of the masses towards the interests of the
| owners of the company or nation state that controls it.
| rnk wrote:
| From that perspective, does anything exist to give you an
| accurate model of reality? Education? It's only to the
| control the masses and also makes money for book sellers?
| Science, just makes money for grant writers and equipment
| sellers? All that is somewhat true but doesn't really
| encompass the actual reality, which is plenty of journalists
| are interested in communicating what is happening, even while
| some are just pushing their vision or making money. Same is
| true of scientists, teachers, etc.
| causi wrote:
| Orphan statistics are the bane of my existence.
| jxramos wrote:
| I call them dead end statistics, they don't lead you anywhere
| immediately standing on their own.
| grepLeigh wrote:
| This is a great call-out and reminder that headlines are
| written to move ad inventory.
| sss111 wrote:
| how does this situation keep getting worse everyday, never
| thought I would be graduating into a recession :/
| musha68k wrote:
| It's not going to hit you if you work in "tech" and have both a
| professional mindset and regimen in place.
|
| Software is still and ever increasingly eating the world
| FWIW...
|
| Don't fall for the doomsday folks, they either don't understand
| the dynamics and/or are just in it for the drama.
|
| It's actually still a great time to negotiate for premiums.
| Keep calm and carry on.
| egfx wrote:
| not so fast
|
| https://www.marketwatch.com/story/it-will-be-mostly-a-
| white-...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/17/tech-
| silico...
| musha68k wrote:
| Interesting articles but would recommend to e.g. just
| switch into the energy sector. Keep informed and moving.
| deelowe wrote:
| Tech sectors supported by ADs seem to already be getting hit.
| Ad spending is way down.
| musha68k wrote:
| To be fair ad sector is pernicious for the most part. Good
| for any professional to move on if you ask me.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| you will be awash in offers since you are at a peak of two
| curves -- recent work output and zero seniority for benefits,
| salary and authority
|
| I predict further race to the bottom in this way, similar to
| putting 14 year old girls in Olympic Gymnastics, as was done
| and eventually outlawed. Expect smart high school students in
| low-income economies to be in demand, and aggressive mob types
| to make front companies to handle anything about the money
| dmitrygr wrote:
| I graduated in 2008. Don't worry so much. Good people are
| always in demand. Most companies hire even as they do layoffs.
| Focus on breaking able to explain that you're a good addition
| to the team
| ironlake wrote:
| I graduated into a recession. It was fine.
|
| It never hurts to pay attention to the macro economy, but in
| the end, just live your life and pursue the career you want.
|
| Software development may eventually go the way of textile
| manufacturing (i.e. only done in poor countries with cheap,
| unskilled labor) but I doubt you or I will live long enough to
| see it.
| lordnacho wrote:
| And what is the normal history of this statistic? If it's
| normally 75% of bosses who are considering cutting, maybe 50% is
| good. If it's normally 10%, maybe it's bad.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| > Remote workers may find it in their best interest to show their
| faces in the office as their job security becomes more uncertain.
|
| Glad to see this FUD being shared still. Did we learn nothing
| over the last few years?
| conductr wrote:
| Maybe not for the software guys/gals but this is unfortunately
| solid advice for others. My experience outside the normal HN
| jobs/industry is that if you're remote you're considered second
| class.
| musha68k wrote:
| This is a great filter for which companies to join or not. Not
| outcome driven? Not treating employees as adults? Pass.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| We really didn't.
|
| I came to that depressing realisation a few months into Covid.
| The whole world suddenly learned
|
| - remote work is fine
|
| - it was so much better for the environment to not commute
| constantly
|
| - you do not need mass migration for a services economy
|
| and then we all promptly forgot it.
| conductr wrote:
| I said from the beginning it's all a matter of time before we
| all go back. The C suite loves seeing butts in seats. Outside
| of software, and even some reluctance there, I think most
| leaders are only not going back full in office because they
| don't want an exodus during a labor shortage. Otherwise
| they'd have required it by now.
|
| I'm privy to the boardroom setting and know the C suite
| personalities well enough. They make jokes about lazy
| inefficiency of WFH. They feel out of control if they can't
| walk to your desk and demand something is a priority. They
| don't know how to lead in a WFH world. Also, by definition
| their job is usually to be in meetings all day every day and
| they just don't enjoy the zoom experience as much because of
| it. They like to wear fancy dry cleaned cloths when everyone
| else just wants to wear basketball shorts and a tee shirt at
| home.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| I do not think we forgot it, but we just lack leverage.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| The article doesn't say, but it's a safe bet to assume that the
| kinds of CEO's they're interviewing are the CEO's of big
| fortune (at least) 1000 companies, all of which have satellite
| offices. If remote workers should be worried, the people who
| report to satellite offices and join every call by zoom anyway
| should be just as worried (and should have been just as worried
| during every downturn). How many of us, if we did return to the
| office, would actually have any physical face-to-face contact
| with our direct supervisors, or anybody else up the chain?
| hammock wrote:
| How is it FUD? No better way to built trust than in person. If
| your supervisor doesn't trust you why would they hold onto you
| when faced with a choice?
| ugh123 wrote:
| Employees learned, yes. But I don't think big co's have bought
| into it enough and i'm afraid the "compromise" is going to
| eventually be a lot of jobs either moved overseas or just a
| race-to-the-bottom for salaries within the U.S. as employees
| are sourced from areas with lower cost of living.
|
| If we convince employers that we're "more productive" at home,
| then whats stopping them from finding cheaper employees
| elsewhere?
| gxs wrote:
| The VP of Sales where I work recently posted about our record
| breaking month and how he can't wait to get back to the office
| as it'll be mandatory starting in October.
|
| The irony, as you can see clear as day, is that they achieved
| the record month while everyone was working remotely.
|
| Someone actually called him out on it, surprisingly, but he
| simply backpedaled and said remote is just not his personal
| preference.
|
| No -- they did not learn ANYTHING over the last few years and I
| suspect that the pandemic will be looked back on with a bit of
| nostalgia in a few years when we look back.
|
| There will always be the horrors that came with it, but there
| will also be people who got time off work, fathers who got to
| spend more time with their kids, people who got a lot of their
| lives back by avoiding commutes, etc.
|
| I realize I'm opening myself up to get completely roasted in
| the comments because the pandemic was really rough on people,
| but I hope I preemptively addressed that here in saying that
| the pandemic also shed a light in other areas of our life that
| need change.
| musha68k wrote:
| Economy needs workers though, downturn or not. Not going into
| the reality of ongoing pandemic (attrition to health is real)
| but in general the last word on remote mandates hasn't been
| spoken at all if workers don't give in readily. It's an
| ongoing discussion that can settle to good learnings /
| outcomes for all parties involved. Fear is the mind-killer.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > mandatory starting in October
|
| Just as the covid and flu season starts up.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| I hadn't gotten sick until about three weeks ago since the
| start of the pandemic. Office work is somewhat
| biohazardous.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Somewhat? Offices are veritable petri dishes, with bugs
| sourced from public transport and people's school aged
| children.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Everyone experienced the pandemic differently and your
| experience is just as valid as anyone else's. I don't have
| kids and walked to work, so my experience wasn't very
| different working from home (which I still am). The
| difference it made on the fathers I work with was profound.
| They are able to drop off and pick up their kids from school
| because they're close by now, they spend 0 time commuting vs
| over an hour before, and generally seem less stressed than
| when they were in the office. Productivity has soared as
| well. We're never going back.
| [deleted]
| ejb999 wrote:
| Why is it FUD?
|
| Who is more likely to get fired if you are choosing between two
| similar competent people and you have been told you need to
| pick one: The one you sit next to and have lunch with a few
| days a week and possibly lives in your general neighborhood? or
| the person which you have never met in person and lives 2000
| miles away?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| It's a lot more complicated than that. How much more does
| that in-person employee cost, for example.
|
| Even with the current uncertainty there are employees
| choosing to change jobs rather than go to an office. Even if
| you freeze hiring, you need to make sure you're retaining the
| employees you have.
| f1shy wrote:
| You are assuming a good relation... what if the guy who comes
| to be office happens to be dirty, or loud, or smelly, or
| whatever discomfort he may impose to the decision maker? What
| if the decision maker is a lazy manager (have never seen
| one!) that feels observed but this guy coming everyday to the
| office? Moreover, what if the manager himself, prefers to not
| come to the office...
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| >choosing between two similar competent ...
|
| People don't even have to similar in competence... the
| farther away from the headquarters you are the less influence
| and importance you have. common sense
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Why would anything besides performance and value factor into
| this decision? "Mary just gets more done for the money than
| Bob does... but I haven't seen her in awhile... Gone."
| [deleted]
| conanbatt wrote:
| How do you measure performance
| lovich wrote:
| We have never operated as a meritocracy like that at a
| society wide level.
| danjoredd wrote:
| That assumes rationality, unfortunately. It would be nice
| if performance was the only factor in a managers decision,
| but we all know that managers have a tendency to prefer the
| employees that they see often. That being said if you were
| hired as a remote employee, I wouldn't worry.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Performance is pretty hard to measure without resorting
| to gameable KPIs.
| f1shy wrote:
| There is always a "perceived performance". Once a year
| (typically) managers evaluate the associates; same
| evaluation is performed when one has to go. If seen
| somebody everyday plays a role, yes, maybe.
|
| But for example, 5 years ago, I worked in a team, when I
| was only couple of days in the office. Others every day.
| I saw my team manager the days I was in the office... and
| also at weekends, because we were friends... so... it all
| depends.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| It's 100% rational from the manager's individual POV to
| choose to lay off someone you don't know so well vs
| someone you see every day in person and consider a
| friend.
| mandelbrotwurst wrote:
| One of the arguments is that people do not objectively
| determine performance and value and are likely to become
| biased by spending time with people in-person.
| tcgv wrote:
| > Why would anything besides performance and value factor
| into this decision?
|
| Because people making decisions are often influenced by
| their own biases and social preferences, unfortunately.
| lnsru wrote:
| My upper management wants me badly in the office. It's 12
| seat open office. These people have their own comfy offices,
| but work all days every week from home. What a paradox.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Flexibility about where and, to some degree, when/how-much,
| one works, plus how surveilled one is while working, is a
| status-related perk (and connected more broadly to social
| class). No surprise execs who are used to maximal freedom
| on those see expanding those perks to the peons as a threat
| to their own status.
|
| "But what if they fuck off to play golf at 2:30 PM or
| sneakily take a vacation to the beach without using
| vacation time while in fact only working part of the time
| for that week?" says the exec, before fucking off to play
| golf at 2:30 PM and then help the spouse and kids pack for
| for tomorrow's vacation-disguised-as-a-business-trip.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| It's not a paradox. It's hypocrisy.
| musha68k wrote:
| https://youtu.be/zLQ2d89vCiw
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Hum... You are just assuming similar competent people get on
| this situation a with relevant odds.
|
| What is a very odd assumption, because if a company is firing
| based on competence, similar competent people will get on the
| same bracket and both fired or kept. And no large company
| knows enough to fire based on personal competence anyway. So
| yeah, it's FUD.
| zaphod12 wrote:
| Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. When you say statements like the
| one noted above which aren't true, but I mean..."hey, it
| sounds like it could be true and do you want to take that
| risk?"
| ejb999 wrote:
| Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it
| not true - its human nature to be more protective of the
| people you know better/personally than those you have never
| met.
| Retric wrote:
| From what's I have seen remote workers tend to survive
| layoffs more than office workers. I don't know if this is a
| common trend, but remote workers are generally cheaper
| including overhead which is a major point when it comes to
| cost cutting initiatives.
| kube-system wrote:
| Selection bias. Remote workers also tend to skew more
| senior/experienced. The new guy who isn't providing much
| value is always the first to get cut, and he's also the
| same guy who is less likely to be trusted to WFH.
| Retric wrote:
| Possibly, though selection bias the other way means
| people who are more likely to survive a layoff are also
| more likely to become senior.
| ejb999 wrote:
| then they are not 'similar' people are they? if the cost
| structure is completely different - that is a completely
| different calculation.
| Retric wrote:
| Similar or higher pay being offset by vastly cheaper
| office space is not about the person.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| A lot of remote workers on here seem to expect to be paid
| the same salary regardless of where they're working though.
| So they would indeed be more likely to get laid off, as
| they cost the same amount but haven't developed those in-
| person relationships with the decision-maker.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Excuse me? I expect to be paid more because unlike on
| site workers i deliver more work and of higher quality.
| Also i play less sleazy politics and do less decision
| maker boot leaking.
| JauntTrooper wrote:
| I've definitely noticed a shift in the investment banking
| industry over the past two months.
|
| Upper management is being much more assertive in their push to
| get everyone back in the office, away from the current 'hybrid
| 3-day a week but not really enforced' model to 'we need
| everyone back 5 days a week in all hands on deck mode to
| navigate the coming recession.'
| ahtihn wrote:
| What did we learn? That you're not more likely to be laid off
| if you're remote? I don't think there's enough data on that yet
| as there haven't been all that many layoffs since covid.
| vogt wrote:
| It seems like every day there is a new article on Business
| Insider or Forbes or Fortune about how remote workers are the
| scourge of all things workplace related. Almost feels like a
| semi coordinated push from executives (especially those with
| commercial real estate interests in one form or another) to pay
| to have stories in these outlets to shift the hive mind in a
| direction that favors them.
| chucksta wrote:
| As a millennial I appreciate the "cause of doom" distraction
| some
| gamechangr wrote:
| I agree...I've wondered who is sponsoring all these articles?
| a_techwriter_00 wrote:
| Marketwatch is a subsidiary of Dow Jones which is a
| subsidiary of News Corp, which also owns Fox News, the Wall
| Street Journal, and Investor's Business Daily, among
| others.
| permo-w wrote:
| to simplify this, they're all owned by the Murdochs
| revlolz wrote:
| If we go down this rabbit hole everything is owned by 7
| companies.
| jfghi wrote:
| I wonder. It seems as though historically commercial real
| estate is a gigantic industry with strong relationships to
| other industries. Anecdotally it seems as though companies
| that lease their real estate have been much more inclined
| towards wfh.
| vkou wrote:
| Nobody is sponsoring those articles, they are simply
| writing what their readers want to hear, which becomes a
| self-fulfilling prophecy.
|
| Much like when the papers write so much nationalistic tripe
| that the people reading them actually start both believing
| it, and expecting it.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| > writing what their readers want to hear
|
| No, they're writing what gets clicks or shifts papers.
| Saying WFH is bad pleases a (large) subset of managers
| and enrages a lot of the rank and file, but they all
| click. So that's what they write.
| esel2k wrote:
| Not only pleasing managers. I feel as well a certain envy
| from people who can't work remotely, that find pleasure
| in seeing such articles.
|
| And I say that as someone working in tech missing the
| office.
| francisofascii wrote:
| It is not just commercial real estate. If you think about it,
| there are several market segments that benefit from people
| commuting. Transportation infrastructure companies, car
| manufactures, office supplies, oil companies, etc.
| chadlavi wrote:
| Not so sure about "semi"
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| I have a conspiracy theory that collusion is exactly what's
| going on here, and not just with the "back to the office"
| push, but also with how kafkaesque the hiring process has
| gotten.
|
| With remote work, an employee can work multiple jobs
| simultaneously, and they're unbeholden to any one employer,
| what with how easy it is to apply and switch to a new one. So
| how do companies combat this? They introduce friction at the
| very start of the pipeline - hiring. Multiple rounds of oral
| exams, take-home exams, leetcode questions that can only be
| answered with weeks or months of deliberate studying
| (something an already-employed person has little time for) -
| flaming hoops galore. They'll still compete with one another,
| sure, but they've found it's in their best interests if they
| all agree to hire in this kind of fraudulent manner.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| It is plausible, but at least the medium and small fish in
| the pond seem to be doing it out of typical human stupidity
| rather than a conscious effort. Or worse, they try to
| imitate the big fish.
| eastbound wrote:
| I'm all for hiring employees without interviews. Most of
| them will quit their job, work for me one day, then
| stress out because they didn't match.
|
| So, out of respect, I do perform tests.
|
| But some employees who seem perfectly good during tests
| come into the company with plenty of grammar mistakes,
| then I notice that they only master the surface of
| everything and they get fired.
|
| I should charge employees for passing my exams, since it
| lowers the risk of misadventures. I'm so tired of this
| "Employers are evil" trope often suffixed with "because
| going to a coding interview is like working for free."
|
| I should do lengthy tests just to filter out stingy
| employees. (and I talk as someone who gave a 78% raise to
| one employee who's been here 10 months, and 30% to the
| other).
| skyyler wrote:
| Doing deliberately lengthy tests doesn't filter out
| stingy employees, it filters out employees with self-
| respect.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| I fear that's exactly what an employer wants. They get
| more hours for less money out of an employee like that.
| f1shy wrote:
| I do think like you, but working in many places at the same
| time would not be possible in many countries, just because
| of tax declaration.
|
| But yes, I think it cannot be coincidence all those
| articles pushing the back to the office, when (at least
| what I have seen) the productivity has undoubtedly raised.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > because of tax declaration.
|
| Can you expand upon this?
| px1999 wrote:
| In Australia employees provide a form to their employer
| which is basically "set aside tax from my pay as though
| this is my only source of income" vs "tax me at a higher
| rate".
|
| IIRC the wording on the form is simplified to make it
| seem like the question is "do you have another source of
| income?"
| mywittyname wrote:
| That makes sense. In the USA, we can just specify
| additional withholding without any justification. This
| can be the result of other income (stocks included), but
| also due to people having a working spouse.
| rnk wrote:
| A company could see you are working at multiple places,
| but the tax authorities could say you can't work multiple
| full time jobs maybe? In the us I bet you could just do
| it. You'd have opt out of those horrible places where
| companies want to share your salary info. I really can't
| believe that is actually legal still, even though I know
| it is since my own salary history was mostly there.
| Little companies like startups I have worked in didn't do
| that.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Tax authorities never prevent you from doing it. You
| might have to file some more forms though.
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| Or, it could jsut be that middle managers are extroverted
| and extremely desperate for social engagement, like in
| meetings because they have no life outside of work. Harsh,
| I know. but, several friends i have that are managers
| admitted to me that they felt the covid lock downs were
| hard on them because they couldn't see or interact with
| anyone in person.
| mandelbrotwurst wrote:
| Yeah, maybe also those folks are the target audience and
| enjoy reading content that reinforces their way of thinking?
| the_watcher wrote:
| It's pretty obvious when you look at who is quoted in these
| articles that someone is paying for at least one PR push
| related to this. PG wrote about how this works in one of his
| older essays, in fact:
| http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| picsao wrote:
| [deleted]
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Eh over 50% of CEOs are useless anyways and were simply there
| since the markets were going up.
| mikkergp wrote:
| > Nine in ten CEOs in the U.S. (91%) believe a recession will
| arrive in the coming 12 months
|
| aren't we in a recession?
|
| In America, half of the CEOs (51%) say they're considering
| workforce reductions during the next six months
|
| CEO's consider a lot of things, might be nice to see a graph of
| this over time.
| diceduckmonk wrote:
| I just searched "are we in a recession" on Google. Seems like a
| popular enough question yet Google doesn't directly provide any
| context-aware answers next to the "people also ask" box nor
| "enriched and interactive search results".
| sangnoir wrote:
| The fact that people are asking, to me, is proof that we're
| not definitively in one. Of we were, people wouldn't be
| asling about it.
| philovivero wrote:
| We are in a recession. Unless the redefinition of the word is
| successful, and there's a strong push to redefine the word.
|
| So you're going to see some confusion on this topic until the
| politics around it settle down a bit.
| [deleted]
| sneeze-slayer wrote:
| The US is officially in a recession when the National Bureau of
| Economic Research says we are. Two quarters of shrinking GDP is
| often used as a heuristic but other factors like duration and
| intensity are included as well. Sometimes labor and
| unemployment data gets corrected months later, so it is
| sometimes the case that a recession is not official until it
| has already passed.
|
| Basically, in the US, we are in a recession when the Business
| Cycle Dating Committee says so.
|
| https://www.nber.org/research/business-cycle-dating
| nostromo wrote:
| Ah yes, the self-appointed, private, and secretive cabal of
| folks that decided they would be arbiters of truth, NBER.
|
| Here's the thing -- there is no "official" or "legal"
| definition of recession in the United States. Yes, you'll
| hear regulators and politicians defer to NBER, but that's it.
|
| The most common definition used by economists and the
| financial industry is the same one used world-wide: two
| quarters of negative growth. And by that measure we're in a
| recession.
| brainphreeze wrote:
| We're not "officially" in a recession because the midterms
| are just around the corner. The numbers they use to judge
| inflation, GDP, recession are all fudged for political
| purposes. I don't need some greased politician or partisan
| body to tell me that.
|
| This would be the same regardless of which party were in
| power, the government lies.
| Victerius wrote:
| Show your evidence that the official consumer price index
| and gross domestic product are wrong.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| So Hurricane Ian hit Florida, is it a disaster? Legally it
| isn't a disaster until the governor signs the disaster
| declaration.
|
| Similarly are we in a recession? Legally the National Bureau of
| Economic Research gets to make that call. The rule of thumb is
| it gets called when for consecutive quarters of GDP
| contraction. However they have said they refuse to call it
| because unemployment is low and wages are doing well.
|
| So you can call it whatever you like, legally it is just
| another day.
| danrocks wrote:
| As of October 2023, 100% of CEOs are considering something.
| [deleted]
| bpodgursky wrote:
| 50% of Americans are considering going on a diet within the next
| 6 months.
| [deleted]
| yrgulation wrote:
| " One caveat for people who like working from home: Remote
| workers may find it in their best interest to show their faces in
| the office as their job security becomes more uncertain."
|
| We need a mechanism for scrutinising these media workers. They
| negatively influence our daily lives and are as much if not more
| corrupt than politicians. Wondering how much bribe marketwatch
| took for slipping in this crap?
| thedangler wrote:
| I bet the CEO's will take record bonuses too while everyone
| bleeds.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Including shareholders.
|
| https://cooleypubco.com/2016/07/25/new-study-shows-inverse-c...
| vorticalbox wrote:
| I wonder how many CEOs would consider cutting pays of the highest
| paid employees in order to not have to cut jobs at all.
| pGuitar wrote:
| only the sane ones (probably a lot less then 50%)
| chasd00 wrote:
| Cut the pay of your highest paid and they'll just leave and go
| somewhere that won't cut their pay. At my last job I saw that
| writing on the wall and left. That company slowly imploded over
| the next year all the while steadily cutting everyone's pay
| promising a turn around each quarter. I saved probably a 100k
| by leaving let alone what I added with the new job.
| jedberg wrote:
| I would posit that no matter what the economy looks like, CEOs
| are always considering job cuts in the next six months.
| silisili wrote:
| Of course. I'd argue that any CEO worth his or her salt should
| -always- leave it on the table as an option and evaluate from
| time to time(6 months sounds fair enough). Not that I'm a fan
| of layoffs, but no company can be successful if their position
| is 'no layoffs, ever.'
|
| In other words, the headline means less than nothing.
| gumby wrote:
| Contrarian view:
|
| 1 - Hire assuming people work < 8 hr day. 2 - Don't overburden
| them. 3 - Don't try to drive hyper-productivity. 4 - Do manage
| people for results; counsel those who are not performing at
| level* and yes, fire them if you can't help them get going.
|
| * See point 2
|
| Results (in my experience):
|
| A - Less turnover B - Better quality (because people have time to
| think; less technical debt because less "I'm exhausted so let's
| just ship it" C - People have useful ideas because they have some
| time to think D - Customers happier; revenue more dependable E -
| in the inevitable but _rare_ times there is a crunch people are
| more likely to have the energy for it and understand why /how it
| happened.
|
| At least, this has always worked for me, as some other HN
| commenters can corroborate.
| indus wrote:
| I just surveyed my office dwellers and got this:
|
| "92% of WeWork users are considering upgrading their home
| Internet speeds."
| pkrumins wrote:
| I'll be hiring!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-05 23:01 UTC)