Comments
skytomorrownow t1_j8gctdf wrote
> Outcomes that look like efficiency are achieved by
... reclassifying your toxic chemical train as non-toxic to save money–it probably won't derail and poison several counties.
Champagne_of_piss t1_j8go2ji wrote
Isn't it weird how people keep doing crimes in order to achieve greater profit?
smarmageddon t1_j8gpt5l wrote
It's almost like it's more acceptable these days.
Champagne_of_piss t1_j8gtp28 wrote
That's what no consequences gets you!
tictaxtoe t1_j8hs0or wrote
Have you heard of Enron, or any of the wild west shit that used to happen? It's still acceptable these days, not more acceptable.
Ok-Welder-4816 t1_j8h0w9q wrote
It was much more of a free-for-all in the early 1900's, probably all the way up until the 80's. Like not even close.
andytronic t1_j8huk1z wrote
We shouldn't strive for better if it was worse in the past?
garlicroastedpotato t1_j8gesjc wrote
I don't think this is correct. There's a lot you can do by shifting people around and tightening up efficiency... but ultimately you can have multiple jobs that could be combined into one. In large corporate culture a lot of people survive by hiding and acting as though they have more work than they actually do.
There's only so much efficiency you can purchase and it has a cost. If you can purchase a 30% efficiency by updating a software... it means you would need 30% less people to do the same job.
We're about to hit a lull in tech where it won't be expanding largely due to a lack of investable opportunities. A lot of these tech companies have been trying to recreate the wheel on a number of products and basically about a thousand of them are all market losers all at once. Tightening up their operations will mean shelving a lot of projects that are going nowhere.
Could you imagine how much money Google could have saved if they shelved Stadia right away? Or how much money Facebook would be ahead if they never engaged in the Metaverse? There's all sorts of large projects you can just shelf in these companies that have no real value. Those employees can be reassigned to other tasks... but more likely getting rid of them and making them reapply is simpler.
yesbillyitsme t1_j8gr0cm wrote
Here’s the thing that gets me though, so many of these places have cash. Apple can’t just tell me they can’t eat salary for 2,000 employees for 5 years while weathering until the next cycle.
Like I respect your view, but realize you’re parroting corporate defined normalcy; “This is just how things work”.
But why. Apple has trillions in cash. Trillions. Payroll and OM costs for a decade of 2,000 employees isn’t going to make a dent into a trillion dollars.
dantheman91 t1_j8grdej wrote
yesbillyitsme t1_j8gthfb wrote
Microsoft’s had 10,000 layoffs
I did an intuit calc that was generous, and ended with a cost of $387k/employee as a hypothetical.
That’s $3.87 billion for a company with $99b in the bank, that just bought activistion for $70m.
So you can’t float $3.87b for a year or two, freeze hiring and move people around?
To put it into perspective, would you find it selfish if a local Small business had $1m in cash, and it cost them $40,000 to keep 10,000 people employed?
Yeah people would riot.
When you scale it to working class numbers, you can see it’s a slap in the face of corporate propaganda
systemfrown t1_j8h4lf8 wrote
And it’s not like you don’t get something for that $3.87B (or whatever it is)…send them off to innovate or optimize existing products. Every one of these large companies has neglected technical or operational debt that they’re ignoring and need to catch up on.
srram t1_j8h4ejm wrote
Think activision was 70B not 70M
dantheman91 t1_j8gu1aj wrote
I was literally only pointing out that your numbers weren't accurate.
At the end of the day, the company has a duty to it's shareholders. If they could complete the same work with 90% of the workforce, shouldn't they?
yesbillyitsme t1_j8gunrj wrote
It doesn’t have a duty to shareholders… shareholders choose the company and accept risk.
cbr777 t1_j8hcbjb wrote
The shareholders own the company and the company has whatever duty its owners decide for it and I'm fairly sure none of them think being a charity for tech workers is one of them.
dantheman91 t1_j8gw6ns wrote
>It doesn’t have a duty to shareholders
Legally it does
yesbillyitsme t1_j8gxd2y wrote
Emphasis because people need to wake the fuck up and learn the truth instead of perpetuating corporate propaganda
dantheman91 t1_j8irzsb wrote
That is not what I said. I said they have a duty to their shareholders, to act in their best interest, not to maximize profits. You're incorrectly putting words in my mouth.
[deleted] t1_j8gwkpd wrote
[removed]
KingRBPII t1_j8hu01p wrote
Combining multiple jobs into one may lead to burnout
garlicroastedpotato t1_j8iotrq wrote
I'm not talking about combining a bunch of random jobs. I'm talking about combining like-jobs for people who have free time while working.
Agreeable_Company372 t1_j8g7auv wrote
Efficiency comes from people caring about being better each day. Most people don't they just want the paycheck.
Darkstar_k t1_j8i21pi wrote
MOST people working at cutthroat FAANG jobs don’t work hard? where’d you pull that from
Gold_Sky3617 t1_j8ivo6m wrote
That’s not what that post says. It’s not about working hard. You can work hard to do what you’re asked to do even if what you’re asked to do is not efficient.
Developer gets asked to create something stupid. They know it’s stupid but they get paid for it being built so they do it and move on because they don’t really care about the end product.
Versus
Developer gets asked to create something stupid and they turn that request into something more useful.
In both cases the person is working hard and earning their paycheck but one actually cares and one doesn’t. It’s very common for people in tech to work hard at delivering what they are asked to deliver but providing truly good solutions usually requires that workers actually care enough to fight for the best possible end product.
aws2gcp t1_j8jabep wrote
I'll agree but with the added comment that even someone working 50-60 hours a week will never have the time they'd like to make a high quality end product. Even with good tools and a knowledgeable employee, software is extremely complex and time-consuming.
So, you have to chose your battles. It's not always a matter of "caring" - sometimes, it's just a matter of time management.
Gold_Sky3617 t1_j8jcfn6 wrote
Yeah totally agree. My example was not nuanced. Just to demonstrate that hard working does not necessarily mean that a person cares.
Because systems are so complex this really has become a huge problem. Major disconnects exist between what companies ask for, what devs build, and what end users actually care about. I totally get why a dev wouldn’t want to fight every battle but it’s become increasingly common for nobody to fight any battles and the end product just ends up sucking even though everyone on the project worked hard and did what they were supposed to do.
Agreeable_Company372 t1_j8kjkwh wrote
I don't work at FAANG but does seem there is a lot of people who don't really have to do much to keep their jobs. Massive companies make it easy to hide.
WinterStar38655 t1_j8hmcn9 wrote
Reddit moment.
Meta has been practically disneyland for employees the last few years. The employee benefits alone prob cost as much as the median wage + benefits in many other companies. They def have a lot of leeway to improve on efficiency.
WinterStar38655 t1_j8hmygc wrote
Not to mention, outside of the very expensive benefits that FB offers, they have very high salaries. The median salary at FB including non tech roles is $240,000. No one complains when they get offered omega bucks ("I know my worth") but it is haram for the company to want more efficiency? 🤔
Darkstar_k t1_j8i32p6 wrote
You think 240,000k is a lot, but obviously the employees don’t. They are adept enough to understand profit margins. They negotiated for their position - you should realize that they are at the top of their field, globally.
Don’t take my word for it - look at the article. She abandoned ship. She was likely banking 1m total comp yearly.
Can you see the whole picture now? Do you see the pattern? Company is successful, company sells out to shareholders, product tanks, company finds niche or sells. The only ones who win long term are the shareholders.
Apply game theory and stop parroting corporate-speak and you might find your own path to wealth.
MakingMoves2022 t1_j8i88h6 wrote
1m TC would be whatever level is above director, not a C-suite. She made even more than that. Maybe 1m base.
WinterStar38655 t1_j8ic8dv wrote
I am not "parroting corporate speak", I am denouncing your generic nonsense.
This lady made $26.5 million last year and there is no indication she is leaving because of pay.
FB is literally at the top when it comes to pay or investment.
You are just repeating nonsense about investing instead of cutting costs. While FB is investing and trying to get back to their pre pandemic efficiency levels.
A company with 72 K employees has a median salary of 240K usd (not including similarly highly paid contractors) but it is too much of a request to be as efficient as they were before they bloated during the pandemic? This is not a dickward "we are all family" company that pays its employees 40K/year while the ceo pays himself 100 million that is cutting costs so that the ceo and his buddies get an additional yatch this year.
Also btw, FB employees def don't think it is "not enough". That is literally the top reason they are there. Remember how I said that is median income. Most software engineers get paid a lot more.
WinterStar38655 t1_j8icxlk wrote
I was wrong they had 87,000 employees before layoffs. And now have laid off 11,000.
Company is even more massive than I thought.
2019- 44,942 employees
2020- 58,604 employees
2021- 71,970 employees
2022- 87,314 employees
So they doubled over the pandemic
leidend22 t1_j8hxbz2 wrote
Lick them boots
WinterStar38655 t1_j8i2ftj wrote
So you have no substantiative response? 😂
GearhedMG t1_j8j2qst wrote
Generally what focusing on efficiency means getting rid of low performing (not necessarily people not doing work, its just the lowest numbers) workers, and dumping that responsibility on those that are left, thus eventually creating burn out in those left which become the next group of low performing workers, and the cycle continues.
Vote_nihilist t1_j8fr6wy wrote
I guess she wasn't leaning in enough!
FlatAssembler t1_j8hnqzw wrote
What does "lean in" mean? "Lean" means "to rotate around your bottom", and "in" means "inside"... The phrase makes no sense.
Kontu t1_j8hw554 wrote
"be in or move into a sloping position." Is another definition for lean. You can lean in / lean forward to show being more engaged in a conversation or topic.
cesarxp2 t1_j8i321t wrote
You tried bro
l33tWarrior t1_j8kkjay wrote
Seinfeld finger and a twist
[deleted] t1_j8i50yj wrote
[removed]
NoPoliticsAllisGood t1_j8fnlnk wrote
Why is efficiency in quotations?
Shopworn_Soul t1_j8g781b wrote
Zuck pissed billions of dollars into a strong wind with nothing to show for it. Now he's concerned that parts of the company with actual deliverables are spending too much money so he's packing some cash back into the ledger at the expense of around eleven thousand people who didn't fuck up as badly as he did.
It's in quotations because actual efficiency has nothing to do with it. It's just the word he's chosen to use.
ohpeekaboob t1_j8gfgna wrote
Bingo! Left there but was part of the company that, you know, actually made money. Kind of crazy that they blew so much a year on vaporware and then had the balls to cut people in f'king ads of all places.
SquiffSquiff t1_j8hc3bf wrote
Inside Zuck's own head he's a genius, it's just that the rest of us just haven't realised it yet. It's only outside of it that he's an advertising exec who got lucky that one time.
mtsmash91 t1_j8g14q8 wrote
Because cutting cost to give the illusion of “efficiency” doesn’t yield said “efficiencies”
jamrealm t1_j8ghxgr wrote
Because it is a quote.
Kontu t1_j8hw6oi wrote
Because they say efficiency but they're doing really inefficient ways
EnakSum t1_j8h2ccd wrote
I honestly hope that Meta just crumbles under their own weight. They acquired all these other apps, and this Meta company that they can't run like their original platform. They are fucked, or, at least I hope they are.
k8ho2b4e t1_j8hn7lx wrote
A highly profitable company with billions in cash flow and cash on hand, effectively no debt, and billions of active users is fucked?
Lol.
DEEP_COP t1_j8h5v85 wrote
Why do you want one of the pioneers in social media to die ? Any particular reason ?
ComicOzzy t1_j8hg3su wrote
Aren't they complicit in Burmese genocide? Oh no that's right... "We aren't responsible for what people do on our platform."
zen-poster-34 t1_j8j34jz wrote
Do you blame the tool more or the person using it? The knife or the stabber?
ComicOzzy t1_j8jius8 wrote
A knife manufacturer does not profit with each successful piercing of flesh the way FaceBook does. FaceBook acts with the resources of nation states as if it is one. It has seen how data from its platform is used, issued worthless statements of apology, and continued supplying the data and the platform to those who are abusing the platform for horrific goals. FB is aware of this. They are supporting it. Profit is all that matters. Humans are products.
zen-poster-34 t1_j8l8qt9 wrote
If no social media sites existed, they would be sending emails or dropping leaflets. Go after printing companies next? Or find the idiot distributing this garbage and jail him?
ComicOzzy t1_j8lyagv wrote
Social media is such a completely different animal to emails and leaflets. And no, you don't go after them "instead". But they should have some oversight, rules, consequences. Whether you build a house or high rise apartment building, in most countries there are engineering and safety standards that must be followed. The government is involved to protect people. This doesn't exist for social media platforms. Not in any real, meaningful way.
rysworld t1_j8sh9ed wrote
You're like the invert of a luddite- someone who insists the march of technology doesn't change anything at all, actually, everything is the same as it was. Absolutely bizarre take.
zen-poster-34 t1_j8shp6b wrote
It's only bizarre because you're completely missing the point. Bad actors always find a way.
user4517proton t1_j8h2q94 wrote
Facebook made a big mistake on shifting to the metaverse. All the focus is on AI co-pilots in multiple areas, and they are faking animations of Zukkerturd jumping in a cartoon. Personally, I hope goes the of AOL.
Fasthands007 t1_j8hrpp7 wrote
People need to understand almost each time these people aren’t voluntarily leaving they are getting laid off but they have the benefit of having the story spun with great PR. I work in the finance dept for a big tech firm and all the C suite that left had severance agreements given to them but they go on slack and give a story that they are stepping down
mapoftasmania t1_j8hw6kp wrote
We really have no idea though. She could easily have another job to go to and is “staying until the summer” because she has to give six months notice, which is common in senior roles.
American_Greed t1_j8gnvh6 wrote
Have they also announced that "privacy doesn't matter [anymore]"?
hamsterpotpies t1_j8gt03r wrote
When did they announce it did?
American_Greed t1_j8hgsni wrote
hamsterpotpies t1_j8jim2i wrote
Glad to know Facebook gets to say when my privacy started. Ha, thanks for this.
aloofman75 t1_j8h4lvd wrote
One less experienced employee to pay. Efficiency!
Ok_Marionberry_9932 t1_j8i3glu wrote
If you want efficiency start with losing Zuk
Rycan420 t1_j8i9hta wrote
What’s Kristen Wiig doing?
[deleted] t1_j8gxfcn wrote
[deleted]
molecat1 t1_j8kh27m wrote
Efficiency is achieved through motivation (personal stake) and positive incentives…or through automation, take your pick.
[deleted] t1_jab46tl wrote
[removed]
Karmadilla t1_j8ga09z wrote
Sounds like she doesn’t want to actually do work. It’s been a gravy train and she knows she’ll be let go.
djkuhl t1_j8g964o wrote
Huge complications for anyone leaving Meta after 2020. Lots of tech companies have people like that on hiring black lists. Wonder if she's staying in tech or retiring early.
turtlespy965 t1_j8gswzw wrote
She made 20 million+ last year. She's doing whatever she wants. Also the blacklist is made up.
Back_2_monke t1_j8h7rfr wrote
A list of people who have left tech giants like Meta regardless of reason would be a tech recruiters wet dream, I have no idea why people believe this blacklist rumor
Do you also think it looks bad on the worker to declare they've been laid off and that it will keep you from being hired, like half of my LinkedIn feed?
[deleted] t1_j8gop1f wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j8fldv3 wrote
[removed]
Shavethatmonkey t1_j8facu2 wrote
She wants no part of that sinking ship or that asshat Musk.
Ojisan1 t1_j8faosm wrote
> She wants no part of that sinking ship or that asshat Musk.
A swing and a miss.
Meta is Zuck
1should_be_working t1_j8fwk99 wrote
To be fair, Zuck is also an asshat. Just a different asshat.
blahreport t1_j8fetrw wrote
> She wants no part of that sinking ship or that asshat Musk.
I thought I am the biggest Musk hater but you see Musk like Cole Sear sees dead people. Outstanding!
Materia99 t1_j8g3x63 wrote
Musk doesn’t own Meta. Zuckerberg is the one who own Meta.
Darkstar_k t1_j8fol8g wrote
I wouldn’t want to work let alone run a company that’s cutting costs either.
Actual efficiency comes from investing. Outcomes that look like efficiency are achieved by firing thousands of workers or paying politicians.