Google Institutional Investor Calls For 30K Jobs Cut 135
The billionaire hedge fund manager that runs a major Google investor isn't satisfied with the record 12,000 redundancies the US tech giant is making, and wants to see thousands more forced out of the organization. From a report: Estimated to be worth around $8 billion, Sir Christopher Hohn reportedly paid himself $1.8 million a day last year and is the boss of The Children's Investment Fund. He had already agitated for change in November when he implored Google execs to cut costs by reducing headcount, paying staff less, and killing off profitless business.
Whether Google listened to TCI Fund or not is a moot point, but Sundar Pichai last week confirmed that 12,000 of its employees were to be booted because it hired heavily during the pandemic for a "different economic reality to the one we face today." Yesterday, he told a town hall meeting of Googlers that not hiring risked losing business. Google's workforce went from 120,000 in 2020 to nearly 187,000 at the end of September, and it is now under pressure due to slowing sales and shrinking profits. Hohn at TCI now wants to see even more dramatic action taken by senior management. "Over the last five years, [Google parent] Alphabet has more than doubled its headcount, adding over 100,000 employees, of which over 30,000 were added in the first nine months of 2022 alone," he said in the latest letter to Pichai. Hohn adds, "The decision to cut 12,000 jobs is a step in the right direction, but it does not even reverse the very strong headcount growth of 2022. Ultimately management will need to go further. [...] Importantly, management should also take the opporunity to address excessive employee compensation. The media salary at Alphabet in 2021 amounted to nearly $300,000, and the average salary is much higher. "
Whether Google listened to TCI Fund or not is a moot point, but Sundar Pichai last week confirmed that 12,000 of its employees were to be booted because it hired heavily during the pandemic for a "different economic reality to the one we face today." Yesterday, he told a town hall meeting of Googlers that not hiring risked losing business. Google's workforce went from 120,000 in 2020 to nearly 187,000 at the end of September, and it is now under pressure due to slowing sales and shrinking profits. Hohn at TCI now wants to see even more dramatic action taken by senior management. "Over the last five years, [Google parent] Alphabet has more than doubled its headcount, adding over 100,000 employees, of which over 30,000 were added in the first nine months of 2022 alone," he said in the latest letter to Pichai. Hohn adds, "The decision to cut 12,000 jobs is a step in the right direction, but it does not even reverse the very strong headcount growth of 2022. Ultimately management will need to go further. [...] Importantly, management should also take the opporunity to address excessive employee compensation. The media salary at Alphabet in 2021 amounted to nearly $300,000, and the average salary is much higher. "
for the people that are left 50-60 Hours will be t (Score:2)
for the people that are left 50-60 Hours an week will be the basic level we want out of out.
And at times be ready to put in 80-90
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot force knowledge workers to be productive with overtimes. The only result of (big) overtimes over extended period is that the workforce will be goofing off while on clock.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice FP, though I think that long working hours will be optional. At least for the employees who are able to devise new automated systems to support more job cuts.
Much as I enjoy all of my computerized toys and the Internet and all that jazz, I'm beginning to think the Luddites were onto something.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. For the first time in my life, I've recently began to think that maybe the Amish had the right ideas all along.
Re: (Score:3)
Mostly the ACK, though I'm inclined to think the Amish are going too far in a negative direction. (My low regard for religion?)
Re: (Score:2)
They were also into cross dressing...
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm... I don't remember that bit. Just came across some stuff about the leader. But now I can't even recall if his first name was Ned...
But on this story, I remembered an anecdote I should have included. Did you know how IBM got through the Great Depression without firing anyone? As I heard the story, they transferred lots of people into sales, and what they were selling was mostly labor-saving devices for the offices that would let other companies fire more employees.
Re: (Score:3)
https://dustyoldthing.com/ludd... [dustyoldthing.com]
Luddites sometimes dressed in women’s clothes to play the role of Ned Ludd’s wife during protests. Via: Wiki Commons [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They could also decide to just reduce spending at Google and focus on their core products.
One of the critical questions for a company like Google is whether they should be focused on dividends to investors or future growth. 81.3% of Google's revenue came from advertising in 2021. I doubt 81.3% of their expenses are related to search and advertising. A Business Insider article [businessinsider.com] mentioned an estimate for online advertising's profit margin of 55%. That is about $82 billion they could be paying out in dividends
Re: (Score:2)
LOL no. Google employees won't be doing that. If Google fires them there are countless other companies that will hire them, and at a higher salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you believe what those other companies are saying that a recession is coming up which is why they're laying off people.
Either that, or we'll still hear companies whine they can't find people to fill jobs.
Take your pick.
Re: (Score:2)
If a hiring decision is made purely on the last place someone worked, you must hire some pretty shitty people.
I know several useless engineers that got hired at Google over the last 5 years so they could make a career out of doing the absolute minimum and hiding in the herd. They couldn't get away with it in smaller organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you don't go to work for the shiny tech company - they know they're shiny and they're going to abuse you.
Find a funded startup that's been around a few years and has a good revenue stream and chunk of cash in the bank - you'll get comparable salary and benefits that matter, and usually a whole lot less bullshit and overreaching expectations. And, very likely an organization that respects individuals and their time far more than Google will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: for the people that are left 50-60 Hours will (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: for the people that are left 50-60 Hours will (Score:4, Insightful)
even Google has problems with remote workers wanting to stay remote
That's because even Google has problems dealing with the inescapable truth of a Bay Area commute to Mountain View:
- commuting through horrible traffic, multiplied by distance from where you can afford to live, eating 2+ hours of your day, every day
- more comfort and convenience working from home office, combined with having 2+ more hours of your day for sleep / kids / pets / recreation / day-to-day chores / etc.
- less cognitive load working from home office, where you have a better chance of controlling interruptions and context switches from Chatty Patty walking over and talking your ear off about shit you don't care about
- less personal expense from commuting (fuel cost, possible bridge tolls, parking hassles and cost depending on location of work, less risk of auto break-in / theft)
There are others. No amount of free soda, chair massages, organized yoga, and parking lot oil changes are going to make up for those.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a lot more going on than just cheap coffee and a few yoga mats at some of these places and Google is no exception. I've actually worked at a few, including one company that really went overboard trying to be a "lifestyle" rather than an actual workplace. They burned massive piles of cash every month on everything from free lunch and dinner catering, free breakfast food, free car washes in the parking lot, free treadmills under people's desks, expensive motorized sit/stand desks, and a host of other
Re: for the people that are left 50-60 Hours will (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot more going on than just cheap coffee and a few yoga mats at some of these places and Google is no exception. I've actually worked at a few, including one company that really went overboard trying to be a "lifestyle" rather than an actual workplace. They burned massive piles of cash every month on everything from free lunch and dinner catering, free breakfast food, free car washes in the parking lot, free treadmills under people's desks, expensive motorized sit/stand desks, and a host of other frivolous things. They had an arcade room complete with pool tables and air hockey as well as a number of cabinet video games, soda vending machines that dispensed free drinks, several beer coolers on every floor stocked with expensive, boutique craft beers. There would be a weekly massage session, company paid yoga sessions, and quarterly company sponsored "team building" events where some blowhard motivational speaker came in to waste everyone's time. There were even nap rooms complete with massage chairs.
All of the luxuries you just described is a rounding error for google's $257 billion (with a B) in revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the luxuries you just described is a rounding error for google's $257 billion (with a B) in revenue.
Definitely not. All those things add up. It's definitely more than say, 2% of the employees' salaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Alphabet just sent roughly 6% of its workforce packing, or about 12,000 jobs across the board of all its subsidiary companies. That doesn't strike me as something a company does to correct a "rounding error". I would also say that given the size of Alphabet and all its subsidiaries combined that the frivolous luxuries and perks represent a cost to the company as a whole is much larger than something you can pass off as a trivial expense.
My prior "lifestyle" employer I mentioned was probably ripping through
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
why is an investor allowed to be entitled but the employee is not?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not but I've learned over the years that when someone tells you exactly what they are then you should probably believe them. I suppose you think investors should be happy when their investment is lit on fire in front of their faces?
The perks at Google and other places are intended to keep people there and working and to stay there instead of going to a competitor or leaving at 5pm. All that crap costs them almost nothing and has chumps from all over the world killing their mothers to land a job there.
Half the perks are for show...recruitment only (Score:4, Insightful)
There's been a very visible and growing trend the past several months of regular Big Tech employees (especially Google) posting videos online of what their day at work is like. Latte's, the yoga class, the meditation room and other endless time-wasters. Maybe an hour meeting where nothing of substance is discussed. Just to brag I guess?
Maybe there's a lesson there.
Nearly every tech company offers stuff like that. It's a recruiting tool. I've never seen most of those items used extensively, even at Google, Microsoft, and Facebook...at least where I live. We have a break room with dusty, pristine XBoxes and some arcades. I've never actually seen them used during business hours. I've honestly never seen them used at all, but I don't have the luxury of time to hang around in a break room after 6PM.
HR thinks seeing a break room with a foosball table and XBos will entice 22yo grads to pick them over a boring insurance company or legacy non-tech employer. Only an idiot would play video games during business hours.
Free meals? That's a great perk, but quite expensive. Good coffee? That is actually essential. It doesn't have to be the best coffee in the world, but any employer that uses Keurig is an idiot. You want your employees to be wired out of the gourds. You don't want them leaving the office to go to Starbucks. So smart companies at least get nice coffeemakers that grind beans and make a decent cup of coffee...as good as my $100 home coffee maker with $10/lb beans.
As others have stated, these lifestyle perks are recruitment tools and frequently underutilized. It's advertising because there is a global talent shortage. Financial firms? They don't have a shortage filling most positions, so their perks are more reasonable. Google wants top minds going to Google...not MS, not Morgan Stanley, not GE, not IBM....so they compete with both pay and perks. Pay eliminates IBM, GE, insurance companies, etc...however, they're still competing with financial firms. Financial firms, like Morgan Stanley, aren't giving you free gourmet lunch or coffee (TMK)...but they could afford to pay more if they really wanted to. The perks are to compete with Morgan Stanley as well as tech companies, like Netflix, Apple, Meta, etc. You can also advertise perks. Companies choose not to advertise how much they pay.
Re: (Score:3)
> cornhole
> I'll let you take a guess how often that shit actually got used during business hours.
I don't know about your work environment. But I felt like I was cornholed 24/7.
Save The Children's (Score:5, Funny)
Won't someone think of The Children's.... Investment Fund!?
Re: (Score:2)
This man's saving the childrens. I bet he even shoots people who watch weird porn. For this we can excuse the other childrens he's stomping on with his carbon footprint.
Re:Save The Children's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On the outside looking in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: On the outside looking in (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: On the outside looking in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he forgets that those employees are doing work that brings in money for the company.
Are they, though? This is Google we're talking about - they spend more money on shit they plan to cancel in 6 months then some businesses spend on core product development.
Re: On the outside looking in (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't understand R&D investment.
It is the same concept as venture capital. Invest a little in every idea. If it seems like it might work, invest more. If it flops, stop spending money on it.
It only takes one success to pay for all of the flops. So far Google has had several successes.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I understand it. And that was my point. This dipshit "activist investor" doesn't have anywhere near the level of information he needs to be declaring that Google should cut 70k employees. He doesn't know what any of those people are working on, where any of that fits into future product roadmaps, or even existing product maintenance and development which keeps the money flowing in.
He's a total fuckwit who is concerned that his investment isn't growing in value at the rate HE wants, so he's trying to
Re:On the outside looking in (Score:5, Insightful)
And he'll start divesting his shares right after the stock bump takes place. Google would be well advised to tell him to fuck right off.
Re:On the outside looking in (Score:4, Insightful)
Google has never paid a dividend on their stock. You could've bothered to look that up
Re: (Score:3)
It's the flea telling the dog it's riding on to change its diet.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only outside investor, but holds 0.27% of stock per the article.
It's the flea telling the dog it's riding on to change its diet.
The way I like to look at it is this: for every share of stock that this parasite owns, Google employees collectively own at least 10, in all likelihood.
Re: On the outside looking in (Score:2)
Re:On the outside looking in (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why you need strong employment rights. Rich arseholes should not be able to simply discard you because it makes them sightly richer for a few quarters.
Re: (Score:3)
Rich people problems (Score:2)
$300K income workers are also wealthy in the US.
That level of talent can easily migrate or, even better, form startups while enjoying their severance benefits.
Google employees are very, very far from the sharecroppers Walker Evans photographed in the Great Depression.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not supposed to be good for Google (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect what he's doing this with *all* the companies he owns. Google's just the one we heard about. He's hoping layoffs will trigger interest rate cuts, which would be substantially more valuable to him than the damage he's doing to Google and the lives of their engineers.
This is what happens when you worship the rich and let them have unlimited power. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson with the Robber Barons of the 1920s. Money is power, power corrupts. We all know that. But for some reason we're perfectly cool with one guy having this much power over us because "it's his".
Re: (Score:2)
If the part of the story about adding 67,000 jobs in the last couple of years is true, they all came from somewhere. I'm going to bet not all of their previous positions have been filled (or if they have, they made vacancies elsewhere). I doubt Google hired 67,000 people that were all new to the workforce.
All of these tech giants hired massively in the last few years and aren't even necessarily cutting back to say January 2020 levels, so there's still got to be a lot of opening elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Ex-Google employees can ALWAYS get hired some place else for great pay, regardless of the economy. Some companies will make exceptions to a hiring freeze specifically in order to obtain great employees. Google employees are almost always regarded as great.
I've been on Google's campuses (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I've been on Google's campuses (Score:4, Interesting)
The Mountain View campus and the San Francisco tower are basically resorts. I don't know how much work actually gets done there but I imagine very little, ...
I haven't experienced employment at Google specifically. But I have gone through experiences with similar employment benefits in the past. They have been a Silicon Valley tradition at least since one of the wives of the Hewitt Packard founders made a practice of stocking a refrigerator with homemade sandwiches for the workers, and they are a significant part of the Valley's success.
My rule of thumb (and I've been though this several times): When the company has been providing a free dinner (all the time or in the work crush leading up to some deadline), and the bean-counters stop this as a cost-saving measure, expect massive layoffs and/or bankrupcy protection filings within a year.
The dinners cost a bit. But it's a drop in the bucket compared to their benefits.
With the dinners, a large number of the most productive chow down and then go back to work, refreshed, often for several more hours, until at a good stopping point or too tired to continue, or sometimes just for a couple hours until rushhour traffic clears. This is very productive time, because they are already "on a roll", with "state loaded" mentally, rather than having to come up to speed again after sleep and inbound commute.
Cut off the dinners, and everybody quits and goes home or out to eat when they get hungry - and then don't come back. (Sure some of them might have been chowing down and then going right home. But that's usually only a few and they tend to be looked down on.) The workers are exempt salaried, i.e. no overtime. So it is like cutting, say, a quarter of the workforce without cutting the payroll by a cent. The cost of the dinners is a drop in the bucket by comparison.
Of course the bean-counters are mainly tempted to do this when the company is already having a financial dip that might be visible at earnings announcement time. So it's like trying to use a tanker of gasoline to put out a wastebasket fire in a lumber yard.
Basic research (Score:5, Insightful)
"...and killing off profitless business"
I'm betting that he'll happily kill off all of Google's basic research, as it's not right now turning a profit.
And then five years from now he'll trash on Google as he sells his shares, because Google isn't innovating and is being left behind in the tech sector.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Research is a "cost center" that doesn't make the company money therefore it must go. Said another person only focused on short term gains.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why smart companies don't listen to activist in(f)vestors. They are in it purely for themselves, and only while they can make money. They'd bail in an instant once the company started suffering from the cuts they demanded, on to their next fattened cow.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. Teachers should get paid $1 million .. but we don't get paid according to what we "deserve" as a human .. we get paid according to how badly someone needs us to do a service. There is no reason why a fast food worker "deserves" less pay than a senior software developer. The fast food worker might be a decent guy and the software dev might be a prick, yet society is rewarding the software dev with luxuries. That's just how the world works, we get paid based on how rare and needed our skills/talents a
Re: (Score:2)
Oops ignore downmod the above comment .. replied to the wrong comment.
He wants interest rates to go down (Score:5, Insightful)
The only question is why aren't you made that a handful of super rich assholes are trying to get you fired for no good reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, ChatGPT (Score:2)
Re: He wants interest rates to go down (Score:2)
Find me the quote where Powell actually says âoeuntil there are mass layoffs.â
He has never said that.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you defending him? Wants to get you fired too you know. I don't care if you're an American or not he wants
Re: He wants interest rates to go down (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What we can live Without. (Score:4, Informative)
"Sir Christopher Hohn reportedly paid himself $1.8 million a day last year...implored Google execs to cut costs by reducing headcount, paying staff less, and killing off profitless business."
Ah, I'm sure the fired employees who use their money to put food in their childrens mouths are welcome to cost cutting measures coming from the arrogant billionaire fuck making so much money per day he literally couldn't burn it all and keep up.
I wonder how much longer the world will continue to tolerate arrogance coming from institutions the planet can easily live without. As much collective hate is sustained against "No Evil" Google, we sure as FUCK don't need hedge funds betting against capitalist success in a corrupt attempt to define their own.
Re:What we can live Without. (Score:4, Interesting)
The owner of the restaurant told him to find somewhere else to eat, as "you're not welcome here". I hope this Sir Christopher Hohn is refused service too.
Re: (Score:3)
coming from the arrogant billionaire fuck making so much money per day he literally couldn't burn it all and keep up.
$1.8 millions a day amounts to 180 x 10K stacks of $100. Let's assume he spends just 3 hours an evening in front of a fireplace, drinking 50 year old Balvenie [binnys.com] and reading True Lovers' Knot [amazon.com] in front of the fire. That's less than one stack of $100 per minute he needs to burn. It's completely doable.
Re: What we can live Without. (Score:2)
Meanwhile, heâ(TM)s given almost as much to The Childrenâ(TM)s Investment fund as heâ(TM)s kept for himself and is considered one of the world's most generous philanthropists outside of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the few things I ever heard Bill Gates say that I wholeheartedly agree with was when he said someone like him giving millions or even billions to charity shouldn't be considered a greater philanthropist than the guy with barely enough to put food on the table giving paltry sums to the local food bank. I can't understand defending ultra-rich assholes when they make public statements that amount to, "Fuck the little guy. Let them starve. Gimme more." Do they really need more? Are they gonna die if thei
excessive employee compensation (Score:5, Funny)
It's always rich when a billionaire complains about excessive employee compensation.
Short term vs long term (Score:2)
We need to make the difference between what a company should do, versus what the cowboy investors would like to happen to temporarily decrease expenditures to make stock values go up. The latter risks forfeiting medium to long term health of a company, by losing the most important talent.
At the same time, I'd be curious to see what damage may or not be done to Google if they went with the opinions of the "billionaire hedge fund manager".
Think of the Investors (Score:5, Insightful)
Another day, more proof that late stage capitalism is in full effect.
Re: (Score:2)
The Capitalist-Democratic political economy has dramatically improved the lot of humanity across the board. Socialism has brought h
Get rid of the DEI staff (Score:3, Insightful)
Get rid of the DEI staff, they cost a lot and are a drag on productivity
Median salary 300k?! (Score:5, Interesting)
If true, that is at least 33%, and more like 50% too high.
There was a comment thread a few weeks ago discussing salary. A junior dev ought to earn under 100k. A senior dev can head towards 200k. All the clerks, data analysts, accountant and marketing types should be earning less than senior devs.
So..how can half of Googles be earning 300k or more?
Re:Median salary 300k?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Who are you to dictate what someone "should" be paid?
If you earned $300k would you be arguing that you should be paid less? Or are you the exception because your work is work that money? Half of Google is being paid $300k because it was decided that their job is worth it.
It is comical, if not downright evil that someone who is earning $500 million per year is demanding people be paid *less* or not at all.
This idea that if someone is earning more that *I* am, they clearly are overpaid or don't deserve it is there so we regulate ourselves and don't see that these gold hoarding dragons are siphoning off money that we should be rightfully be earning.
Re: (Score:2)
So..how can half of Googles be earning 300k or more?
Value of stock options due to the growth of Google's (Alphabet's) stock price. That isn't salary. Also, it is very likely that many of those employees will never see a cent of that money.
Re: (Score:2)
Value of stock options due to the growth of Google's (Alphabet's) stock price. That isn't salary. Also, it is very likely that many of those employees will never see a cent of that money.
Stock *options* or stock *grants*?
I don't know about Google, but I know that Microsoft and Meta pay in stock grants, not stock options. A stock grant is usually awarded once a year and has the form "$100k will buy 415 shares in Microsoft, so over the next five years of employment we will give you 415/5=83 shares; upon receipt of those shares you can do with them what you will, including selling them immediately." Since you get awarded a stock grant once a year, they pile up, and would average out at $100k/y
Re:Median salary 300k?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no. Teachers should get paid $1 million .. but we don't get paid according to what we "deserve" as a human .. we get paid according to how badly someone needs us to do a service. There is no reason why a fast food worker "deserves" less pay than a senior software developer. The fast food worker might be a decent guy and the software dev might be a prick, yet society is rewarding the software dev with luxuries. That's just how the world works, we get paid based on how rare and needed our skills/talents are -- other factors don't matter..
Re: (Score:2)
There was a comment thread a few weeks ago discussing salary. A junior dev ought to earn under 100k. A senior dev can head towards 200k.
Wages are a distribution, not a number. Google's HR has detailed information wage distribution in each market where it hires. Google's intent -- which they fulfilled -- is to pay at the 90th percentile. (Microsoft by contrast aims and achieves 60th percentile).
Your numbers "a junior dev ought to earn under 100k" -- are you talking about the median of that distribution, or the max, or something else? Or are you saying that Google should pay at the 50th percentile? I don't think it's even meaningful to talk a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
cost of living, was that factored anywhere in to this discussion? It makes a world of difference, you cant just throw around numbers willy nilly across the country and have them stick. If you paid a senior dev 200k in SV they should walk because they are being grossly short changed by ~100k because thats equivalent to 100k or less in the rest of the non SF/NYC areas of the country. They could be earning much more somewhere else due to cost of living
I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
As near as I know [investopedia.com], Google/Alphabet's shares are set up so that Larry and Sergei have control, full stop.
The opinions of institutional investors are just that, opinions - their voting power is nil compared to the founders.
So, why is this dude's opinion news?
Re: (Score:2)
Because "Waaaaaaaa! I'm rich!"
Compensation (Score:5, Interesting)
Importantly, management should also take the opporunity to address excessive employee compensation. The median salary at Alphabet in 2021 amounted to nearly $300,000, and the average salary is much higher.
This is some of the early consequences of California's salary transparency law. This dickhead was fine with Google's aggregate salary expenditure when he thought 90% of it was going to the top 10% most highly compensated executives. When he found out that mere plebes are being paid, now he takes issue with it.
As if $300k is some huge amount, given California prices, particularly real estate prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Billionaire, check.. Sir, check.. "philanthropist" (Score:2)
.... check
Runs a children's "aid" org.. check. The guy sounds like a trafficker for sure.
Agitator investors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Meaning (Score:3)
Competition for talent in the technology industry has fallen ...
Since employees have lost their leverage, Alphabet/Google should give more money to investors.
Note that he is demanding all well-paid employees are dismissed, not unprofitable internal business units, not the new hires but the ones who have spent years building the products, Google sells: This is MBA 101, a rule that rarely works well but is invoked when a business is out of options. He does not say why Google is out of options, which would be contrary to available data, even with a recession looming.
Woe is me! (Score:2)
Save my $1 billion, do you know how tough life is living on a mere $9 billion? Who cares if some families get into hardship and lose their home, it can't be worse than what I am going through having to live on a mere $9 billion.
Old tricks are the best tricks, they say. (Score:3)
There is no way that Google hired so many people based on some poor estimate of where the economy is headed .
The real reason why companies like Google do this is to create labor turnover. It is no mistake. They hire a whole bunch of new people, wait a few years to see which are the best, then fire useless / unproductive staff.
Only $1.8 million a day? (Score:2)
Why is he shorting himself?
Excessive Pay Pot v Kettle (Score:2)
Imagine how many more children could be helped if he settled for a more modest paycheck himself.
Fuck you, Sir Christopher (Score:2)
Why doesn't Google have them work? (Score:2)
The laid-off hoards couldn't have been mostly dullards.
Isn't Google management suppose to be smart enough to figure out what an employee is good at,
have them do it, and sell it with their boundless reach and surface area?
I do not think that everything possible in software today is done so we're all waiting around
because there's too many engineers. Or put 30,000 more in QA fixing bugs and killing cruft.
so they hired 100K in 5y? (Score:2)
More competition (Score:2)
MANY of these engineers are going to start businesses which will directly compete with Google over the coming decades in many ways. The more people you fire the more likely one of them creates the Google-killer. But for some people it's worth strangling the cash cow for the penny that rolled under its hoof..
Should that be done with other people's money? (Score:2)
Something is wrong about that. We should look into curtailing the influence a guy like this can wield and make sure that power belongs to the individual investors, not the fund's manager.
I call for a reduction in the hedge fund (Score:2)
Preferably, right at the neck of all the execs.