I was at a medium-sized company (~100 employees) that laid off ~60% of their employees. Including 95% of the dev team. Everyone could see just how much of a bad move it was, and that was only the first bad move.
Most of the remaining skilled employees started looking for new jobs immediately. They could see the writing on the wall. Others just checked out and stopped caring about their work, doing just the bare minimum. The bulk of the remaining experienced employees were gone within two months.
The people who remained were the lower-level employees, without the experience to keep the company working.
Coincidentally, the company fell apart and went into liquidation 6 months later.
No executives lay off 60% of their employees for fun. Typically, this course of action is reserved for when the company believes they have a 95% chance of failing and that doing the layoff will mean they now have an 80% chance of failing.
That the company later failed is not proof positive that the layoffs were a bad idea.
Yeah, when a company is going to crash, it's better not to stay around until the end. Quite often, the last month(s) of work is unpaid.
With all the upheaval at Twitter, I doubt it's going to survive. Well, the name will remain, and as long as servers keep running, some people will keep using it, so as long as Musk can hire enough people to keep the servers running, Twitter might be able to continue in some form, but it will never be the company it once was.
In this case, actually coincidental. It was externally trigged event 3 months later that ended up killing the company. Even a healthy company would struggle to navigate such a scenario.
But it was absolutely on a fatal path before that event, just a question of how long.
"Musk came in saying he wanted to get rid of 75% of the employees:"
Well known tactics, usually employed by politicians.
Want to raise taxes by 5%? Don't tell that, just announce previously that the country needs a 10% taxes raise, then for pretend for a while you're struggling to lower them because you care for the people and finally settle to 5%.
thats just another way of "price anchoring". When you go to the department store, and that $40 shirt is 'on-sale' for $15, they never expect to get $40 for it. (in fact, many never actually sell that at that price) but it does make you suddenly look at it as a $40 shirt, that your saving money on, instead of comparing it to other $15 shirts.
But the problem is where do they go? Yes, Twitter laid off 3750 people, but Meta just laid off 11000, so the job market -- at least for that pool -- is saturated right now, and I'm not sure if anyone wants to voluntarily walk off their job in today's economy.
Number I saw this morning showed meta had added 15k workers since Jan 2022. Laying off 11k still has a higher headcount than a year ago. The question of who those 11k were May be more interesting, but this doesn’t seem like some end of the world bloodbath.
This is nothing. The NYC developer market was completely saturated in 2008 when Lehman brothers went under and AIG made huge cuts to their IT organization. I recall the number being 60-80k developers looking for jobs all at once.
Might find work, but is it at the same comp level? I'm unemployed, I'm worried I'll have to take less then pay then I was making before (270-320k based on the stock price)
I’m also in BigTech and have seen my compensation drop (unless there is a major uptick before my next vest in a month).
But, seriously, I’ve got the worlds smallest fiddle for someone who is worried that they may not make 270K+ going forward.
Yes my stock has dropped by 50% from its 52 week high. It stings. But it doesn’t affect my life at all. I made sure that I could live off of my base pay - and still max out my 401K.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/10/20/musk...
Then a week later took it back:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/musk-tells-twitter-employees-...
I think every single person at Twitter should be contemplating their employment right now.