| ▲ | overfeed 5 hours ago |
| > i'd rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome. I hope this gets drilled into the heads of everyone who sells their labor. The company is profitable, and Jack could have kept 4000 people employed with no difference in outcome, instead, he chose this. |
|
| ▲ | mgfist 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Block isn't a jobs program, and employees cost money. Layoffs suck (I got laid off last year) but the reality is that it's a business and regardless of profitability, if you're not worth more than your salary you're a liability. The severance given is quite generous and fair. My biggest issue is that Block should never have grown so big in the first place. |
| |
| ▲ | zmjone2992 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | yea but layoffs aren't usually very performance based. i agree in general though. |
|
|
| ▲ | hirako2000 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Backers probably told him to. I can't open LinkedIn any day without trending posts that engineers can hands off to LLMs. That must tilt some ideas to investors who see winners as ways to balance their losses. |
|
| ▲ | r-w 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How magnanimous of him to let us all know of his magnanimity! |
| |
| ▲ | hirako2000 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | He could have been even more radical and get rid of himself, his lieutenants could ask gpt about the strategy. | | |
| ▲ | signatoremo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | He did get rid of himself as Twitter’s CEO. He founded Block and Bluesky which employ thousands of people, instead of enjoying the fortune of an ex-CEO. Maybe you should be open minded a little bit? | | |
| ▲ | hirako2000 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's called quiting for better opportunities. I doubt the thousands who contributed to block's success will all land on their feet. I'm open ended I'm not a CEO forced to make those contradictory decisions. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | simianwords 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| i don't think this is true. assuming $150,000 average salary thats around $600,000 totally so that increases the yearly profit by about 30%. |
| |
| ▲ | boredatoms 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | While destroying morale, and increasing the difficulty of successfully recruiting later | |
| ▲ | overfeed 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I directly quoted jack - take it up with him. | | |
| ▲ | simianwords 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The company is profitable, and Jack could have kept 4000 people employed with no difference in outcome did he suggest no difference in outcome in terms of profits? | | |
| ▲ | overfeed 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can check for yourself, if you RTFA. Everything I said was based off of jack's post, as I quoted it. If you take issue with the non-specificity ot think he was being less than honest - take it up with jack. | | |
| ▲ | simianwords 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | i don't think you understood what i'm saying nor what he's saying. you don't do a layoff without accepting a change in the outcome. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | just-the-wrk 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | they are now estimating 18% instead of 17% |
|
|
| ▲ | 121789 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| what exactly is your point? you misinterpreted what he said. he just said that all 4K were being fired, and he would rather do it in one cut than gradually. he did not say the company's outcome would be different with those 4k vs. not |
