lay-offs 2 years ago
Switched tech stacks 11 months ago to among other things be able to hire more devs
Acquired Pry for $90 million 6 months ago
Were tossing out long standing customers 4 months ago
and now they're having lay-offs again.
Quite the ride...
That's like trying to pivot from finding unicorn to finding pegasus.
I have no idea about Elixir but it doesn’t look as conventional.
https://medium.com/brexeng/building-backend-services-with-ko...
Note that Brex founders are Brazilian and the Elixir author is Brazilian.
Meanwhile unemployment is still at an all time low.
But then, venture capital backed companies generally (arguably by design) are not profitable, so their ability to weather storms is likely weakened and maybe the boards get squirrely when faced with the threat of bad weather.
Unfortunately, if your customers are mostly other tech companies, they are doing the same thing.
It seems like a bunch of healthy companies are putting on the brakes hard enough to collectively cause the recession they are trying to avoid.
I've heard this before but I don't get it. Why are they not profitable "by design"?
Edit: not sure if it was the reason this is downvoted but this was an honest question
That is incredibly circular logic. So companies shouldn't be doing layoffs because unemployment is low?
Are you arguing that the macro environment isn't bad? A G7 country is in a mexican standoff with its bond market and pension funds to avoid a systemic collapse in the next 3 days. How much worse is the macro situation supposed to get before businesses should worry?
When the economy turns you have to adjust that strategy, which is what they are doing now.
That said I think the real story now is that the previous recessions haven’t really impacted the big tech companies, but this time it is so we’re seeing the first mass layoffs that this generation of developers has likely ever encountered. Couple that with the “tech” companies that are essentially just advertising companies that write software (obviously FB and G, but many of the startups aren’t too different) discovering that attention based advertising isn’t as stable a revenue stream as was thought, and you get a _lot_ more “safe” jobs disappearing.
Both U-3 and U-6 are near historical lows. Even if you don't believe that U-3 is meaningful, you can compare the U-6 numbers now against other times in history and see that unemployment is indeed low right now.
When the equity market is hot, issue more shares
When the consumer market is hot, sell more product
It has nothing to do with employees unless you are trying to bribe a politician with “jobs” you’ll bring to their area
But I came away with a strong sense that they would be quite successful. They just had this confidence and clarity of vision, that also didn’t seem like bullshit. And past experience building a company in the financial services space.
One funny thing I remember was Pedro (I think) saying their tech stack was Elixer, “maybe that’s crazy”. And interesting to see they have since started moving away from it. Seems they had some doubts about it from the start.
I’ve heard it all, from dating, promotions, sports, and now fundraising. You still have to have all of the skills at it for anything good to happen.
yikes. is ramp eating their lunch or is the market just not that favourable?
Normal banks with tellers named Maud are likely the ones eating their lunch.
Businesses like this are skating on thin ice. People are willing to pay a premium for design and user-experience when the times are good. But when they're not, these "nice-to-haves" are first on the chopping block.
They always suck, but being transparent, ripping the band-aid off, and giving the people laid off as much support as possible is the way to go. They're also far enough from the holidays that people can still job search, but close enough that most people in tech could eat a few weeks of savings to take an extended holiday. Don't know if that was deliberate, but it seems well timed
Now, maybe their business reasons are dues to their own ineptness or bad luck or whatever, but they handled this pretty well.
I say this all because we tend, on HN and other places, to focus on the shitty aspects of every bad news story, and rarely speak up when something goes right that is still shitty, like this.
Will the shareholders be keen to see so much of their money go to ex-employees for not much gain in PR or morale of existing employees?
I wonder how they could have arrived at "seven." Why not go with the max allowable of ten? This seems a bit miserly in an otherwise pretty decent package.
Facts before feelings and opinions, please.