I'm seeing a trend in some companies I work with...
So you would say it's more likely QQQ next hits 400 than 500?
That's what I'm being told by other people, and they convinced me. What do you think?
This is a retarded take and is a great way to drive away top tier talent.
Not really. I’ve seen this at companies that have unregretted attrition rates. It’s like using a chainsaw for hand surgery - you’re gonna lose some good fingers in the process. From the engineering perspective I have zero idea how it makes sense financially when it’s an annual thing and it takes a company 6 months to spin up an engineer to be productive.
Why the fuck did you have to say this. Being asked to sign a NDA for some super secret project next week
The bottom 10% of general officer workers are never doing 10% of the total work. They're doing like 2-5% tops.
What a weird comment when the Pareto Principle is 80/20. But okay.
The accepted ratios I see just about across the board are that the top 20% of your workforce gets around 80% of the actual work done. Managers who don't study history see this and think "Great, we just lay off the bottom 20% and it's a minimal impact". But they don't follow the history enough to know that when you do that then the whole thing still ends up rebalancing, so the top 20% (now fewer) still do 80%, but that overall number is now lower.. And the added stress on those top 20% make them start leaving.
Secret Project : DISplace TomServo, but to avoid a rush for the doors bribe him with a guaranteed exit package to sign an NDA promising not to tell all the people we're laying off before him that it's coming...
Not just that but firing so many people has to have serious consequences down the line. How does Intel or Dell fire 10k+ people and not have projects or productively massively impacted?
I consider myself a bottom 10% worker and I’m definitely doing sub 0.1% of the work. I regularly sleep and game on the clock while completing ignoring things I’m supposed to do.
