> Hiring market was booming late 2021 and early 2022. The RSU and signing bonuses were rising at an alarming rate irking wall st. The pace of stock grants for hiring talent was not sustainable. Wall st fund managers were especially critical about the dilution of the stock to sustain the hiring and retention.
> Major wall st fund managers and stock holders started putting together a plan to put pressure on the wage and RSU growth. There were multiple leaks on Reddit (which is where I got the early wind of these planned industry wide layoffs) where hedge fund employees and staff were talking about dumping as high as 300-500K tech employees over year to put serious pressure on wage growth.
> If the CEOs and CFOs were not receptive to the idea they would pressure the board. A lot of major share holders have their person on the boards of their major holding companies. Our overlords had made up their mind and nothing could stop them.
> I heard much later from someone who was present at Jackson Hole Economic Symposium in Aug 2022 that these low-key discussions started taking place between CEOs, board members, large tech investors and large fund managers at Jackson hole.
I would like to see an investigation of this. It sounds plausable to me, but you never know with posts like this if they actually reflect inside info or are just some guy LARPing being an insider.
And one that is known, to a lesser degree than Davos but still, to the general public. I call conspiracy theory BS, based on some pretty standard cost cutting measures by reducing headcount. Besides big tech, every other industry has those rounds quote regularly.
Assuming that the original Twitter thread folk is not doing LARPing, this one bit summarizes the entire point why institutional investors like TCI [1] were demanding layoffs due to dilution via SBC [2].
I would prefer a precise definition from SEC regarding on how SBC is declared [3] (it it's Cash Expense or not) and establish a clear guidance for all investors to remove this generalized anxiety that put pressure on workers.
Definitely sounds like LARPing insider feeding a story that clearly hits all the right anger switches. I don't suspect whoever release this information has a narrative that they are working towards.
Why wouldn't shareholders object to dilution and increasing personnel costs in what might look like a lack of cost controls? And, yes, executives don't necessarily like cost programs so much because they are disruptive.
The bit about HFs wanting to engineer downward wage pressure is a bit crazy (also given the small influence on most big corporations) - evidence needed, I'd say, before credible. What would be credible is HFs expecting downward pressure on wages if there were larger tech redundancies.
My father is going into work today to collect his things. He worked for his company, and directly for the owner for 40 years. The company is being sold. The owner is walking away with millions. My father got nothing. Zero severance. After 40 years. My poor mother thought she found a law that required severance. I had to explain to her that was Canada. It really drives home the point that our laws are meant for the capital class. We have almost no worker rights here in the US.
But employees know that there's nothing protecting their employment or retirement, and take action to minimize risk / optimize outcome (eg job hopping).
On one hand, it's really sad that companies owe nothing to employees after decades of tenure, but on the other it's really hard to see how anyone would be surprised by getting laid off with no severance after 40 years and complain about not being compensated as well as the company's owners.
>it's really hard to see how anyone would be surprised by getting laid off with no severance after 40 years and complain about not being compensated as well as the company's owners.
No where did I say that he should be compensated as well as the owner. I said it was wrong to lay him off without severance when the owner was making millions on the deal.
My father worked in a small town with few 'good' jobs. This was one of them. It feels kind of inhumane to suggest it's somehow his fault for not uprooting our family every few years in order to not be exploited.
I accepted that bargain when I started working, but I would be lying if I told you I didn't suffer from far fewer ties to friends and family because of it. I've moved 8 times in the past 15 years. That makes it almost impossible to put down roots. I have a much shallower 'support system' because of it, and I've basically sacrificed part of my wellbeing on the alter 'at will' employment.
your father worked for free for 40 years?
your father had a chance to negotiate for ownership of the company, but didn't. And now you expect the owner to give up a stake during a sale?
An analogy would be if you hired someone to build a deck on your home (and you paid them for the job), and then expected to get 5% of your home value when you sold it 10 years later. That is not expected in a civilized society.
Congrats, you're the second person to fail reading comprehension today, and it's less acceptable given I've already addressed this in another comment on this same thread. No where did I say I expected the owner to grant equity. My beef is laying off my father with zero notice and NO severance after 40 years of work.
> Genuine question: why does it need to be investigated? Is there a law against rich psychopaths being psychopaths with their own money?
Because if there isn't, there should be. It's not good policy to let psychopaths run amok. An investigation is the kind of thing that could get the political wheels turning against those "rich psychopaths."
But I wouldn't be surprised if something like this is illegal already. It has a smell of anti-competitive collusion.
> Is there a law against rich psychopaths being psychopaths with their own money
Being an abusive psychopath should not be a protected behavior just because the behavior is driven by money.
There is something deeply wrong with our society if $$ === correct. It's not. We need to speak up and do something about the disgusting precedent this sets.
> Hiring market was booming late 2021 and early 2022. The RSU and signing bonuses were rising at an alarming rate irking wall st. The pace of stock grants for hiring talent was not sustainable. Wall st fund managers were especially critical about the dilution of the stock to sustain the hiring and retention.
> Major wall st fund managers and stock holders started putting together a plan to put pressure on the wage and RSU growth. There were multiple leaks on Reddit (which is where I got the early wind of these planned industry wide layoffs) where hedge fund employees and staff were talking about dumping as high as 300-500K tech employees over year to put serious pressure on wage growth.
> If the CEOs and CFOs were not receptive to the idea they would pressure the board. A lot of major share holders have their person on the boards of their major holding companies. Our overlords had made up their mind and nothing could stop them.
> I heard much later from someone who was present at Jackson Hole Economic Symposium in Aug 2022 that these low-key discussions started taking place between CEOs, board members, large tech investors and large fund managers at Jackson hole.
I would like to see an investigation of this. It sounds plausable to me, but you never know with posts like this if they actually reflect inside info or are just some guy LARPing being an insider.