LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by bkeroack on Friday February 05, 2016 @04:09PM (#11044643)

Salaries tend to be sticky. A more likely outcome is the bottom ~25% of engineers being laid off or moved to contract status.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by es09 on Friday February 05, 2016 @05:30PM (#11045153)

Even more likely - hiring comes to a screeching halt. That's what brings the rental market down. There are a lot of new apartments being added to the market and bam, oversupply of rental units if the hiring slows down or stops.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by draw_down on Friday February 05, 2016 @06:15PM (#11045418)

Just clarifying, are you speaking of SF, or the US more generally...?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by gogopuppygogo on Friday February 05, 2016 @06:42PM (#11045566)

It's likely to spread throughout the country.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by pm90 on Friday February 05, 2016 @06:58PM (#11045665)

That is highly overestimating the amount of tech jobs in the rest of the country. For SF, yes, I agree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by _yosefk on Friday February 05, 2016 @04:54PM (#11044932)

Sticky for people already employed, perhaps, but probably not for new hires, I'd guess.

Also, anecdotally, in 2008 some of those fired were expensive new hires. "The bottom 25%" might be defined as those fired but otherwise I don't think there is a definition of "bottom" those who get fired all fit. Say, if a project or a department is terminated, often everyone is let go, instead of trying to keep "the best" and replacing "worse" people elsewhere with them, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]