I don't really get these takes. Why would any company keep more employees than they need? It's not a charity. Shareholders, who ultimately foot the bill for all those incredibly juicy RSU packages, expect management to pursue to greatest ROI.

And HN has been saying for years that these companies are extremely bloated (insert generic "how does Company X need Y engineers?").

> Why would any company keep more employees than they need?

Why would any company hire more employees than it needs? Do you really think the amount of work at Google has declined?

If Google didn't need them they shouldn't have hired them in the first place.

Same applies to all the big tech companies that hire boatloads of people and then have major layoffs. Exceptions apply to companies that are actually still fighting to survive or who have massive _declines_ in profits but a lot of the time the layoffs are just a "protect profits" measure, not a "we didn't need them" measure.

There is, of course, a separate discussion to be had around "do big companies really need _thousands_ of employees?" but by their own thinking the answer is yes, so they did need to hire them, and thus the question to them is "Why was protecting literal billions in profits more important than protecting the people who you employed? Why do you think you'd be worse off with those people you claimed to need, but 1 billion less 'profit' ? "

> Do you really think the amount of work at Google has declined?

Yes I do. The pandemic changed everything for tech companies. Now it's over. It's not that there are less things to do, but there is less urgency, so there's less to do right now.

> Do you really think the amount of work at Google has declined?

I don't have a clue, but I would guess that Google does.

> If Google didn't need them they shouldn't have hired them in the first place.

If only the future was knowable with the type of certainty you seem to imply.

> I don't really get these takes. Why would any company keep more employees than they need?

To have a talent pool at hand, and to deny that talent pool to competitors.

By definition then these are people that they need, just in a capacity that you're excluding from consideration.

> Why would any company keep more employees than they need?

Well I have an answer to this but it's not related to the conversation.

Employers keep people employed as a bargaining chip with the government.

And (especially in the case of the top tech companies, like Google, MS, and Amazon) as a hedge against the competition.

Employee X may be under-performing relative to their peers, but if they're still going to perform 1.2X the average of your closest competition were they to change companies, you pay them to keep their ass out of the other guy's seat.

> Employers keep people employed as a bargaining chip with the government.

I said this in a comment above, but the question was rhetorical.

If you are using employees as a bargaining chip with the government, then by definition these are employees that you need (not sure I fully understand this hypothetical though).

No, they are inessential staff being kept as a bargaining tool. As soon as the tool becomes ineffective, they will be fired. They are the opposite of necessary.

> Shareholders, who ultimately foot the bill

What bill, exactly, and how?

Dilution. When employees are awarded shares/options, that dilutes existing shareholders, making their shares worth less (ceteris paribus).

> Shareholders, who ultimately foot the bill for all those incredibly juicy RSU packages…

How do you figure? Are the investors not making a profit? Or are you saying that the employees are basically stealing investor profits?

It's arithmetic, not an opinion. RSUs dilute shareholders.

I'm not suggesting they are stealing profit, I'm saying they have earned a share of the profits. That's literally the point of share awards: to align management with shareholders.

There are a bunch of issues that others have said, but my primary one is vaguely semi-moral: is it reasonable to give someone a job, and then lay them off when they become inconvenient even if they are still doing that job? If someone knows that this is what you’re planning on doing, do you think that would impact their opinion on whether they should take the job? Or the minimum comp they’d require?

So while I do think it is reasonable for a company to lay off people if they aren’t needed (product cancellation, etc), I don’t think that makes overhiring is reasonable, if that is your plan. Especially given you’re planning to do this at the same that their options for alternative employment are going to be reduced.

> Why would any company keep more employees than they need?

Because layoffs severely damage morale and make hiring significantly more difficult. Sometimes it's cheaper to just slow down hiring and let people leave naturally.

Between Q3 2021 and Q3 2022 they went from 150k to 186k employees; that's a huge increase over only a year. It makes sense to slow down at some point.

Operating margin went from 32% to 25%. That's a massive swing.

They are considerably less profitable this quarter than last year same quarter ($19B)

There are companies on this planet that can only dream about 25% operating profit.

How on Earth is this relevant? Whatever your salary is, I guarantee there are people on this planet who could only dream of earning that much. Should you earn less because of that?

No, but we're talking about a company, not individual people.

What do you think a company is? A group of individuals.

Sure.... but they are very different things.

So?

Google's corporate culture relies on a high profit margin. The perks, the ability to invest in large bets, all hinge on a high profit margin. If their profit margin shrinks you'll end up loosing the culture. Without the culture, Google would turn into an IBM/Oracle/HP.

Yeah, and value is relative?

Who cares if there’s a consumer staple company with 5% margins out there? Companies are evaluated against their own results and valuation.

I haven't seen any news about Google layoffs - not sure what you are referring to.

Nominal numbers are meaningless. It’s like when people tout $10B in buybacks like it’s a big deal when the market cap is over $1T.

Everything is relative

They're down to $369k of revenue per employee, down from $434k in Q3 of last year.

Which is still insanely good.

Not when you’re paying them more than that (or close to it) though.