Fresh, starry-eyed people enter the workforce every day. As long as new humans keep being born, there is no point at which anyone is ever finished teaching the same lessons over and over again.
In other words, this is a company that is making at least $50 billion a year in profit yet is pretending to be so poor that layoffs are necessary! Even if Google lost a billion or 2 in a lean year, that's still a drop in the bucket compared to their profits and what an actual leader would do.
[0]: https://9to5google.com/2023/02/02/alphabet-q4-2022-earnings/
[1] https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/revenues
[2] https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2022Q4_alphabet_earnings...
First to the employee laid off: I’m not against layoffs in principle (maybe I’ll change my tune if/when it happens to me) but companies can take a more human-centred approach to things. Publicly shaming them when they don’t is one of the few tools people in this position have left to try and push them to better behaviour.
Second to Sundar: he’s not crying “woe is me,” he’s explaining the company position. I don’t even think he “fucked up” here because these situations are simply difficult to make the right call. Yes, maybe Google would have been “fine” but CEOs aren’t paid to keep things “fine.” They’re paid to put the company in a position to go after opportunities when they crop up. Even these layoffs will factor that goal in. Only time will tell who made the right decisions and who didn’t.
That guy doesn't have what it takes to be the CEO of one of the most important tech companies in the world, just like Trump/Biden are probably not the most talented leaders of the most important country either.
Eric Schmidt was great, and Google has lots of other much more talented leaders who understand programming on a deep level.
When we asked Eric Schmidt years ago of why some stupid things are happening (Christmas present of donating Google laptops to US children especially when most of us are from poorer countries), his answer was ,,I'm not the CEO''.
This is the problem with FAANG, to a very large extent with all VC-funded companies, and to some extent with capitalism in general. Everyone looks at total dollar value, not at efficiency (loosely revenue per employee) and certainly not at anything hard to measure in dollars (e.g. quality of life). The only way to keep driving that number up is to grow, not to improve. Growth is mandatory, necessary even, and ultimately becomes like that other thing that keeps trying to grow without bound: cancer. Innovation is an uncertain route to growth over the long term. The sure routes are monopolization, regulatory capture, rent seeking (especially in the form that Cory Doctorow has called "enshittification"), and so on. So guess which one CEOs - whose pay is tied to that growth and not to more human-oriented metrics - go for. Every time.
One of the 10 000:
Some companies stay lean, plan for difficult times. Others spend like crazy in good times and cut back in bad. Google always prided itself on being small and scrappy. That changed under Sundar, the current CEO. They started hiring a ton and now they're cutting back. The CEO still hasn't come to terms with the fact that he fucked up. He made comments in leaked meetings like, "Just imagine if we continued to grow and didn't have all of those extra people. Where would we have been?" Dude, you would have been fine. You don't grow a business by sticking more people in it. This is how accountants think about business, not leaders.