[tczMUFlmoNk]

Wow, so, connecting these dots:

- reducing headcount by 50% down to ~70 people = firing 70 people

- at a generous estimate of total burdened cost of $1M/person/year, that's $70M/year

- which accounts for a full 5 years of that war chest

- and, moreover, "at its lowest point" suggests that perhaps Replit has expanded headcount again since; the article mentions that it has done some acqui-hires.

Levels.fyi shows Replit salaries in the $200k–300k range, so even at a 2× burden rate, I think that this is probably a significant overestimate of the costs.

Firing 70 people when you have $100 million that you haven't touched, have raised money on top of that, and have many years of runway for the people you fired… comes together to paint a picture that is, imho, less than flattering.

[ed]

A sustainable business can pay more employees than a failed startup. And pivoting with 150 employees is nearly impossible; all those people were hired for a different business.

[forgingahead]

Hilariously naive comment - "if you have money you should spend it on salaries". This is not a charity, it's a transaction, the salary is paid in exchange for revenue generating activities or supporting activities in a viable business. If the business is only doing 2.7mill in ARR, then it's entirely valid for the whole lot to get laid off.

[Retric]

It’s not about being a charity, the entire point of startups is to trade capital for time to market. If the CEO doesn’t know what to do with 130 people they don’t know what to do with 70.

[justonceokay]

Ehh. I don’t love it and it isn’t good optics, but if you can’t find a way to utilize your employeees (such as having a hard time finding a maeket fit for an existing product) then it isn’t your moral obligation to keep paying them. It isn’t clear what employees were laid off ir for what reason either.

[shash]

The original sin was probably hiring those people for a not-yet-clear business in the first place…