[agnishom]

> i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now.

Sounds like a false dichotomy. The third option is that he could have kept them around. It would be financially feasible given that "our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving.".

[adastra22]

If AI was that much more productive, then Block would be able to take on much bigger challenges and expand their revenue even faster. The AI explanation doesn't add up.

[grumple]

Indeed. If you suddenly have a workforce that can be 2x as productive (or whatever multiple), why would you cut them? You already have these people under your control, direct them towards profitable ventures.

[blitzar]

It suggests that there is no more innovation, no compliments to the business and the management have identified no areas for R&D. In the tech (or tech adjacent) space that should really be a death knell.

A quick check of the share price tells the story, they should really pivot back from blocks to squares.

[joelthelion]

As someone who comes from a country where it's very hard to fire people, don't make that mistake.

Staying in a company where you're not wanted is a miserable experience. The company will do anything to make you leave. Plus, it weakens companies and makes for a poor general worker experience.

What should be done instead is mandate generous severance packages that increase with tenure. But give companies a clear path to fire people when they don't want to employ them anymore.

[wiseowise]

As someone who comes from a country where it’s very hard to fire people: fuck the companies.

This is the reason why we need the laws in the first place. Many people leave their countries, move their families, buy houses/flats, plan for stability just to be what? Laid off, because investors said so or tripping CEO woke up on the wrong side of the bed? We’re talking about people for fucks sake, workers aren’t Docker pods that are scaled up and down. If they are, they should be compensated for the constant risk they bear.

[make_it_sure]

it's a business, why he should keep people if company doesn't need them? A business is not a charity

[agnishom]

I am not saying that he should. He is pretending that his hand was forced. I am saying that it wasn't. He made a choice. You may say that it is the rational choice, but that is a different debate.

[PunchTornado]

On shareholder money? No thank you. If 1 person can do the job, why keep 2?

[itake]

If there are growth opportunities for the company, selectively choosing the top 90% YoY, minimizing backfills (in theory...) will result in a company full of high achievers that can execute on that growth vision.

If the company is shifting into maintenance mode, cutting 40% of the staff is the right move, but definitely hurts shareholders b/c they valued the company as growth, not maintenance.

[pixelatedindex]

Sometimes I feel like “shareholder first” mentality has gone a bit too far. Most of the majority shareholders are a handful of people who have too much money, they don’t really put in any work, but are more than happy to put people out of work if it meant they’d get a bit more money.

[ruszki]

Because in such adversarial environments, your best employees leave, and quickly. And those people worth way more than half of your workforce.

[RealityVoid]

If you're a healthy company that is growing, you could do 2x as much stuff!

[wiseowise]

Shareholders didn’t complain when those workers inflated their obscene capitals.

[agnishom]

I am just saying that the decision was not some kind of inevitable result of forces beyond their control. They just made a business decision to line their pockets better.