[gernb]

Just off the cuff guessing but 12000 people cost $1.2 to $4.8 billon a year

Google has 180k people, minus 12k = 168k. That means their burn rate is 16.8 to 84 billon a year

I'm speaking out of my ass because I don't know the average salary and overhead of a google employee but the low numbers assume $100k a year no zero overhead.

Please check my math

12000 * $100k = 1.2 billon

168k * $100k = 16.8 billon

[jsnell]

What's the purpose of your math?

They're a public company. If you want to know how much they spend, just check their quarterly financial reports. It'll be far more accurate than these guesses.

[gernb]

> What's the purpose of your math?

To show that $100b in reserves may not be that much if you need to keep the company afloat for 168k people.

[jsnell]

Ok, so a few things:

First, if that is your goal then you really should use the actual available numbers target than make your own guesses that have a ludicrously large range.

Second, it is actually comparatively rare for big companies to have enough capital for years of runway. They plan to pay the salaries with their revenues, not with reserves. If companies really did planning the way you're implying ("big reserves aren't much if you need to keep the company afloat"), most the S&P 500 would be firing half their staff. So when you have a look in the financial reports for how large Google's expenditures are, have a look also at their revenue and operating income.

Third, the narrative you're trying to build is just utter bullshit. I'm sure there are good economic arguments to be made for these layoffs. And there are other companies for which company survival would be a good argument. But in this particular case, the idea that it is about company survival is just completely detached from reality. The company is still, as of the last released numbers, fabulously profitable.