[echelon]

Why would you stay at Twitter? Even if you believe in the platform and the mission, this has to be one of the most stressful work environments in tech right now.

The only cases I can think of for staying:

- Unfortunate H-1Bs tied to the job. (We really need to make it easier for these folks to switch jobs and keep their visa!)

- A feeling one needs the job and can't easily get work elsewhere. Perhaps living paycheck to paycheck, haven't interviewed in awhile, imposter syndrome... (If you're worried you'd not be able to get hired, instead ask why you weren't fired.)

[PragmaticPulp]

> Why would you stay at Twitter? Even if you believe in the platform and the mission, this has to be one of the most stressful work environments in tech right now.

I worked for a different eccentric billionaire early in my career. It was stressful, demanding, and unpredictable as he tried to micromanage everything by himself in short bursts of 5 minutes before moving on to the next thing.

The hook was an idea that it was a famous company and he was a [not quite] famous billionaire and that we were sitting on a once in a lifetime opportunity to build our resumes. He was going to reward us greatly at some future date when everything was working well again, and we’d be able to work anywhere else we wanted after this.

Didn’t really pan out for us as everyone got burned out, the billionaire’s micromanagement and constant product churn diminished the company’s reputation, and he eventually laid most people off in favor of even cheaper foreign labor.

[lamontcg]

Probably the exact path Twitter is on.

But there'll be one or two people who get cozy with Elon and win the lottery and will write articles on how hard work always pays off (neglecting the other 99.9% of Twitter that gets fired when it all gets shipped to India).

[jgust]

> Unfortunate H-1Bs tied to the job.

Or we could reduce the hoops & cycle time for legal immigration. The US has an opportunity right now to cement itself as the leader in technology for the next 2-3 decades and stave off the impending population growth crisis if we could find a way to enable people who want to live here to live here.

[stcroixx]

Or we could force these tech companies flush with cash to pay market rate and watch salaries rise or let these companies leave the country if they can’t afford to do business here. These are the richest companies on the planet and they don’t need a labor subsidy, they just want one and are powerful enough to get their way.

[echelon]

> leave the country if they can’t afford to do business here

Be careful what you wish for.

[stcroixx]

I was in the industry before this greedy trend accelerated out of control - I know first hand how much better things were before. I’ve seen a colleague choose death over the abuse the average H1B gets subjected to. The sooner this lie ends, the better for all of us.

[fallingknife]

I'm not interested in government policy that allows companies to bring in cheap foreign labor to undercut my compensation. There are 330 million people in the us, so if companies need more engineers, they can pay more and train more.

Also, there is no population growth crisis. A decreasing population means less stress on the environment and lower housing costs. Yes, there will be economic effects, but it's hardly catastrophic. Japan is managing just fine.

[jgust]

This is a very xenophobic view on immigration, and arguably the status quo. Past performance does not equate to future results, but I think you can draw the conclusion that the immense diversity that exists in the US compared to "rest of world" is a competitive advantage. What would it mean to lean in?

[JohnBooty]

    Yes, there will be economic effects, but it's hardly 
    catastrophic. Japan is managing just fine. 

I'm absolutely unqualified to say if they're correct, but there are a lot of economists predicting disaster for countries like Russia, Japan, and (not far behind them) China who will face this kind of demographic shift. The US is in the midst of this kind of shift as Boomers age through the system, but it is said that it will be less severe (thanks to younger immigrants) and less permanent than some other countries are facing.

Of course, you can find a lot of "experts" saying anything. Economics is an area where I haven't got the chops or the hubris to tell shit from shinola.

[echelon]

> government policy that allows companies to bring in cheap foreign labor to undercut my compensation

They become Americans and rise to your level of comfort and compensation. By working here in the US, they increase the wealth, tax base, and culture of our country. Immigration is a good thing. Skilled immigration even more so.

The alternative is that they stay in their home country, and that country grows a tech industry that rivals the US. Those workers will work for even cheaper than in the US, putting an even wider delta on price and creating an incredible arbitrage opportunity for talent.

Much like the automotive industry, foreign competition will drive margin out of our comfortable tech industry that has enjoyed being peerless for decades.

We're only going to see more `TikTok`s and `Spotify`s arise.

At some point, talent won't want to come to the US anymore. That should scare you.

I say all of this as someone who wants everyone to enjoy wealth and prosperity regardless of where they live. I still want opportunity and the ability to capitalize on it to be accessible to any American that would take it. And for that to continue, we should keep growing our talent pool and increasing the scope of what we can achieve together.

[fallingknife]

I see foreign competition as an inevitability, but I don't think number of engineers is a decisive factor. China and India have enough engineers already, and have for a while, but other than Tiktok, no real competition yet. Whereas Sweden, home of Spotify as you pointed out, has very few.

Even if number of engineers is decisive, we will never stop it by immigration. China + India have more than 8x the population of the US. We would never be able to deprive them of enough engineers via immigration.

[jgust]

^ This is roughly the point I was trying to make.

[DrewADesign]

Maybe folks early in their career. It's not like the cachet has totally dissolved because they did employ a lot of top notch people. Also, when they're interviewing for their next job, even if your departure was super contentious, Twitter is a great scapegoat that nobody will question.

"It says here you were terminated for breaking into a vending machine in the lobby and distributing snacks to your colleagues while dressed as Robinhood."

"Yeah it was an act of protest because management threatened to take away our lunch breaks."

"Well... it... sounds plausible I guess."

[gedy]

(Not at Twitter) Interviewing sucks and many people have other priorities in life, like family, etc.

[Nextgrid]

Could also be that they have enough money saved up and don't actively need a job, so they're happy to ride this one out until the end and because they don't need the job they don't really get stressed or anything - if they get fired no big deal.

If they actually make it all the way to the end, maybe being the last man standing there actually does have some perks we don't yet know about?

[TechBro8615]

Perhaps some people have different preferences than you.

[masklinn]

> The only cases I can think of for staying:

You forgot the bootlickers, I'm sure not all of them have been fired yet.

[mlindner]

> - Unfortunate H-1Bs tied to the job. (We really need to make it easier for these folks to switch jobs and keep their visa!)

They can switch jobs. H-1B doesn't force you to stay at your job.

[nickstinemates]

Another reason: some people enjoy the work environment that is promised at the "New Twitter."

Clearly not for everyone given the amount of opting out and controversy.