People fundamentally misunderstand how this works.
For a large enough product company there's always a years-long queue of feature requests, fixes, optimizations, and other things to do. All of it will never get done! The doable amount of highest-priority items will get picked through a combination of pressures from different people and departments, and will get more or less implemented.
If you cut the workforce by 50%, instead of doing 30% of the infinitely growing backlog, you'll do 15%. Since most of the completed work gets obsoleted or thrown away due to various inefficiencies, there will be some effect, but it will be far from dramatic.
As for the individual workload, you'll carry as much as you let the company put on your back. And that mostly depends on your negotiating skill, and somewhat on the supply/demand dynamics of the current labour market. The latter will tough for the couple of years, but the former is up to you to level up.
The problem is people misunderstand how this works, so none of that happens. Instead the competition goes to 11 while work is cut by upper managers, leading to "non-business decisions" made by lower managers to cling to their bit, leading to less productivity both in absolute & unit terms.
Also, I think A) is a little bit of red herring designed to create agency and opportunity where there is none. If we mean "negotiate" in an airy high-minded vague sense of "negotiate but don't", sure. At the end of the day these moves, whether intended to or not, leave less room for negotiation.
It's unsettling how many times GPT 4.5 has been wrong about something that I can easily see and point out and often verify by finding documentation or testing. I don't know how many times I've asked a question and told the wrong thing.
> attrition, drop in quality, services turn shitty, loss of revenue, repeat
Execs are lauded for cutting costs, parasitically enrich themselves on the carcass of a once-productive business, jump ship to a new host before it all comes crashing down, repeat.
Some execs have already jumped ship. From the article:
"In the final months of 2023, several top executives announced their departures, including Twitch’s chief product officer, chief customer officer and chief content officer. Twitch also lost its chief revenue officer, who worked on Twitch from within Amazon’s Ads unit."
Be born in the aristocracy[0] or land one of the very small openings where executives get hired from outside the circle via executive recruiting, which usually means networking your way to VP / SVP at a some kind of notable firm or otherwise getting close to attainment of the executive class.
I hear being an ex-founder is useful in this regard. Apparently, working at McKinsey or Bain or one of the other large "prestigious" consulting firms is also a good move. Going to Harvard, Yale, Stanford or similar univerisities is almost a hard requirement. Almost[1].
Or, in the rarest of events, found a business that is successful and somehow manages to get big enough that you get status by proxy.
In any case, sans the last (and rarest) way, you'll have to walk the walk and talk the talk. It can get unsavory.
[0]: Oligarchy and Plutocracy fit too. Take your pick. To grossly oversimplify: If you're part of the Aristrocratic families (Rockefellers, Dursts etc) thats one way. Another is via being apart of the oligarchy (corporate power is alive and well. from oil companies to big tech) which is often intertwined with aristrocratic insitutions (Harvard, Yale etc). Finally, of course, you have the mesh of percentage at the top that fall into Plutocracy, which are wealthy and powerful themselves but are in service of even wealthier and more powerful oligarchs and artistrocrats in many cases.
[1]: Somehow around the edges you can find your way into it without this, but its challenging to say the least. Usually (but not entirely) its due to the rarest case, being a successful entreprenuer and surviving long enough to be recongized by proxy. Though, sometimes servant becomes the master. See outside executive recruiting
It seems like we could check this. Is your hypothesis that an outsized number of SVP/EVP at top paying tech companies are going to be from either dynastic wealth or from traditional Ivy backgrounds?
They already hail largely from top 50 colleges[0][1], for instance.
We know that Ivy League graduates have better access to opportunity and privilege than anyone else, there's enough out there on this that I would consider it common knowledge by now.
[1]: Note, I didn't say Ivy league, but arisotricatic institutions. These include many state universities with large alumni endowments and historical privileges.
Bohemian Grove, after the human sacrifice. They throw the skull up at the Owls Nest Camp like flowers at a wedding and the person to catch it becomes the next megacorp executive.
ask sam altman what he did - I still can't figure out how he went from "startup that went nowhere" to "hand out other people's money at YC until paulg fires him" to "CEO of openai".
(OP, in some of the longform pieces written since The Event they touch on this transition being a mystery too, but I think it's a tale as old as time: earnest, smile on their face, performs work and passion, team player, right place right time and asked.)
I think you might have them backwards? Empathy is the one where you viscerally feel the other person, sympathy is where you can simulate what they're feeling but without that deeper connection, or at least that's how I was taught it.
These are just some of the lies that anyone in a position to make money exploiting people tells themselves, talk to any drug dealer, you'll get similar answers. We all do it to some extent though, the developer creating a heinous subscription cancel flow, the designer making bail bonds ads. You build walls and look the other way. Every one of these actions forces you to give up some of your empathy for the individuals you exploit, the scale at which most execs operate is just mind boggling in comparison.
I wished they co-slanged it as "encrapification" because NPR did a report on it and did not mention the word on air. I think it's a valuable web-evolution term.
You're overestimating things like Twitter and Twitch. The reason these layoffs can occur is that these products are solidified, you can't really improve them much, there's not much real work there.
And Twitter apparently had 20 million lines of microservices so it's not like their engineers were doing a good job, despite it being a legacy codebase, all they shipped for 10 years was 1 major redesign and Spaces + NFTs before Dorsey was fully out.
That said if they fired the report moderation team then yes it scales linearly.
For a large enough product company there's always a years-long queue of feature requests, fixes, optimizations, and other things to do. All of it will never get done! The doable amount of highest-priority items will get picked through a combination of pressures from different people and departments, and will get more or less implemented.
If you cut the workforce by 50%, instead of doing 30% of the infinitely growing backlog, you'll do 15%. Since most of the completed work gets obsoleted or thrown away due to various inefficiencies, there will be some effect, but it will be far from dramatic.
As for the individual workload, you'll carry as much as you let the company put on your back. And that mostly depends on your negotiating skill, and somewhat on the supply/demand dynamics of the current labour market. The latter will tough for the couple of years, but the former is up to you to level up.