Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Reasonable-Leave7140 t1_ixfdh1k wrote

Reply to comment by VisualMod in Will Elon have to sell more of his Tesla stock in order to keep Twitter alive? by G1lg4m3sh

Twitter was already operating at a massive loss every quarter.

Losing some advertisers might hurt, but not as much as removing the massive amount of unneeded staff.

9

G1lg4m3sh OP t1_ixfem7x wrote

while I agree with you partially whatever the fuck is going on at twitter rn can't be good. here a reuters article from friday

5

Reasonable-Leave7140 t1_ixff1d7 wrote

This is all bloviating from the people upset about the changes.

They were asked to come to work and do work during work hours, which effectively none had been doing.

2

G1lg4m3sh OP t1_ixfftbv wrote

have you read what elon sent them? my mans literally said they will have to be 'extremely hardcore', 'working long hours at high intensity. bruh

6

Reasonable-Leave7140 t1_ixfgh9s wrote

Have you seen the video of the woman going through her day at Twitter?

"Show up at office 10 AM; get latte; do yoga; one meeting lunch one other meeting; leave 330"

His message was designed to entice them to quit; he's trying to weed out all the slackers like the guy who reportedly after being fired for tweeting curses at Musk was offered a job by Reddit and turned it down because he "likes to rock into the office at 11 AM".

Now, MAYBE Musk means 18 hour days 7 days a week for months on end-- but that's not actually legal to demand people to work, and it seems to me that "9 to 5 with an hour for lunch and generally working not doing yoga" would qualify as "extremely hard core" for the employees.

Twitter will be fine long term; too many people are too addicted to it. It'll go through a rough patch, but it will come out the other end with employees who fit its new culture and in a much better place.

5

skydiver19 t1_ixfksvz wrote

She took the piss with that video, and shows the culture and how many are just lazy self entitled tw@ts, I would of canned there arses too.

Like you say easy way to shake the tree and get rid of the dead wood and work shy

3

ShinsoBEAM t1_ixhozuk wrote

It's probably not 9 to 5 with an hour for lunch, it's probably the more typical USA, 8-6 with an hour for lunch, and possible crunch on and off for the forseeable future.

1

Reasonable-Leave7140 t1_ixivaau wrote

Shit, since they're in west coast time zone he should shift them to a 6:30-3 with a half hour lunch.

1

zephyy t1_ixfj5rk wrote

Yeah, now that operate at a massive lost AND have to pay $1 billion in interest on loans financed for the acquisition.

3

turbo_dude t1_ixh79rm wrote

At least the people who paid money up front for the tweets will have to wait until tweet 3.0 is launched - their money is trapped!. Should help with the cashflow. Just need to wait for that new gigatweet to open so the tweets can be produced faster/more cheaply.

Also the greenrocket subsidy from the government will help to shore up the production of tweets.

Also we built a test section of the tweet pipeline (1600 characters) and put some videos of it on youtube.

Also we sold some hats for the tweethole company that allows tweets to be sent underground.

It's fine, all under control.

1

Reasonable-Leave7140 t1_ixfjeeu wrote

I mean-- except by firing the bloated staff they reduce the operating expenses?

−2

zephyy t1_ixfljzl wrote

Except

A) they have to pay those employees 3 months severance so it's not immediate

B) Twitter will eventually have to hire more people because they're operating on a skeleton crew comprised mostly of people on visas. See https://matthewtejo.substack.com/p/why-twitter-didnt-go-down-from-a for an example of why Twitter hasn't suffered a massive incident yet

c) There is no way they pay $1 billion in payroll alone per year. Their last quarterly General & Administrative was $217 million.

8

Reasonable-Leave7140 t1_ixfnt1l wrote

Yeah- I don't buy any of these "twitter is doomed" narratives; these are all being floated by people with an agenda.

4

Calm_Leek_1362 t1_ixi4o8h wrote

They'll lose revenue proportional to their staff cuts. They will see profits for about a year then the staff will be unable to keep up with maintenance or add new features, unless they are already working on replacing all the staff they dismissed.

People don't understand that companies can't just raise their revenue per employee because they laid people off. If they didn't need the staff before, they wouldn't have hired them in the first place.

1

Reasonable-Leave7140 t1_ixiv3hw wrote

That might be the case- except we've already seen, the majority of these employees were effectively NOT doing the work of a full time employee.

They seem to have had something like 10-15, maybe even 20+ people on pay roll for every 40 hours of work.

They can replace a few, be at a far lower staffing level and still turn out more productive work.

1