Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf <comment><USER2> Building on my analysis from last week:

1\. This week's 6.6M new jobless claims represents ~4% of the estimated ~160-165M US Workforce.

2\. This is incremental to the 3.3M new jobless claims filed week ending 3/21, totaling ~10M total jobless claims in the past 2 weeks.

3\. The US unemployment rate was ~3.5% as of EOM February [1], so cumulatively that means we've hit ~10% unemployment as of EOW 3/28 (~10M incremental jobless claims = ~6%). That number is likely low and continuing to increase, as new jobless claims do not account for gig workers and many state unemployment sites have been inundated by these claims resulting in site crashes and people unable to file claims. In addition, layoffs have almost certainly continued between 3/28 and today.

4\. The consensus estimate for this week's jobless claims was ~3.76M jobless claims, and the 6.6M actual claims blow the consensus estimate out of the water. That said, some analysts such as Goldman Sachs had estimated ~5.5M joblesss claims. Goldman Sachs estimates that unemployment will peak at ~15%. [2]

[1] [https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000](https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

[2] [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/31/coronavirus-update- goldman-s...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/31/coronavirus-update-goldman- sees-15percent-jobless-rate-followed-by-record-rebound.html)

<comment><USER3> This is just a personal opinion, but I think ~15% unemployment peak is far too optimistic.

I believe that 50-75% of restaurants will never reopen. 20-35% of small to mid-size hotels, venues, spas will declare bankruptcy within this year. Both employ a lot of people.

So I'm afraid the number is going to much higher, maybe even double.

<comment><USER4> I know it's really not PC to talk about this (how dare you value money over human lives!?), but at what point does the economic damage this causes become too much? 15% joblessness would be ~50M americans. If just 0.1% of them commit suicide as a result of losing their jobs or businesses, that would be 50,000 dead.

Maybe there's some kind of intermediate between forcing everyone to stay home and not having any mitigation measures in place whatsoever? Maybe a midway strategy would be less destructive. Protecting the economy isn't just about protecting the rich. The rich will be fine, they will get huge government bailouts (zero-interest loans). However, as you point out, a large percentage of small businesses will never reopen. If anything, this crisis is hugely benefitting Amazon & co.

<comment><USER5> We're not going to hold stay at home forever - even Wuhan is exiting lockdown (after 2.5 months).

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately not really [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-02/chinese-c...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-02/chinese- county-back-under-lockdown-after-infection-re-emerges)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Unemployment benefits have been significantly expanded under the Coronavirus aid bill. The benefit amounts will sound small if you're living in an expensive city like SF or Seattle, but $600/week from the federal government and a similar amount from state unemployment insurance means that unemployment benefits can pay up to an equivalent of $50-60K/year right now. That goes a long way in most parts of the country, especially when you're stuck at home. Of course companies are going to opt to shift people to unemployment benefits while they're forced into downtime.

In some situations, people can actually earn _more_ from unemployment benefits by being laid off due to some hasty oversights in the aid package (Reference: [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers- could...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could-get- more-than-100percent-of-their-paycheck.html) ). This doesn't account for lost benefits or the risk involved in losing a job, but it could disincentivize people returning to work if it means their income will go down.

Of the many people I know who have been "laid off", all of them have been told they'll be first in line to be re-hired the moment quarantine ends.

If a business can't make money, it makes more sense for them to let employees collect unemployment during the downtime than to overextend the business's balance sheet. During normal times, this is a common tactic for seasonal businesses. I have friends in seasonal tourism industries who received training on applying for unemployment benefits during their annual off-season layoffs each year. They even have an explicit system for tracking seniority in the re-hires.

Of course, the longer this quarantine lasts, the more likely their businesses are to disappear before they can re-open. Unfortunately we won't know this number for many months. For now, the initial unemployment claims number can't discriminate between jobs that have been temporarily paused and jobs that have been eliminated.

<comment><USER7> What will the employees, in the US at least, do for health insurance? A pandemic is when you need it. These employees will be strained to pay for COBRA.

I fear that we will see revolutions in countries where this is not contained, from either a health or economic perspective. An old saying is that you should buy stocks when there is blood in the streets. I hope that doesn't become literal.

<comment><USER8> Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off. If you're promoting businesses push people to unemployment instead of first trying to cover them during hardship and also taking a loss (as everyone else is), you're pushing for more tax subsidies to businesses indirectly.

Unemployment is a safety net that needs to exist but it shouldn't, IMHO, be the first option to jump to. That's irresponsible unless of course you can't cover your employees at the rate unemployment can--then it's reasonable for everyone's sake.

You should look at supporting employees part time if possible, especially those who have many years association with your business that are valued players. Your first order should be to take care of yourself and those around you, not immediately jump to social safety nets and pass the hardship. Let's re-establish long term employee and employer relationships and get rid if this "everyone's constantly disposable" economic mindset.

If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment. I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society. If not, let's take a bit more of their stimulus money back and chuck it to other businesses and people that don't run away at the sight of a loss and try to persevere through difficult situations.

<comment><USER9> > If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before > I consider driving right into unemployment.

This is a great case of "the world doesn't revolve around you."

1\. Most states only give you a few weeks to apply.

2\. You already "pay" for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn't have to.

3\. It's income. You still pay taxes on it. It's not free money out of nowhere.

Use the tiny social net that you have instead of waiting too late and out of money and having to rely on family or friends.

<comment><USER10> "2\. You already "pay" for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn't have to."

Do you have any data on this assertion?

<comment><USER9> If you assume a 1.55% tax rate for UI, you will contribute about a week of unemployment per year of work (at least in S.C.) at 70k taxable income after a modest administrative overhead of 60%.

If you manage to work from 25 to 65 at an average of $70k per year, that's almost a year worth of unemployment.

<comment><USER10> OK going with your assumptions, I wonder what % of people collecting unemployment benefits have worked for 40 years at an average of $70k/yr? I am not aware of a single individual, but maybe just don't know the right people.

<comment><USER9> It should scale out at about 1 week per year of work, no matter how much you make. $70k per year is how much you need to max out unemployment in S.C., where I used to live. If you make less than that, you'll have less per week, if you make more than that, you're pretty royally screwed.

<comment><USER10> Ok say that is true...do you know:

1\. Are unemployment employment benefits only extended to those who have already themselves paid a certain amount in UI taxes AND that amount is the extent of the benefits available to them?

2\. If the answer above is no - do you know what % of end up receiving more money in unemployment benefits than they have 'pre-paid' or will 'reimburse' thus a net cost to the system over the course of their living/working lives?

3\. What happens to the unemployment taxes paid by people who choose not/never to file for unemployment benefits, even when unemployed? Do those individuals ever get their money back?

4\. This line of questioning leads me to wonder why in the US is UI/UB not just directly linked to each individual?

<comment><USER9> 1\. Sort-of-but-not-really. Usually, you have to work a certain number of months or weeks at the place you get laid off, before you are eligible. However, there's not a "lifetime minimum." If you get fired for doing something "bad" (at-fault) then you may not be eligible at all.

2\. Usually, there's a cap for how long you can be on unemployment. You can't be on it forever. You also have to provide proof that you're looking for a job. Some states require signatures from those companies, some just require a list of companies you've applied to and they do their own random validation.

3\. Companies pay the unemployment insurance tax on your behalf, and if you're unemployed and don't file, you don't get to use your benefits.

4\. 100% agree

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For those living in cities that are locked down, what do yall do about daycare? In NYC, my daycare isn't reimbursing fees, so we're continuing to be charged with a promise of "if insurance pays out, we'll pass it down." With 2 kids, that's $5,000. Assuming they're closed for 3 months total, that's $15,000 down the drain. Now, I get that they're a small business, but their problem is that they can't exactly layoff their daycare workers because the governing body for daycares are pretty strict and getting new employees take a lot of time. On top of that, they have rents due. So, I get it.

But this begs a more fundamental question: When are we going to start pressuring insurance companies and rent-seekers to provide relief? Time and time again, all the bailouts of the past seem to benefit them, but during a time when we need insurance companies to pay out for business interruption instead of claiming "act of God, we exclude pandemics...etc.," we fail to bring them into the conversation.

<comment><USER11> The best situation all around here possibly is the concept of "Kurzarbeit", or short work system, that exists in Germany (Denmark also has a similar one, I believe). It basically allows employers to reduce hours they pay workers, while the gov't helps cover the shortfall to the employee, up to some maximum amount.

This prevents companies from having to layoff people, and allows them to pickup the slack and rehire everyone again when things get better.

<comment><USER12> A similar concept is found in the CARE Act related to employers that reduce the hours or wages of employment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This chart is just getting crazier and crazier: [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUmW1PgXYAEdggm?format=png&name=...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUmW1PgXYAEdggm?format=png&name=4096x4096)

</comment><comment><USER14> There's a sense that once "lockdown" ends, thing go back to normal. In other words, the "V" shaped recovery is the dominant mental model.

Should that not materialize, the disappointment and anger will reach level not seen in most people's lifetimes.

One reason the V-scenario might not play out is that the US still doesn't have a handle on the testing problem. Without testing, you have no way to estimate the danger to the public of normalizing economic activity. At the first sign of a new outbreak, the entire lockdown cycle will repeat.

Too few people will have gained immunity, and the disease is far too contagious and deadly to take any chances. We still don't know what "immunity" looks like at any rate.

Alternatively, the lies about testing may have burned people so badly by the time the "all clear" is given (whatever that looks like), that few will believe it. The effect would be a national strike/boycott.

<comment><USER15> > Should that not materialize

And soon. A great many people have a low tolerance for indefinite lockdowns. The longer we go without any kind of plan, the more likely it becomes that people will begin disregarding it. I already see that the amount of traffic on the roads is increasing over time.

What we need are leaders, and it's glaringly obvious that in most states we don't have that. During peacetime nobody notices, but when the SHTF the leadership vacuum is palpable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My job has been inundated with applications from people who are not even in tech in any way (think like barbers & home depot workers). I see now why so many companies use automation to filter out resumes.

<comment><USER17> One of the requirements for unemployment is to show proof of actively applying for jobs.

If workers are not interested in actually resuming work for the time being, they would apply jobs for which they would not qualify for, preferably ones that won't even contact them back.

This is a very cynical view, but could be a partial explaination.

<comment><USER10> "If workers are not interested in actually resuming work for the time being, they would apply jobs for which they would not qualify for, preferably ones that won't even contact them back."

It's not cynical - it's real.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've seen a lot of small businesses do the math, and realize that with the additional $600 provided by the stimulus bill, it actually works out better for some lower paid workers to lay them off (and presumably rehire later). I wonder if this might explain higher than expected numbers.

<comment><USER19> We just did that yesterday. It actually works out better for a lot of people. The break even point in California is around $25/hr. If you made under $25/hr it pays more to be unemployed. For some people who were part time at $15/hr or less they will actually see paychecks double. And you no longer have to even be looking for work to keep getting the money, at least through July 31.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Expected 3M. This new figure is about 10x financial crisis high.

<comment><USER16> And they want us to believe that it will be ok because of a $1200 check and state unemployment benefits....

<comment><USER6> > And they want us to believe that it will be ok because of a $1200 check and > state unemployment benefits....

Not true. The unemployment benefits have also been augmented by up to $600/week above state unemployment benefits. This amount applies even if your state benefits have been exhausted.

The $1200 is an extra stimulus check for people whether or not they're still employed. Not to be confused with the unemployment benefits.

<comment><USER20> I don't think the $1200 goes to everyone, though, right? There's an income threshold.

I mean, the number is almost irrelevant given the extent of the crisis. Might as well make it a million a person because some fundamental truths of the economy are going to completely change.

<comment><USER21> It starts phasing out at $75,000 AGI. Decreases 5% for every dollar over. For example, if you make $84,000 AGI, you would get $1200-.05*(84000-75000) = $750.

It decreases to $0 at $99,000.

Edit: double everything for a married couple - potential for $2400 that begins phasing out at $150,000 and drops to $0 at $198,000.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I hope that tech industry employees do not feel immune to this.

I encourage you to take a look at your customer base and think very critically about where that money is actually coming from.

<comment><USER23> I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance for tech employees partially because tech thrived in the 2008 crisis. Investors looking to make high risk/reward investments had no where else to go but SV. If you aren't old enough to remember the dot-com boom it's understandable you might feel tech is invincible.

Tech will not be insulated from this and in general I think we'll see a major contraction of the tech labour force. There are so many non-tech companies that want in on the VC and other investor money so they are rapidly building out expensive tech teams to create illusion that they are the next tech giant.

Not to mention the other weakness in tech: RSUs as the main factor of total comp. If the market continues to drop, especially if it hits hards, a huge number of SV workers will be getting automatic pay cuts due to rapidly decreased values in RSU. A lot of expensive real estate in SV is paid for by RSUs.

This crisis is going to be insane.

<comment><USER24> VCs, possibly. The larger tech companies are selling 1 and 3 year deals for software, which will see some impact, but largely distance them from the deep V because of the length of the terms.

<comment><USER25> Sure, but what if you sold your 3 year deal to an airline that is now effectively stuck in bankruptcy for the next 10 years. Or any of the 100 other industries/sub-industries that are completely shut down right now. If I can't afford to pay rent on my office I sure as heck am not paying Microsoft either.

<comment><USER22> > Sure, but what if you sold your 3 year deal to an airline that is now > effectively stuck in bankruptcy for the next 10 years. Or any of the 100 > other industries/sub-industries that are completely shut down right now. If > I can't afford to pay rent on my office I sure as heck am not paying > Microsoft either.

I'm not clear such contracts make it through bankruptcy court.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Keep in mind that state unemployment websites and call centers are often overloaded and there are many complaints that people can't even file in the first place.

It's is highly likely that these high numbers continue for additional weeks because all the people who couldn't get through will manage to get through in upcoming weeks.

</comment><comment><USER27> Hopefully most of these people will be re-employed once the crisis has subsided a bit and our ability to handle the likely echo peaks of infections happen over the next year increases. There will certainly be starts and stops as the highly interdependent parts of the economy try to get streamlined again in a rather herky-jerky manner. No doubt some companies and maybe even large portion of industries collapse. Also companies that are healthy might take this situation as an opportunity to cut away what they consider to be dead weight under the cover of the crisis.

Unemployment numbers, if we're lucky, will crash quickly but there's going to be a long tail on the recovery.

</comment><comment><USER28> The long term scars of this upcoming Depression will be unlike anything anyone under 70 has experienced. And the scars will be long lasting.

My mother in law used to use Cool Whip containers for leftovers. When we'd visit, she'd send us home with food packed in them. Usually stuff like mashed potatoes, but often good stuff too. And when we'd visit her in a few weeks/month, she'd ask where her containers were. This was a generation that saved EVERYTHING. The idea of throwing something out was disrespectful. Waste was the worst of many mortal sins. All because of the Great Depression.

<comment><USER29> A 70 year old today was born in 1950. What have they experienced that's worse than this? I think this is going to be unlike anything in living memory.

<comment><USER30> my grandfather was a teen during ww2.

This behaviour was common with him aswell. Saving even the bones of chicken/cows to make stock.

when a was a smile child and was nagging him for something to eat, he used to tell me i have never experienced hunger, only "trek". (which would be roughly translated to snackish).

<comment><USER28> My father was a butcher's son during the Depression. Whenever someone in the family would say "I'm starving!" he would get mad and explain that you had no idea what you were talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Any numbers on what is happening for software engineering unemployment?

<comment><USER20> I don't think you really need to distinguish between industries at this point. It's all bad.

<comment><USER29> Is it really? I only have two direct data points, but I (government contractor) and my brother (large company) are both still fully employed with no immediate risk of unemployment, reduction in salary, etc.

Just look at the numbers. 20% unemployment, while horrific in both human and economic terms, also implies 80% _employment_. When nearly everyone in the hospitality industry is out of a job, I have to think that some other industry is doing relatively better or the numbers would be even worse.

<comment><USER25> There's going to be a lag but software is an expense to the real-world companies and consumers. Our revenues don't materialize from the ether. Not to even mention what any VC-reliant companies are going to face when their runway is over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Yet you wouldn't know it based on the stock market.

Where is this collapse you all talk about? Donald Pump and Powell will just use infinite QE and monetary policy to fix all of our problems. After all, the US Dollar is still strong due to a liquidity shortage world-wide from everyone being desperate to convert domestic money to USD

Until that liquidity crisis dries up within the world, stonks seem only go up. Money printer goes brrrrr. I've never seen markets behave so effing irrationally before. Investors are pants on head stupid at a level that boggels my mind.

"markets can be irrational longer than you can stay solvent" is being proven to be sage advice with this pandemic.

</comment><comment><USER33> Now let's see how the gamblers and con artists who run health care can handle an uninsured nation in plague... smh.

</comment><comment><USER34> Private health care will try to collect on all of their costs in regards to this pandemic, if the US government allows that it will kill the economy even further. How long until the US Government nationalizes Health Care?

</comment><comment><USER35> How much of this is temporary and how much will be long term? Also how does the stimulus help here?

<comment><USER29> No one knows. This is an entirely unprecedented event.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Is there any data on these numbers broken down by industry and profession?

</comment><comment><USER37> The odd thing to me about it is that futures seem largely positive. Is it because the CAREs act or dropped labor is supposed to equal money not spent and thus meant to shield companies ( and investors )? I honestly do not get how market interprets it as good news.

<comment><USER38> Not necessarily interpreted as "good news", probably more like "already priced in".

<comment><USER39> The market is just currently confused and will soon undoubtedly go down. 6.6m this week is just insane. Hopefully we'll see some good news regarding the virus soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Is the title incorrect? Reading the article it says an additional 3M, for a _total_ of six million

<comment><USER41> If I'm understanding the article correctly, the title is correct - there were 6.6M initial unemployment claims filed in the last week alone, which is about 3M more than were filed in the previous week. This would give a total of about 10M new unemployment claims over the two-week period.</comment></comment>


New features come to Amazon SimpleDB - <AUTHOR> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2008/07/new-features-co.html <comment><USER2> If SimpleDB supported cursors, you could create sorted indexes. This should allow for better performance than running a sort as part of a query.</comment>


How Google Works - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/ericschmidt76/how-google-works-final-1 <comment><USER3> I found these slides rather shallow. Smart, creative people are the best employees? Who knew! The Internet led to massive disruptions in traditional businesses? Wow!

Sorry for my cynicism/sarcasm, but I see the book campaign as Eric Schmidt positioning himself for his next role. He's trying to secure his personal Google legacy as he gets ready for an exit. I can't imagine it's all that enticing to go from CEO to chairman in a company where the founder takes back the CEO role... how much influence does that leave you?

<comment><USER4> First, the slides are meant to be simple. Notice how this is written/drawn in a children's book style? Second, I do think it's very very provocative for "formal" people like me. I'm the business guy in a suit who just left Procter & Gamble.

<comment><USER5> What you are slightly experiencing is the East coast/West coast culture shift.

<comment><USER3> Dividing this sort of knowledge between East/West is antiquated at best. New York City has a vibrant startup scene and Boston is the center of the robotics industry.

<comment><USER4> Agree with you, but it´s still antiquated. I'm a Brazilian guy who´s living in Colombia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I started work at google pretty recently, and expressed an interest in working on a particular project. I made some notes about some of my ideas, and was putting some stuff together to show to one of the teams, to get some input before prototyping.

I asked a senior team member to have a look at the notes I had made, and see if they were ready to show to the wider team.

His advice?

"Go build something, then we can have meetings"

Coming from an academic background I find this type of thinking very refreshing.

<comment><USER7> I was under the impression that the work load at Google is so heavy that it is almost impossible to get "20% time" anymore. During what time did you work on your idea? Are they freeing you of all responsibilities to build your prototype or do they expect you to do it in your free time and then donate it to the company?

Thanks, I'm very curious about this aspect of Google's culture.

<comment><USER8> I joined Google a few months ago and have not had this experience. The company is gigantic so everybody's situation is a little bit different, but plenty of people still have 20% projects. The culture strongly emphasizes a "build first and ask questions later" attitude.

<comment><USER9> Another guy saying he still uses his:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431951](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431951)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is not how Google works, this is a PR product -- it's full of fashionable and/or trivial things that we see on various blogs every single day. I don't see why is this interesting to the HN crowd, but well, who am I to judge this. :)

<comment><USER11> I think it's related to a book written by Schmidt and that Rosenberg guy, I think I just read a review about it a couple of weeks ago (here's the review: [http://www.economist.com/news/books-and- arts/21620056-search...](http://www.economist.com/news/books-and- arts/21620056-search-giant-shares-some-its-business-methods-dont-be-modest)).

As for the presentation itself, maybe it's because I'm becoming more and more grumpier with age and haven't drunk my coffee yet, but there's something to be said about today's _langue de bois_ , with expressions like "smart creative" and "Internet Century" being some worthy examples.

<comment><USER12> Nah, I think it's neither age nor coffee. As much as I love what Google is doing, I get this distinct impression that they're starting to get infected with bullshit language (which usually leads to bullshit thinking). The presentation is full of "wooden language". It's like it was made for some corporate managers or something.

And don't get me started on pictrues in the presentation. It really feels like clip-arts all over again. I just hope they don't add them to Google Docs.

<comment><USER13> > It's like it was made for some corporate managers or something.

Because it was ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The answer to "What has changed? Which assumptions do people make that are no longer true? Why does everything feel like it's speeding up?" is supposedly "Technology is transforming virtually every business sector."

It list three examples which are mostly true. But the same answer could easily have been said any time in at least the last 120 years -- and it _was_. I think the complaint about the shallow content in this presentation is completely justified, because there's nothing really new about the idea of change.

Steam power. Electricity. Telegraph. Telephone. Mechanical calculators. Slide rules. Cheap aluminum. Flight. Punch card sorting machines. Linotype machines. Each of those are examples where technology transformed business sectors.

The telegraph made it possible for information to reach around the world on the same day it happened. Ham radio enthusiasts talked to each other around the world, including bouncing TV signals off the moon. Scratch off the names and it's the same ideas that this presentation promotes as something somehow new. It's assumes the fallacy that what you grew up with was slow and unchanging.

It's difficult to read much of the research literature from the 1960s without hearing people talk about the "information explosion" and there being too much change and things out of balance.

Mail order is an 1800s example of "barriers to entry melting away" and is how Sears gained its fame. So was the rise of the daily newspaper, subsidized by advertising that made is possible for people to know what was available.

"Power has shifted from companies to consumers" ... Hello, the 1930s called. Consumer Reports wants to know if you would like a subscription so they can pay for rigorous testing. Or do you seriously think that mass edited unrestricted feedback can't be gamed?

"Individuals and small teams have a massive impact." etc. That sounds a lot like the HP Way, which has as point #1 "We have trust and respect for individuals"

Except, oddly enough, the Google way doesn't mention ethics. Compare to the HP Way where "We conduct our business with uncompromising integrity." and that as a good corporate citizen HP will "meet the obligations of good citizenship by making contributions to the community and to the institutions in our society which generate the environment in which we operate.

Does Google consider ethics less important than business nirvana?

What is new in this presentation that HP didn't cover in the 1960s?

</comment><comment><USER15> And then Larry Page walked in and said "Focus! Everybody's goal is to push Google+ now!"

<comment><USER16> IANAG, but as far as I understand G+ is a twofold process: first, there's transforming Google into a platform (as per Yegge's famous rant [0]) and secondly, there's the mediocre social network (they've managed to fail at both UX and perf, kudos for that achievement). The latter, and the confusion itself are obviously pretty idiotic. The G+ platform, despite the annoying name, is a pretty solid idea.

Larry Page claims to want to be a modern, successful Tesla [1], and I believe and appreciate him for that, but some of his actions since he took the reins again (G+, Android) are ones you'd rather expect from an Ellison or Gates. Probably that's a good tradeoff for being able to sustain innovation at a massive scale, but I'm just wondering whether some of the decisions he makes are just plain uninspired, rather than ruthless.

This being said, Larry is still the reason I want to work for Google at some point in the future. I feel like he's one of the very few high-profile CEOs that appreciate ideas and cool shit more than money, and that's something I think hackers in particular need to appreciate.

0: [https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX](https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX)

1: [http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-the-untold- story-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-the-untold-story-2014-4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My hope is that this is partly the case due to what is often lamented as an endemic sense of entitlement in Generation Y. Capable, well-off, "smart creatives," having been raised to believe that they can and will make a positive impact if only they try hard enough and make the right decisions. Cumulatively (not collectively, yet), they demand the conditions they need to execute and to feel like they're getting a fair bargain for their most precious resource: their "passion."

This might mean that we can make the world a better place by _raising_ their expectations even higher. In other words, if no one will work for Google unless they are given the environment and autonomy to do truly great things, as measured by a well-considered external standard, then Google might just be forced to do great things.

We all know Google has done some things that are not so great. Regulation is one tool the public wields, but perhaps we can do something about that from the inside as well.

<comment><USER18> Once again downvoting a perfectly fine post with no indication exactly what your fucking problem is in the first place. Good job, HN.

<comment><USER19> Disregard early downvotes. Voting still mostly balances out in the end.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In addition to obviously selling the upcoming book this also seems to be selling Google to potential "smart creative" types. Kind of saying that Google is the one which has the ability to give "smart creative" types the freedom they need to flourish. So in addition to selling copies of the book Eric is also selling Google to potential employees.

</comment><comment><USER21> The presentation is a little silly, yes, but if there's any truth to it - <USER2> Google actually works this way - that could make all the difference.

There are places that simply don't give a shit about "smart creative" types, and there are places that claim to have a Google-like culture but in practice are just regular old boss-centric jobs. Every CEO wants to be like Google, but very few actually commit to it.

It usually starts like this: the CEO wants to have smart creatives and delegate decisions. But then he thinks about all that hard-won money he'll be throwing at an employee, so he hires someone middle level or fresh out of college "with huge potential". Then he systematically micromanages the guy, because he just can't make that jump. The poor soul either abides (not so smart creative after all) or quickly runs out of steam (this guy will quickly start looking at job posts). Eventually the new hire disappoints in some way and the CEO cynically complains about the failed promises of the cool tech company culture which he tried to implement.

Seeing a very successful company like Google follow these principles, and win, might influence decision makers in a positive way.

</comment><comment><USER22> "As a result, barriers to entry that have stood for decades are melting away. Every incumbent business is vulnerable to competition and disruption."

Upper middle class dudes from elite academic institutions create businesses. What's the new thing? Maybe I'm misstating this and I'm just going to piss away what few points I have less, but hasn't business always been this way?

Railroads killed the stagecoach, the lightbulb killed gas lamps, Craigslist killed the newspapers. Amazon might well kill Google, but if they do, its not necessarily a new thing.

<comment><USER23> Yes, but the demographic constituency who can play the game is expanding. It's getting easier to hack your socio-economic status.

<comment><USER22> The guys that started Google came from Stanford, the Facebook guy, Harvard. The Dropbox guys, MIT. Is there someone who went to Bunker Hill Community College or its many equivaltents who was able create a majorly disruptive business? I don't want to sound like Reddit, but link to something.

<comment><USER23> I am not trying to argue how the game is played. But take the google founder. Here is the son of a computer science academic migrant, who kind of hacked his way into corporate power, without needing to show all the ruthlessnes of the past centuries titans. Now you could say that he was more privileged than your average joe. And It's true. But he is less privileged that you usually needed to be to attaign that level of success. It's true of him, true of Larry Ellison, and countless untold stories. And with them, of all the people they brought into the adventure. Te be fair, It has always been true that self-made giant could come from any avenue of life. The difference is that it has never been so well documented.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> One line from the slides (33) - "Optimize for growth, not revenue."

I'm curious, why is everyone nowadays so obsessed with growth? Is growth really that much more important than revenue? What if you strike a balance between the two?

I remember reading what one of the WhatsApp's founders once said: "[..] we focused on business sustainability and revenue rather than getting big fast [..]" And it looks like they did alright.

<comment><USER25> I am not sure what the full context for your quote is, but most people would agree that Whatsapp focused on growth (in terms of number of users) and not so much revenue (i.e. they made enough to be sustainable and independent).

<comment><USER24> source for the quote: [http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/19/whatsapp- excl...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/19/whatsapp-exclusive)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> These slides are a summary (introduction? teaser?) for Schmidt and Rosenberg's new book, How Google Works[1].

1\. [http://www.howgoogleworks.net/](http://www.howgoogleworks.net/)

<comment><USER19> Which had an interesting reception among Googlers.

<comment><USER27> How so?

<comment><USER28> Reflection of a CEO massively disconnected from what it's actually like to work there.

<comment><USER29> Most of these execs are smart enough not to have a disconnect. They know exactly how decisions are made and what is going on. These slides are about making existing googlers feel good about what is happening around them. It would suck for the talent at google to be called a pyramid slave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Interesting how on slide 15 when describing characteristics of smart creatives, out of technical knowledge, business expertise and creativity it is business expertise that is associated with needing brain power.

</comment><comment><USER31> Wow! I Love him talking about creating company culture for smart creative people! Those are presumably the same smart creative people that Google illegally stopped from competing in the job market. Nice one!

</comment><comment><USER32> Seems like a desperate attempt to drum up book sales. Whomever created this could have just found motivational posters and pasted them in all 50 slides. I found nothing in this but same old tired cliches; try hard, don't give up, think big. "What's different now?"

</comment><comment><USER33> The fact that this content-free advertisement for Google gets upvoted to the front-page of a community where most people can see right through it (regardless of how they personally feel about Google) suggest HN is getting astro-turfed.

Seriously, who upvotes this?

</comment><comment><USER34> I think google's culture has become quite of a joke, and only the people inside the company are still not aware of it. "Do no evil" has been replaced by "pay no tax".

They've launched two succesful products in their entire history (search engine and gmail), the rest has been bought or only work because they're given away for free.

An from what i've heard, internal culture with meetings that explain what should people at google think to really be a "googler" is turning into an orwelian nightmare ("but it's for the general good" isn't an answer to limited personnal opinion).

</comment><comment><USER35> That stupid webpage keeps forwarding me to an empty page after a few seconds in.

<comment><USER36> Me too. Use the embed link instead: [http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/40175706?rel=...](http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/40175706?rel=0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Loved the presentation, makes me realise how much more difficult it is to hire and foster innovative culture here in India where the office space is still marred by the age old 'BOSS Rules' culture.

<comment><USER38> Totally agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I didn't know Google as a startup that needed showcasing on HN.

</comment><comment><USER40> Page 54. For the success of those products we need to add two extra components (in my opinion):

[http://image.slidesharecdn.com/howgoogleworksfinal1-14101217...](http://image.slidesharecdn.com/howgoogleworksfinal1-141012171037-conversion- gate01/95/how-google-works-15-638.jpg?cb=1413303906)

(Technical knowledge + business expertise + creativity)

You also need:

Luck + Hard (smarter) work

</comment><comment><USER41> And then you apply for a job and wait... wait... and wait some more with no updates. Rather fix/speed up recruiting than making bogus slides. If a customer (or applicant) expresses interest in your company, also be humble and give an answer within acceptable time.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Focus on growth, not on revenue"

Not an exact quote but an idea that was expressed in the slides. I'm curious as to how one achieves this....if this was a sincere bit of advice then I'd love to learn more about what he meant!

</comment><comment><USER43> I can't seem to find it but Jeff Dean did a talk a long while back about How Google's search works, how they predict. I wish I could see it again. He talks about "shard" servers.

Anyone remember this?

</comment><comment><USER44> > "Never forget that _hiring_ is the _most important_ thing you do."

Uhh.... I think at least a hundred commenters on HN who've gone through Google hiring would disagree with you.

</comment><comment><USER45> These slides are one of recruiting tools for Google.

</comment><comment><USER46> I've received the book last week and read it during the weekend. It has plenty of insights and great ideas that you can take and try to use in your current area of work.

</comment><comment><USER29> Dunno but I found most of it fairly clichéd

<comment><USER47> > Dunno but I found most of it fairly clichéd

That's what they get from imitating Apple, the poster child of whitewashed generic stock presentations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I love the illustrations!

</comment><comment><USER49> Was that a little nod to Apple in slide 42?

</comment><comment><USER50> The motivation of Google is not even discussed here. Why do you want to create a certain environment for "smart creatives?" Oh yeah, almost forgot... so they'll make products that will make Google lots of money. This always leads to a logic contradiction. If they are so smart and creative, why do they need Google? Everyone knows if you create the next g-mail you still walk in on Monday and get a salary, not equity. You might get a huge bonus, or Google might choose get another airliner instead. That's a risk you'll be taking.

<comment><USER51> > If they are so smart and creative, why do they need Google?

Many things cannot be created individually, no matter how smart and creative you are. Think of pyramids, space ships, - or even GMail. It's about leveraging the resources of a big company.

And not to forget the low risk: you build something while you are on salary vs. building something for equity that may or may not worth dollars in the end.

<comment><USER52> Just a tip: you don't want to be one of the people building a pyramid. You may want to think of a non-enslavement-and-death example when you explain why somewhere might be a good place to work. I can just imagine the recruiter's pitch now...

<comment><USER12> Why? That slave labour was used to build pyramids is a popular but unfounded belief. There is evidence suggesting that some pyramids were built by well- paid government contractors.

Also apparently American-type slavery was a historical abberation. A typical slave in the past was not unlike a salaried employee today. He was well- treated, earned good money for his services and was able to free himself after accumulating enough of it, which is not unlike the FU money many a startup founder wants to have.

[0] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques)

[1] - [http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/manumission.pdf](http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/manumission.pdf)

<comment><USER28> >free himself after accumulating enough of it

If you don't think enslavement to a particular person is worse than working now, you need a reality check.

<comment><USER12> Do I? I mind you, "enslavement" has bad connotations mostly thanks to United States, it wasn't _that bad_ in the ancient past.

Also consider that technology sector is somewhat special in this regard. Your typical unskilled worker is pretty much a wage slave. Many a slave in the past (again, excluding US) was in much better situation than your average friendly neighbourhood supermarket clerk.

<comment><USER53> > Many a slave in the past (again, excluding US) was in much better situation > than your average friendly neighbourhood supermarket clerk.

Unless you are using some exotic definition of enslavement, there is a fundamental difference between slave an employee. A slave is a property of his owner [0], thus slave has no agency and is completely dependent on her/his owner decisions. Employee may choose to be dependent on her/his employer to any extent she/he chooses, but it is her/his choice. You may argue that both slave and employer _may_ end up being completely dependent on her/his owner/employer, but from the point of view of the law and society the situation is always completely different.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery)

<comment><USER54> There are other ways of enforced labour as well as slavery, and some are quite close to home. Indentured workers, and poor houses for example, and the company scrip, are slightly less brutal forms of something similar to slavery, as are workers in the penal system. In all of these systems the workers aren't really able to walk away from their "owner". And some of this is fairly recent involving Ikea [4] and Walmart [5].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour) [4] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/business/global/ikea-to- re...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/business/global/ikea-to-report-on- allegations-of-using-forced-labor-during-cold-war.html?_r=0) [5] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/05/mexico-walmex- idUS...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/05/mexico-walmex- idUSN0546591320080905)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> If you are the top tech company is it hard to attract talent?

</comment><comment><USER56> The images were distracting, the text was not prominent enough and slide 29 is religiously and humanly offensive to several billion people.</comment>