zlacker

> This is the wildest part. One company that is proving all the "why does <company> need 10000 engineers?" takes true.

Generally speaking, <company> needs <number> engineers because it's rational to keep hiring while each incremental engineer generates more value than they cost in salary and overhead, even if some of those engineers are at less than 50% utilisation and have to generate pointless make-work for themselves to get past performance review.

>>strken+(OP)
that sounds like a path to an unsustainable situation where your company is run by socially adept fratboys and charismatic politicians instead of hackers, with company leadership insulated from actual facts on the ground by many layers of middle managers with strong incentives to lie? even if those incremental engineers are generating more value at first, they won't be able to continue doing so when most of the company exists to defend their pointless make-work. the people who leave first won't be the ones spending their time on pointless make-work

>>strken+(OP)
I feel a leaner company would better survive a downturn, though. Fewer layoffs and disruption.

>>kragen+0O
too much assumptions in the first sentence

>>kyawza+q91
possibly, but it certainly seems to be a common failure mode

>>kragen+Ob1
based on what data

>>kyawza+983
have you ever worked for a company