Intel to lay off Bay Area employees

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
4,432
:( Not good! But I hear the Bay Area is a lot of slackers that arrive to work by 10am, have 1.5 hour lunch breaks and home by 5pm!

"In its notice to the state, the company said it would offer some affected employees severance pay based on years of service as well as money to pay for health insurance premiums for a period after they lose their jobs. The benefits will be “offered to the employees in exchange for a standard release agreement,” Intel said."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Intel-to-lay-off-Bay-Area-employees-despite-15054307.php
 
Last edited:

Eymar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
241
:( Not good! But I hear the Bay Area is a lot of slackers that arrive to work by 10pm, have 1.5 hour lunch breaks and home by 5pm!

"In its notice to the state, the company said it would offer some affected employees severance pay based on years of service as well as money to pay for health insurance premiums for a period after they lose their jobs. The benefits will be “offered to the employees in exchange for a standard release agreement,” Intel said."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Intel-to-lay-off-Bay-Area-employees-despite-15054307.php
10pm? Well damn I'd take a 1.5 hour lunch break too if I worked 14 hours by noon. It must suck for the 129 employees, but that's a drop in the bucket for Intel.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,130
The problem is for a SFO employee cost for an equivalent position elsewhere you could get 2 for the same price.
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
4,432
10pm? Well damn I'd take a 1.5 hour lunch break too if I worked 14 hours by noon. It must suck for the 129 employees, but that's a drop in the bucket for Intel.
10am, sorry
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,592
The problem is for a SFO employee cost for an equivalent position elsewhere you could get 2 for the same price.
You don't have the concentration of highly skilled workers elsewhere. Do you think Masters degrees and PhDs fall out of cereal boxes?
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,130
You don't have the concentration of highly skilled workers elsewhere. Do you think Masters degrees and PhDs fall out of cereal boxes?
Austin Tx, DFW Tx, just to name two regions off the top of my head with a lower cost of living and plenty of experienced people. Sure you have to compete with some big names. But even then your cost per employee is less than SFO.
 

JosiahBradley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
1,770
I mean why keep paying employees if you're not producing anything new? It's like Intel's bread and butter is just repeat products. How many phones have an Intel modem? They've been selling the same server NICs for years. On desktop they've literally spun the same silicon for what half a decade? At least in mobile they have some new stuff. But everything else they've got maximum saturation or the competition has them beat so bad it's not worth competing. They get by because they're a household name at this point. Might as well save a few bucks near HQ and keep on the cheaper employees everywhere else. Of course this will probably backfire when they realize they need top talent again to keep that stronghold. Also AMD is right down the road so these people may have a good chance at getting a job back. The downside to the Bay area is yeah everything expensive, but everyone pays really well and there's a lot of job opportunities and growth especially for someone with experience here. I wish these souls best of luck, but they're probably going to do better than your average layoff.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,021
But I hear the Bay Area is a lot of slackers that arrive to work by 10am, have 1.5 hour lunch breaks and home by 5pm!
That sounds about right for the educated workforce that has figured out how to work smarter and not harder.
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,592
Austin Tx, DFW Tx, just to name two regions off the top of my head with a lower cost of living and plenty of experienced people. Sure you have to compete with some big names. But even then your cost per employee is less than SFO.
Most of them are likely silicon valley transplants. Not many people willing to relocate to Texas.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,356
Most of them are likely silicon valley transplants. Not many people willing to relocate to Texas.
State grew 18% in the past 8 years, California 6%. California is increasingly depopulating. Not Connecticut, Illinois or New York levels yet but getting there. Pretty much everyone who isn't an immigrant (legal or illegal) is leaving save for a small number of highly skilled people going to the top tier positions at places like Google.

Don't think CA will ever be as bad as CT or IL though, because it at least has some things going for it.
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,592
State grew 18% in the past 8 years, California 6%. California is increasingly depopulating. Not Connecticut, Illinois or New York levels yet but getting there. Pretty much everyone who isn't an immigrant (legal or illegal) is leaving save for a small number of highly skilled people going to the top tier positions at places like Google.

Don't think CA will ever be as bad as CT or IL though, because it at least has some things going for it.
Looking at USBL statistics, CA doesn't look like it's in trouble at all contrary to the bullshit some people that aren't Californians post: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/california.htm#eag vs TX: https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx.htm

Now examine information growth:
CA:

Information(3)
icon_hist.gif
555.5560.2558.1557.9566.3(p)562.4
12-month % change
icon_hist.gif
2.82.92.30.53.1(p)2.1

TX:

Information(3)
icon_hist.gif
202.4201.9201.3202.8202.3(p)201.9
12-month % change
icon_hist.gif
-0.8-0.7-1.50.0-1.4(p)-1.2
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,130
Looking at USBL statistics, CA doesn't look like it's in trouble at all contrary to the bullshit some people that aren't Californians post: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/california.htm#eag vs TX: https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx.htm

Now examine information growth:
CA:

Information(3)555.5560.2558.1557.9566.3(p)562.4
12-month % change2.82.92.30.53.1(p)2.1

TX:

Information(3)202.4201.9201.3202.8202.3(p)201.9
12-month % change-0.8-0.7-1.50.0-1.4(p)-1.2
That says to me that there are more people looking for IT work in Texas than in CA. Also take a gander at the unemployment numbers between the two.

Plus that isn't # of people but salary change.

Nonfarm Wage and Salary Employment

So yes the cost to hire someone in California has increased year over year in California. where as the average cost of an employee in Texas has gone down.

Also for people not wanting to live in Texas... just google population growth in texas 2019... you will see a bevy of articles just like this one.

https://www.kut.org/post/nations-population-growth-slows-texas-sees-jump
So it seems like plenty of people are moving to Texas. Maybe they are being forced to?
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,356
Looking at USBL statistics, CA doesn't look like it's in trouble at all contrary to the bullshit some people that aren't Californians post: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/california.htm#eag vs TX: https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx.htm

Now examine information growth:
CA:

Information(3)555.5560.2558.1557.9566.3(p)562.4
12-month % change2.82.92.30.53.1(p)2.1

TX:

Information(3)202.4201.9201.3202.8202.3(p)201.9
12-month % change-0.8-0.7-1.50.0-1.4(p)-1.2
That doesn't disprove the disparity in population growth rates or the high outflow from CA. There is a reason why all western states, minus NM, are exploding in population relative to CA. And your claim of not many people wanting to relocate to TX doesn't ring true either, it is one of the most sought after states in the nation currently. Come to the bay area and talk to the people here. Not many are natives and many of the ones that are plan on leaving for one reason or another.
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,592
That doesn't disprove the disparity in population growth rates or the high outflow from CA. There is a reason why all western states, minus NM, are exploding in population relative to CA. And your claim of not many people wanting to relocate to TX doesn't ring true either, it is one of the most sought after states in the nation currently. Come to the bay area and talk to the people here. Not many are natives and many of the ones that are plan on leaving for one reason or another.
I live near the bay area, it's not like I'm unfamiliar with it. I am also acutely aware of the housing crisis there but that has nothing to do with jobs available or growth. They've priced themselves high because the demand is high. BTW my ex-wife's uncle worked for Intel and cadence there in the bay area and never wanted to leave. He only had to once Intel relocated his job to Arizona so some have no choice in the matter. BTW the job relocation to AZ didn't result in a pay cut for him either so he ended up making his dollars stretch further out in AZ but hated it there.

That says to me that there are more people looking for IT work in Texas than in CA. Also take a gander at the unemployment numbers between the two.

Plus that isn't # of people but salary change.
It says this in the footnote for Information jobs: (3) Number of jobs, in thousands, seasonally adjusted.

The 12 month change for TX showed job loss, not growth.

https://www.kut.org/post/nations-population-growth-slows-texas-sees-jump
So it seems like plenty of people are moving to Texas. Maybe they are being forced to?
That article only says the population grew, not from migration of highly skilled workers.
 
Last edited:

caddys83

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
3,374
Austin Tx, DFW Tx, just to name two regions off the top of my head with a lower cost of living and plenty of experienced people. Sure you have to compete with some big names. But even then your cost per employee is less than SFO.
keep those Commifornia asshole out of Texas!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liver
like this

Joust

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
3,231
You don't have the concentration of highly skilled workers elsewhere. Do you think Masters degrees and PhDs fall out of cereal boxes?
The problem is for a SFO employee cost for an equivalent position elsewhere you could get 2 for the same price.

Yeah, so, if they were paying market price in Bay Area, they could probably get FOUR qualified individuals in most - but not all - major metro areas.

As for degrees, there's plenty to go around. I have several myself. There's no shortage of academically achieved individuals, if that's your goal. However, I'd suggest that many of your best hot rod employees aren't sporting so much paper achoevements, but rather commercial success.
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,592
Yeah, so, if they were paying market price in Bay Area, they could probably get FOUR qualified individuals in most - but not all - major metro areas.

As for degrees, there's plenty to go around. I have several myself. There's no shortage of academically achieved individuals, if that's your goal. However, I'd suggest that many of your best hot rod employees aren't sporting so much paper achoevements, but rather commercial success.
How do you think they achieved success? You don't work out of a garage and create engineering patents, you usually need a masters/PhD level education. And no, there aren't as many to go around as you think, hence why we have such a robust H1B program. Go look in the bay area, its full of Indians on H1B, literally neighborhoods packed full of them.
 
Last edited:

Joust

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
3,231
How do you think they achieved success? You don't work out of a garage and create engineering patents, you usually need a masters/PhD level education. And no, there aren't as many to go around as you think, hence why we have such a robust H1B program. Go look in the bay area, its full of Indians on H1B, literally neighborhoods packed full of them.
I can tell you what I think on the matter - informed just by what my life experience has been.

An understanding of engineering, as you point out, is required. I would also agree that you get that, most commonly, in higher education. However, to the extent that you have "done enough" school is indicated by hiring practices and commercial viability of the skillset, at a given education level.

I would argue that generally, professional engineers (P.E. qualified) represent the top of the class. Unlike in other professions, it is not necessary to have graduate-level work to sit for the exam. Similarly, if you've reached economic viability with an only undergrad work, it would be foolish to continue. Lost wages, more expense - that kind of thing.

The reason you have all the H1B has absolutely nothing to do with lack of available workforce. It has everything to do with cheap labor. Ever seen a job posting for 5+ years experience, Master's degree - with expected pay at $15/hr? That's a posting for the purpose of H1B guys.

Do you know how much outsourced labor is in India? Incredibly cheap. One Bay area engineer would net you probably 20 or so of them - all with Masters degrees or above. For example, I am aware of a LARGE institution that outsourced transactional level financial work to India. The cost was $.07 per $1 of the US-based cost. Rework required? Yes. Quality of work? Low. But was it 14x worse? Certainly worth a try, wouldn't you say?
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
5,873
Austin Tx, DFW Tx, just to name two regions off the top of my head with a lower cost of living and plenty of experienced people. Sure you have to compete with some big names. But even then your cost per employee is less than SFO.
Becoming less true by the day. People are flooding into there so fast and it's becoming saturated with skyrocketing prices that eventually it won't be worth it anymore. And then you're stuck with insane heat and humidity. No thanks.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,310
That sounds about right for the educated workforce that has figured out how to work smarter and not harder.
If you are great and can automate part of your work so it can be finished in 3 hours instead 8 than doesn't mean you can have the rest of the day off.
Your employer pays for your time, not for rigging up the work to do itself and then effing off into the sunset.
 

JosiahBradley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
1,770
If you are great and can automate part of your work so it can be finished in 3 hours instead 8 than doesn't mean you can have the rest of the day off.
Your employer pays for your time, not for rigging up the work to do itself and then effing off into the sunset.
Actually that's literally my job. We get paid a bunch because we can do that exact thing. You're not being paid for your time, you're being paid to complete x amount of work and make sure the company generates revenue. If I can create that much leverage in 3 hours versus 8 I'm doing well. And if I have to keep going for those 8 hours and produce greater than x then I'm getting a higher salary because I'm now more valuable to the company. If I can automate one task at work I can save literally hundreds of hours of engineering time and bring in millions in what would be wasted on OPex.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,310
Actually that's literally my job. We get paid a bunch because we can do that exact thing. You're not being paid for your time, you're being paid to complete x amount of work and make sure the company generates revenue. If I can create that much leverage in 3 hours versus 8 I'm doing well. And if I have to keep going for those 8 hours and produce greater than x then I'm getting a higher salary because I'm now more valuable to the company. If I can automate one task at work I can save literally hundreds of hours of engineering time and bring in millions in what would be wasted on OPex.
You can ask for higher salary and probably will get it, if they see you can do what was considered an 8 hour job in three hours, but unless you're a contract worker and not an actual full time employee you still don't get half the day off. As in that case you're no more valuable to the company than anyone who does the job in 8 hours.

If you are in a full time position you have to do 8 hours of work, no matter how freaking awesome you think you are.
 

IndyColtsFan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
356
If you are great and can automate part of your work so it can be finished in 3 hours instead 8 than doesn't mean you can have the rest of the day off.
Your employer pays for your time, not for rigging up the work to do itself and then effing off into the sunset.
JosiahBradley is correct and your last statement applies to hourly employees, not salaried - there is a distinction. Salaried employees are paid to “finish a job or tasks,” not for each hour they spend working. If I need to go to a doctor appointment, go to get a haircut, etc, I don’t get docked 1 or 2 hours of pay each time, nor am I expected to make the time up. On the other hand, if you have a deadline in a week and 60 hours worth of work to get it done, you’re expected to put in that time. Last week, I had a really long night Thursday night and when Friday afternoon rolled around, I said “I’ll check email on occasion, but otherwise I’m done for the day - call if you need me.” I didn’t take time off or get docked for it either.

Personally, I’d prefer being paid for the time I spent working because I put in a lot of hours and would make more. I feel like the advantages of being salaried often outweigh the negatives.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,021
If you are in a full time position you have to do 8 hours of work, no matter how freaking awesome you think you are.
You are correct that it doesn't really mean the employee can have the rest of the day off, but referring to this very extreme case here, the (salaried) employee who regularly completes their 8 hour tasks in 3 and continue to generate the company revenue will quickly realize he or she is a lot more valuable than what they originally signed on for. That leaves two paths forward to keep said employee: A) promotion and subsequent raise for more demanding work to fill up the additional time or B) leave the employee be. Most will pursue path A, but not everyone is chasing more money. Some people would prefer to get their raises in the form of more free time.

And technically speaking, full-time is 30+ hours (edit: or maybe 32?) and not 40+. These guys who are being referred to in the original post that are putting in 6-7 hours a day are still technically full-time. They're going to be easier to handle than the extreme case you gave, but the outcomes will still be the same - just over a longer period. Penalizing smart/efficient work is the quickest way to lose your talent.
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,310
JosiahBradley is correct and your last statement applies to hourly employees, not salaried - there is a distinction. Salaried employees are paid to “finish a job or tasks,” not for each hour they spend working. If I need to go to a doctor appointment, go to get a haircut, etc, I don’t get docked 1 or 2 hours of pay each time, nor am I expected to make the time up.
Salaried employees are paid for their time too, to spend 40 hours / week working for the company, if they finish their assigned job early they get another job, not go off to get a haircut, that's ridiculous. I don't know what kind of arrangement you have at your workplace, but that is definitely not the norm.

On the other hand, if you have a deadline in a week and 60 hours worth of work to get it done, you’re expected to put in that time. Last week, I had a really long night Thursday night and when Friday afternoon rolled around, I said “I’ll check email on occasion, but otherwise I’m done for the day - call if you need me.” I didn’t take time off or get docked for it either.
Exchanging overtime for an early day off is not the same as going to get a haircut during work hours at a whim.
Personally, I’d prefer being paid for the time I spent working because I put in a lot of hours and would make more. I feel like the advantages of being salaried often outweigh the negatives.
So your arrangement is not that great after all, every place I've worked at had salaried employees plus paid overtime.
 

Joust

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
3,231
Salaried employees are paid for their time too, to spend 40 hours / week working for the company, if they finish their assigned job early they get another job, not go off to get a haircut, that's ridiculous. I don't know what kind of arrangement you have at your workplace, but that is definitely not the norm.


Exchanging overtime for an early day off is not the same as going to get a haircut during work hours at a whim.

So your arrangement is not that great after all, every place I've worked at had salaried employees plus paid overtime.
Different jobs have different needs, man.
 

IndyColtsFan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
356
Salaried employees are paid for their time too, to spend 40 hours / week working for the company, if they finish their assigned job early they get another job, not go off to get a haircut, that's ridiculous. I don't know what kind of arrangement you have at your workplace, but that is definitely not the norm.
You’re wrong on what you said above - I don’t think you understand what a salaried position truly is. If you talk to most management types, they will even say salaried employees are paid to finish a job rather than being on the clock and that on average, they should spend closer to 45 to 50 hours per week.

And yes, almost everyone I know on salary can take off to go to the doctor or whatever and not have to report it. We more than make up for it during crunch time. It’s awesome to have that flexibility and be treated like adults.

Exchanging overtime for an early day off is not the same as going to get a haircut during work hours at a whim.

So your arrangement is not that great after all, every place I've worked at had salaried employees plus paid overtime.
You’re either not in the US or are not in an exempt position. I have worked salaried (exempt) positions for coming up on 30 years and NEVER have gotten OT, and neither has any other salaried person I know. We get bonuses instead, which are often large. And that was true even when I wasn’t classified as a highly compensated employee.

These laid-off Intel folks may only work 6 or so hours per day, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t filling their obligations at all. Some people are super efficient and can do things quickly, while others aren’t. Sometimes people complaining how “busy” they are but they really aren’t busy - they spend half their time gossiping or doing useless work. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen that in my career. At any rate, I’m sure these Intel people will be fine.
 
Last edited:

JosiahBradley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
1,770
I don't know what kind of arrangement you have at your workplace, but that is definitely not the norm.
We're not talking about the norm. This is about the bay area. I work there and that's exactly how it goes. Our employers actually care about us as humans, pay us well, and in return we do jobs that generate insane growth. This isn't some regular office desk job but engineering work.
 

sfsuphysics

I don't get it
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
13,899
Yeah, so, if they were paying market price in Bay Area, they could probably get FOUR qualified individuals in most - but not all - major metro areas.
Yeah, I don't think it quite works like that. No way bay area people are getting paid 4 times the amount of workers elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I wish I was (even though I'm not in tech), but yeah... I might have a slightly elevated pay scale for what I do, but it's not anywhere close to the level that would make someone say "Hmmm, lets move to the Bay Area, sure cost of housing is outrageous but the pay more than makes up for it"
 

Joust

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
3,231
Yeah, I don't think it quite works like that. No way bay area people are getting paid 4 times the amount of workers elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I wish I was (even though I'm not in tech), but yeah... I might have a slightly elevated pay scale for what I do, but it's not anywhere close to the level that would make someone say "Hmmm, lets move to the Bay Area, sure cost of housing is outrageous but the pay more than makes up for it"
I had some hyperbole built in. The point was that it is an elevated pay scale.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,310
You’re wrong on what you said above - I don’t think you understand what a salaried position truly is. If you talk to most management types, they will even say salaried employees are paid to finish a job rather than being on the clock and that on average, they should spend closer to 45 to 50 hours per week.

And yes, almost everyone I know on salary can take off to go to the doctor or whatever and not have to report it. We more than make up for it during crunch time. It’s awesome to have that flexibility and be treated like adults.



You’re either not in the US or are not in an exempt position. I have worked salaried (exempt) positions for coming up on 30 years and NEVER have gotten OT, and neither has any other salaried person I know. We get bonuses instead, which are often large. And that was true even when I wasn’t classified as a highly compensated employee.

These laid-off Intel folks may only work 6 or so hours per day, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t filling their obligations at all. Some people are super efficient and can do things quickly, while others aren’t. Sometimes people complaining how “busy” they are but they really aren’t busy - they spend half their time gossiping or doing useless work. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen that in my career. At any rate, I’m sure these Intel people will be fine.
You're right I'm not in the US, we have laws that say you have to pay OT for salaried employees. There are even rules on how much overtime can the employer demand. Of course it's entirely other question how well these rules are enforced.

I understand that some people get done more in less time, but where I am that doesn't mean they get off work earlier, it means they get paid more (if they are smart). I'm pulling this number from air because I'm lazy to look it up, but here more than 99% of workers are salaried. Being paid hourly is very rare, and even then likely under the table.
 

JosiahBradley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
1,770
Yeah, I don't think it quite works like that. No way bay area people are getting paid 4 times the amount of workers elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I wish I was (even though I'm not in tech), but yeah... I might have a slightly elevated pay scale for what I do, but it's not anywhere close to the level that would make someone say "Hmmm, lets move to the Bay Area, sure cost of housing is outrageous but the pay more than makes up for it"
Actually I make more than 4 times my old salary when I was working in Miami FL just 15 months ago. Pay here is amazing. I'm doing roughly the same type of work just at a much larger scale. I'm in tech though so I'm sure the scale is different for other industries.
 

Smoked Brisket

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
271
A new low for the forums. A joke and, seemingly, a celebration of people getting laid off, then a meaningless debate of which state has way more awesome tech people. Just garbage.
 
Last edited:

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,271
Silicon Valley needs to be dispersed. Get those people out of that bubble.
That's exactly what's happening here. Apart from net headcount loss due to automation and process tightening (what I do, incidentally), most of these jobs are going to what's commonly referred to as "non-metro" locations. Some will go to TX and midwest campuses, others offshored.

These events are picking up steam everywhere, has been part of many corporate strategies for a good while, and is being accelerated by the late-cycle phase we're in.
 
Top