That's the only thing I'd really like to understand.
14 replies (most recent on top)
While one might reasonably expect an intellect of your alleged caliber to grapple with the truly monumental conundrums of our epoch, such as the eradication of global alimentary scarcity or the systematic annihilation of pathogenic scourges, it is profoundly fascinating that you have chosen instead to restrict the entire apparatus of your curiosity to the utterly mundane logistics of our corporate talent acquisition.
How singularly remarkable it must be to exist in a state of such exquisite myopia, wherein the grand existential triumphs of human progress are casually cast aside, leaving you with but a solitary, burning desire to comprehend the entry-level headcount authorizations of a mid-sized enterprise.
Key Reasons for Continued Hiring
• The Shift from "Hiding" to "Building": After years of reducing costs and downsizing, companies must resume product development and release new features to keep a competitive edge in the market.
• Need for AI Supervision and Code Review: While AI tools handle repetitive coding tasks, businesses require engineers to evaluate AI-generated code, fix logic errors, and ensure security compliance. According to data from the Indeed Hiring Lab, senior-level and specialized roles make up the majority of new software job postings as companies look for oversight.
• Focus on Senior Talent: Hiring is heavily concentrated on experienced or senior-level engineers who can architect systems, connect tools to enterprise platforms, and mentor teams.
• Infrastructure and Cloud Modernization: Organizations continuously need specialists to handle CI/CD pipeline automation, containerization (such as Docker and Kubernetes), cloud migration, and cybersecurity upgrades.
In my opinion, the new VP of Worldwide Sales has an impossible job. If he wants to make moves to guide SAS in the right direction, he’ll be pushed out within 12 months by JG.
If he learns the key line of, “I’m here to continue our success of the last 50 years and follow the guidance of the senior leadership team…….” Then he’ll be around a while and will be just another “Yes Man” on the worst leadership team in the entire technology industry! With few exceptions, our leadership team has been nothing short of embarrassing!
@fx Crazy that a company would regulate expenses based on revenue. I mean who the he-l does that.
Certainly not a “viable” company.
3+ billion. Profitable. A case study of failure.
“Anyone who says it isn’t viable is being emotional and not looking at numbers.”
Numbers show revenues declining against expenses over the past decade plus.
Over the same time period, numbers show benefits steadily declining and headcount down by -20%.
The company is “viable” so long as it keeps cutting costs.
@f9 my future elsewhere is also viable. Not a concern.
But I actually loved your post. The digging part was pretty funny.
You're right -- A romanticized view of what it's like to work for a company. Especially SAS.
The movie "Margin Call" describes the existential career angst well. Be grateful you are being paid well to work in a role that produces no value. You could be digging ditches instead.
If you were digging ditches, however, you'd have tangible piles of dirt to show for it. Maybe even some utilities for a new community, or a grave to bury your deceased dog of a career. But here? Not so much.
Yes, the company and the revenues are viable. Your future elsewhere? Probably not.
@e8 His viability post was about the company. Not about joe smoes job in the company.
Anyone who says it isn’t viable is being emotional and not looking at numbers.
Is the new sales guy going to be good for the company?
@az You guys crack me up. 3+b. No debt. Profitable.
Not viable?
You have a romanticized view of what a business should be.
If you aren’t Google you are a failure?
To make the company look viable.
Experienced people are getting pushed out every month like clockwork now.
Young inexperienced placeholders who like to post lots of smiley photos tagging fellow employees on LinkedIn are brought in to replace them. Bonus points if they're willing to make TikToks about the #saslife.
How can anyone wonder why the downward trajectory continues?
It's mostly skilled and experienced people who leave. SAS can't replace them by shifting a 35-hour-a-week employee with rusty skills. So they must hire.
Consider who leaves: people in their sixties who take buyouts, people in their fifties who get laid off, and people in their forties who find better jobs.
Who replaces them? People in their twenties and thirties -- at lower salaries.
Cost-cutting drives decisions now, and it will until the company is sold.
Gotta hire the interns to replace the seniors who go out.