> - No pure managers: Every leader at Coinbase must also be a strong and active individual contributor. Managers should be like player-coaches, getting their hands dirty alongside their teams.
Geeks who didn't even stand near professional sports should really shut up about anything sport related, lol.
I would really like to see professional, established coach running around with young prodigies on a peak of their biology.
> - AI-native pods: We’ll be concentrating around AI-native talent who can manage fleets of agents to drive outsized impact. We’ll also be experimenting with reduced pod sizes, including “one person teams” with engineers, designers, and product managers all in one role.
And AI clowns will cheer and applaud this, not seeing that they're now doing the job of 5(!) people with the same salary. Why is nobody talking about this?
Also, I find it really bizarre that those neo feudal lords see their companies as just a life stock to count. They don't even count people, just see them as numbers to reduce/scale up. Modern tsardom, but instead of being tied via official decree you're now tied by your lifestyle and family.
"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make"
> Geeks who didn't even stand near professional sports should really shut up about anything sport related, lol. I would really like to see professional, established coach running around with young prodigies on a peak of their biology.
Player-coach used to be a thing in professional sports a long, long time ago. There's a reason you don't have it anymore. A coach can't be expected to take the long-term view while also expecting to contribute. Most examples were players near the end of their career and they didn't tend to do very well.
The only place you see it is in fun adult leagues. Perhaps the message then is that Coinbase wants to be less professional and more amateur-like?
Your comment reminded me that this still happens in the NBA. At 43 years old, Udonis Haslem seldom played minutes towards the end of his 20 year career with the Heat. But they kept him on as a “player-coach,” in that he was a mentor to the younger players and assisted in their coaching. Kyle Lowry is another current example of this “player-coach” role, currently on the Sixers.
Haslem played 72 minutes the entire 82 game season. That's like the Engineering manager who ships a PR once a year.
And to continue with the analogy, he neither replaces the coach, nor the actual team players. He just sits on the bench, paid for his - additional - role. Exactly the contrary of the Coinbase manager-IC, which is supposed to replace 2 jobs in 1.
Thanks for the examples. I didn't realize this still happened. I don't follow basketball much - more hockey for me with some baseball. It sounds like those examples jive though - they're players in the twilight of their career who still bring a lot of value being in the locker room but maybe aren't ready to fully retire or move to coaching full time.
Actually, these scenarios happen in hockey as well. Teams will pick up character guys who have been through it all who are expected to contribute more off ice than on it. Corey Perry is one who comes to mind lately but they're never given a "coach" title. It's entirely possible though that these players may be expected to be a go-between guy between the coach and younger players to help them manage the pressure or to help with encouragement. They're definitely not getting prime minutes though.
I guess that would possibly be the same expectation of a manager who still codes. I can't see them doing anything critical. It's likely picking up some minor bugs or nice-to-have, low priority feature work. I was a manager before and while I didn't reach 15 reports, I was up to 12 at one time. There's just really no focus time that you need for coding. Maybe that's a bit different with AI but even then you still need to find time to make changes and validate. And that's time that takes away from other higher impact things that you could be doing for the team.
Hockey also has Captain (e.g. Mark Messier) and Alternate Captain roles, in addition to the Corey Perry types who aren't titled.
i like MLB catchers, but maybe that is just because future HOF manager Austin Hedges is out there ripping an 0.824 OPS, vibes but no vibe coding
We already have these in the industry. They're Staff+ Engineers and Architects. It's generally the norm to not be cranking out code at this level, but they make sure everyone is moving in the right direction, assisting managers, and mentoring juniors.
Good example but it still sounds more like a “tech lead”: this guy is still focused on tactical line level with other players than on handling the overall strategy, PR, plans, hiring, etc that a coach does
I think the CEO was more talking in the line of Bill Russell or Maximus from Gladiator, not final-year Haslem
It happens, but these days is quite rare, and usually something reserved for a player is of Hall of Fame or close caliber, who has been an institution for the franchise, and is generally slated for a full-time coaching role post retirement.
Not true. You often see it semi-pro soccer. Previously, you could see player coaches even in top-flight elite soccer.
There's a reason for this change. As players became elite and specialized by position, the budget for specialization expanded. At the top, teams could afford a distinct role for coaching focus. Since the stakes are really high (the difference between 1-3 points is measured in dozens of millions of dollars of impact due to relegation - a concept that is missing on most US elite sports) it follows specialization drive is sky-high at elite levels.
Thus, soccer player coaches have mostly dissappeared at elite level. But the role is alive and well in the semipro tier.
In roles where there's no binary, extreme outcome from specialization, like in semi pro soccer, or at an ENG role at a random company , it is only natural to have someone wear multiple hats and not specialize.
Specialization is very much a thing in US sports as well, even without relegation and even with profit sharing/etc.
The payoff to being elite at a valuable skill is enormous. Teams generally benefit more from combining players with distinct, elite strengths than from relying on broad generalists who are not truly elite at anything.
This isn’t always possible if you can’t afford to build a team of specialists, or those specialists don't exist at your level of competition. But if you have the resources and coordination (and in sports, the roster depth and cap space) to cover each specialist’s weaknesses, specialization is pretty much always the stronger composition.
Reminds me of how kings used to (I think, I'm bad at history) actually fight the battles themselves. Now the head of state, the head of government and the other top people don't fight themselves. Even the admirals only plan and command, AFAIK.
Big diff between RU and modern Western military (including UA) is officers on the field. RU has a very top-down hierarchy.
In the end, everyone is replaceable. But a king is a bit more difficult to replace, as historically shown.
Celtic kings in Ireland were subject to ritualistic sacrifice if, for example, crops failed.
Less fight, more be present on the battlefield as a show of confidence.
I'm not sure the professional sports analogies carry over very well.
With very rare exceptions, professional athletes are just not as good athletically at 40/50 as they were at 20. They may be smarter in some ways--which maybe means they'd be better as coaches.
I'm not sure this carries over well to engineering unless you mean that the young people are willing to grind for a lot more hours on nights and weekends.
> With very rare exceptions, professional athletes are just not as good athletically at 40/50 as they were at 20. They may be smarter in some ways--which maybe means they'd be better as coaches.
not sure if focus should be on athletic sports. Chess is better analogy to software I think.
To part of it, but chess is generally played one against one, there are well understood rules and a clearly defined goal, and every win is someone else's loss.
When building software, if you can state an unambiguous goal and what rules apply you are more than halfway done. It's not uncommon to work on something for a year and discover you have been building the wrong thing. Navigating that ambiguity is where all the value in software engineering is.
Armstrong did not mean chess players.
The only successful Player-Coach that comes to mind was Eric Cantona as player-manager of the France national beach soccer team after leaving Manchester United aged 30.
He won the 2004 Euro Championship, the 2005 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup along with a number of top 4 places over his 15 years as player and/or coach.
The fact that there have been so few of them throughout history of sports shows that this is an exceptional, uncommon situation. A small number of athletes compared to the total. It requires that a single individual possess many qualities at the same time.
Bill Russell. Won 9 championships as a Boston Celtic under legendary coach Red Auerbach, and alongside Hall of Famers like Bob Cousy. Then became the coach and starting center for 3 more years and won two more championships.
Rinus Michels [1]. There are so many tho.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinus_Michels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose
[dead]
Kenny Dalglish for Liverpool too, winning the double whilst a player-manager.
And kicking the goal in the final match that secured the Premiership. Definitely counts as being a "professional" league.
Yeah. I'd agree with this if it were tech leads that were mostly just IC leaders.
But managers should mostly be about two things IMHO:
> Facilitating for ICs.
> COACHING. To elevate ICs and help propagate the desired "culture".
I think Netflix started the sports team analogy for their hiring (and firing). But they don't put forth a "you're a part of the Netflix family". They're open about the work culture you're going to be stepping into.
And I don't think they're trying this thing that Coinbase is trying either.
It’s funny when bunch of nerds try to mask the fact they have know idea what they’re doing by some lame allegory to sports, military, or some other discipline supposedly more manly and rugger than girly (yugh) math, logic and programming.
“We at the coding company LovelyBeeBunny should be like the samurai’s of the old, willing to pull our swords to die for emperor…” etc. And it is always riddled with complete misunderstanding of the analogous subject, whether sports, history, or warfare.
Your categorization of math, logic and programming as "girly" is hilarious.
When I grew up those were the very definition of "not girly". Our math and comp sci faculties at uni would bend over backwards for any of the girl students.
I would agree though that academics in general were "not manly" and at school at least streams of "academic" or "sporty" existed. For boys anyway.
For the girls (less fascinated by sports) the top sporties were often top academics as well.
History has shown that being academic is always better than sporty (if you gave to pick one.) The "status" given to sports is often an acknowledgment that it's a poor financial path, but we can offer "status" instead.
Yes, sports metaphors can be amusing, but its the winners we're smiling at.
I was being sarcastic (I at least hoped it was obvious). There is probably nothing as illogical as assigning a gender to a logic - or maths or science for that matter. I also find it pretty stupid how “girly” is considered an insult. I prefer girly to being thick.
Player coaches would be redundant given that most sports already have captains, wouldn't they?
Captains can't decide to substitute/bench one of their teammates in the middle of a game.
Lebron James
In sports like Football where CTE is king, there's just not gonna be enough qualified personnel to coach.
No. Few college or professional coaches weren't themselves college or professional players. Think of all those assistant coaches, QB coaches, DB coaches etc.--all players. Mike Leach comes to mind as a rare counterexample.
Let's be honest, this is a crypto exchange. "Line go up" is the only philosophy these people adhere to.
> Also, I find it really bizarre that those neo feudal lords see their companies as just a life stock to count. They don't even count people, just see them as numbers to reduce/scale up. Modern tsardom, but instead of being tied via official decree you're now tied by your lifestyle and family.
People don't work somewhere like Coinbase if they're concerned about morality or mitigating the harms done to society.
Even better, as an exchange, they don't even necessarily care whether the line goes up, down, sideways, or in fucking circles to quote the Wolf of Wall Street. As long as it goes somewhere, and customers are charged fees.
Eh. Presumably there’s a ton more trading when the market is hot (and a somewhat lesser extent, when in a bi bear market).
Bi bears are not hot? I beg to disagree!
Ironically, if they adopted a Wall St boiler room culture instead of masquerading as an innovative tech company they'd probably be doing a lot better.
I fail to see how this is specific to a crypto company. You’re drawing a correlation that’s not backed up by any empirical evidence.
The GP post describes a common problem in _most_ workplaces in the market today. It’s not specific to crypto, AI, or anything in between.
> I fail to see how this is specific to a crypto company.
It is not specific to a crypto company. But the element of it being a crypto company cannot be ignored. Crypto companies are not like ordinary businesses. They have very unique qualities to them. Same with crypto industry as a whole. Ever been to a crypto conference for example? I have read about and have seen the videos. These things have the highest concentration of the scammers and the gullible any one place.
Ever been to a crypto conference for example? I have read about and have seen the videos.
Actually, it sounds like you’re the one who hasn’t been to a crypto conference :)
You have to look past literally everything their leadership is saying and at the heart of the matter: This is a dying company, and they physically will not have the capital to pay paychecks if they don't do this. Everything else is window dressing to try to keep investors on-board, but they aren't buying it, and neither should you.
The crypto market winter that started in Q4 last year led to Coinbase's ~worst quarter ever ($667M loss). Crypto has not recovered. Coinbase has done nothing to stem the outflows. That same quarter HOOD showed a net profit of $605M; and showed a $346M profit last week. COIN and HOOD are two very similar companies.
COIN's earnings are in two days. They preceded the earnings call with layoffs, which is always a bad sign. And HOOD's net income has dropped by like 40%, though they're still at least profitable. You should be prepared for COIN to announce a similar drop; except, COIN wasn't even profitable before. Its going to be a bloodbath.
I see $667M loss numbers in the press, but I also see a positive P/E ratio? How does that work?
Edit: it’s because the loss is an accounting loss due to mark to market adjustment, while the company is operationally profitable.
I assume that’s still no great, but not nearly as dire as the reported loss suggests, and not a sign of a dying company.
P/E ratios are usually based on last 12 months, so E = sum of EPS over last 4 quarters.
The thing is that the former crypto gamblers have moved on to gamble in the prediction markets like Polymarket now. Not sure if COIN is coming back from this.
Now that I think of it, the last decade has just been wave after wave of techwashing the same old gambling. First it was sports betting, then cryptocurrency, then NFTs, then "prediction markets".
In the 70 and 80s ppl kept their lifestyle by having their spouse starting to work. In the 90s and 2000s it was with credit cards. In the 2010s it was apps offering artificially deflated prices to corner markets. And now it’s gambling and buying burritos w Klara.
Ahh yes the next big thing! We had cloud, then crypto, then VR??? , then AI and now straight up gambling. I feel the next next big thing in computers should be porn.
Almost every "AI washing", except for the firms that are spending massively on data center capex (Microsoft, Meta), is coming from a company that is hurting.
The macro is not great right now. The world economy is on a razor's edge. If things unwind, we could all be in for a world of economic hurt. There aren't many levers to pull us out this time around, either.
Crypto is in an even worse state. Investors want liquidity for the uncertainty. Plus there's the looming Q-day that keeps getting pushed earlier and earlier by the experts while we're also inching nearer and nearer on the clock.
what is happening to crypto that is causing this? I was thinking with the recent conflicts crypto would thrive, if anything.
Previous cycles were fueled by retail, with an industry trying to legitimize itself.
This cycle is about max extraction and fraud - Legitimized by the presidential family cashing out billions in meme coins, insider trading and forks of existing protocols.
Hacks have also been hitting hard. North Korea has stolen 500m this year alone and 2b last year.
So… no thriving. On the opposite. Dying is a more appropriate word at this time. Some would call this an opportunity. I see more pain ahead.
No wonder Coinbase is laying off people with the excuse of AI. The reality is that volume is zero. At this stage only me and a bunch of other retail weirdos keep on buying bitcoin paycheck by paycheck…
Idiots who were getting fleeced by shitcoin pump and dumps are now getting fleeced by insiders betting on heads of state being assassinated.
That's the problem with building your castle on a quicksand whose fundamentals aren't in the same order of magnitude as the market cap you command. When all you truly offer is gambling, eventually a shinier casino will open up and eat your lunch.
"They don't even count people, just see them as numbers to reduce/scale up."
I'm remember of when I went out for drinks with a startup consultant friend and she mentioned one founder she spoke with refer to his staff as "biological units" when addressing use of proceeds to hire additional staff.
That is bonkers but I will enjoy calling my friends “biological units” from now on
This is sickening. People that don't realise that companies are made of people are in for a surprise. Once they go public, they forget that, and it shows.
A company_is_ the sum of its people, their talents and aligned behind a mission statement.
This is so far misguided, I can't help but think this 'biological unit' of a founder won't last long.
"Neo feudal lords" might read like hyperbole to those unaware of Brian Armstrong's "Network State" fanaticism. He may not be one yet, but he's certainly striving toward that goal.
There’s also Yanis Varoufakis’ recent book, Technofeudalism.
> I would really like to see professional, established coach running around with young prodigies on a peak of their biology.
This is a really strange nit. You are aware it's an analogy about skill and role. To reduce this to being about biology and the impacts of senescence on ability is weird, and doesn't really apply here.
Analogies have to make sense, to be applicable. In this case it doesn't.
E.g. you can't just spew nonsense like "let's work together like a bee hive, everything for the Queen/CEO, no matter the personal cost to an individual" without others pointing out the stupidity of comparing humans with bees.
You can't just come up with a desirable adjective and start coming up with random scenarios in which those characteristics may occur. "Let's make the company strong as a gorilla, big as an elephant, smart as Von Neumann, bright as a Sun, as courageous as young guys from youtube fails compilations." This makes no sense whatsoever.
It makes plenty of sense. Player-coaches are a real thing, and in a realm where you're not worried about peak fitness then it's reasonable to demand the coaches become player-coaches.
Player-coaches are a real thing, but noticeable because of how rare and unusual they are. The problem is that the analogy doesn't even hold up in the source its referring to.
Sure, there are good player-coaches, but there are also great pure leaders. There are also very bad player-coaches. A coach who is trying too hard and too deep to be a player when they are less "fit" (or skilled) has historically led to many problems in many cases
It's not a deep analogy. It's not saying player coaches are inherently better, but in their particular situation they want the managers to be coding.
There's not much equivalent to "fit" here, just skill, and they decided they don't want the pure leaders, they want ones that are knuckle deep in the sausage.
Good decision or not, that very basic analogy is completely fine.
Yeah my experience in engineering management: Very easy to be a "player coach" when the team was small, like when I had 4 direct reports. As soon as I had 9 (in an org with no TPM/product) my full time job was wearing 3 hats, and maybe 3 hours a week were spent on actual pure technical tasks (mostly scut work to unblock team members after-hours)
And it's telling that really good players are often terrible coaches / good coaches were not great players.
Like the guy who "just gets math" is often NOT a good teacher.
Perhaps it is time to unionize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionization_in_the_tech_secto...
Unions can't fix the fact that crypto didn't survive it's first real Flight to Quality and is suffering against gold.
Certainly not, I don’t think anyone would make that claim, seems a bit silly.
The benefits of unionization extend beyond this particular situation or company.
They can help shift the balance of power back to the employee and help them guard against being squeezed by their employer to produce more or take on more work for less benefits or compensation.
American tech workers have been fortunate to avoid such aggressive practices, but working conditions will only deteriorate from here, with workers crushed between LLMs and offshoring.
Your comment seems to imply you thought unions would have fixed this specific situation, which is why I felt compelled to respond.
These people should leave and start their own companies: AI-native pods: We’ll be concentrating around AI-native talent who can manage fleets of agents to drive outsized impact. We’ll also be experimenting with reduced pod sizes, including “one person teams” with engineers, designers, and product managers all in one role.
F these leaders.
A major problem with player-coach is that it makes the manager compete with the IC. If we solve that it'd be more workable, if not it'd erode teams from the inside.
"I would really like to see professional, established coach running around with young prodigies on a peak of their biology."
Well today is your lucky day!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_player-coaches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player-coach#Player-coaches_in...
"Though primarily known as a dominant forward "Mr. Hockey" for the Detroit Red Wings, he came out of retirement in 1973 at age 45 to play with his sons and took on coaching responsibilities with Houston."[1]
[1] Gordie Howe, playing on the same NHL team as his two sons.
> - AI-native pods: We’ll be concentrating around AI-native talent who can manage fleets of agents to drive outsized impact. We’ll also be experimenting with reduced pod sizes, including “one person teams” with engineers, designers, and product managers all in one role.
And then this person leaves, leaving no documentation or workflow. That's ok though, another ai agent will pick up right back and add slop on top of that until the codebase is a black box interacting with another black box.
Oh and this company handles other people's money? That's going to end well.
The player-coach analogy is very common in role definitions, and it is real concept in sports: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player-coach
I mean it doesn't really help the analogy when most of the examples in the Wikipedia link mention how it's either not done anymore for that sport or very rare nowadays.
If you don't like "player-coach", "quarterback" can be a better substitute.
> I would really like to see professional, established coach running around with young prodigies on a peak of their biology.
Experienced high IQ player in a team sport could also be considered player-coach. Players like Lebron James or Nikola Jokic come to mind.
> Geeks who didn't even stand near professional sports should really shut up about anything sport related, lol.
Reggie Dunlop is ready for duty, he'll get the job done.
Can I push to production anytime I want? I can run 10000 agents then no problem. I'll just move fast and break things and I'll get massive cheers because its AI.
You joke, but in a way this is the natural trajectory technology has been heading. AI has just increased the magnitude of it
Crypto was always a clown show. Not saying everyone working the crypto/Web 3.0 was a clown just.. This tone-def message coming out of the waning crypto industry is nothing more than an eye-roll.
I don't get it either. LLMs put the enshittification of software engineering into overdrive. The job is less fun (reviewing AI slop, sometimes even produced by entirely non-tech people like managers), the expectation of increased productivity, the expectation that we can now do the job of multiple people and salaries will decrease as well. I don't understand how so many software engineers I know cheer for this technology.
Do they not see that this will drastically change their lives for the worse? I'm in Europe, none of them has ever earned "fuck you" money.
> And AI clowns will cheer and applaud this, not seeing that they're now doing the job of 5(!) people with the same salary. Why is nobody talking about this?
Exactly. People are too naive these days
How many player-coaches have their actually been in any major pro sport in the last 20 years? Zero give or take? The last one I recall is Pete Rose and that was like 1985.
> that they're now doing the job of 5(!) people with the same salary.
The Marxist view of everything valuable being a product of a person's labor is tired and debunked.
But right now you also do the job of 10s compared to x years ago.
I would really like to see professional, established coach running around with young prodigies on a peak of their biology.
Bill Russell is (was) the guy you’re looking for and he is arguably the greatest basketball player of all time.
> Also, I find it really bizarre that those neo feudal lords see their companies as just a life stock to count. They don't even count people, just see them as numbers to reduce/scale up. Modern tsardom, but instead of being tied via official decree you're now tied by your lifestyle and family.
The CEO is looking at revenue and at costs. He can see what will happen if current burn rate isn’t reduced. Doesn’t it come (in part) to numbers, which must be reduced/scaled as needed? (Along with other costs)
Brian Armstrong is still a billionaire. So it's not like he lacks alternatives to destroying people's lives.
[flagged]
What a sad way to think about other people
It is, but it’s the only way for a company to succeed and scale over time. A pet approach works well in the early days, but you can’t become a VC-backed success without drastically reducing bus factors throughout the company.
That could be an incentive to keep companies small, but high-scale companies do have unique benefits to society.
Employees are people. Not cattle or pets. It doesn't mean you don't ever fire or lay people off. But you treat them as humans.
Sounds like we need to prevent companies from scaling or being too successful.
> It is, but it’s the only way for a company to succeed and scale over time
This is absolutely not true. It never has been at any point in history. Not even CEOs would claim such a thing until the 1980s, and they were wrong then as now.
Even today, Costco and other businesses are thriving.
Stop drinking the Koolaid.
Absolutely hilarious to optimize for having employees with no discernible edge whatsoever.
[dead]
Aahahahaha yes the solidarity of the common memecoiner must not be broken.
what's the point of having 5 people doing 1 person's job though?
sounds stupid to me
No problem if you split the gains 50-50. 2.5x raise for the one person.
Why though? That’s wasteful. If I could run my business more efficiently for the same spend that’s great.
Then you're going to get called a greedy bastard.
Not by me. I know you'll go out of business if you pay employees 2.5x your competition.
It will even turn out ok if the other 4 people find new work that pays the same. But if everyone fires 4 out of 5 employees because they're focused on "run my business more efficiently" to the exclusion of everything else...it's not going to end well for any society.
The profit from the employee reduction goes to the capitalists not to labor. So it is in the best interest of workers to resist reductions in the number of workers.
They can start their own companies though.
delusions of having AI do those roles and the one person in charge over prompting will know the difference between quality and slop... guess which one I'm betting on?
historically speaking, efficiency has always won out
for example, the last obvious inefficiency i remember was sys admins. the most worthless, self aggrandizing group of people at any company. got wiped out mostly (the best work for the cloud engineering companies), and i think it was for the better!
engineers today handle deployments, and it is far better.
> historically speaking, efficiency has always won out
Too bad AI is not about efficiency. It's about headcount reduction, which is exactly what Coinbase is doing here. AI just gives them plausible cover.
If it was about efficiency, they would be moving faster, not cutting headcount…
Surely there are some insanely smart people amongst the 100s of thousands of laid off supposedly god tier software engineers and adjacent who will start new companies maybe even spawn a new industry?
Feels like a problem that will solve itself. There are more cars today than people ever had horses.
Cars were more efficient horses. AI is not more efficient people. It's an excuse to reduce payroll. Capital is fundamentally antagonistic to labor, because labor is an eternal cost center that until AI, never had a solution.
Really? I mean to be honest you can do a lot more with less people now with AI.
I’ve worked with many mids but most people were really good. They’re all even better now.
In both technical and non technical roles.
I think people who are average skill at their jobs are about to be rocked if I’m honest.
>>> And AI clowns will cheer and applaud this, not seeing that they're now doing the job of 5(!) people with the same salary. Why is nobody talking about this?
I don't think anyone is applauding this. The only people applauding stuff like this are the CEO's of Anthropic (because that means more tokens/profit). Most other CEO's in big tech have toned down the rhetoric big-time.
The job of 5 people being done with the same salary is a function of the job market. It's an employers market now. So stuff like this happens. If you had an employee's market this wouldn't happen.
fwiw - and this is a separate topic. If health insurance were de-linked from employment most people would flee the job market on their own.
> health insurance were de-linked from employment most people would flee the job market
That would be visible in all major markets outside of the US, no?
Many major markets outside the US have much stronger work-life balance. Isn't that the takeaway?