Affirm reviews

This may not need to be said, but in case there was some misguided hope: affirm is not woke. Customer Operations is led by very conservative management. It does not believe in respecting overtime pay requirements for non-exempt employees because “labor laws are crazy in California” and “overtime should be for people who make minimum wage”. Management gives warnings about prior non-exempt employees who were “unsuccessful” because they refused to work overtime without being paid for it. Senior managers were overheard by this review writer repeating the anti-labor trope about Bart employees being overpaid. Senior managers praised the US military for its benevolence in an all-team meeting. Affirm has a strong diversity program which should be supported. It needs to go further. Hiring decisions in Operations are often made by 25 year olds who are not trained to reflect critically on their social/racial biases. Early stage recruiting is also sometimes done by young team members. When senior management gave guidance that the next hire should be a “diversity candidate,” a white European was selected as first interview candidate. Hiring discussions often center around “cultural fit,” which is a proxy for likability; this concept needs to be refined in an org that has made a commitment to diversity. As other reviewers have commented, the majority of employees at Affirm are elite, privileged, and unconcerned with the experience of people outside their milieu. Aside from all this, there’s nothing very interesting about the product. It’s a high interest loan.

Affirm has experienced a notable downturn since their IPO, which raises questions about the sustainability of their current business model. This concern primarily revolves around the lack of revenue generation - a critical issue that shareholders will inevitably question. While the mission of Affirm is noble - to provide fair loan/terms to people - it is important to recognize that our operations essentially involve selling debts. This method, unfortunately, tends to exacerbate financial burdens on those already in precarious situations, which presents an ethical concern. A further indication of the company's struggle was the acquisition of a startup that had failed to secure funding. This move should serve as a red flag in the context of the current economy. While attempts have been made to rectify the company's direction through increased frequency of quarterly planning, the impact of these efforts has been minimal. Despite consistent feature releases aimed at increasing revenue and reducing costs, a 20% workforce reduction was still deemed necessary. My primary issue is that to reach such a drastic decision, the company must have been grappling with issues for a considerable period. However, it appears that insufficient action was taken to correct the course. I believe responsibility for this oversight falls upon the 25 VPs who remain employed despite their apparent inability to navigate these challenges effectively. In conclusion, this situation highlights a dire need for leadership that can promptly identify and address issues to prevent similar future scenarios.