Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 498 posts

Re: Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

#151

Post by dkrich »

bushbaba wrote: post #142
dkrich wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s unusual about this cycle though is that it’s the fear of a recession due to fed policy that is causing companies to cut back. In past cycles fed policy caused a recession nobody predicted and companies suddenly found their earnings in the toilet and made enormous cuts in head count, R&D spending, etc. Something about this cycle and these cuts feels I dunno, manufacturered or something. Like are 7k high paying…

There’s preliminary data that shows a recession is currently underway. This is reactionary. if the fed cuts rates and stop’s quantity tightening then sure, Amazon will likely u-turn. But that’s due to a situational change.

I think a great deal of this situation is narrative based. People are generally terrible at predicting earnings six months out as well as recessions and if we get a major recession it would easily be the most widely anticipated recession in history.

First it starts with higher than expected CPI followed by hawkish fed policy. People learned their lesson last cycle and became worried that rate hikes as in past cycles would cause a deep recession and began adjusting immediately rather than wait for a recession. This is evidenced by the fact that the S&P peaked about four months before the Fed even hiked one time.

That’s a very important point that I think many overlook. When you are completely ignorant of impending danger you are most susceptible to damage. When you’re terrified of getting punched in the face you’re going to take drastic measures to protect yourself and in the process likely not get punched at all.

Meanwhile rates have moved very little in 3 months indicating (to me at least) that the bond market believes rate hikes are ending very soon.

Re: Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

#152

Post by colinmorelli »

dkrich wrote: post #86
partiallypro wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon and all of these companies are laying people off based on future forecasts, not based on the current economy. Regardless of if people are first, no company wants teams sitting around not doing anything. I've been laid off, it sucks, but just because Amazon is making money today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.

What’s unusual about this cycle though is that it’s the fear of a recession due to fed policy that is causing companies to cut back. In past cycles fed policy caused a recession nobody predicted and companies suddenly found their earnings in the toilet and made enormous cuts in head count, R&D spending, etc. Something about this cycle and these cuts feels I dunno, manufacturered or something. Like are 7k high paying…

Tech has been one of the most affected by the grow at all costs mentality that is untenable when capital is not essentially free.

In other words, tech saw the largest and fastest inflationary valuation period in decades under loose fed policy. It’s now seeing a similarly fast contraction.

The reason we’re not seeing similar cuts across the board (or at least as significant) is that they also didn’t grow as significantly in the years prior.

Re: Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

#153

Post by anonreeeeplor »

VincentEvans wrote: post #36

Here’s a thought that has been percolating in my mind for a bit since these “market adjustments” began a month or two back. Somehow at some point, in what perhaps could be blamed on the ever-hated mass produced MBAs - companies got really comfortable with the “it’s not personal, it’s just good business” of letting go of their employees for a slightest reason, or sometimes for no reason at all - just to make it look t…

I believe that there is a power swing about to happen where talented individuals may get a lot more powerful and influential in relation to institutions and corporations.

I liken it to how MANPADS allow individual soldiers to overpower tanks for far cheaper, flipping the script on 100 years of war.

It hasn’t fully come to pass yet but corporations hire way too many “credential dead weight.”

In my career I have often been completely outraged at how bad credentialed people are in the pure talent department. Some of the most credentialed people who automatically get top roles really are not that smart versus some of the other people I know.

Corporations and institutions favor credentials. Individuals who have talent are very different and hopefully will go much further in current market.

Re: Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

#154

Post by dexterdog »

VincentEvans wrote: post #36

Here’s a thought that has been percolating in my mind for a bit since these “market adjustments” began a month or two back. Somehow at some point, in what perhaps could be blamed on the ever-hated mass produced MBAs - companies got really comfortable with the “it’s not personal, it’s just good business” of letting go of their employees for a slightest reason, or sometimes for no reason at all - just to make it look t…

> What happened to “people are our most important resource”?

That is a line that is exclusively used by dishonest businesses. If people are more important than money the business will cease to exist eventually.

Re: Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

#156

Post by metaphor »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #52
faangiq wrote: post #27

Try multiplying by 10 if you want to get serious Andy …

In ~2020 there were about ~67k software engineers at Amazon (aka had access to the source-control posix group), so unless you don't want Amazon to exist anymore I don't think that's plausible.

Irrelevant and certainly plausible.

Quoting the last 10-K filing[1]:

> As of December 31, 2021, we employed approximately 1,608,000 full-time and part-time employees. Additionally, we use independent contractors and temporary personnel to supplement our workforce.

It's really not difficult to imagine how ~1 in 10 can be chopped while still surviving.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000101872422...

Re: Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

#157

Post by vore »

swellguy wrote: post #135

The fed generated money like Germany in WW2. Unfortunately people at tech companies don't understand the so called laws of supply and demand and just hired people with no logical thinking at all.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. The root reason is a lot of tech companies believed that the growth in users from the pandemic would be more sustainable ("buying the dip", as it were): after all heads you win, tails you have to lay off 17,000 people. This is, of course, the tails side of this.

Re: Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

#158

Post by UncleMeat »

germanjoey wrote: post #92
debatem1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're going to. The new performance process is clearly teeing people up to get the axe. They'll just say it's part of their new process rather than a layoff.

What's the new performance process?

There is a new system that has annual reviews rather than biannual reviews. It slightly changes the expected rating distributions and introduces a "meets most" rating that is between the old "needs improvement" and "consistently meets expectations" ratings. There is no expected PIP rate. It was developed in 2021 and rolled out early in 2022. The ratings changes were small compared to process changes, which are intended to make the entire system take way less time for everybody. The rollout and tooling was a disaster but it will hopefully improve over time.

People then leap off a reasoning cliff and assume that this means that everybody who is rated "not enough impact" or "meets most" in February will be fired. This would have required some pretty legendary economic foresight by the execs and it would require them to have done a lot of unnecessary work to redo the entire performance review process rather than just changing the ratings system.

I have no idea if Google will do layoffs. But the idea that GRAD was created to facilitate layoffs is fucking stupid.

Re: Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

#159

Post by shigawire »

peruvian wrote: post #146
thfuran wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I was in the minority, pretty much the only person cynical about big companies' claims how "people are our most important resource" You tread in strange circles. I'd think a cursory look at history ought to be enough to put the lie to such claims.

It's crazy to think but people do drink the kool-aid, despite history.

Some companies operate differently too. Obviously they still watch the bottom line, but some aren't as reactionary and are willing to take more pain to keep employees because they understand the value of that goodwill. More commonly private companies with a strong-willed founder/leader.

Re: Amazon to Lay Off over 17,000 Workers, More Than First Planned

#160

Post by dkrich »

colinmorelli wrote: post #152
dkrich wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s unusual about this cycle though is that it’s the fear of a recession due to fed policy that is causing companies to cut back. In past cycles fed policy caused a recession nobody predicted and companies suddenly found their earnings in the toilet and made enormous cuts in head count, R&D spending, etc. Something about this cycle and these cuts feels I dunno, manufacturered or something. Like are 7k high paying…

Tech has been one of the most affected by the grow at all costs mentality that is untenable when capital is not essentially free. In other words, tech saw the largest and fastest inflationary valuation period in decades under loose fed policy. It’s now seeing a similarly fast contraction. The reason we’re not seeing similar cuts across the board (or at least as significant) is that they also didn’t grow as significan…

That’s true and a lot of enterprise customers are similarly cutting spending in anticipation of the recession which I’m sure is having impacts on these companies now. But again I believe that is based on fear as opposed to a strict need to cut spending.
Post reply on HN