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

Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 215 posts

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#61

Post by heathrow83829 »

idkwhattocallme wrote: post #9

For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…

a company doesn't keep you because you performed well. they keep an employee because they need them to be more profitable, nothing more, nothing less.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#62

Post by daxfohl »

mjr00 wrote: post #4
strict9 wrote: post #3

Surprisingly no mention of AI in an article about mass layoffs at a tech company. Wonder if that line has finally had all the juice squeezed from it to explain away layoffs and outsourcing.

AI works as a smokescreen when doing product development layoffs, but you can't really use it for sales, which is still very human-to-human, or when canceling entire projects like they're doing in XBox Game Studios.

I don't recall reading any official statements, ever, that said layoffs were due to AI replacing engineers. Do you have examples? I think that line gets thrown in by reporters that don't know what they're talking about, or HN/LinkedIn users that haven't actually read the statement.

I could easily be wrong; I can't say I've thoroughly perused every layoff statement from big tech, but I frankly don't even see how it would be positive PR that you're replacing workers with machines, much less worth outright lying about.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#63

Post by bitbasher »

idkwhattocallme wrote: post #9

For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…

I'm indifferent to layoffs. I dislike layoffs these days because it directly fuels the "AI is replacing our jobs" brainrot and then fuels the "AI is the future" hype train.

It's not impossible for this to be Microsoft's way to keep the AI flywheel spinning.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#64

Post by daxfohl »

darth_avocado wrote: post #53
daxfohl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shifting focus is not narrowing focus. They should be able to shift employees accordingly too.

If you have a large sales team for products that are not selling, and you want to invest in building a brand new product, you are not going to be able to move the sales folks into R&D. If you end up building the new product, you may eventually need the sales team, but most businesses in the meantime would reduce the headcount in sales instead of retaining them. I’m not saying that not bad for employees, but shifting…

True. I didn't get to the fact that it was sales due to pay wall.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#65

Post by pjmlp »

idkwhattocallme wrote: post #9

For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…

Well, it kind of tells why people shouldn't blindly side with their employers.

It is a service, one side gives work, the other pays the bills, nothing else.

Be a good teammate, that is all.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#66

Post by CommenterPerson »

heathrow83829 wrote: post #49
idkwhattocallme wrote: post #9

For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…

the first responsibility of any company is profitability. they have no economic, moral or ethical obligation to keep employees (no matter how well they performed), if it doesn't help them be more profitable. this should not be news. I think "low performance" is typically just a scapegoat. the real reason is they simply don't need that many empolyees to maximize profitability.

This is Milton Freidman hype and brainwashing. A company profiting in a society has a responsibility towards that society. In Germany, they accomplish this by having one union representative on the board. Profit at any cost leads to a society where workers are paid just enough to prevent starvation so that there are workers.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#67

Post by sokoloff »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #50
sokoloff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 unions was evidently not enough to avoid this outcome. Perhaps if it went to 11, it would be “unions good”?

It took us decades to get to this outcome (since the Reagan era), I assume it'll take decades to get out of it. Mental models are rigid, progress occurs one funeral time (Max Planck), ~2M people 55+ in the US age out every year (~5k per day), so the opportunity is with young folks who will or already are in the workforce, etc. It ain't happening overnight. Solutions such as "try harder," "be more lucky," or "just fin…

If someone wants to work in a union shop, they can choose a job that is unionized or try to unionize their current/next workplace.

People who don’t want to work for a union shop should have the same amount of voice as people who do (1 vote per employee). I think unions have struggled to gain traction because it’s obvious that they cost money to run (which is fine and proper) but it’s not obvious that that expense pays off for the typical member. If a median tech worker pays $1300-2600/yr in dues (1-2% of median salary), I think it’s reasonable for them to expect more than that on a net-present-value basis.

Plenty of people are strong advocates; plenty are strong detractors; I suspect that a well-run union (efficient in its own ops and partnering effectively for the long-term health of the company and its union members) would be good on balance and also fairly “under the radar” making it hard to know how good it actually was.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#68

Post by keyringlight »

staticman2 wrote: post #24
999900000999 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew this was coming when Microsoft brought Activision. As ex game industry I nearly started crying at the news. Mergers always lead to layoffs, games aren't doing great as they're not essential in an iffy economy. Microsoft is seeing the writing on the wall and cutting internal studios. It's much cheaper to just pay 3rd parties to release on Gamepass vs having to fund an entire games development. I don't think we…

Xbox has been a declining brand for a while now. They are struggling to make the case for buying games from the Windows Store instead of Steam and they are struggling to make the case to buy an Xbox Console instead of a Sony or Nintendo Console. If we see Xbox branded PCs in the living room- that's more a sign of pivoting due to failure than anything else.

The aspect I wonder about for windows vs xbox(console) is that I find it hard to imagine they make much money on the consumer side for windows, yet they have a certain support burden for maintaining/advancing the windows platform and DirectX. I assume xbox contributes heavily to making it worth their while to work on DirectX, but without it there seems to be a lot of beneficiaries that don't contribute back - so what's Microsoft's motivation to have their own API?

Even when D3D12 came out there was commentary how very close it was to Vulkan, which was supposedly largely the work of DICE engineers working for AMD to create the preliminary Mantle implementation.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#69

Post by MangoToupe »

amendegree wrote: post #30
shadowtree wrote: post #16

This pairs well with: 1 - Microsoft investing 3bn USD in India-based developers: https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-invest-3-bln-ex... 2 - Microsoft having 4700 H1B filings for fiscal 2025: https://www.myvisajobs.com/employer/microsoft/ Utterly predictable behavior by Satya Nadella.

Not to hate on immigrants… but shouldn’t H1B’s be the first on the chopping block of layoffs? Hard to imagine all those H1Bs are so unique that others already employed can’t replace them.

You don't need to pay H1Bs as much. They're a bargain deal.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#70

Post by toomuchtodo »

sokoloff wrote: post #67
toomuchtodo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took us decades to get to this outcome (since the Reagan era), I assume it'll take decades to get out of it. Mental models are rigid, progress occurs one funeral time (Max Planck), ~2M people 55+ in the US age out every year (~5k per day), so the opportunity is with young folks who will or already are in the workforce, etc. It ain't happening overnight. Solutions such as "try harder," "be more lucky," or "just fin…

If someone wants to work in a union shop, they can choose a job that is unionized or try to unionize their current/next workplace. People who don’t want to work for a union shop should have the same amount of voice as people who do (1 vote per employee). I think unions have struggled to gain traction because it’s obvious that they cost money to run (which is fine and proper) but it’s not obvious that that expense pay…

I agree on all of your points. If the majority supports unions (citations in my above comment), and everyone has the same vote (as you mention), it's just a matter of time of continuing organizing efforts while the folks who don't support it either exit the labor force [1] [2] or filter out of orgs attempting to organize who don't believe in it (younger workers with a longer labor participation time horizon). I fully admit there are lots of people who believe they're special, who have been or believe they will be lucky, ignore the data on the benefits of organizing, etc; you might never win them over. It's going to be a long slog, but wages and job security for the broad majority of people will not go up without it. Startup founders grind for delusions far more grandiose than this imho, so while I recognize being at the foot of a mountain on this topic in this specific socioeconomic system and point in time, I also don't think it's impossible.

And I really want to touch on your point about dues and unions. Workers should absolutely have high expectations for what their unions deliver, and should not tolerate any sort of drag, apathy, or lack of effort. With that said, it is another political process one must participate in, it isn't ordering an Uber. I have zero tolerance for union grift. Perhaps this calls for something like a non profit ratings agency, but for unions.

[1] https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2022/08/are-older-work... ("In 2000, only 17.6% of the 55 and older populace had a job. Now the percentage is 37.5%. A 20% increase in the percentage of 55+ who are employed in a 20-year span is unprecedented. If the percentage of employed 55+ had stayed the same, there would only be 17 million 55+ workers today. Instead, there are over 37 million.") [2022]

[2] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-closing-gender-... ("Gen Zers are the most supportive of unions, with a mean approval rating of 64.3 compared with 60.5 for Millennials, 57.8 for Gen Xers, and 57.2 for Baby Boomers." [death and retirement rate is progress rate in this regard by age cohort; the faster the older cohort(s) who don't support organizing exit the workforce, this should potentially reduced the lift required to organize forward looking])

(demographics + culture + advocacy + time is my mental model on this, and I have arrived at this model from first principles, as a macro and demographics scholar)

Post reply on HN