Hey, I’m not a lawyer and also probably pissing in the wind here, but isn’t firing like 14k people for not financial reasons a giant ass wrongful termination suit?
Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'
121–128 of 128 posts
Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're worried about from poorer areas coming in and taking our jobs, how much distinction is there really whether they come from a poorer state or a poorer country? America has free and open trade within its borders. Nobody seems to mind that there are no visa restrictions on someone from Mississippi taking a job in California. The distinction we make between a foreigner coming to take a job and a domestic worker…
The distinction is that in America, we are obligated to take care of Americans. If people immigrate to America, the arrangement should be mutually beneficial. We are not, and should not be, the self-appointed saviors of the world.
> We are not [...] saviors of the world.
This is definitely true. You are getting cheap educated labor, boosting your country's economy and crippling competition. Self interest, not savior behavior.
Now, that's irrelevant to the argument you are replying, that shows the holes in the wage depression argument.
Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'
#123Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'
#124[dead]
Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'
#125There's been a lot of debate around Amazon's hiring practices, particularly given the conflicting data and statements from the company. A core issue seems to be that Amazon has alienated a significant portion of its domestic engineering talent pool. Many experienced engineers have left, and others seem unwilling to return, even when offered higher-level roles. I personally was an L7 engineer and turned down a boomera…
From my understanding, the last budget bill passed (called the big beautiful bill by some) had changes to section 174. Specifically that software R&D could once again be immediately fully expensed in the year incurred rather than amortized over several years SO LONG AS its a US based expense. Non US based R&D expenses still need to be amortized, and over an ugly 15 year period.
What significant changes to section 174 were made in the big beautiful bill?
Key Changes The bill created a new Section 174A that restores immediate deductibility for domestic research and experimental (R&E) expenditures, largely reversing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act requirement that had forced companies to capitalize and amortize all R&E expenses starting in 2022.
Domestic vs. Foreign Treatment:
Starting with tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, businesses may immediately deduct domestic R&E expenditures in the year they are paid or incurred
Foreign R&E expenditures must continue to be capitalized and amortized over 15 years under the original Section 174
Retroactive Relief Options:
The new rules permit taxpayers to deduct previously capitalized and unamortized domestic R&E expenditures over a one- or two-year period, and small businesses may opt to apply new Section 174A going back to 2022 and file amended returns. Eligible small business taxpayers (generally those with average annual gross receipts during the preceding three years not exceeding $31 million) can retroactively expense R&E expenditures for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, by filing amended returns.
Alternative Treatment: Taxpayers may still elect to capitalize and amortize domestic R&E expenditures over a period of not less than 60 months, or elect to amortize them over a 10-year period.
This represents a major win for businesses conducting research and development, as the 2022-2024 capitalization requirement had created significant tax burdens and compliance complexity.
Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. CEO's layoff explanation indicates two things. First, the people who made the hiring decision back then were wrong, since they seemingly hired a lot of people for unneeded roles. Second, the people in charge now lack the vision or ideas on how to put 14,000 already-trained employees to good use on new projects, new products, etc.
You can do the right thing and still need to reverse the decision. If all the signals in the world suggest you will be able to support more initiatives in future then you should hire. If in the near future the economy changes dramatically and you can't support those hires, you need to let them go.
You describe the problem flawlessly.
"If all the signals in the world suggest you will be able to support more initiatives...
... then you spend millions hiring and onboarding tens of thousands of people over many months, only to fire those people within a number of years.
THIS is why management is paid the big bucks.
Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'
#127There's been a lot of debate around Amazon's hiring practices, particularly given the conflicting data and statements from the company. A core issue seems to be that Amazon has alienated a significant portion of its domestic engineering talent pool. Many experienced engineers have left, and others seem unwilling to return, even when offered higher-level roles. I personally was an L7 engineer and turned down a boomera…
In case you don’t mind sharing: What happened that soured relationships between Amazon and domestic engineers?
Re: Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'
#128There's been a lot of debate around Amazon's hiring practices, particularly given the conflicting data and statements from the company. A core issue seems to be that Amazon has alienated a significant portion of its domestic engineering talent pool. Many experienced engineers have left, and others seem unwilling to return, even when offered higher-level roles. I personally was an L7 engineer and turned down a boomera…
From my understanding, the last budget bill passed (called the big beautiful bill by some) had changes to section 174. Specifically that software R&D could once again be immediately fully expensed in the year incurred rather than amortized over several years SO LONG AS its a US based expense. Non US based R&D expenses still need to be amortized, and over an ugly 15 year period. What significant changes to section 174…
I'm not so sure.. many years of capitalized R&D expenses would eventually compound such that you would find a steady state. And in general all we're talking about here is whether or not a company is profitable and hence is taxed.. most of these companies make sure to spend almost all of what they make to avoid being profitable