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

Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 537 posts

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#171

Post by Esophagus4 »

nxm wrote: post #103
nemomarx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not catastrophic, but probably a sign that jobs are shrinking instead of growing and so good market information if you were thinking about getting promoted or moving around?

Rather, a correction for over hiring during periods of low-interest rates and excessive money printed which promoted & rewarded hiring just to be compretitive

Plus, possibly some forward-looking positioning for a future where automation drives leaner companies with fewer employees per dollar of revenue.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#172

Post by Hendrikto »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #86
marcusb wrote: post #12

Once a company moves on to recurring, large-scale layoffs justified by vague corporate Mumbo-Jumbo, I think it is safe to assume it is a "day 2" company.

Or they know something that the current Administration does not (or is withholding)? Maybe it's time to buckle up for a coming economic storm.

> coming economic storm

We are already in it.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#173

Post by gruez »

motbus3 wrote: post #161
kristov wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment, but the reason for the imbalance is risk. As an employee you don't have financial risk tied to the company, you get a regular paycheck. But if you are an investor you take a risk that the money you invest can one day just vanish with zero return. With Amazon obviously the risk of that is low. But for many new companies the risk is very high. Therefore the payoffs are also high, to attract…

This is unfortunately true. Accusing a company for maximizing profit is naive. There is a structural problem on taxation Vs how much the company contributes back to society. Morally speaking, your sentiment is right with most of us I think but asking for a company is asking for a thing, like asking for a building or a chair. Earning more while exploring more than contributing back is unhealthy in any measurement of t…

>Earning more while exploring more than contributing back is unhealthy in any measurement of time. Back then, companies would have schools, universities and whatever to sustain the community they want to build. They would build roads, renovate public spaces and contribute to private transport and all of that apart from taxes.

Sounds like company towns, which were derided for other reasons.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#174

Post by malvim »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #126
kristov wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment, but the reason for the imbalance is risk. As an employee you don't have financial risk tied to the company, you get a regular paycheck. But if you are an investor you take a risk that the money you invest can one day just vanish with zero return. With Amazon obviously the risk of that is low. But for many new companies the risk is very high. Therefore the payoffs are also high, to attract…

>As an employee you don't have financial risk tied to the company Is your livelihood, housing, ability to put food on the table for your family etc. not a risk by your understanding? Or are you only willing to accept certain types of financial risk as "risk"? Here's an illustrative question: John Q. Billionaire owns shares in a passive index fund such that he practically has the same exposure to Amazon's stock price…

This drives me nuts. You move to another city, risk your livelihood on a new job that you don’t know if is gonna work out for you. Your kids go to a new school, your partner has to either move to find a new job, or make it work long distance for a while… Your whole life changes on what is essentially a bet, you have no security whatsoever. And people say the risk is not yours.

Also - and I think this is the main thing - you have NO SAY in any of it after you sign that contract. An owner DECIDES to close shop. To fire people. You risk being fired for whatever reason comes to the mind of your boss, manager, director, owner.

But yeah, no risk. No risk at all.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#175

Post by com2kid »

martin-t wrote: post #96
stego-tech wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Companies will always min/max a system so they retain as much money as possible for as few hands as they can manage, always funneled upwards to executives and shareholders. Rather than trying to “negotiate” with these entities, regulations should be wielded to stop min-maxing beyond a certain point or in bad faith, and firing people while turning a profit is 100% bad faith that should be regulated or barred.

Behavior is shaped by incentives. Countries used to be overwhelmingly autocratic - often ruled by hereditary dictators called kings. People realized unchecked power will always lead to abuse and overthrew them. Companies are overwhelmingly autocratic (cooperatives being exceedingly rare to the point most people don't know about their existence) - often rules by hereditary dictators called owners. But you can't legall…

> Companies are overwhelmingly autocratic (cooperatives being exceedingly rare to the point most people don't know about their existence) - often rules by hereditary dictators called owners. But you can't legally overthrow them[0].

Nearly every publicly trade company has a very well defined method by which executives can be replaced.

Companies are a dictatorship appointed by an oligarchy that is appointed by the democratic votes of shareholders.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#176

Post by jonkho »

seydor wrote: post #21
phoe-krk wrote: post #4

These aren't "job losses", these are "firings". They aren't unfortunate accidents of external origin that happened to them, they are conscious internal decisions to let people go.

Is there a difference?

“It’s not what you say, but how you say it” syndrome.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#177

Post by andsoitis »

phoe-krk wrote: post #4

These aren't "job losses", these are "firings". They aren't unfortunate accidents of external origin that happened to them, they are conscious internal decisions to let people go.

> These aren't "job losses", these are "firings".

While both terms mean someone no longer has a job, they differ in cause and implication.

Firing is when employer terminates someone for cause, i.e. employee did something wrong or didn't meet expectations. Job loss is a broader term, simply means the person no longer has a job, for any reason, but typically layoffs, downsizing, restructuring, plant closure, or being fired.

So I'm not really upset about saying job losses in this case rather than firing, because the employees who lost their jobs didn't do anything wrong and I think it is useful to be able to distinguish.

The phrase that DOES irk me is "let go" vs. "fire". Now that is a weasel phrasing.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#178

Post by getpokedagain »

kristov wrote: post #93
martin-t wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's wild that you can legally work for a company, spend your limited life's time to build a part of it while not owning even a tiny bit of it (getting paid for unit of time - a finite resource) and then just get fired once you are not longer useful and that's the end of your income from the thing you built for you. All the while people who own it don't have to perform any kind of work and keep getting paid in perpet…

I agree with your sentiment, but the reason for the imbalance is risk. As an employee you don't have financial risk tied to the company, you get a regular paycheck. But if you are an investor you take a risk that the money you invest can one day just vanish with zero return. With Amazon obviously the risk of that is low. But for many new companies the risk is very high. Therefore the payoffs are also high, to attract…

> I agree with your sentiment, but the reason for the imbalance is risk. As an employee you don't have financial risk tied to the company, you get a regular paycheck. But if you are an investor you take a risk that the money you invest can one day just vanish with zero return.

I would challenge you to change your perspective on this. The average employee is likely to be worse in the case of a failed company than an investor. The investor may lose funds sure but the employee:

- loss of income which they live off of while the investor likely has other money remaining as they are rich.

- loss of access to good health coverage in the USA

- potential opportunity costs in the form of learning the wrong things to support the now defunct company ie learned rust but now we all code in AI tools

- potential opportunity costs implied in aging. Few want a 60 y/o engineer but a 60 y/o investor is great.

In short while the investor can lose objectively more money the worker loses more relatively.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#179

Post by sheepscreek »

axus wrote: post #62

Wasn't technology supposed to enable workers to do more, instead of doing the same with less?

I think we’re reaching the limits of what “more” can achieve esp. at Amazon’s scale. At some point, we will run out of people to sell things to. Then you look for low hanging “fruits” like this (cutting costs) instead of innovating and creating newer things (selling more).

Also with less need for hiring and fewer people to manage - there’s an opportunity for companies to make their HR leaner.

> Reuters said the job cuts would affect Amazon's HR and devices teams.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#180

Post by rafaelmn »

tirant wrote: post #133
nemomarx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not catastrophic, but probably a sign that jobs are shrinking instead of growing and so good market information if you were thinking about getting promoted or moving around?

Numbers do not support that. Jobs might be shrinking within Amazon, but globally the situation is the opposite. Population is still growing, 25% the last 20 years (trend that is slowly reversing), and unemployment rates are the lowest at global scale (~4,9% for 2024, lowest historically, down from 6.0% in 2005). That's around ~1.0 billion more jobs in 2024 compared to 2005. [1] https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/ilo-e…

> Population is still growing

I think the relevant number here is working age population.

Post reply on HN