Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

Post by throwaway6734 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

itsoktocry wrote: post #18

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

> I'm not seeing a clear solution for this culture of toying with thousands of peoples' lives for a quick buck A bit over-dramatic, no? Nothing to say about the employees who left their companies for Google to "make a quick buck"? Business expand and contract. Should Google be considered a retirement home? The people who took these jobs are smart men and women who will go on to work at other companies. This isn't new…

Post by brookst » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

bestouff wrote: post #13

brookst wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

Maybe for some. The illusion they had of a nice job, especially with lots of money promised, made them take too big a credit for their house or whatever. And now they're doomed. You can always say this is their fault for not having foreseen that, but it probably wouldn't have happened to them if they had another, more regular job.

Post by jonp888 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 2:29 PM UTC

cj wrote: post #5

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

How do mass layoffs work in places like the EU? I know it's much more difficult to fire people in the EU, but is there an exception if it's done as part of a layoff? The only real solution I can think of is regulatory in nature (e.g. requiring paying out 6 months pay during a layoff, which might make companies think twice before "hiring ahead of growth") Because let's face it, "hiring ahead of growth" is the real pro…

Post by sairahul82 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 2:31 PM UTC

theRealMe wrote: post #4

Headline is confusing. It makes it sound like there will be 18k new layoffs, but this is information that has been public since November and the cuts happened two days ago. (Or at least the bulk of them did)

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 2:34 PM UTC

cj wrote: post #5

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

How do mass layoffs work in places like the EU? I know it's much more difficult to fire people in the EU, but is there an exception if it's done as part of a layoff? The only real solution I can think of is regulatory in nature (e.g. requiring paying out 6 months pay during a layoff, which might make companies think twice before "hiring ahead of growth") Because let's face it, "hiring ahead of growth" is the real pro…