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

211–220 of 537 posts

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

#211

Post by dgs_sgd »

andsoitis wrote: post #177
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 f…

Why is downsizing and an employee’s role no longer being cost effective for the business not considered “cause” for firing?

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

#212

Post by itsoktocry »

sbarre wrote: post #30
seydor wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a difference?

Passive vs. active voice. "Job losses" is chickenshit language. If you're going to fire people, at least have the integrity to own your actions, instead of trying to make it sound like something that "just happened".

>Passive vs. active voice. "Job losses" is chickenshit language.

"Job losses" isn't passive voice. "Jobs were lost" would be passive voice.

Why are people so hung up on "job losses", as if we don't hear this every day? Who cares?

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

#213

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

andsoitis wrote: post #177
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 f…

Whenever there are layoffs of a major company, like half the comments here always bemoan the particular wording the article or company uses to describe the layoffs. It's a pointless exercise IMO (though I agree with you, ironically "firing" is less accurate than "let go").

Layoffs suck. Companies should be judged by their actions (e.g. severance, who is being laid off, etc.) and just ignore the words.

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

#214

Post by sgt101 »

blenderob wrote: post #202
JCM9 wrote: post #185

To be clear, it’s worse. Read the press release carefully: 1. 14k was the net change in “corporate headcount” which is PR puffery speak saying they’re firing a lot more but when you net out folks let go slotting into open roles elsewhere the net change today would be a 14k reduction 2. It also says that “looking ahead” “we expect to… find additional places we can remove layers, increase ownership, and realize efficie…

> there were huge misses on areas like AI Honest question. What could they have possibly gained from AI? What did they miss out on by not getting into AI?

They had the infrastructure and muscle to put a dent into Google Search and Microsoft Enterprise software... but instead they've ceeded to OpenAI and Anthropic.

They had a bridgehead device of the type that OpenAI are struggling to create with Jonny Ive in Alexa... but nothing seems to be happening with Alexa now.

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

#215

Post by humanrebar »

ericmay wrote: post #144
martin-t wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The US kind of does in that at least in spirit if the government violates the constitution we have this 2nd Amendment and plenty of moral precedent from the founders. It’s in the Declaration of Independence too which, in my view, is just the first page of the Constitution. The 0th Amendment if you will. Related to your second point about autocracy - I mean the good thing is you can, today, go start a company with the…

Also the U.S. Constitution allows for a full rewrite by a constitutional convention process. This hasn't been attempted, of course.

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

#216

Post by pavel_lishin »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #95
cheschire wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not aware of this term before. For others: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/jeff-bezos-day-1-versus-2-com...

Non-LinkedIn version: https://ourdinnertable.wordpress.com/2025/05/06/jeff-bezos-d... > “Day 2 is stasis. Followed by irrelevance. Followed by death. And that’s why it’s always Day 1.” Sharks don't look back, cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep

Which is the one people like to hug?

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

#217

Post by HelloMcFly »

bell-cot wrote: post #27
reactordev wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse, we’ve been in one but have been pretending we aren’t. Stock goes up.

The biggest "pretend" is where spokesmen, spin doctors, and sycophants for the plutocrat class have somehow convinced the 99% that stocks going up makes more jobs for the little people.

The most pernicious part of the con is that by systematically dismantling pensions and forcing everyone into 401(k)s, they've ensured that we all have to root for the plutocrats. We're forced to watch our retirement funds, which means we're incentivized to hope Amazon's stock does go up after firing 14k (or 30k according to other sources) people.

It's a system of forced complicity. We have to root for the billionaires, or we risk our own survival in old age.

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

#218

Post by mc32 »

xnorswap wrote: post #111
chadash wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"job losses" is BBC editorializing. They do not use that term in their letter: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-workfor...

Indeed, Amazon use the euphemism, "making organizational changes".

It’s equivalent to “restructuring” which doesn’t directly mean reduction in force but it does mean that I directly.

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

#219

Post by dmschulman »

reassess_blind wrote: post #196
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.

Companies have no incentive to employ as many people as possible. Really it’s the opposite, make as much money as possible, while paying as few employees as possible.

The incentive many times is to create a scarcity of talent for other tech companies by hiring as many experts as you can. Facebook, Amazon, and many others have been employing this strategy for over a decade, but now that the era of cheap money is over we're seeing a pivot away.

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

#220

Post by reaperducer »

baggachipz wrote: post #113

I worked at AOL back when they did quarterly "staff reductions". They would go and hire lots of them right back; it was an accounting trick. Never mind the fact that families were affected and employees were constantly stressed near the end of every quarter. Those things don't matter, quarterly numbers do when growth has stalled.

Never mind the fact that families were affected and employees were constantly stressed near the end of every quarter.

It's this sort of thing that has me re-thinking the fairness of employees giving employers the customary (in the United States) two week notice before leaving.

Employees don't get two weeks notice before being fired without cause.

It's supposed to be because replacing an employee is so difficult for the company. Well, it's a hell of a lot more difficult for an employee to lose a job than it is for a company to lose a worker.

If I'm employer "at will" then my employer should also be retained "at will." If they want to negotiate another arrangement, that's fine.

Post reply on HN