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

251–260 of 537 posts

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

#251

Post by softwaredoug »

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?

Why am I calling Anthropic/Google/OpenAI APIs for my AI inference and not AWS ones? Even Azure has some decent AI inference endpoints I encounter with clients.

Never seen a single person use AWS for this.

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

#252

Post by acatnamedjoe »

darrenf wrote: post #160
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...

I sincerely suspect the BBC would only ever use "fired"/"firings" if the employees were being dismissed for conduct reasons, since that's the common usage in British English. I've been let go -- indeed, I've lost my job (it's the employees who suffer job losses, not the employer) -- but I've never been fired.

"Firing" is becoming a bit more common in Britain, but still sounds like an Americanism to my British ears.

I would use "sacking" for performance related termination, and "losing ones job" in all other cases. I suspect BBC would use the same.

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

#253

Post by coldcode »

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.

My career as a programmer started this way. The division VP would eliminate jobs in the last quarter of the year to make his numbers look good, then desperately hire people at the start of the first quarter to avoid projects falling too far behind. I was one of those people.

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

#254

Post by jalapenos »

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

I mean, may as well just point back to the 2000 tech bubble if we're going to keep nodding our heads at that line

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

#255

Post by hugh-avherald »

spoiler wrote: post #192
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is this one of those things that are meant to sound deep and profound by inventing terminology, but isn't? That's such a like day 2 person thing to do. (Actually don't know if I used day 2 correctly, feels a bit like trying to use skibidi ohio in a sentence)

Day 2 is like Switzerland---small and neutral. Day 1 is like Germany---ambitious and misunderstood.

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

#256

Post by JCM9 »

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.

The original shareholder letter said the company wouldn’t pander to Wall Street or focus on short term improvements. It’s now slashing jobs a few days before earnings to try and placate Wall Street since it can’t grow via innovation. That’s all the proof you need to see that Amazon is now in full “Day 2” mode.

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

#257

Post by andsoitis »

rco8786 wrote: post #248
andsoitis wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> purposefully passive to remove culpability from the entity (Amazon) that is making the active choice to terminate these people's jobs. Opening line in the article: "Amazon has confirmed it plans to cut thousands of jobs, saying it needs to be "organised more leanly" to seize the opportunity provided by artificial intelligence (AI). " And the statement from Amazon uses the phrase "we are reducing..."

Yes we’re discussing the headline

> Yes we’re discussing the headline

Ah I see, your beef is with the BBC, not Amazon.

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

#258

Post by jalapenos »

carlosjobim wrote: post #158
MangoToupe wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, more accurately we're in the middle of an extremely shitty economy for everyone but stockholders

We've been in a global economic depression for more than a decade already.

Does feel like that

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

#259

Post by bluGill »

rco8786 wrote: post #207
andsoitis wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"job loss" is purposefully passive to remove culpability from the entity (Amazon) that is making the active choice to terminate these people's jobs. It's the same as language like "officer involved shooting" to avoid saying "an officer shot a person" or calling a "murder" a "loss of life".

The more important thing it does though is remove culpability from the employee who doesn't have a job anymore. That person will be looking for a job (we assume, perhaps a few will just retire or something else). The companies they apply at will want to know why they no longer work at Amazon - there is a big difference between "I was sexually harassing my coworkers" (pick a crime, sexual harassment seems to be the big one these days), and "Amazon decided they didn't need my job done any more".

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

#260

Post by kristov »

getpokedagain wrote: post #178
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…

> 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 i…

Oh I agree with you. I don't live in the US, but in a country that has a very high progressive tax rate. I am taxed about 50% of my income currently. But I gladly pay it because I like to live in a safe country with strong government programs and a great healthcare system. It is also very difficult to fire an employee here. Companies generally have to pay people to leave, and this can be a year salary upwards. But I do sympathize with people in the US, even if the "average" lifestyle experience is higher, because a lot of people seem to be struggling there.
Post reply on HN