41–50 of 537 posts
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.
All the while people who own it don't have to perform any kind of work and keep getting paid in perpetuity as long as the company exists, even if the amount of time they spent is less than one millionth of the total man-days spent building it.
And they can use that money to buy more properties which generate them more passive income, getting ahead further and further.
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.
From the CNN report [1]: --- Al won’t just effect change at Amazon, Jassy said. AI "will change how we all work and live," including "billions" of AI agents “across every company and in every imaginable field." However, much of this remains speculative. "Many of these agents have yet to be built, but make no mistake, they’re coming, and coming fast," Jassy said. --- [1] _ https://lite.cnn.com/2025/10/28/business/amaz…
This is a reflection of 1) compensation has come down since the ZIRP era at least in some roles and 2) it's a hirer's market. This means companies see an opportunity to bring compensation down. I wish employees would instead have an opportunity to sign up for lower salary. For whatever reason you just don't see that happening anywhere
They do, almost every year when health insurance premiums/copays/deductibles/out of pocket maximum go up and number of in network or tier 1 providers goes down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worse, we’ve been in one but have been pretending we aren’t. Stock goes up.
If not for the top 10 of the S&P 500 - the companies that can get a meeting at the white house - we'd probably be in a recession and S&P would be down.
This is a reflection of 1) compensation has come down since the ZIRP era at least in some roles and 2) it's a hirer's market. This means companies see an opportunity to bring compensation down. I wish employees would instead have an opportunity to sign up for lower salary. For whatever reason you just don't see that happening anywhere
I've taken pay cuts twice in my career, but both times it was at unfunded startups and it was more of a "we'll get you back for this later" (one did, one did not). I worry that normalizing the idea that a company can make you an offer (that you can't refuse) of lower pay, with the alternative being that you get fired, would set some really bad precedents. Companies would start to min/max this process and would use it…
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.
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45731199