this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
174 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1454 readers
58 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Every day there’s more big job cuts at tech and games companies. I’ve not seen anything explaining why they all seam to be at once like this. Is it coincidence or is there something driving all the job cuts?

top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 62 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's interest rates.

Loans are more expensive, but critically, so are eggs.

Tech workers like eggs, and see no reason to buy fewer, so they're asking for more money, unionizing, or hopping jobs to increase their salaries.

Notice how the big players are releasing press releases each layoff? No attempt at secrecy. No payouts to NDA the laid off employees. It's an intimidation tactic.

It's working at the moment, but tech workers get over their job change discomfort fast when there's a 100% raise on the table. The market rate vs curent pay gap just creates pressure to change jobs until they do, even if they're scared.

And the shareholders are all fucked.

Every tech layoff is a lottery ticket toward a company ending event. And then every employee who leaves because they realize the company is incapable of loyalty. Then every worker who leaves because their suppressed wages aren't keeping up with their expenses or hobbies. Another chance to end the company. Nobody knows which perl script is the lynchpin of their company, or which random person will leave with all knowledge of it.

The CEOs are positively aggressively collecting chances to bankrupt their shareholders.

But the CEO will get a nice payout next quarter. So that's nice.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] sillypuddy@mander.xyz 10 points 10 months ago

I read it as an allusion to the price of everything going up. But yes, eggs.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

Weirdly, my first thought was eggs as in trans people who don't know it yet. I really didn't expect eggs in the literal meaning in that sentence...

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

eggs?

Eggs.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 42 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The Federal Reserve raised interest rates in order to cause layoffs. The capitalist class wanted to enlarge the reserve army of labor so that workers would be too worried about losing their jobs to demand raises.

'You Are Gambling With People's Lives': Warren Rips Powell Over Job-Killing Rate Hikes

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Which is ironic because one of the Fed's chartered purposes is to maximize employment. I guess maximizing profits is more important, even though it's not on the list.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yup. From an article I linked to in another comment:

The Federal Reserve Board’s ostensible policy aim is to manage the money supply and bank credit in a way that maintains price stability. That usually means fighting inflation, which is blamed entirely on “too much employment,” euphemized as “too much money.” In Congress’s more progressive days, the Fed was charged with a second objective: to promote full employment. The problem is that full employment is supposed to be inflationary – and the way to fight inflation is to reduce employment, which is viewed simplistically as being determined by the supply of credit.

So in practice, one of the Fed’s two directives has to give. And hardly by surprise, the “full employment” aim is thrown overboard – if indeed it ever was taken seriously by the Fed’s managers.

[–] RagnarokOnline@programming.dev 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I actually think it’s just bandwagoning by a bunch of cowards.

We saw this same phenomenon early last year too: Facebook laid off a bunch of employees, then Apple announced the same, then Microsoft, then Google, then Salesforce, then the infamous Twitter layoffs.

I think big tech is so sensitive to negative press that they all just wait and lay off folks at the same time so no single company takes all the bad press.

It doesn’t even have to be Illuminati-level coordination, either. All it takes is for some exec at Tech Company B to see that Tech Company A is firing people. Then Tech Company B decides to clean house too. The cascade is just a bunch of morons deciding to hop on the “let’s fuck over our employees to help our balance sheet” train.

[–] WebTheWitted 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Definitely agree it's not an Illuminati cabal meeting in hoods and masks.

But it's not not that either - there's lots of overlap on boards of directors and VCs invested in these companies. They're in the same circles and probably play golf together. Or, they hang out on the tarmac before their Davos keynotes on saving the world.

[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I live in Silicon Valley and I've heard that there's a WhatsApp group with a bunch of "big tech" CEOs and CTOs in it and they chat and share memes with each other 👀

[–] WebTheWitted 1 points 9 months ago

"They're just like us!"

[–] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Employees aren't afraid anymore so companies are trying to reinstate fear.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 18 points 10 months ago

Yes, it is a concerted effort to create a glut. This is like the wga strike, they want to starve you a little so you'll come back begging for a job before you lose your home.

They know the next 20 year will be a shortage of labour and stagflation. They're just trying to start this lean period with the upper hand.

[–] peter@feddit.uk 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Overhiring during covid is definitely a major part of it, combined with a slight investment bubble bursting

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't like calling it overhiring as if it was accidental or something. They didn't hire thousands of people over covid thinking covid would never end, they just knew they could pick up people to fill the role for now and kick them to the curb as soon as they weren't needed.

It wasn't an oopsie, it was by design.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, here in Germany, workers have stronger protections, laying them off isn't as easy, and I feel like the layoff waves have largely not occurred here, because companies didn't hire so much during the pandemic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SinAdjetivos 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Another factor was the PPP and other "totally not bailouts" that were part of the COVID relief spending.

Of the roughly $800 billion dollars from PPP which was provided as uncollateralized, low-interest loans 66-77% went directly to companies and ~92% of those loans were completely forgiven.. In other words an ~5-600M bailout predicated on keeping positions open long enough to maintain plausible deniability that is what the goal was.

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

They'll give corporations all the slack and handouts but look at those trying to feed their children and scrutinize every little detail. It's so sad.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 21 points 10 months ago

Many people got hired during Covid.

Grow isn't as expected, so now they are firing again.

But on the bright side, most of those companies still employ more people than pre-covid.

[–] MostlyGibberish@lemm.ee 21 points 10 months ago (3 children)

One factor I haven't seen mentioned is that because of rising interest rates, tech companies have had to shift from being focused on growth to actually turning a profit. Because of this, companies are having to shed employees because they over hired in anticipation of that continued growth. People are expensive so that's an "easy" way to try to get the line closer to positive.

This is kind of a rough overview and I'm by no means an expert on economics. Just someone who works in tech and so has been following things closely.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago

Michael Hudson, Jun. 2022: The Fed’s Austerity Program to Reduce Wages

To Wall Street and its backers, the solution to any price inflation is to reduce wages and public social spending. The orthodox way to do this is to push the economy into recession in order to reduce hiring. Rising unemployment will oblige labor to compete for jobs that pay less and less as the economy slows.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 2 points 10 months ago

It also takes time to realize the costs of shedding workforce, and by then you might have a different CEO. As long as it's next quarter, it's fine.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 10 months ago

This plus the changes to section 174 meaning R&D costs have to be written off over five years instead of all in the year they're incurred. That's hurting startups a lot and many have had to switch from building new stuff to licensing/selling their existing stuff, and firing some expensive engineers/developers, to be able to afford to stay open. https://www.axios.com/2024/01/20/taxes-irs-startups-section174

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Overinvestment and strong labor demand led to very high salaries. Investors hate high salaries. Firing people they can replace at a discount now that supply is increasing

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's this.

With inflation, everyone deserves a higher salary. And programmers are able to command it.

CEOs hate this, so they're playing chicken.

They'll all get fired and pull their golden parachute in the next three years, when the shit hits the fan because they decided they could get by without XYZ critical skill.

Then they'll go to the next place and evangelize about how "you've got to invest in talent".

[–] RenardDesMers@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 months ago

And soon they'll be surprised the employees are less and less loyal and blame it on the new generations.

[–] belated_frog_pants 16 points 9 months ago

Greed. They are making more profit than ever

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

It starts with C and ends with M and bringing it up will get the white tyrants crying to the pinkertons.

EDIT: DAMN IT ITS NOT CUM.

[–] janabuggs 11 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Lol ok I'm sorry, is it cum?

[–] peter@feddit.uk 4 points 10 months ago

White tyrants is what I call cum too

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago

I can't believe it's not cum

[–] festus@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 months ago

Sometimes I like to think of the economy as a small village where people directly goods with each other. The invention of money means you can make a living off of selling to just one person and still have something to offer the farmer, but for this thought experiment this I want to focus on the actual, real, goods and services of the economy.

So imagine a small village. You have the farmer who grows food. You have the blacksmith who builds car parts, and the mechanic that builds cars and tractors. And you also have the village fool who makes people laugh in exchange for tips. The mechanic gives tractors to the farmers in exchange for food, and gives some of that food to the mechanic in exchange for parts. When any of them need a laugh they'll give something to the fool to hear a joke. And you have your other industries, etc. One day a new person comes to town, who will represent the new tech industry. They realize that they can build a machine that tells the farmer the best days to plant and harvest which will help the farmer grow more food. The farmer happily accepts, paying the tech person some food in exchange. Similarly they're able to help optimize the other industries, and with the value they're providing and them being in short demand they're able to get great wages.

With their prosperity, other tech people start coming to the village and helping the other industries get more efficient. Most of the concrete efficiencies are optimized, so they start working on more abstract ones. Someone builds an app to help the villagefolk find someone to trade with ("I have 2 gears but I need 3 loaves" gets matched with "I have 2 wheat bushels and need 2 gears" which gets matched with "I have 3 loaves and need 2 wheat bushels"), in exchange getting a small cut of those resources, and a larger cut if someone pays for preferential matching (advertising). Other tech people find work helping the other tech people at their jobs (IDEs, libraries, issue trackers, etc.) And other tech people build animatronic village fools to entertain the village themselves (video games).

More tech people come as they've heard of how much they can earn at this village. Eventually they start having some trouble finding work to do, everything seems optimized. Some of the wealthy members of the town (let's say the farmer of the biggest field) says to many of these tech people that they'll pay them food in exchange that the farmer gets a portion of whatever the tech person ends up earning with what they build (low interest rates). With all the good ideas used up, the projects these tech people are working on aren't working well (crypto) or are duplicates of already existing tools (how many social media apps do we need, etc.). Still though, the farmer is giving them a lot of food so yet more tech people come to the village, and many of the children of the village (like the farmer's son) are becoming tech workers too.

Eventually, after a bad crop season (maybe because the farmer's son didn't help harvest), the farmer is short on food and stops lending out food to these tech workers. They try to go around to the other villagefolk but most have already been optimized. The tools that optimized life are already built and the required tech people for maintenance is a lot less than those needed to build it, and the number of truly new opportunities to help new industries isn't enough to provide work to all the tech people.

TL;DR

Tech people earned their crazy salaries when they were helping migrate the non-digital world to the digital world. There were so many obvious opportunities for efficiencies and not enough tech people to go around. 'Spreadsheet' calculations literally used to be a day-long affair with a team of people - of course a business would pay anything to a tech person to automate that. Now that times the whole economy.

These obvious efficiencies are finite but we treated them as infinite and kept training new tech workers. Low interest rates helped keep us employed for longer than we should have as we were paid to work on bad products in the hope that maybe there'd be a diamond in the rough and yet we STILL kept training new workers. Meanwhile other careers that provide more concrete value, like mechanics & HVAC professionals, have had a labour shortage as Tech attracted so many young people to itself. This eventually led to persistent inflation which then ended low interest rates. With higher interest rates a lot of speculative tech can't get funding; Tech is only getting paid for the actual new value it can provide today, which is way less than it used to be.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Okayokayokay, this isn't the point, I know... but those are some really shitty, ill-fitting suits. They look like crap.

[–] Truck_kun 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Actually... I see your point.

Are they made of leather, or just.... super fake looking low quality fabric?

[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

The latter, probably, given that they look identical. At first I thought: "AI", but the fingers are pretty good. I think they're just generic prop suits.

Tailoring makes or breaks a suit. They don't tailor suits for stock photos.

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 6 points 9 months ago

It's Q1. Companies always push hard for Q1 profits above all else. There's usually hiring freezes and cuts to maximize profits, come Q2, they'll hire a bunch of people and the cycle will continue.

[–] averyminya 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's an election year in the midst of an onsetting recession, so shareholders want to consolidate. I think on top of that models are being sold as something that can replace certain task forces - normally there would be rehires, and there still will be but I think it will be after its seen that they aren't ideal replacements.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 points 9 months ago

It's likely the election won't take place until next year.

[–] Lunar@lemmy.wtf 3 points 10 months ago

Consolidations, changing business direction, lack of funds and projects, etc.

[–] MeepsTheBard@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Lots of tech companies saw huge growth during covid thanks to everyone having extra money to spend (see crypto and NFTs if you want clear examples that we just had too much laying around).

Many of these companies then saw their revenue and userbase increase month-after-month and thought the growth was going to continue forever (or, more cynically, they knew it was going to crash but acted like it was going to continue). This led to a bunch of hires to "drive growth."

But obviously, pandemic spending habits have mostly stopped, and the money faucet is being turned off. Companies can't afford all the workers they hired, so they're "let go due to market downturns."

TL;DR Companies either thought they were going to have unrealistic growth and made dumb hiring decisions, or knew the growth was going to end and thus made cruel hiring decisions.