This summer I went camping and at the campground next to me was a middle manager at Amazon. I’ve been out of the workforce for about a year, so I asked him how much of an impact AI was having in his role.
He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him.
His hope was that he would be retained to maintain the system that he built, knowing that every other manager at his level was going to be terminated.
It felt like watching someone who is about to be executed be responsible for building the gallows. He should’ve been so aware that his job was going to be the first one cut, and he was responsible for building a tool to cut his own job. But he was optimistic that the cuts wouldn’t come for him
> He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him.
Any manager whose job was this simple was on borrowed time anyway.
I think the person was feeding you a story around the campfire to impress you. Real management work doesn't operate like this.
I got the brunt of this when Amazon banned me from KDP for life over a complete nonsense hallucination by a fraud detection bot.
I thought at some point I'd get to talk to a human who would immediately say "Oh this is ridiculous, sorry." Nope. I just got passed around between either more bots or offshore customer support employees, with I assume a gigantic incentive to not go against the fraud detection bot, until I ran out of appeals.
One of the most soul-sucking experiences I've ever gone through. I can't imagine the toxic culture that produced that system.
Members of a team creates a report explaining the state of their small section of the business, usually a 2x2 grid of boxes to fill.
This is then reviewed, usually in an in person meeting that requires full team participation.
These are joined together to create a weekly business review, that will require another meeting to review.
Each month the WBRs are combined to created the monthly business review, with a massive meeting requiring participation by multiple teams.
The pyramid of documents and meetings continues all the way up to the CEO.
I should probably point out, none of this information is unavailable at any level, its copied and pasted from system to 2x2 then copied from doc to doc. It's a spectacle that needs to be seen to be believed.
And that just the reporting, planning is another exercise in multiple report writing that I'll save for another day. But, hopefully you get the idea.
Amazon is 90% internal document writing and 70% work (9-5 does not really exist, it could, it just doesnt).
It's essentially a massive jobs program for middle management that aren't capable enough to join the TSA and that's being unfair to the TSA.
The only reason I can think for the existence of the reporting is to give managers something to do between pipping staff.
>> gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him.
> Real management work doesn't operate like this.
I agree but in the opposite direction. So many managers not only doing that but doctoring, filtering and tainting it as well. So AI would be more effective for the most of bad managers.
I left amazon, in part, because of this realization: Much of management was exactly doing that. That was back in the BERT days and even then writing was on the wall.
Amazon in particular has a highly formalized ritual for reporting up and down that consumes managers entirely. If you don't play, youll be humiliated and fired. The engineers self-organize while the managers are working in their own, different universe.
Actually I've worked at companies where management is exactly like this. Literally just status updates and asking when things are going to be finished. I have no respect for middle managers whatsoever. These people are a parasite on the industry.
Ok, Ok, I get the disdain for middle management. It's basically exactly like you described, but middle management didn't come about for no reason. There really is a value and the idea of automating it away with AI is extremely dubious.
One could even argue that middle management is THE most critical role in corporations over a certain size. In that it is the glue that allows them to get to that size. But it's also what gave rise to things like Dilbert and the idea of rising to the level of your own incompetence.
Middle management is like the lug nuts on a wheel. If you start with 5, you can take one away and be OK, even two and no issues with normal driving. You can go down to two and as long as you aren't hitting large bumps and they aren't adjacent you mostly likely will be fine for a short trip. You could even remove ALL of the lug nuts and if you travel in straight line over a smooth road you can still drive.
After all they mostly just sit there, the tire, the transmission, all the other parts of the car are doing the work. But it's not fair to say that any of the removed lug nuts were doing nothing.
The point of middle management isn't really to do anything spectacular on a daily basis. If the company is working well, middle management effectively has no function. It's when things get out of line. Even then though, it's not really middle management that's calling the shots or fixing the problem, but they are critical in noticing the problems and directing resources. Middle management's role is in reducing the time that things are out of line.
At least that's the idea, and much like any position, the bulk of the group benefits are overwhelmingly produced by the groups most effective producers.
Middle management is the hardest role to hire while simultaneously being the hardest to gauge employee effectiveness.
This is most definitely an overgeneralization, but in my experience, engineers that constantly talk shit about management are either shitty engineers themselves or they're incredibly difficult to work with and blame everyone else for their shortcomings.
Middle management is playing a completely different game. I don't envy them one bit.
Sure, there are toxic cultures created by bad management, but that can be said about any leadership role. There is a reason for the hierarchy, if you think you have a better approach to structuring a company, have at it.
Agreed I think shitty people are just shitty people. You can tell when someone is trying to make the lives of their coworkers easier, from those who are on a power trip.
Having ended up in management by accident and then just sticking around with it for a while just because.... I am now back in an IC role and I mostly feel sorry for my manager honestly.
Middle management is a tremendous market for lemons. It's difficult to do well, and each layer requires a very different skillset. One of the side effects of the hypergrowth era of big tech between 2008-2023 is that a lot of managers were needed to support the amount of hiring, and they weren't very well trained, and often they could claim success for a rising tide almost by default as long as they didn't do anything too blatantly stupid.
The Peter Principle is of course well-known, but one of the insidious things is that once you have enough incompetent management and they are entrenched for a while, they will teach all the wrong lessons to an entire generation of new hires coming in. Due to the incentives and optics of large orgs, managers tend to spin everything in a positive light publicly, and the real unfiltered discussions of failure happen in tighter circles. At some point a lot of "successful" folks can have job hopped their way through a bunch of brand name companies just cargo culting on what they've seen done before with no real understanding of how their work actually impacts the company's bottom line.
This is one of the reasons I'm incredibly thankful to have spent most of my early career in small companies and startups where the big picture was so much easier to see.
Well said! I'd also add that a critical function of middle management in healthy companies is bidirectional information communication: sharing what their teams are doing up and sharing leadership priorities down.
Having worked at some dysfunctional companies where that didn't happen (and a few companies that were amazing at it), it makes a difference at scale.
Nothing is more disheartening than working your ass off as an IC, shipping, then finding out that your VP pivoted approach and your project won't be used.
> management ... literally just status updates and asking when things are going to be finished.
True. But there are many people whose productivity slumps unless they are asked for progress updates every day. You have to offset this against the people whose productivity slumps BECAUSE they are asked for updates every day. In large orgs with unknown quality of people I guess it's not impossible that middle managers add value.
I’m more surprised that it’s not believable for some of management depending on how process driven there job is.
I’ve definitely had roles where I sadly realized I’m automating the QA person next to me well before LLMs were mainstream.
In my experience I think, you would automate enough of a mid manager role that upper management doesn’t care for, and whatever left over responsibilities that couldn’t be automated is split between a high level IC and the next above. Then the bureaucracy sells is as a success.
Back in the 80's and 90's he was pretty well known for noting that if you owe a bank enough money, it is in the bank's interest not to let you fail.
My guess is that it also helps to owe lots of money to lots of banks at the same time. That way when one goes after you, the others will help you out or risk losing their money, too.
TBH the last 20-30 years was exactly like that but computers were eliminating other peoples jobs for really good profits for the investors and really good salaries for the workers doing the elimination. Before that people were eliminating blue colar workers with highly productive machines and industrial robots.
I don't see how eliminating your co-workers is any different. Software ate the world and now AI will eat the "software professionals".
When this is over, just like the rust belts there will be code belts where once highly valued software developers will be living in decaying neighborhoods and the politicians will be promising to create software jobs by banning AI.
There might be a time when software developers become obsolete, and I don't pretend to know the future, but if today's models are anything to go by then it won't happen any time soon.
At the end of the day, there'll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts, whatever that job looks like.
That's an interesting paradox of the current AI: useful enough to make the industry less competent (either directly by helping students to not learn or indirectly by replacing people in entry level formative jobs) while not being smart enough to replace all the chain to the top
I have a nasty suspicion that far fewer of them will be, that CS and SE based professions will end up collapsing and consolidating into a handful of AI megacorporations and a guild-like elite of AI-herders will be what's left.
> At the end of the day, there'll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts, whatever that job looks like.
Well, this is kind of obvious right. Highly skilled people of next generation will do fine. The point is millions of highly skilled successful people of today could soon be below average category, jobless and can be called clueless, stuck in old ways who didn't simply see what is happening in the world.
And I am not blaming anyone. Despite seeing changes coming even I am not able to do much either. Just hilariously trying to do "cloud technology" courses which folks did decades back, made money and by now even forgot about it.
> Highly skilled people of next generation will do fine.
I would bet for the opposite. In a huge rush to optimization and job elimination, early career people suffer the most. However it also makes it impossible to switch careers, start from scratch, and etc.
In my experience, many highly experienced professionals are already below average. That's not to say they don't work hard, but if their solutions are on par or worse than what an LLM can produce, then they might see themselves out of a job if the LLM can work harder.
As another commenter said, we'll likely see a big change on the junior end, which will affect the more experienced hire pool as time goes on.
> At the end of the day, there'll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts, whatever that job looks like.
Why? There was a time when there was a need for highly skilled seamstresses. And we never developed the technology to do their jobs as well as they could. But people just learned to deal with mass produced clothes that didn’t fit perfectly because it was so much cheaper.
Not sure what the point is here because highly skilled seamstress is still a well-paying job, and all the mass-produced clothes are also still sewn by hand.
Where do you live that skilled seamstress is such a valuable job? Just because a handful of people make bank doesn't mean there is some large unfilled market for those skills. I can find some highly paid blacksmiths too, but 99% of people who know how to blacksmith well will never make more than a paltry sum if anything at all off of it.
Pretty much anywhere being a competent seamstress pays well. The difference between highly skilled and competent is open to interpretation. The difference between being competent and the very basics that can assemble cut and sew patterns is huge though. Pretty much anyone can do cut and sew with like a week of training which is all the mass produced clothes.
But someone who is competent and can do quality alterations, mending, customize patterns etc, is going to make decent money. But I'm pretty sure where ever you live there are seamstress working and making good money.
I'm not even really sure where automation would have impacted being a seamstress. Sewing machines have been around since the 1700's and if anything the demand for textiles has increased more than the speed of production.
Maybe you are thinking more of knitting, which is highly automated and used to be a big job, now it's basically just a hobby.
Blacksmiths just evolved to modern day welders, iron workers, boilermakers etc. Still pays well.
It feels more like a really optimistic take on AI. I won't say it is impossible, but I haven't seen anything that suggests AI is going to do what OpenAI and Nvidia claims it will.
Ha, that was exactly my thoughts to! Code is turning into a commodity. Nothing special anymore or something you need to protect. It's turning into cheap coal.
That’s the thing here. Software engineering is an intelligence-complete problem. If AI can solve it, then it can solve any sort of knowledge work like accounting, financial analysis, etc
Only if by "solving it", you mean being able to write any program to do anything.
Software engineering is a hubris-complete problem. Somehow, being able to do so much seems to make us all assume that everyone else is capable of so little. But just because we can write 1000 programs to do 1000 different things, and because AI can write 1000 programs to do 1000 different things, it doesn't mean that we can write the million other programs that do a million other things. That would be like assuming that because someone is a writer and has written 1 book, that they are fully capable of writing both War & Peace and an exhaustive manual on tractor repair.
Financial analysis is not easier than programming. You don't feed in numbers, turn a crank, and get out correct answers. Some people do only that, and yeah, AI can probably replace them.
"Computing" as a field only made sense when computers were new. We're going to have to go back to actually accomplishing things, not depending on the fact that computers are involved and making them do anything is hard so anyone who can make them do things is automatically valuable. (Which sucks for me, because I'm pretty good at making computers do things but not so good at much of anything else with economic value.) "What do you do?" "I use computers to do X." "Why didn't you just say you do X, then?" is already kind of a thing; now it's going to move on to "I use AI to do X."
Then again: the AI-dependent generation is losing the ability to think, as a result of leaning on AI to do it for them. So while my generation stuck the previous generation with maintaining COBOL programs, the next generation will stick mine with thinking. I can deal with that. I like thinking.
> Financial analysis is not easier than programming. You don't feed in numbers, turn a crank, and get out correct answers
It’s not, but if software engineering is solved then of course so is financial analysis, because a program could be written to do it. If the program is not good enough, then software engineering is not solved.
I think this what you were getting at with this part, but it’s not clear to me, because it seems like you were disagreeing with my thesis: “ because AI can write 1000 programs to do 1000 different things, it doesn't mean that we can write the million other programs that do a million other things”
I’m not sure if you’re saying that people weren’t using computers to solve problems before, but that’s pretty much everything they do. Some people were specifically trained to make computers solve problems, but if computers can solve X problem without a programmer, then both the computer programmer and the X problem solver are replaced.
I don't think software engineering is ever going to be solved, but financial analysis will definitely never be solved. It's impossible, the nature of it dictates that, whatever changes happen will further change the results. Financial analysis requires novel thinking, and even if you have AGI that can engage in novel thought they will just be another input into the system.
This is the crux of it. The digital world doesn't produce value except when it eases the production of real goods. Software Development as a field is strange: it can only produce value when it is used to make production of real goods more efficient. We can use AI to cut out bureaucratic work, which then means that all that is left is real work: craftsmanship, relationship building, design, leadership.
There are plenty of "human in the loop" jobs still left. I certainly don't want furniture designed by AI, because there is no possible way for an AI to understand my particular fleshly requirements (AI simply doesn't have the wetware required to understand human tactile needs). But the bureaucratic jobs will mostly be automated away, and good riddance. They were killing the human spirit.
> Software Development as a field is strange: it can only produce value when it is used to make production of real goods more efficient. We can use AI to cut out bureaucratic work, which then means that all that is left is real work: craftsmanship, relationship building, design, leadership.
Thats a really odd take. Software is merely a way of ingesting data and producing information. And information often has intrinsic value. This can scale from simple things like minor annoyances of forgetting your umbrella, to avoiding deaths/millions of dollars in losses due to ships sinking in storms.
Now the long term value of software does approach zero, because it can usually be duplicated quite easily.
Extraction and manufacturing are considered the primary and secondary economic sectors. In a closed loop system, tertiary and onward sectors, like services and technology, cannot exist without the primary and secondary.
I value your weird rant. Yes it did go on as a thought stream, but there's sense in there.
I've been thinking a lot around a kind of smart-people paradox: very intellectual arguments all basically plotting a line toward some inevitable conclusion like super intelligence or consciousness. Everything is a raw compute problem.
While at the same time all scientific progress gives us more and more evidence that reality is non-computable, non linear.
> non computable, non-linear as in given known input parameters you can determine the output parameters.
These two words do not mean the same thing.
Non-linear functions do not mean you cannot determine the output for a given input.
All non-linear means is that the condition f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(kx) = kf(x) do not hold for arbitrary x,y,k
For example f(x) = x^2 is a non-linear function. Can you determine what f(x) for arbitrary x?
Perhaps you meant what used to be called "chaotic systems", those which were highly sensitive to initial conditions. Yes, they are non-linear but they are completely deterministic. A classic example would be the n-body problem in physics under most conditions.
And I'm not sure what you understand what non-computable means. It means that the computation will not halt in a finite amount of time for a general input. For a particular input, it may indeed halt in a finite amount of time.
Most real numbers are non-computable, such as the square root of 2 or Pi.
Practically speaking however, we can get approximations as close as we want. In other cases, such as the Busy Beaver function, we can set bounds
You're correct. I only have a very casual understanding of these things. For the non-linear thing, I just mean that for any advanced system there are say trillions of parameters, like cellular systems, and even if you mapped them in you couldn't be sure what the output would be.
> And I'm not sure what you understand what non-computable means. It means that the computation will not halt in a finite amount of time for a general input. For a particular input, it may indeed halt in a finite amount of time.
Sounds familiar, the "halting problem"? I suppose I'm too loosely tying concepts together. Particular vs general input is same as simple vs complex input above, given a complex enough input, the compute involved approaches boundless/infinite.
In practice, yes, as I understand it, modern science is all about stochastic approximations and for all intents and purposes it's quite reliable.
I probably should stop using "non-linear" terminology. I really just mean that it's not 1:1. You mention how systems can be deterministic and I looked it up and yes wave function collapse specifically says:
> The observable acts as a linear function on the states of the system
We can compute the possible states, but not the exact state. We can't predict the future.
Thanks for the reply, this is much more interesting to me as it approaches philosophy, so admittedly I too loosely throw words-that-mean-things around.
You are right, but I think at the moment, a lot of people are confusing "software engineering" with "set up my react boilerplate with tailwind and unit tests", and AI just is way better for that sort of rote thing.
I've never felt comfortable with the devs who just want some Jira ticket with exactly what to do. That's basically what AI/LLMs can do pretty well.
You're right. I think the current AI direction is a dead end for real artificial intelligence, so it is not the thing that will replace all jobs, but the day a machine with the real cognitive capacity of a 5 year old exists is the day almost all of humanity becomes useless.
And before that the current direction is still enough to massively hurt the world because there will be less and less places for us humans.
Another point I noticed that nobody is talking around us is the technology adoption rates. When the car industry started, decades happened between the early users and cars being ubiquitous in the population (especially taking into account the world and not the richest countries). So a sizeable part of the transportation industry that was ultimately replaced by cars had the time to adapt, move to other jobs or arrive at the end of their work life.
But now the technology goes from its few first users to being used by everyone and their cats in years if not months. There is absolutely no time to adapt, love over or endure things until you don't work anymore.
Software was already at its limits on automation, the last thing automated will be writing code that does the required thing but automating other stuff that wasn’t already automated by software will take some time because will require AI advances in those particular domains.
Once an AI runs a single company well, all publicly traded companies will have a legal obligation to at least consider replacing the C-suite with AI. In theory. I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm super sympathetic that losing your job sucks. I lost mine once.
At the same time, what's the alternative? Progress happens. We no longer have liveries for holding horses nor horse shoe makers (not at the level we used to). We no longer have telephone operators.
Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward.
I guess maybe I can imagine making it harder to fire people so you have to find something to do with them. But that also has negative consequences. Small companies won't/can't hire because they can't make the guarantees big companies can.
IMO, this is one of the better takes in this thread. I'm a big fan of Hazlitt's book Economics in One Lesson, which gives a very condensed version of some economic ideas - one of them being automation, with really good examples in the past of labor saving machines like the printing press being created. When I first read it a decade ago I didn't think my profession might be like the printing press, but it's definitely in the crosshairs now.
If I lost my software engineering job tomorrow and was unable to find work within a few months, I have a repurposing plan ready to go. Yes it would be terrible for me economically and I'm sure there would be some sad days, but sometimes bad things happen and we have to make the best of them and move on.
The printing press also led to books changing from being something only rich people had to everyone having books. This also enabled the industrial revolution, as books made literacy worth having, newspapers, and became a great storehouse of knowledge.
I.e. it created far, far more jobs than it destroyed.
I have not heard even the most enthusiastic AI booster describe net job creation as a possible outcome. If you have any details on that prediction, I'd be interested to hear what they are.
Net job creation will be the outcome as the insane number of businesses that were once too expensive to start due to lack of knowledge labor suddenly come online.
I mean... you can't think of any ways that AI could actually generate new value? Or more abstractly, of a way that Jevons' paradox can't apply in the case of AI?
Indeed, and I think this is one of the things Hazlitt mentions. After the first initial shocks, opportunities and pathways will eventually present themselves.
One wonders if a German in 1600 would have cursed the invention of the printing press. The printing press accelerated the reformation, which led to over a century of bloody religious wars. Something like a third of the German population died as a result. From the perspective of 2025, the printing press was undoubtedly positive for humanity. But millions of people suffered.
I have friends in commercial sheet metal/plumbing/electrical, and the work is endless right now in my area in the Midwest. My immediate goal would be to get on a journeyman program making a fraction of what I make now, and then onwards and upwards from there as I know the more skilled people in these jobs are making top tier money in my area. When I was in college I worked part-time in residential, so it seems logical that I would gravitate in this direction, especially with the supply of work.
At the same time I'd be applying to senior software engineering positions geared towards anything energy/nuclear and possibly datacenter tech/engineering positions as well, but I would be extremely picky. Since everyone is so obsessed with AI/productivity, the electrical grid is going to be more stressed than ever. I'd target positions with no H1B competition, cleared positions and whatnot - this isn't a crack on H1B, but I would imagine there is higher probability in getting interviews without them in the picture. BUT I'm at the whim of hiring managers and whiteboards at that point, which isn't ideal, hence the trades route mentioned first.
I love software so much and have spent the majority of my life doing it, spent all that time getting a CS Master degree and whatnot. It would be a sad day for me, but you do what you have to do. I have a family as well, so not as much mobility and time to burn as a person without.
I think this plan is specific to my situation, but I hope it helps getting a few ideas kicking around in your mind. It is definitely a stressful thing if you think about it too deeply, but I try to distance myself from that mental mode and focus more on what I would have to do if that time comes.
Your plan, whatever it is is still predicated on the world as it is today being more or less as it is today. The problem with anything truly disruptive is that it may very well cause your plan to become infeasible for a variety of reasons. For your sake I hope that you were aware of that little detail and made your plan bullet proof or flexible enough that that is not going to cause you any headaches.
Of course things can change and I wholeheartedly agree with you. If a plan goes bad you adapt and overcome. Also, I've experienced being poor and lived in warzones/slept in terrible places, which gave me a very positive look at life in the USA. No need to worry about me as I assure you I'll be good either way.
Life is actually very good here and there is a lot of mobility if you have even a small amount of motivation. I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here though jacquesm - if I recall correctly (I'm not going to look at your comment history), I feel like I read once that you come from a family of first gen immigrants that experienced conditions similar to what I did when I was younger, and I would love to hear more about their/your perspective on being in a place like the USA and the opportunities it did/didn't bring.
I've moved around a lot in my life but I would not describe myself as coming from a background of family of first gen immigrants, however, I do have family that is in that position. My family was well established (since the 1600's or so) in the country where I was born.
No... You make enough quality comments that I remember your username, so I think you already have that one in the bag. Looking forward to more from you as well.
All very well to have a plan, and I'm sure some people manage to successfully "repurpose" themselves, but historically the way this plays out is that redundant workers live out their days in relative poverty and it's their children/grandchildren who find new opportunities out of economic necessity. Usually takes 2-3 generations for the impact on workers to fully shake out.
> Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward.
If this is what you think needs to happen and you live in the US, then you should be freaking out right now, not calmly posting takes like this. UBI is not a thing almost any current American politician is considering, and the overton window is speeding in the opposite direction.
You should not expect people to be reasonable about this. I don’t know what the answer here is, but if you want it to be UBI, you need to fight for it. The alternatives (artificial price controls, the dumb make-work policies you correctly disdained, first-amendment-breaking/privacy-violating AI bans) are out there, and if you don’t fight for the thing you want, you’re gonna get one of those.
> That will change real quick if everyone loses their job to AI.
No, this is exactly my point: they will be angry, unreasonable, and thirsty for revenge. They’ll hand over freedoms like Halloween candy. How about a law where the government gets to survey your hard drive to make sure you’re not harboring an AI model? Sounds crazy, sounds insane, but in the current political climate I’d rate it more likely than UBI.
Blood. If things don’t reverse course this trajectory historically leads to bloodshed.
In many respects it already has. How many people have died just this year already because businesses didn’t do what they were suppose to? Because cutting costs with no consequences is seen as the norm?
Of course nobody wants to account for those externalities and when that blood comes back on them they become scared and use government force instead. You’re seeing the trial run with ICE as we write our comments on this forum
From corporate profits, which should be rising from labor cost cutting? Ultimately if the pie is growing and accruing to a few organizations, then either we create new wealth transfer mechanisms (progressive tax codes being one such previous example) or become a feudal society, which will probably stagnate.
UBI would be pure deficit spending which would basically double it. Our interest is already the #2 federal outlay at $1 trillion (defense is #5 last I heard) and we're already in fiscal dominance. So the end result is UBI would trigger much higher inflation which would make those UBI checks worthless.
I'm going to sound like a luddite I'm sure but I'm tried of these analogies using horses, tractors and so on.
Labor involving muscles was replaced with tractors but people could just switch to using the other half of their body; The Brain.
Now that a lot of the creative tasks and knowledge work is being replaced there isn't anywhere for those people to go. Maybe people with esoteric industry knowledge, vibe-coding skills or trade skills will be fine.
For a while. It will be musical chairs without many chairs as a growing number of people retrain into a fixed or shrinking job pool.
I still don’t understand why people oppose that rather than enthusiastically desire it. The end state you’re describing is the culmination of the enlightenment project. Automating labor is the point! Then you can paint, or play chess, or eat amazing food, or do whatever you want. Work isn’t the end, it’s the means. Products and services is the end. If we can achieve the end via technology, who cares about the work?
That automation will be owned by a few and they're known for avoiding taxes not supporting something like a UBI. The masses a mostly likely to be kept busy watching propaganda on Tiktok not painting.
Food continues to go downhill the more agritech progresses and the planets population grows. Proteins are replaced by carbs with savoury flavouring, fats are replaced by thickeners etc. Eating good food like a good cut of steak requires out bidding other people which requires income.
There's always two sides to a coin right? While everything you said is true, I think that there's a pattern people are generally aware of in this world. Things that don't serve a purpose, vanish.
We see it in worker replacement, in vestigial organic structures that shrink over millinea, and in the tools and objects we keep with us in our lives.
The question, once achieving this grandiose goal, is how long, and by what mechanism, will we continue to enjoy the fruits of our labor?
Perhaps there will be a time when we may enjoy this world without the pressure of being a cog within it, but ultimately this time may be short if we are able to manifest it at all.
The unease comes from the power we lose when we cease to be the means of production, and instead become a vestigial organ on a beast much more complex than ourselves.
Yes work is the means, the means to earn an income. Do you live in a country that has a big enough social safety net that you trust it to provide you the necessary income and healthcare so that you can just paint and play chess all day? I certainly don't... I live in the U.S.A :-/
We industrialized and a few at the top enjoyed a life of leisure while the rest of us worked in the new ways to build, operate, and do endless maintenance.
Any more room as part of the painting and chess class this time, or are we all maintenance again?
Because in the world people currently live in, a small class of people own the means of production and the land you stand on, and everyone else has to have a job to access all of the necessities to live. Eliminating jobs means, quite literally, eliminating people's livelihood.
And that same class of people who own everything would rather kill everyone else and also destroy the planet than give up their position or allow any of the socioeconomic changes necessary to change the distribution of wealth.
> At the same time, what's the alternative? Progress happens.
I actually wonder if solving this problem - this feeling of powerlessness in the face of progress is an interesting problem to solve in our time. Plenty of people have figured this out. The Amish, people move to islands and other countries to not be part of modern progress.
"Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. " Why not? I mean Keynes argued something like: if the Treasury filled old bottles with banknotes, buried them in disused coal mines, filled the mines with rubbish, and then left it to private enterprise to dig them up again, there would be no more unemployment and the real income of the community would probably become a good deal larger than it actually was."
But it really does feel sometimes like. Why do we feel this powerlessness to progress? Why can't we architect the world we want to have? I have really been wondering. Lots of religious groups want to revert some progress. Maybe these whole network cities folks have a point. Maybe we can have a city like pegged to the like technical and architectural standards of the victorian era.
You want Victorian healthcare? Or privacy? No air conditioning? Dirty air? Horse shit everywhere? No different, people stink, can't shower, and it takes hours of labor to wash clothes without a washing machine?
No, it’s 2026, we can create a hybrid, that’s the point! The ability to choose our destiny!
Also - Horse shit doesn’t sound that bad. People stink in 2026 too.
But I do think, I dunno if inflection point is precisely the right concept, there will plenty of future developments I’ll be glad , but I think less and less of a percentage of our innovation is positive for general human happiness.
Big tech ceos even often talk about this sort of longtermist perspective where today’s human happiness doesnt matter, just progress toward an unknown future.
Thinking that because in the past the effect of progress was a net positive after a while it will always be like that is a cognitive bias. When looking at the large scale, in previous cases, people replaced by automation would go into jobs that were not automated.
But what will happen when there is no job that can't be automated anymore ?
have been hearing from several ex-AWS colleagues about the job losses within their teams and the number of people impacted since yesterday. it’s depressing, but also symptomatic of a much larger obvious shift already underway for some time now, now being further accelerated by new technology.
AI and automation are rapidly erasing roles across both white and blue collar work. this is now a present present reality in almost all sectors. extrapolating this, it is clear this ongoing displacement will drive successive waves of unemployment and underemployment, placing severe strain on social contracts and accelerating societal instability. countries with strong social compacts may weather the coming storm. but others, especially those with larger population that lack "cultural ballast" >cough USA< will likely to slide into chaos, if not outright anarchy.
harder question to ponder is this: in a world where human labor is no longer the primary allocator of income and resources remain finite, sustaining nearly half of today’s global population under existing economic models begins to look fundamentally untenable. china’s one child policy starts to feel less irrational and more prescient.
beginning to think that perhaps I should be advising my kids to learn a trade on the side, as a backup plan, even as they chart their budding careers in the corporate world.
> Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me.
It’s going to sound naive and stupid, but I think it somehow works. There are millions of jobs here in Japan that exist for the sake of existing. Government knows, people know, workers know as well. But everyone understands that the flipside also sucks. Sure, we can say we should optimize and people need to re-learn and etc and etc. But that’s not the reality. At some point people just want to exist without worrying about 50 years down the road, or if they can feed their family tonight.
On the other hand the Japanese economy has been quite stagnant since 1990, and the yen is right now on a downwards spiral, so I don't think it is such a good solution.
And as a gaijin living in Japan, I usually get extremely pissed off at the extreme inefficiency of Japanese companies, things that in any other country would take one month here take 5 years.
Every country has their own problems. Honestly, there aren't a single large country where everything is perfect. Too many opinions, too many needs, increase median age of the politicians and the population, and etc. causes imperfect solution to every problem. At the end of the day, you have to prioritize and figure out what's important to you.
I agree with literally every point you made. Sure economy is stagnant, but I'd rather take stagnant economy than a collapsing one. I agree with a lot of things are slow, but also, most of things are just... not a big deal, at least for me? I lived in Canada, and have parts of my family living in NYC as well. For every slow government related slow things, you can find something that's also slow in the NA as well. I'm not going to mention Europe at this point, as from what I've witness from my European partner, you can find inefficiencies there as well. Again, pros and cons everywhere, just gotta pick and choose what matters to you.
The prime example for me was always driving at night in Japan and coming across some grandma waving a traffic light for construction. On the surface, it's ridiculous that she's even there - but then again she has a job and can pay her bills (presumably).
Shit might be annoyingly inefficient over there, but it does just work.
Just lost my UX Researcher, Designer, UI Developer and CX Support job (8 years) two weeks of ago. They said doing a great job but have to lay you off. Within a week i put my house up for sale and received an offer.
Time to downsize, "try," to stay in tech yet study to be a nurse.
My field and career of 20 years seems like a vanishing one.
But coming to this point, its absolutely unfathomable seeing the difference between these two types of things
On One hand we have cursor whose burning like 5-6 Million $ of money in trying to build a browser only for it to be riddled with bugs and literally just the money went into fire (read emsh's post and how he built better alternative)
I mean I guess I learnt something from them burning 5 million $ but I see a lot of Companies burn so much money.
My point is that all of these companies burn massive amounts of money in LLM's sometimes just for the sake of it and then some of these same companies go the other way and then fire people working.
I mean is there no way for a company to be reasonable. You worked there 8 years, You knew how things worked. Getting anyone new up and running would be hard especially given you had customer relations.
Tf they mean doing a great job but they have to lay you off? I mean, is the company doing really bad (I am considering something like tailwind happening here?) or what exactly.
But tailwind's situation was (unique?) because their business was eaten by AI itself. Not sure about your (former) company though but I hope that you can tell more specifics if possible.
Well it's a small govt contracting company. The adminstration cutting down on federal jobs, IT contracts and the tech layoffs has/is flooding the market with UX/UI folks in these parts (mid Atlantic region). Now AI is hastening the shrinking of this field.
The contracting company I worked for promotes on their LinkedIn their use of AI saying we created this prototype with AI in less then a day vs. years, months and days. In September they told us this is the way forward as all govt contractors are bidding for contracts with smaller teams using AI. Per that story they are telling they need to change to survive.
> Well it's a small govt contracting company. The adminstration cutting down on federal jobs, IT contracts and the tech layoffs has/is flooding the market with UX/UI folks in these parts (mid Atlantic region). Now AI is hastening the shrinking of this field.
> The contracting company I worked for promotes on their LinkedIn their use of AI saying we created this prototype with AI in less then a day vs. years, months and days. In September they told us this is the way forward as all govt contractors are bidding for contracts with smaller teams using AI. Per that story they are telling they need to change to survive.
Thanks for providing more context, This feels much the govt. faults than the contractor but I feel like moves like these will come to bite the govt. sooner than later.
I feel like though contracting companies also might've overhyped. Like yea sure for basic things AI's fine but AI won't be fine for govt. projects & shouldn't be fine.
Govt.'s can spends an unknown amount of money on defense with literally no accountability with billions of $ literally not knowing where they went but they will try to price squeeze thigns here only to some years down the line have catastrophic event.
I mean LLM's still hallucinate and they can be poisoned. If govt.'s use LLM the aspect of poisioning becomes really important.
Chatgpt still pulls grokipedia whose primary source is X where bots can be created and spread and a certain narrative can be established.
I am pretty sure that if we see govt.s in any capacity have AI generated websites then the idea of poisoning the whole web to negatively impact the other nation becomes a good strategy for agressions between countries.
Although I may have gotten off topic but sorry to hear this that you were in such a weird and messy chopping block due to mistakes from the govts in general.
Wishing you the best in your future that things get better for ya :hug:
The fear, which many (like myself, and Andrew Yang) have since before GenAI hit it big, is that the coming automation revolution will be magnitudes more disruptive than prior economic revolutions. It's one thing for particular skilled industries to evolve or go away; it's another when massive, diverse, frontline-and-management roles across the economy will all be wiped out in the coming decade or two.
Management, warehouses, logistics, driving, retail/service industry, entertainment and advertising, programming/software engineering, even research and education. Potentially tens of millions of jobs in the US alone.
COMBINED with the seemingly zero discussion in mainstream politics about improving the welfare system of the country to prevent system-scale unemployment and poverty, while the profits from "efficiencies" go to the small group of already-wealthy shareholders and owners.
The safety net in the U.S. today is completely inadequate, and under constant fire from the right. I have no idea how we’re going to cope with the coming waves of layoffs.
> We no longer have liveries for holding horses nor horse shoe makers (not at the level we used to). We no longer have telephone operators.
As you point out we've had plenty of examples in the past of jobs being displaced but (while I'm sure it always sucked to be one of the people displaced) those displacements were always relatively contained to certain industries within different time periods.
The nightmare-inducing aspect of AI-related job displacement is the possible combined breadth and speed of it, which we have absolutely never seen before.
Assuming the optimistic (from the perspective of the AI providers) AI predictions pan out the oncoming rush of AI job displacements are going to upended a lot of industries simultaneously, causing both increased uncertainty of what the (stable) other options are (the ground will be shifting everywhere, all at once) plus drastically increased competition for whatever other options do still exist when the music stops playing. I don't think it'll work out for us all to be nurses, plumbers, electricians and influencers.
> Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward.
I agree that these sorts of solutions are the rational way forward, but it just seems incredibly unlikely that this is how it is going to play out, at least in the US where we seem to be putting approximately zero political or corporate effort into planning for these possibilities. A violent class war seems far more likely of an outcome to me if we're being honest.
The alternative is indeed UBI, and the obvious way to fund it is to tax automation so that it actually scales to however many people end up without jobs.
But for all the talk about UBI in techbro circles, it seems to never actually translate to any meaningful political moves. Microsoft, Amazon etc are pretty happy to throw millions of dollars at politicians to ensure that they can keep building their data centers, but UBI just gets lip service.
This is exactly how I feel. I entered the software industry right before GPGPU programming was becoming a thing. I was aware of AI and neural nets back then and saw the future and decided I wanted to be part of it.
So what if my job is no longer a thing in several decades. That's the entire point.
There's infinite number of ways to make a living. My way isn't better than anyone else's.
People willing to adapt will always have opportunities awaiting them. The world is rich and fruitful.
Plus all the fun parts of computer science are still remaining to be pondered. The fun of computers is the high of the aha moment, not the coding lol
> Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward
Everyone works 20 hours/week.
The 'problem' isn't what you think it is. The people in power are worried that lifting the boot off of the neck of the working class may result in loss of power for them.
The people benefitting from the profits accumulated from layoffs would never allow their margins to be cut by having to pay for UBI. Why do people act like this even remotely on the political horizon? There will simply be an even larger underclass and the wealthy enclaves will build higher walls. “At least the companies will be more efficient” is such a cucked take, insane
This is goofy. Your job isn't special and this already happened to a lot of other people while coders were laughing in libertarian. It doesn't suddenly get real when it happens to you.
The people whose jobs were shipped overseas were physically stronger and less sheltered than you. If they couldn't stop it, your pencil arms and retreat into revolutionary cosplay fantasy certainly doesn't bode well for you. They weren't even fired because of an advance in technology, they were fired because we just dismantled workers rights and allowed every job to be shipped to China, Mexico, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines. And literally, now, the "opposition" is angrily protesting for free trade and for illegal workers with no rights; you all still don't get it.
Automation raises productivity, and creates wealth that we can choose to share, even though "we" don't. Not lowering labor standards and not allowing jobs to be shipped out to poverty stricken countries with low labor standards would have just taken compassion and not being completely self-centered for at least 5 minutes a day. Fighting when you had something to lose rather than waiting until you have nothing. I'm supposed to make up a fake job for you?
There won't even be Oxy for you to turn to. You'd better be happy with legal weed, even if you can barely afford it on your Taskrabbit income.
You really made an astounding number of assumptions which I don’t think you have the insight to extract from a single comment. You clearly have zero idea where I’m coming from so try to chill.
I stand by my point that there is no political will among the current elites for meaningful distributional policies.
For the record I am a staunch defender of worker rights in all industries and deeply despise neoliberal economics.
Even “only” information funnels have value if they seek out valuable info, filter, curate. In reality some funnels in this context mutate the message they’re supposed to pass on :-)
In some organizations, the upper management generates a real burden on people below them with ever changing demands for information.
I have to assume some of it serves a social, rather than practical purpose, like having people re-assure them that projects are going well. If that's the case, automation may just not make sense.
It's interesting that the AI is taking job story is so prevalent in these sorts of posts even though there's zero indication of it in any financial analysis. Amazon and big tech companies like it are using AI as the smoke screen to cover up the obvious, which is these companies have lost their ability to grow exponentially. Since their stock price and debt demands this impossible growth, they are now starting the dying process. It will probably take years and maybe even decades, but they will continue to cut costs until they become the next Sears.
P/E isn't a future projection. There is literally no analysis that asserts Amazon will achieve the same growth rate in the future that it achieved in the past. It will retain stock value by eating itself for a while (could be a long time), then die.
I agree and I also think a lot of what used to require the cloud is now becoming local and private.
Cost structures are changing everywhere, not just in big tech. Hiring has stayed about the same everywhere else and the job descriptions for an SWE in the normal corporate world seem focused on getting off AWS, GCP, etc.
I have always felt that if I could do a job really well, do work that required no maintenance, was basically 'self-healing' so to speak, with documentation so clear and easy to understand that someone could pick up where I left off without asking me a single question. For me that was always my aesthetic and goal in any work I did.
Yet, here I am, an experienced software engineer, unemployed for over a year now. It still seems to me the right ideal, so the 'karmic' outcome feels unjust really.
> A few years into the company’s life, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin actually wondered whether Google needed any managers at all. In 2002 they experimented with a completely flat organization, eliminating engineering managers in an effort to break down barriers to rapid idea development and to replicate the collegial environment they’d enjoyed in graduate school. That experiment lasted only a few months: They relented when too many people went directly to Page with questions about expense reports, interpersonal conflicts, and other nitty-gritty issues. And as the company grew, the founders soon realized that managers contributed in many other, important ways—for instance, by communicating strategy, helping employees prioritize projects, facilitating collaboration, supporting career development, and ensuring that processes and systems aligned with company goals.
IMO, this could be solved by having a finance team with good workflows and a real human resources team/psychologist on staff that would handle all of the interpersonal drama. It's an interesting anecdote but I don't think it was that great of an attempt or structured well enough to work.
With a USB stick and FTP. It's very easy to underestimate a problem when you've never encountered it or tried to tackle it in practice. Your shallow dismissal gives that away and brings no insight.
Human beings will always organically organize hierarchically. In a group one will have more initiative, one will be happier to be told what to do, etc. In the end informally you will end up with the same structure. And it's hell to deal with that when formally all have the same authority so none can override each other, but one guy just gathered enough support to do whatever he wants.
Do you think someone far away from everything you do will have a magic "workflow" that tells them what to do about the budget you requested, about the strategic decision you need, or about your conflicts, about who has to do the nice jobs or the shitty ones? And why would they have any say, they're not the boss.
Your logic is no better that those pretending today that a team of AI agents "with good workflows" can just replace all the programmers.
I think it could work if it was designed for it from the ground up. Google's experiment's lasted months, and was, what seems like a whim of the owners, where as a lot of the workers probably expected a traditional company.
Valve the "game" company, has a relatively flat structure from what I've heard, and it's working pretty well for them, but they've also had it for a long time.
So if you have a company, that works like that from the start, that people know it works like that, that it has support for it. You could make it work.
I agree that forcing this structure everywhere wouldn't work, some people can work like this, others can't.
> Valve the "game" company, has a relatively flat structure
Valve has ~300 employees and operates in a field where they can afford more freedoms (try building large infrastructure projects with flat structures). Valve struck a good balance between autonomy for employees while still having some informal central coordination. Formally there are few bosses but in practice project managers and some people with seniority also act in those roles. At scale it can't work if you don't delegate any of the authority to smaller units.
It's bad to have too many or too few layers. Sometimes the result looks the same, lack of coordination and inability to deliver consistently.
Amazon has 1.5M workers. Can't imagine a flat structure working but I'm sure they were overdoing it with layers of management.
Why not get rid of job titles and just have people do whatever needs to be done?
Because no one person is good at everything, and even if you managed to build a team of people who were good at everything, it is inefficient to make everyone keep up with all details of every aspect of the company so that they can be productive in an arbitrary role at the drop of a hat. Giving people a role allows them to specialize their knowledge and concentrate all their efforts into their area of expertise/competence.
Managers fill a role. Sure, some managers are bad, and some workplaces have seemingly mostly bad managers, and it leads to cynical opinions about how managers are busy-work-making dolts who don't understand anything. Some employers have mostly good managers and I feel sorry for you if you have never had the experience.
I'm 40 years into my EE career and I have always deflected efforts to make me a people manager or a project manager. I like being a grunt in the trenches solving problems at the bottom level, and a good manager increases their reports' productivity by shielding them from needing to deal with project management crap. I would have retired already except I've been blessed to have good managers for the past 20 years, while my managers have been attending umpteen resource allocation meetings and all the attendant report-making that requires.
Really? How often and for how many people? Which ones dominate and are more frequent, flat or hierarchical? Which ones do we use for our most complex endeavors?
lol thank you I was trying to see if anyone else also read this with a raised eyebrow. “Yes so these ICs and other non-management staff are going to be reporting to this LLM and then magic and executives are informed of everything they need to know.”
People have had jobs where their entire job function was figuring out how to outsource work overseas. When there's no one left to outsource then it's your turn. Tale as old as time.
“He should’ve been so aware that his job was going to be the first one cut, and he was responsible for building a tool to cut his own job”
That tool was going to get built whether he did it or someone else did. Maybe only thing to do is buy time building it while actively looking elsewhere.
> “He should’ve been so aware that his job was going to be the first one cut, and he was responsible for building a tool to cut his own job”
> That tool was going to get built whether he did it or someone else did. Maybe only thing to do is buy time building it while actively looking elsewhere.
This has such a dark vibe to it that I am unable to explain. It really feels like an I was only following orders command just hoping that you don't get to the wrong side of this stick as they was hoping for
At the same time protest isn't an option. It does feel like some form of active suffering for someone to write the replacement of themselves while the economy goes to complete dumpster fire and nobody's hiring (much).
All while Completely pure form of AI slop goes up and up so even any interesting idea or anything will have to fight really hard for attention in public spaces like say show HN or other websites.
So you are forced to pay "Internet rent" to the overlords like Google & Meta who will use the same money to then train better models (especially Google?) to continue this cycle.
All while people lose their privacy and nobody even talks about it. With all the thousands of problems happening.
Can we please just stop this circle just once and evaluate where things are going if they are net positive for humanity itself & if there is anything to stop this cycle.
Fundamentally most countries are democracies. Yes there are lobbying efforts but one forgets that these large corpos pay to somehow pursuade you or the politician that you elect.
Can someone smart in politics talk about such issues & raise them & a fight towards lobbying/corruption (all throughout the world?) be established.
I guess this becomes way too broad of a goal but somehow I always end up feeling corruption and politics & money's lobbying connection can be a root cause of many issues (much throughout the world)
There is a lot of middle management. I would include PMs in this. Salesforce does planning from Benioff down. Goals -> each report goals, etc. Planning based off goals - much horse trading. Planning from the lead/pm level - weekly - more horse trading. Reality was urgent stuff got taken care of. Literally over a two year period, outside fancy wording, the technical component of the initial goals maybe completed 30%.
There are a lot of inefficiencies I can see what this manager at AWS was trying to optimize for.
> He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him.
That sounds an organizational issue. I always thought that a manager should push product vision at their own level, get and organize resources, and assess the talent as fairly as possible. That is, a combination of the job of a general and a PM. Controlling the information may be necessary for survival, but it should not be the job description.
> I always thought that a manager should push product vision at their own level, get and organize resources, and assess the talent as fairly as possible.
LOL, reality is very different. Manager first of all is working to keep his position, second to get promoted. Most of them. For keeping he need to become irreplaceable. For that they create kill zone around eliminating competitors. Working against those with brain, not promoting, giving negative reviews, creating 'cases', taking credits for others job. Making those who can leave. I've seen a lot of this shit. This creates a local depressive shithole. It can go for decades in monopolies and in low competition markets.
So much conversation is around AI replacing developers, but I've been to so many meetings where a middle-manager (gleefully) shows me some AI slop they produced to do their job and I think to myself "If you did this with AI, why don't I do this with AI and replace you?"
Most experienced devs already know writing code is the easy part, it's really understanding the business requirements that takes time (I think a lot of junior devs don't understand this so they get overly enthusiastic about AI). But it turns out that most middle managers were already churning out slop to begin with so replacing them with AI is a big improvement.
As an engineer, roughly speaking, every task AI helps me get done faster is roughly negated by someone else's AI slop I need to clean up. But when it comes to middle management, I can't tell the difference. I'm pretty sure most product roadmaps generated by AI are actually more sensible than those generated by clueless managers.
Undoubtedly his tool turned out to suck, and his managers realized that it made him faster but didn't eliminate the need for his role. "Every other manager" is a pipe dream and if it's true it means that group is pathetically inefficient and underutilizing the talents of even an average manager.
That's what I'd say in 2026. 2-3 years from now, not sure. But right now, AI can't run a vending machine without selling too many tungsten cubes.
> It felt like watching someone who is about to be executed be responsible for building the gallows
Perilaus of Athens designed the Brazen Bull, a hollow bronze statue used to roast victims alive. When he presented it to the tyrant Phalaris, Phalaris was so disgusted by the cruelty of the device that he ordered Perilaus to be the first person tested inside it.
I'm in a well funded somewhat greenfield org - not a startup - we use mcp servers of that specific ticket tracking system within the coding tools to handle ticket creation, assignment, tracking, status, completion, updated by what code is being hit. mostly inheriting existing workflows like git comments, pull requests, tickets referenced in those already, just AI writes those commit messages and PR comments too. reports about all of that are made by AI as well to the stakeholder that needs to see that distilled in their language.
We won't be hiring middle management, no product managers, no engineering managers, VPs
The only aspect we don't have solved is a buffer between sales/execs and engineers, but all other functions are automated away alongside other AI assisted coding that there actually is bandwidth for the schizophrenic ideas. Things that used to be tech debt and not prioritized by engineers without management suddenly are all solved, AI makes the cleanest REST API's I've ever seen, obscure verbs properly implemented immediately. Test cases all done.
It's working really well and the friction with non technical PMs and hierarchies is gone
its a 1 liner to add relevant mcp servers to Claude Code, and every ticket tracker already has an mcp server out
for triaging between UX designers, we also just don't. we use an mcp server for UX, I can point playwright - which is usually used for testing your own site - at a competitor's website and feed all the UX information and implementation into Claude Code to promote the synthesis of an extremely advanced and already engaging design pattern into the project
at this point, I would say its a lack of competence to manage a software project or org, any other way. Amazon's deep cuts are a shot across the bow to others that know they need to "do the needful", and will be watched closely
Honestly he's probably doing fine
That man is clearly very smart and proactive. I'd be worried for the poor middle manager caught completely off guard.
If I set aside for a moment, and for the sake of argument, the fact that we all have to earn a living, why would anyone want a job where you distill a bunch of input from those "below you" and relay it to those "above you"? That sounds like a job I would never want to get out of bed to do. If I were one of the people fired, I would be so friggen happy I don't have to do this BS job anymore.
> I would be so friggen happy I don't have to do this BS job anymore.
Alright the freezer's empty with no food and you have no money. Probably a family to manage with kids and demands or say have hobbies which costs money.
I am an extremely frugal person myself but even I will admit that there is just no way that one can purely just exist without a FIRE & even within FIRE some aspects of FIRE want you to have a job but not only just any job but the job you like.
Judging from GP's comment. I feel like the person they are talking about might not have saved enough money so they were a bit worried about it but even if they did, losing a job still impacts mentally and they (didn't?) want to go through such transition.
I guess the point is to really save money & be frugal at times. It's usually something which benefits me but I am single right now but I can imagine that with a family & a wife & different dynamics, frugality can be hard to live by when you have to convince your wife to say down-size or your children to & it can impact one's freedom probably.
Personally wishing to have a lot of savings to go through when single before getting married.
Unironically this & some sense of getting respect within society & getting the prospectus of some good dating connection in such sense is the reason why (many) people look for any jobs.
I will admit that if someone offers me such a job, the offer to take will be hard to resist (even though I would consider I have a stronger than average desire for a job that I truly like/enjoy fwiw)
I was an L7, I led global AI enablement. I built systems executives depended on, moved wherever the company needed me and fixed problems that had been sitting untouched because no one else could untangle them.
And I was still cut.
Here’s the part we’re all supposed to politely ignore: in the U.S. right now, experience isn’t an asset, it’s a liability. And if you’re expensive because you’re good at what you do, the system eventually “optimizes” you out.
We're now in the realm of hold onto your nuts -- sink or swim -- ownership of your own company is the only way out
That person's pinned message shows that he started his campaign for Congress almost 2 months ago. He says he was laid off today. He's been Tweeting non-stop daily and appears to be working hard on his campaign.
I don't think you can separate his active run for Congress from this layoff. Making an actual run for Congress is a huge time commitment and I don't see how it would be compatible with being an L7 manager at Amazon. It's not something you do in your free time.
His campaign platform also appears to be about AI taking jobs, so I'm more than a little suspicious that getting laid off was part of the plan rather than an actual surprise.
The claim that he "built systems" should also be taken in the context of his job title, which was in product management. I've held the Product Manager title for a few years, but I wouldn't claim "I built" during those times, because I was not the one doing the building. This strikes me as a little misleading.
Also that post is full of classic LLM-ism from beginning to end. Note the overuse of the "It's not this, it's that" format and other LLM tells. I might give someone the benefit of the doubt if they were immersed in LLMs so long that they started speaking like an LLM, but given all of the other context surrounding this post I have a high suspicion it was written by AI.
> Making an actual run for Congress is a huge time commitment and I don't see how it would be compatible with being an L7 manager at Amazon.
Does that matter? If people vote for him, he'll end up in Congress, regardless of "it matching" or not. The current president is a TV celebrity who ran a bunch of failed businesses, some middle manager from Amazon could surely be in Congress then?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that planning and running his campaign for Congress is incompatible with being in a demanding position at a FAANG company because campaigning and fundraising is a job in itself.
If you scroll through his timeline, he's been gaining publicity by releasing videos critical of Amazon, too. There's too much of a conflict of interest involved with letting someone like that remain in a high position within the company.
I think you missed what GP was implying, which is that the tweeter must have been slacking at their Amazon job and spending company time on their congressional run.
Unless I'm mistaken, isn't it illegal to base layoffs on individual performance? My understanding was that it can't legally be considered a layoff unless it meets pretty strict selection requirements at the group level (cutting orgs, cutting a "random" % of a role or org to reduce headcount, etc).
Not sure why that would illegal? Your own performance isn’t protected in anyway as a class that you can’t control. I know Lyft 100% laid off people not hitting meets expectations in 2020 first
Again I am no expert here, this is just my understanding after being in the industry for a couple decades.
As far as I'm aware, there's a fine line between layoffs or reductions in force and firing for poor performance. Its legal to cut an entire division, or to cut some percentage of a division's head count and come up with some way of distributing it across the org. It is not legal to find your worst performers, fire them all at once, and call it a layoff.
Happy to be wrong here though, just trying to be clear with the line as I understand it. Someone coming by may know for sure.
In the US, saying that "your job has been eliminated" mitigates various legal risks (discrimination lawsuits for example). So although companies can do pretty much WTF they want, they also don't like being sued.
Oh wow, the guy used the word "versatility"... he even dared "narrative" and "just" - the latter one two times! Astonishing, does he have no shame copy pasting this obvious AI slop? It is obvious that no person in their right mind would utter such things!
In my experience, big corporate employers get extremely nervous when their employees start doing anything high profile (i.e. successful) in the political sphere.
After all, if 250 people report to me, probably some of them are going to have opinion A and some are going to have opinion B. If I take a strong public stance in support of A and against B, some of the more nervous B supporters are going to worry I hate them personally and fear I'm a threat to their career - and they're probably going to go to HR about it.
And even if my job doesn't give me any hiring-and-firing powers - if I'm high profile enough that a load of random haters decide they're going to try to get me fired by subjecting my employer to a campaign of harassment, well, now folks like HR and customer services are getting harassed.
Obviously, though, I've never seen a corporation have a blanket policy saying employees can't engage with the political system - that would be pretty bad as a policy. Instead they'll quote policies about 'bringing the company into disrepute' and similar.
It's simpler than that. In his timeline he's showing how he's getting headlines for releasing videos critical of Amazon, his own employer. He was using his position at Amazon to lend more credibility to his platform.
> and you blame it on 2 months of what you assume is poor performance
The official registration and launch of the campaign was 2 months ago, but he started long before that. If you read his timeline he didn't just wake up one day and decide to run for Congress 2 months ago.
He's writing in the academic/upper-class style that it's training data focused on.
I'm convinced that one of the largest frictions to common use of LLMs is that it translates everyone's writing to the that same style. Having it punch-up or flesh-out your proposal or outline, or whatever, isn't really adding any new material, but it's translating it to a writing style that has historically been exclusive and difficult to learn, and that difference in style is what made the original text sub-par, from the perspective of academia and members the upper class.
I enjoy writing posts online and I've been doing it since the days of BBSs and 300 baud modems, transitioning to Usenet and nowadays mostly just here on HN. People seem to find my posts generally informative and sometimes even mention they're well written. In school I always got good marks on creative and essay writing and in the early days of my startups I wrote some of the user documentation and all the advertising copy (one of which won an advertising award). So, I think I'm at least a bit better than average at writing. And I've never used AI for writing anything.
But in the last few months I've had posts accused of being "AI writing" TWICE (once here on HN and the other was on a retro-computing forum). So I Googled through a random sampling of around 50-ish of my own posts going back a couple decades. Damn. 90s me was naive about a few things. And I found three examples which are kind of like that pattern you described. I guess I'm screwed because apparently that's just how I sometimes write and no one ever minded before. And I have proof I wrote that way long before AI did... oh.
It just occurred to me that maybe some of my Usenet posts could be a small part of why AI writes like that. But I was here first! I should have dibs on writing like me. Regardless, I definitely don't want anyone here to think my writing is AI output - using AI would be disrespectful to the community I enjoy participating in. Recently, I've noticed a few times where I start second guessing something I wrote before hitting "Reply" which makes writing not fun. Once, I just hit delete and logged off without posting. It wasn't that good of a post anyway.
Now it occurs to me I'm not really sure what my point is other than venting. So much for being a better-than-average writer. I guess I'd like people to at least be really careful about making accusations - unless you're very sure. I mean, I get it. I hate AI slop too. I enjoy reading good posts here even more than writing posts. Slop sucks. But errant accusations can have a chilling effect or they've had some effect on me.
Oh, wait was that last sentence too much like THE pattern? No... it's an either/or so I think it's probably okay.
And, to be clear, I promise I didn't plan that sentence as some kind of example. I wrote it and only then did I wonder if it might be too much like THE pattern. Maybe this is one of the ways AI destroys community. Simply by making us second guess each other - and then that gets some of us second-guessing ourselves. Shit, I just noticed I used a dash in the last sentence... but at least it's not an em dash, so I should be good. I just suck at semicolons and started using dashes as a lazy shortcut. My freshman comp teacher complained about it too. Wait, did I use dashes anywhere else? Checking... Shit. I did. Now anyone reading this will definitely think I planned that both times or that maybe I'm an LLM. Because no one writes like that. Fuck.
Americans pay a pretty hefty health insurance penalty when they leave steady employment to start their own business. There have definitely been better times to be an entrepreneur in this country.
Game development has been seeing cuts on the order of 10k+ jobs/year for a couple years now and investment in studios/titles has dried up. It's extremely competitive now and the deals being signed are for smaller amounts of money with worse terms.
Europe/ (Anecdotally India, I have seen some good health insurances for what 50$ here?) might have a better time for being business owners as well.
One of the issues in these countries is usually Funding. I am unable to understand how people get money to fund the projects & have people be willing to pay when there are alternatives which will cut you down as well probably burning through their funding in the first place.
Suppose, I want to create a cloud provider, A) ownership costs went up due to ramflation, B) there are now services which are using VC money which will burn insane amount of money to give users for free.
As a person without VC money or without wishing to seek VC money to simply burn it, (I personally much much prefer seedstrapping and bootstraping), the idea of business ownership becomes difficult as well.
Plus don't forget the fact that the idea of getting a customer becomes hard in the first place given how organic mediums are being overwhelmed (like Show HN etc.) and personally the idea of marketing doesn't really click with me of things like paying for this as if its a rent to the overlords like google and facebook smh but I guess if someone's a business owner, they might be forced to play this game.
The two major US parties are in the midst of another swap of which is conservative and which is liberal.
Marin County California, probably the area most heavily voting for the Democrat party, is clearly the most classically conservative part of the country, allowing almost no development and strongly objecting to even the slightest offenses in speech, whereas rural counties in the south want classically liberal safety nets and protections and heavily vote for the Republican party.
Basically, I wouldn't trust accounts of people who got cut from Amazon in terms of their work experience. Most employees at Amazon, engineering and others are salary seekers - their only goal is to get into higher brackets. None of what they do is as impactful at they make it sound, especially in management. And there is false sense of achievement created when people do annual reviews and most of the time, you are never going to try to fuck over your coworker so you embellish their accomplishments (again because you want them to do the same for your higher paid position).
The thing is, for software at least, most of Amazon software engineering follows a predefined template, and you don't need a lot of management to organize engineering. As for engineers themselves, there is quite a bit of friction for the vast majority of them to do anything impactful because of lack of experience, and LLMs haven't bridged that gap because they don't even know what questions to ask.
I realize these companies aren't identical, but interesting to compare approaches. I also expect Amazon hires and fires more easily instead of growing more slowly and steadily.
Nintendo stock is up 7.5x since 1998, compare that to amazon which is up like 200x. Nintendo shareholders would be pissed about its performance if they were american, cant say how Japanese feel about it given cultural differences.
Yeah, sure, starting from 1998 just a year after Amazon went public, when it was still just a glorified online bookstore, is the most relevant and honest comparison one could make to Nintendo.
I guess this is part of the problem. There is a term for this & it's called greed in such sense.
I will admit that I would love juicy returns on my investments as well but this doesn't make me not (admire?) the value set that Nintendo shareholders might have.
But I do feel like the fact that such options exist where pure capitalist greed can operate is the issue in the first place because if you have this option, then it becomes too lucrative for many to ignore not realizing the inner costs (like currently the AI bubble weights but also before that the moral and social implications of something like amazon let's say where workers had to pee in bottles and were so anti against Union that people were shocked when its videos were released in Youtube and effectively has really impacted all the local shops in your local communities impacting the income of members of your local community.
I guess some sort of regulatory action should be called out on but the govt. is lobbied by these mega-corps again as well so :/
Although that being said, Nintendo's really price jacking and becoming EA. and unironically EA is having a turnover and (actually listening to users?)
Many of these announcements are bluffs as many users here have pointed out. But real LLM-driven layoffs do happen, and from what I have anecdotally seen, they follow a pattern: leadership assumes the new LLM service will make human workers redundant. They then make cuts before the evidence is in. What this means is that today, there are many LLM service deployments that replaced humans while their actual impact remains a mystery. Though it won't be a mystery to leadership forever.
One example client that shouldn't dox me: Odom Corporation, a beverage distributor. They purchased an LLM-driven purchasing solution and immediately laid off their entire purchasing team, save for a few members who exist on the periphery. A follow-up with them showed that the system was ordering summer beverages coming into the winter (among many other bad purchasing decisions) and causing a dramatic increase in unsold inventory. Since they believe that LLMs will exponentially improve, they're dismissing it as a one-off because this year's models "will be so much better". We attempted to advise differently, but stakeholders got extremely emotional at even small suggestions that there was a fundamental problem. Good luck to them.
Yeah. I keep running into LLMs in customer service functions where I would previously have been talking to a human, and in literally every case they're beyond worthless and I end up talking to a human anyway.
I think the execs are either using it as an excuse to reduce opex to boost share prices or they're actually buying into this delusion that the productivity improvements are right around the corner. Though I don't really buy into that second option since any reasonably intelligent person would wait to see concrete evidence of said improvements before crippling your company based on some hope.
I also think some of the companies that operate in the AI space are using the layoffs as a form of marketing to prove the capabilities of their tech (while also using it as an excuse to cut costs).
Anyways, I work at one of the major players in the space and the amount of AI code slop I see on a daily basis is absurd. My prediction is that within two years most younger SWEs will only have a high-level understanding of their code. I already see it happening.
I think AI is the scapegoat for the massive overhiring that happened in 2021 and 2022. These corporations kept thinking that the nearly-interest-free loans were going to keep on going forever, and since no one really knows how to grow a business they spent the money the only way they know how: hiring more people. It didn't really matter if they were filling jobs that were "necessary", just as long as they were filled.
Now, this is extremely short-sighted and frankly it makes me question the intelligence of these BigCos' executives, because unless they're utterly incompetent at this whole "business" and "living on the planet earth" thing they should have realized that the economy fluctuates and this infinite free money wouldn't last.
Now that AI is around, these companies finally have a way to do these layoffs while not looking quite as idiotic.
AI is definitely a solid reason. Even a 10% increase in developer efficiency translates to roughly 9% fewer workers needed to do the same job. For AI to be cost effective, it must reduce headcount.
I have noticed this while working in a startup, how efficiency gains impacted work in the last 3 months with better coding models coming in. If you have someone senior that is effective at using these tools and can own the outputs and be capable of correcting things that are sloppy, you are immensely more valuable than 2-3 more developers in the same area of work. It's actually faster to empower fewer people than try to have 3 fast guys where there would be coordination overhead, which would become a bottleneck and bring down a lot of the efficiency gains. A good full stack engineer who can work with these tools at speed with caution is more valuable similarly as it requires less coordination. 3 junior devs shipping 90% good code and 10% slop would make the senior who is reviewing everything the bottleneck.
I realize it’s easy to pattern-match this news to 'hiring in India vs. firing in US' given the current climate, but having worked at Amazon India for 4 years, I can tell you the cuts happen there too.
Amazon has a history of annual restructuring that hits every region. It isn't necessarily a direct relocation strategy so much as their standard operational churn. The 'efficiency' cuts are happening globally, India included.
Sure, but at some point in the past, "Amazon India" was not a thing. Nor was "Microsoft India" and so forth. Surely you can understand what it feels like to be an American tech worker in a super high cost of living area, looking at reduction in headcount and continual offshoring of jobs as time goes by. I live in Seattle area, work at one of these big companies, I work with people in India almost every day and have been to India three times on business. When parts of my department's work was allocated to a new team in India, of course I was nervous about that.
I get the fear, but look at it from the investor's perspective. The US market is tapped out, Amazon is already everywhere it can be.
Amazon isn't expanding in India out of love for the country or a desire to see it grow. They are doing it because Wall Street demands infinite growth every single year. Amazon India went from zero to a market leader in a decade not because of charity, but because that is where the new money is.
To keep the valuation climbing (which sustains everyone's RSUs), they have to capture these emerging markets. If they don't, the stock stagnates, and the compensation model for US tech workers falls apart.
They can capture the market without moving the workforce there. Meta/Instagram/WA have dominated Indian market for a decade now.
It seems like this is pure labor arbitrage. Growth is gone so the only way to increase profits is by cutting costs, with labor force being the top line item.
> They can capture the market without moving the workforce there. Meta/Instagram/WA have dominated Indian market for a decade now.
The former is a logistics company. They need an on-the-ground workforce in places they operate. The latter are social media products, no local workforce of significance needed.
That said, we are in a world where Amazon is able to do labor arbitrage of software-adjacent jobs by moving them to India. That's been happening for more than 2 decades. Nothing short of new laws levying penalties, or a massive consumer boycott will stop that or slow it down.
You are describing a colonial model, extract all the wealth while investing nothing in the local economy. That era is over.
If anything, Meta is the anomaly, not the role model. They should be required to invest more given their dominance, rather than being praised for extracting maximum value with minimum local footprint. Regulators will likely close that gap eventually.
If a foreign entity came into Florida and bought up 35% of the entire retail infrastructure, you bet the US government would regulate it and demand local value capture.
Case in point - US actively forced TSMC and Samsung to build $65B+ of factories in Arizona and Texas to secure domestic interests.
And Chinese/Korean workers being fired while American workers are being hired by their companies would absolutely be correct to see their jobs being offshored
>I get the fear, but look at it from the investor's perspective. The US market is tapped out, Amazon is already everywhere it can be.
Heaven forbid we forget about the investors, and don't forget about the executive compensation!
I mean, seriously, is there no such thing as balance? I'm not saying investors should be arbitrarily shorted, but on the same token it doesn't mean workers need to always take the brunt of the change, which is how it goes down 90% of the time.
If layoffs were seen as executive leadership failures first and foremost it would be a small step toward the right direction of accountability.
>To keep the valuation climbing (which sustains everyone's RSUs), they have to capture these emerging markets.
Fallacy that the stock must continue to rise to the detriment of the workforce that supposedly would benefit. Never minding that RSUs shouldn't be seen as a primary form of compensation to begin with, there is a myriad of things companies can do to maintain the valuation of employee RSUs, like bigger grants.
Secondly, you're assuming to capture these emerging markets, a layoff is a must. In reality, it likely is not. If you have a surplus of resources, deploying them effectively would be a net win, as you re-allocate these folks to higher priority projects and workstreams. The incentive structure that C-Suites have built up since the 1980s however don't align with that, because executive compensation is entirely based around juicing the numbers on a spreadsheet, as opposed to being rewarded for building sustainable businesses.
>If they don't, the stock stagnates, and the compensation model for US tech workers falls apart.
It doesn't, compensation is more broad than RSUs, and could be adjusted in kind. This is a solved problem.
True. This is Globalism at work. If these companies were not selling goods and services globally then they wouldn't have to deal with setting up offices, staff, pressure from local politicians to hire locals around the world.
Companies hiring more in cheap labor countries is quite obvious for long time. In case of Amazon I feel most of the stuff that was cutting edge 2 decades back is now low value work where cost is the only edge.
And the original link about investment in India is also about fulfillment jobs and even worse, “investing in AI”, aka building data centers, which contribute essentially no jobs at all.
Amazon also employs 1.5 million people globally, 350k of which are in corporate. These 16k were corporate. Still sucks for everyone involved, I know a corporate sales guy who got laid off Microsoft and it disrupted his life pretty seriously. As Stalin says one's a tragedy, a millions a statistic.
Since the HN reaction to layoffs almost always is about blaming H1B, here’s a few more things the headline misses:
1. Cuts were global
2. Cuts in US also include H1B employees
3. 16000 roles are corporate roles, not just tech related, H1B program is not generally utilized for those roles
4. Expansion in India is not just tech. Amazon is a big retailer in India. Understandably if you’re seeing revenue growth in India, you will grow corporate presence in India. If Walmart becomes a massive retailer in EU, it will hire EU nationals in EU. That’s not shipping jobs to EU.
That keeps the facilities here, the local employment options here, the growth here, the tax base here...
We should want more smart people moving to this country. More business creation, more capital, more labor, more output.
Immigration is total economic growth for America, non zero-sum. Offshoring is not only economic loss, but second order loss: we lose the capacity over an extended time frame.
> Shouldn't we all want H1B rather than offshoring?
That's my opinion.
However there are issues with who's sucking the tit. If you bring in a bunch of people from outside instead of hiring locals that's not a win for the locals. On the other hand whats the difference for someone in San Francisco if Apple hires a guy from India vs New Jersey? Not much.
And H1B visa's can be low grade indentured servitude.
I am not so sure on that. They raise inflation, home prices, etc. The locals see no real benefit except having to pay more for everything. While more taxes are collected, most of that goes to offsetting just some of the economic pain induced by the people living there.
and it is in fact zero sum. every spot filled in university or company is a spot not taken by a local, as its obvious by the numbers, more local people are not getting admitted into CS programs nor are they being hired. its 100% zero sum when we are looking at these numbers and %s.
If you don't bring more fungible labor into the US, the jobs will be offshored.
Look at what just happened to film labor in 2022-2023. The industry was burgeoning off the heels of the streaming wars and ZIRP. Then the stikes happened.
Amazon and Netflix took trained crews in the Eastern Europe bloc and leveraged tax deals and existing infra in Ireland and the UK. Film production in LA and Atlanta are now down over 75%. Even with insane local tax subsidies - unlimited subsidies in the case or Georgia.
Software development will escape to other cheaper countries. They're talented and hard working. AI will accelerate this.
Then what? America lost manufacturing. I think we've decided that was a very bad idea.
We need to move the cheaper labor here. More workforce means more economic opportunities for startups and innovation. Labor will find a way as long as the infrastructure is here.
De-growth is cost cutting and collapse. Immigration is rapid growth, diversification, innovation, and market dominance.
All those people start buying from businesses here. They start paying taxes here. It supercharges the local economy. Your house might go up in price, but way more money is moving around - more jobs, more growth, second order effects.
America doesn't have the land limits Canada has. And we can set tax policy and regulations to encourage building.
I'd rather be in an America forecasted to hit 500 million citizens - birth or immigration. And I want to spend on their education. I want capital to fund their startup ideas. I want the FTC/DOJ to break up market monopolies to create opportunity for new risk takers and labor capital.
That was the world the Boomers had. Exciting, full of opportunity. That was the world of a rapidly industrializing America.
Right now, the world we have ahead looks bleak. People aren't having kids and we aren't bringing in immigrants. We'll have less consumerism, less labor, and everything will shrink and shrivel and be less than it was.
> If you don't bring more fungible labor into the US, the jobs will be offshored.
Offshoring is not always a substitute for an employee chained to the job by a visa. I'm sure you can get a million and one anecdotes here on HN about the perils of working across timezones, cultures, and legal systems.
If you really think that companies are moving out of country because "there's not enough talent", despite having some of the more relaxed tax codes and most talented universities here: well, sure. That would be hopeless. It also sounds like you're buying snake oil.
They had decades to off shore, and they chose not to. I don't think Ai in the near term (<15 years) is going to change that dial much. If they do leave, there's plenty of talent to fill the void.
> If you really think that companies are moving out of country because "there's not enough talent", despite having some of the more relaxed tax codes and most talented universities here
The US has a huge delta between its great universities and its mediocre ones. There are some smart and sharp kids everywhere in even the lowest ranked schools. But altogether the amount of people who can pass a code screen in the US is pretty low. If you ever interviewed people for a software position in a big tech firm, you'd realize this.
>The US has a huge delta between its great universities and its mediocre ones. There are some smart and sharp kids everywhere in even the lowest ranked schools. But altogether the amount of people who can pass a code screen in the US is pretty low. If you ever interviewed people for a software position in a big tech firm, you'd realize this.
I'm convinced that the code screen functions as a somewhat arbitrary filter/badge of honor.
FAANG and equivalents get tens of thousands of applicants and they cannot hire them all
If too many pass the code screen, they will just make it harder, even though the job hasn't gotten any more difficult.
Or they get failed at system design. Which is BS in many cases.
It's a necessary filter. Again, you need to interview candidates for these jobs to understand. Our industry doesn't have any qualifications, any exam to pass to certify, so there are just a ton of people who can't do the basic job but think they are qualified because we don't have a good way to screen people for this work.
>The US has a huge delta between its great universities and its mediocre ones.
Like any other country, yes.
>But altogether the amount of people who can pass a code screen in the US is pretty low. If you ever interviewed people for a software position in a big tech firm, you'd realize this.
Compared to India? Or is it fine to lower standards of quality when you are paying an 8th of the cost and it turns out most people don't need to be from MIT to contribute?
That's perfectly fine and dandy. But that's not what H1Bs are for.
H1Bs aren't paid 1/8 their counterparts in the same company.
And no, the same applies to India and to China but because the number is small here we pick the small numbers from the rest of the world as well. We don't only hire people from India and China in tech they are just more populous countries so their best workers are far more numerous.
Go to any FAANG in the US and you will see people on H1B from all over Europe, Africa, South America, etc. but Indians and Chinese are the largest group because they are the largest population countries with established pipelines from schools there to schools here to jobs here.
>We don't only hire people from India and China in tech they are just more populous countries so their best workers are far more numerous.
So we are talking H1Bs. Does that mean this small pool of "best foreign talent" also all happen to speak English and are able to communicate their ideas on a team?
>the same applies to India and to China but because the number is small here we pick the small numbers from the rest of the world as well.
Well you're already shifting your point:
> But altogether the amount of people who can pass a code screen in the US is pretty low.
You're criticizing America as an excuse to find people overseas and bring them in. Thanks for proving the fact that H1B is being abused.
So you're telling me your fine taking the time to find the finest H1B workers but not Americans?
You could use this exact argument to say nobody should ever have children-- children also raise inflation, home prices, etc. And the majority of your property taxes go specifically towards programs which would be unneeded if nobody had any children.
The fact that naive anti-immigration arguments can be copy-pasted unchanged into arguments against having children is a sign that maybe those arguments are stupid. To understand why, you might start with the fact that immigrants also purchase goods and services, and hence pay the salaries of the ~70% of people in this country employed in some way or another by consumer spending.
Children are future taxpayers the majority with parents who were not a tax burden --net positive tax contribution. People without Children benefit from the taxes paid by the children of people who rear children -i.e. people without children aren't "cashing out" their tax contributed retirement --that contribution went to other retirees.
And citizens benefit from the taxes paid by non-citizen immigrants, whether documented or undocumented. Not just income and payroll taxes that might be dodged by under-the-table arrangements, but sales taxes, property taxes (perhaps paid indirectly via rent to a taxpaying landlord), the consumer share (nearly 100%) of tariffs, etc. And much of that tax base is spent on benefits and services that are not accessible to taxpaying non-citizens.
So from that standpoint, immigrants are a /better/ economic deal for the public than children are. At the end of the day, though, it shouldn't matter where people were born if they're contributing to society, and the grandparent post is 100% correct that the whole debate is stupid.
Oh, in that case no w-2 employee pays income taxes, their employer does. I guess we’re all just mooches on society and only the company owners do anything.
No, they just pay sales tax and other taxes on use. I was being sarcastic because you are fundamentally incorrect and as the other comment said, engaging in sophistry.
Grade school math. Look at income tax receipts: the top 5% pay >61% of all income taxes.
You can try and split hairs with "sales taxes" and "payroll taxes" and try to shimmy things into some anti-capitalist stance ("but the companies benefit from their labor!!!," "renters pay property taxes indirectly!"), but the overwhelming majority of all tax payments come from a small percentage of individuals.
Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N.
The government would not be able to fund every social program or services if it weren't for these receipts, which, most people cannot afford to pay. Even 100% of the majority of salaries can't cover this amount.
> Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N.
It matters because we don't know if these people are being taxed more proportionately or less. Like, Elon Musk pays more tax than you or I, but he probably pays at a much lower rate.
What you don't want (from an equity and fairness perspective) is for people with more money to pay a lower rate of tax. That will cause problems.
From a total population perspective, given some amount of money S it doesn't really matter who pays it (except for downstream impacts around fairness and elections).
However, your original point was:
> The vast majority of adults and their children will never pay their tax burden proportionately.
I would argue that this is incorrect, everyone pays some proportion of their income in income/sales/property/estate taxes. And really, your point about who pays the majority of US federal taxes doesn't actually support your point.
Finally, I would note that I mostly replied because I really hate those top x% comparisons as they're deceptive without looking at the proportion of income earned.
> Government could not afford to provide the services they provide if these taxes weren't paid, full stop.
Of course they could. Taxation is not necessary in the short term for a government to provide services (especially if we're talking about the US which both issues its own currency and benefits from massive foreign demand for its debt).
Over the long term, taxation needs to at least pay back the debt but that long-term appears to be much longer than I would have expected (when was the last time the US government ran a surplus?).
Immigrants pay social security taxes, unemployment taxes, ... that they also will never be able to benefit from. Those are purely for the benefit of US citizens
It depends if the immigrant is hired because the native worker is deemed too expensive. In this case, it contributes to reducing contributions through wage suppression.
If you have access to data that shows big tech is preferentially hiring visa holders over US citizens you should get on that class action lawsuit right away. That's probably hundreds of thousands or even millions per person in lost wages, and even after lawyers take their 30% cut, that's still a sizable chunk.
It's anecdata, but a college friend who now works at as a manager in an IT/Data consultancy in my birth country in the EU told me bluntly that they prioritized hiring foreigners as they were 20% cheaper.
Given that the company sponsors them and come from lower incomes countries, they are ready to accept lower wages. If they do it I don't see why everyone wouldn't be doing the same.
It's of course hard to prove formally as those companies will comply with regs to make it look like they aren't discriminating (fake job ads, etc...). By the way in the US Indian consultancies got busted for this.
There is a good case for vetted legal immigration (there is need and they fill that unmet need), no question; however, that should not be at the expense of the local population, regardless of country. In other words, the locals should not suffer a depressed job market because of immigration. The whole reason for a state to exist is to first and foremost look after the wellbeing of its citizens that elect the bodies of government.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from in my comment. I never said US citizens should want H1Bs for everyone with zero vetting, only that they are a net tax positive.
It's not a dichotomy of maintaining the status quo or getting rid of H1b completely. At least in big tech companies, they do follow labor market tests and prevailing wage tests and so on that are designed to vet that there is an unmet need and that visa holders aren't underpaid. I won't deny there are visa mills and consultancies that game the system and pretty much explicitly just hire cheap foreign labor, but this is a thread about H1B in the context of Amazon layoffs, not InfoSys layoffs.
Yep. The negativity around H-1Bs is centered around using them for low/mid-level roles in the pursuit of wage suppression, racial/caste discrimination with hiring managers abusing the system to get their friends in, and the tech industry unnecessarily hogging them when we really need them in niche industries (e.g. nuclear engineering).
Trump made the cost change some months ago to address those concerns but I haven’t seen any studies showing whether or not those changes had a positive effect or not.
Based on the "Worst Case Housing Needs: 2025 Report to Congress" released in late 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found that foreign-born population growth accounted for approximately two-thirds of the increase in nationwide rental demand between 2021 and 2024.
Of course. In any growing services-based economy you will have foreign born population growth. If you eliminate that population growth, economic growth will decline with it.
If we were a growing manufacturing-based economy that wouldn't be the case as much.
I want the loopholes on H1Bs to be closed. H1B is a great concept to get foreign talent that found domestically. But these days is a shell game that's turned into a way to put shackles on employees who can't job hop. It hurts both groups in the long run.
Several of the links of yours are about PERM applications, not H1B.
I agree abusers (employers) should be put on he H1B visa blacklist which already exists.
H1B already mandates that employees be paid within the wage window of their peers. And anecdotally I know several who make more than their citizen peers in the same company same level
Not fully, the problem is much deeper than compensation. Let's not have large companies game around the slots allotted and using various means to get more slots. And put some serious enforcement on how they justify their H1b's to begin with as a start.
> want the loopholes on H1Bs to be closed. H1B is a great concept...
There are no loopholes on H1B, it's working exactly as it was intended - replace, not just supplement - American workers with cheaper, more obedient tech slave workers dependent of their master-employer for their survival.
Because they can hire 5 programmers in India for the cost of 1 in America, and American programmers aren't 5x better than Indian ones ? Amazon is an online shop, not a jobs program. I'm sure they would rather eliminate a position altogether even more than sending it to India.
We should want open borders. Immigration is a significant net positive. But we can settle for controlled immigration with liberal limits.
H1-B is stupid on its face. You're seriously telling me that this software engineering job absolutely cannot be filled by an American? That doesn't pass the laugh test.
> H1-B is stupid on its face. You're seriously telling me that this software engineering job absolutely cannot be filled by an American? That doesn't pass the laugh test.
The job description is a senior full stack product developer fluent in all programming languages and frameworks. Salary is $70,000/year. Somehow they can never find Americans to fill those jobs. They'll go on Linkedin complaining that Americans are too lazy and don't have the right hustle culture and talk about made up concepts like work life balance when the bosses demand 100 hour work weeks without overtime pay.
That seems low. Is it a corporate strategy to set a low salary and when nobody local fills it (because it's below the competitive rate) they get to hire H1-B?
No, because H1B has pay requirements. As someone who went through the process with Amazon I can confirm that they definitely do offer you a salary that is in line with the local market. There might be lower incentive for raises down the line, but that's a conspiracy theory at best
Our competitors in another country will have no problem building those products.
Then they'll be sold in America to American consumers.
Then our industry deflates, because we can't compete on cost or labor scale / innovation.
If we put up tariffs, we get a short respite. But now our goods don't sell as well overseas in the face of competition. Our industries still shrink. Eventually they become domestically uncompetitive.
So then what? You preserved some wages for 20 years at the cost of killing the future.
I think all of these conversations are especially pertinent because AI will provide activation energy to accelerate this migration. Now is not the time to encourage offshoring.
Immigration isn't "shipping the job to India". It's bringing the labor here and contributing to our economy. This might have a suppressive force on wages, but it lifts the overall economy and creates more opportunity and demand.
Offshoring is permanent loss. It causes whatever jobs and industry are still here to atrophy and die. The overall economy weakens. Your outlook in retirement will be bleaker.
If you have to pick between the two, it's obvious which one to pick.
And that's the general problem. People don't care about the overall economy when wages are going down and cost of living is going up. Even myself, I couldn't care less about the overall health of the economy. I care about being able to subsist mine and my family's life style, put food on the table, someday own a home, not live paycheck to paycheck because all the jobs are paying below a living wage, etc.
I'm extremely fortunate to make the salary that I do, but I know plenty of others not so fortunate, in other fields that don't pay nearly as well as tech does, and probably never will. The answer can't be "go into tech" nor should it be "let's suppress wages so labor isn't so expensive for our domestic companies." And obviously offshoring isn't great either.
We can still import talent without suppressing wages, by not abusing the program and actually only importing for roles that truly, beyond all reasonable doubt, could not be filled by a domestic worker.
Usually the next step of this failed discourse is to explain that locals are so entitled that they don't want to do hard jobs for the minimum wage, due to decades of wage suppression done thanks to immigration.
In France, being a cook used to pay very well, now that most cooks in Paris are from India or Sri Lanka, often without a proper visa or at the minimum wage, no local wants to do this anymore (working conditions are awful).
The industry then whines loudly about "the lack of qualified (cheap) workers"
Turns out this is a difficult problem with no one good solution. Subjecting labor to a race to the bottom is probably the most efficient individual system from a capitalist standpoint, but it destroys itself just as much as your customers can no longer afford to buy most of the products made. The selfish strategy ruins the entire system if everybody does it.
Capitalism and Communism have opposite problems. Communism attempts to manage the markets from a top down approach, making it relatively easy to handle systemic problems but almost impossible to optimize for efficiency because there is far too much information that doesn't make it to the top. Capitalism by contrast pushes the decisions down to where the information is, allowing for excellent efficiency but leaving it blind to systemic problems.
So the best solution is some kind of meet in the middle approach that is complex and ugly and fosters continual arguments over where lines should be drawn.
Innovation is why american salaries in tech are so high. They funded trillion dollar companies.
If that becomes so much of a commodity that some other countries can do it for pennies on the dime, then yes. Salaries will deflate. But we sure aren't offshoring (nor using most H1bs) to see more innovation. Quite the opposite.
Tech isn't manufacturing where the biggest supply line wins by default. That's why I'm not holding my breath that the US isn't going to be outcompeted on talent anytime soon. Of anything, its own greed will consume it.
By law. H1b requires the wages to be greater than the prevailing wage for similar positions in the region. They are published by DoL: https://flag.dol.gov/wage-data/wage-search
For this kind of experience, you'd be looking for level 2 _minimum_ and likely level 3. For King County in WA it's right now $149240 and $180710 respectively. Level 4 wage is $212202, btw.
The H1B requirements are even higher, but also WA state law requires software developer salaries to be 3.5 x minimum wage x 52 weeks per year. Currently, that is $124k+, because minimum wage is $17.13 per hour.
You say "we should want open borders" then argue for something that is objectively not open borders. "Open borders" and "controlled immigration" are diametrically opposed things, regardless of whatever liberal limits you're imagining. Almost nobody is arguing for zero immigration.
> 1. Cuts were global 2. Cuts in US also include H1B employees
Hell no, Amazon has been a top 10 filer of H1-B LCAs for decades. The only H1-Bs being laid off, if any, are the older ones (over 39) to be replaced with cheaper models
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS8LNhxJq9Q
Amazon is a big retailer in India, believe it or not, if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will have a big corporate presence in that country.
> if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will have a big corporate presence in that country.
Is that true? Could you think of some large retailers in other countries, like the United States, without a big corporate presence? What do you mean when you say "big"? 1,000 employees? 10,000? 100?
if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will not have a big corporate presence in that country.
Now it's on you to think of an example to disprove me, certainly I'm not going to think an example to disprove myself.
Do you see the problem with this pattern? I could claim all sorts of things and then say, well sorry you have to go do all this work to refute my claims. Something claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I really was asking whether that's true or not, because in my mind there are a number of large online retailers that operate in the United States for example, without a large corporate presence here.
> because in my mind there are a number of large online retailers that operate in the United States for example, without a large corporate presence here.
Amazon has a market share of 30-35% of ALL e-commerce in India. You’re making claims yourself, so I’d like to see examples of companies that operate at that scale in a country without corporate presence.
Also, there is a logical fallacy here that doesn’t make sense. If I claim A is true (and for a second let’s assume is actually true), then I cannot actually have an example of A being not true. If someone else claims that A is not true, they provide evidence of A not being true, instead of demanding such evidence.
And my evidence for my claim about big retailers having big corporate presence is based on all the big online retailers like Amazon, Wlmart, Target, Best Buy, EBay and others (top 20) all having big corporate presence in the country.
> if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will have a big corporate presence in that country.
They made a general claim that a big retailer in a country will have a big corporate presence in that country. I don't know if that's true or not - hence my response.
They didn't claim that a big retailer in India will have a big corporate presence, nor did claim that a retailer approaching 35% of e-commerce must have a large corporate presence in the country. It was an ambiguous claim, which is why I asked a few follow up questions.
> You’re making claims yourself, so I’d like to see examples of companies that operate at that scale in a country without corporate presence.
I didn't make this claim so there's nothing for me to provide.
because in my mind there are a number of large online retailers that operate in the United States for example, without a large corporate presence here.
As is the case with many mass layoffs. AI just makes a good reason to claim. It makes you look progressive to investors and it doesn't make you look bad to the public. If AI didn't exist it would be some other excuse to spin this as a positive for the company and not bad for the affected workers.
People may have forgotten what happened back in early 2000s. Outsourcing was all the rage, and people in the US were really concerned. And then it came the explosive growth of internet, of mobile, of cloud, of social network, and etc. And then discussion died or at least dwindled enough that we stopped paying attention.
It looks to me that massive outsource means that companies turn to focus on incremental improvements, which won't require rapid communication in the same location. Besides, the tech has been growing amazingly for decades, other countries have caught up and therefore have growing number of talent. It's a matter of time for them to own more R&D.
Outsourcing in the 90's/2000's failed because you didn't want to deskill engineers and reduce their scope, you wanted Jeff Dean building pagerank and building Google.
Outsourcing happens when the economy forces companies to cut costs. When innovations return substantial growth, most companies don't think much about the costs. We have a rough economy, bad tariff policy, a weakening dollar, and immigration policy that's reducing the overall US population (and with it, spend in the economy). All those factors push companies to need to cut costs
Where are you seeing “American” jobs? Amazon workers in India were laid off too.
There are similar stories about Amazon investing in American cities too. Cherry picking a story that Amazon is renovating their office in India is ingenuine.
I guess we just need the other shoe to drop: punish companies that are based in the US and outsource to India. It’ll happen in time if this trend continues
Then the US companies will be outcompeted by more competitive companies located outside the US. Now the US lost the jobs and the workers' income tax and the corporate tax.
America cannot eternally capture a disproportionate share of global wealth, even with such rent seeking moves. It's unsustainable.
We had a golden age after WW2 when we were the only undamaged industrial economy but that age has ended.
It would be far smarter to have invested in the workforce continually. A microcosm of this is how we mismanaged college education and is a symptom of a larger problem: As far as US policy goes, got complacent and extractive over innovative and additive. The narrative shifted from 'abundance for all' to 'the pie is only so big' (that is, unless you're a favored incumbent, like defense contractors). It doesn't stop here. Job training programs, continual education, robust workforce displacement services, proper social welfare programs. We lack all of this (and more).
Another would be to remove burdens off companies that are better handled by the collective of society, via the government. Take universal healthcare. An often unnoticed benefit is how it would shift liabilities off the books of a huge number of companies, from the auto manufacturers to smaller businesses. A tax is a much easier and simplified expense to deal with over legacy healthcare costs that can weigh down a business. It also has a secondary knock off effect: employers can't use it as a pair of handcuffs. In all likelihood, an unintended side effect of universal healthcare would be an increase in entrepreneurship from the middle class. People who would otherwise be handcuffed to their job because of health insurance.
Somehow, the lesson everyone took away from the G.I. Bill was not that the government providing robust funding of social services (IE college, home ownership) works. That part is seemingly ignored by the vast majority of the conversation around the 'good times past' that many Americans romanticize.
Too many of my fellow citizens are prioritizing their own short term gains over the long term health of the community and society in which they were empowered by to get ahead in the first place. This will inevitably crater quite spectacularly bad.
Sure, and how about executive compensation? The gains aren’t spread throughout the company. You see highly revenue positive businesses like Google and Amazon laying off thousands of employees while record profits are abound.
You missed the point entirely, and if you were to take a few minutes to look this up you’d know that
Or they just move their "headquarters" and the US part of the business will be a subsidiary.
This is an old, and well tested strategy.
E.g. Commodore International formally had its head office in The Bahamas, but the entire leadership team worked out of the US.
You can try putting more constraints on what will get a company considerd a US company to catch those kinds of structures, but as you indirectly point out, there are really only downsides to playing that game.
The majority don't care so long as they have enough food and shelter and healthcare.
The whole scoreboard based on bank accounts is all made up wankeroo.
Let's just have AI avatars fight for gloating rights; Goku beat Superman on PPV so Japan gets to host the inter dimensional cable world cup! And otherwise keep the biologically essential logistics flowing cause that collapse is when the meat suits will toss aside socialized truths of history and go crazy primate.
I'd like to see a serious study about the word "fiat" and whether it has been used to make a single valid economic argument in the last 30 years (auto maker excluded)
The whole point of it seems to be to dismiss the entire economic system in favor of something that almost nobody has bought in to like bullion or cryptocurrency or somesuch for the benefit of the speaker. Currency, even paper currency, is one of the most pervasive societal "grand illusions" that we share. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing as it greases the entire system of exchange for literally everyone everywhere.
Well, history has those uniquely medieval (or early modern) situations where kingdoms adopt fiat currencies just before they fail. I dunno how much academics discuss those.
Well, history has those uniquely medieval (or early modern) situations where kingdoms adopt fiat currencies and don't fail. I dunno how much academics discuss those
I'd like to see a study about why the opinions of economists, who are still just human meat suits, are more important than anyone else's.
Just kidding, I know they are not. Economists only succeeded while US government played along. Government has quit playing along. Did economists see it coming? No? Well what good are predictions that intentionally ignore entire categories of externalities because it would break our capitalism if they were included?
I'd like to see a serious study where an economist did more than summarize past economic trends with high school math and hand waved a prediction at an unknowable future by just assuming political and cultural stability (that aren't guaranteed).
Society is little more than dumb semantics games; dollars and contracts only have value if it is socially beneficial to the majority to value them.
Capitalism only remains so long as we ...socially... see a ...communal... upside to capitalism. Sure sounds like capitalism relies on socialism and communism.
Too many have read the rambling ignorance of long dead authors too busy scribbling out semantic wank to invent useful technology. Knowledge workers are akin to useless priests; allegory is all they contribute.
How much further along might we be if Adam Smith's of history contributed more than empty pontification.
Physics of reality itself does not intrinsically value human society or it would preserve them and not tear them asunder via entropy.
Signal attenuation is coming for every society. Just physics things.
Pretty much. America is destined for a decline. The billionaires can make money regardless of border by always moving things around and utilizing their expansive resources for any possible loopholes and escape hatches while manipulating public policy.
This is reductive and wrong. The billionares make money hand over fist either way. They own the companies. They don't care if the new campus or factory is in China or India. They skim their cut off it's productivity either way.
It's your fellow countrymen who are peddling the policies that, at the margin, push those investments overseas.
If you want American companies to not outsource any jobs AND have full foreign market access, get ready to get market access revoked from places like India. They’ll just incentivize their local companies to compete, and Amazon has plenty of local competition there already.
Amazon themselves have experienced in the past how heavy-handed Indian regulators can be.
It’s not a zero-sum game anymore. You cannot have only one side (US companies) capture 100% of the value.
Amazon has contributed enough to the current administration that I doubt they will face any consequences. Maybe another round of shakedowns and more financial contributions, but they have figured out pretty quickly how to play the game and end up on the good side of the current administration.
Amazon's MGM subsidiary spent 75 million dollars thus far on the Melania Trump documentary that by all accounts, is looking like its going to be a box office bomb. Reportedly, 30 million of that 75 went directly to Melania[0]
> [p]unish companies that are based in the US and outsource to India. It’ll happen in time if this trend continues
They ain't doing squat.
The Trump admin is encouraging technology transfer to India as part of Pax Silica [0] and GOP politicans in Ag heavy Purple States like Iowa [1] and Montana [2] are trying to mollify India after China pivoted from American to Brazilian soybeans [3] and India began tariffing pulses/lentils [4].
Additonally, Indian ONG majors like Reliance are negotiating with the Trump admin to purchase Venezuelan oil now that Maduro is in custody [5] and India SOEs have starting creating partnerships with ExxonMobil [6], Chevron [7], and Phillips66 [7] to "drill baby drill".
As such, what are you going to do lol - Agriculture and Ag adjacent industries employs 22 million Americans [8] and the Energy sector employs 7 million Americans [9] mostly in Red and Purple states. Software only employs around 2 million Americans [10] in either Blue states or Blue pockets of Red States.
For the presidential election sure, but I wouldn't underestimate state level organization of the DNC in the rural west and Midwest.
The issue is fractured fundraising basically undermines the local organization by funding challenger candidates, which alienates local Dems and depresses turnout (TDP is notorious for this).
Iowa is going to be a competitive race hence why Joni Ernst decided to not run for reelection.
I'm not american, but it seems to me there are enough american job seekers in CS to justify not needing H1B.
I'm not sure anyway what is the relationship between the potential difficulty of hiring new folks, and firing current folks in USA to offshore roles, are relates.
> it seems to me there are enough american job seekers in CS to justify not needing H1B.
Anecdotal so hold on to your salt but in my social circle here in the US natural-born US citizens vs visa-holders self-select for types of jobs. For example, if my the starting pay is < $80k most of my natural-born American friends don't bother applying. Whereas, my visa-holding friends routinely go well below $50k when searching for jobs or "2 year internships". So, when a company posts a certain type of a job they have a certain demographic in mind already.
Not saying my US friends are uppity as much as visa holders are desperate.
> I suppose that is "in the tech field" too, as non-tech people would be happy with an $80K job where a lot are under $50K
Indeed. The median salary in America for full time employment is a little over $63K.
Edit: if the message from H1B folk earning $300k+ to voters who earn $63k on average[1] is "You need our superior intellects, you uneducated rubes", then its unlikely to be well-received, especially at a time when blaming foreigners is in vogue.
Why? They are obviously being weaponized to suppress wages for native Americans in an environment where tech leaders were saying "learn to code". I think the H1B needs to be cancelled and companies should incur financial penalties for using foreign labor to undercut American workers.
>native Americans
I know you don't mean indigenous people, so what's the cutoff?
Is it birthright citizenship? But then what about naturalized citizens? And if they count, thennare they screwing over "natives" up and until their swearing in when they instantly join the screwed, or is it more of a continuous spectrum of screwer/screwed?
Or, in the other direction, does your family need to have been here a couple of generations for you to count?
you see the reason h1b is so popular with the c-suite in a lot of cases is that you get absolute loyalty to a company that holds all the power of your being allowed to stay in the us. you lose the h1b job and you have limited time to find a new valid employer to sponsor you or else you go back to your country. it's one of the reasons musk loves it for twitter.
I've had three different H1Bs. Yes, transfers are easy, but they're sure a hell more risky than staying at your current job and enduring whatever you have to.
You're not beholden to your employer, but you have borderline coercive reasons to stay.
Its all relative. A burned out American can drop out tomorrow with no short term plan. H1Bs cannot fo that unless they are ready to go back to their previous country.
FAANG has been engaged in mass layoffs for two years now. How can you possibly make the claim that there is a surplus of people who can pass the interview loops? Obviously, there isn't because they are firing people who passed those loops.
You’re ignoring the part where FAANG massively overhired in the years preceding.
Meta and Amazon doubled their headcount in the 2-3 years of the pandemic.
Others like Google increased by 60+%.
You’re also forgetting about this little thing popularly called AI that happened in the intervening years.
There may be an argument that H1B isn’t fit to purpose in a post AI world (although that argument is also false if we think software engineering will remain a viable job going forward, but that’s a different topic).
But it’s much harder to argue that H1B hurt US employers when thr industry they hired the majority of H1B employees in the first 2 decades of the 2000s, also saw some of the highest growth in jobs while simultaneously posting the highest growth in salaries (there may have been certain minor industries hiring a few thousand people, like Oceanographer that had a slightly higher increase, but even that was likely not true because BLS data doesn’t factor compensation in the form of stock options which disproportionally provided wealth for SW engineers relative to other workers).
>You’re ignoring the part where FAANG massively overhired in the years preceding.
Yes, because overhiring is a lie generated to justify layoffs. I'd hope by year 3 that we'd see through this. If they "overhired", why is hiring still up globally while down in the US?
>You’re also forgetting about this little thing popularly called AI that happened in the intervening years.
What about it? Hiring numbers are still up. Its clearly not replacing workers as of now.
The domestic talent exists, and companies can leverage it or be punished financially for attempting to “contain labor costs” through leveraging visa workers.
H1B workers cost more on average than permanent residents. That’s just based on salary. Once you account for the fees and legal costs and risks of the immigration process, H1B workers are way more expensive. Also, these visas can be transferred between companies.
There’s no such thing as an indentured servitude class here - this is just part of the giant racist misinformation machine of the right, to make it seem like shutting it down would somehow be doing those employees a favor. In reality it’ll hurt the entire country.
None of what you're saying is related to what the parent post is saying at all. He's saying, if the immigrants are exceptional, they should be on an O-1 visa, which is specifically designed for exceptional people. If they're not exceptional, then why not hire an unemployed American worker instead?
H1B supposedly is designed to address "shortages", but there are no actual shortages.
To be blunt: Not enough qualified ones. Look at the names of all the top AI papers of the past 3 years, not too many are American.
When you get bullied in American public schools for being a "nerd" and liking science and math, your country doesn't exactly produce a lot of state-of-the-art STEM professionals. You get a small handful of exceptional people who overcame the adversity but that's it.
The top 0.1% are perhaps mostly American-educated. The top 10% on the other hand are mostly not American. And you need the top 10% to code for the top 0.1%.
Producing AI papers isn't the job requirement for 99.9% of STEM jobs.
I won't talk about other fields, but American devs (regardless of race) tend to be much more passionate about computer science and (perhaps as a result) tend to be much better at their job than those from the big-name outsourcing countries.
I was tasked with finding an Indian hire a while ago. I lost count of exactly how many people I had to interview. (I spent a huge portion of my time for over a year doing interviews). We were looking for a senior developer, but settled for at most an intermediate developer. We swapped between multiple top-rated Indian recruiting firms, gave automated tests, had their interviewers ask pre-screening questions, but nothing helped improve candidate quality in any real way. I caught more people than I could count cheating answers on technical interviews (probably how they got past the screeners). We didn't even look at anyone without at least 10 years of "experience", but less than 10% of candidates could write basic fizzbuzz (and some of them accidentally showed that they were using GPT to try to code what we wanted because they didn't have a clue).
It may be an anecdote, but the sample size was quite large and we are a F500 company with the ability to attract talent, so I think its likely that we were attracting better-than-average candidates too.
EDIT: I'd add that it's not just my team. I've sat as an observer for a lot of other hiring interviews and they had the same problem. Across our company, we've had massive turnover in our outsourced India centers because the people they hired did such poor work.
> I won't talk about other fields, but American devs (regardless of race) tend to be much more passionate about computer science and (perhaps as a result) tend to be much better at their job than those from the big-name outsourcing countries.
Then why are half the websites I use broken? Why is my hospital's billing estimate system broken? Why did my FSA provider send a request of documentation to the wrong e-mail address? Why is my bank's website always broken? Why did Equifax leak data? Why did Doordash mis-charge me?
> Indian recruiting firms
There's your problem. Most top talent doesn't find jobs via recruiting firms.
> Then why are half the websites I use broken? Why is my hospital's billing estimate system broken? Why did my FSA provider send a request of documentation to the wrong e-mail address? Why is my bank's website always broken? Why did Equifax leak data? Why did Doordash mis-charge me?
I can't speak to all of those, but Doordash has extensively outsourced its software teams to India. I also know that lots of hospital software companies also outsource to India. Your FSA provider probably had someone in a call center transcribe an email incorrectly and we all know most call centers aren't in the US either...
> There's your problem. Most top talent doesn't find jobs via recruiting firms.
You'd need to prove this statement. F500 companies have more money than most companies and pretty much exclusively hire through recruiters. If you were top talent and wanted to work for a top overseas company, it seems like working with a recruitment agency would be a no-brainer.
In any case, I had zero say in who to use. I was handed some contacts and told to make it work.
> Then why are half the websites I use broken? Why is my hospital's billing estimate system broken? Why did my FSA provider send a request of documentation to the wrong e-mail address? Why is my bank's website always broken? Why did Equifax leak data? Why did Doordash mis-charge me?
Well… you may be answering your own question if you think about it really, really hard.
We used to have contractors/employees from a bunch of different countries (India, EU, Eastern Europe, South America, etc). Our (largely Indian) tech management pushed very hard for us to offshore to India exclusively.
We had to let people go who had been great contributors. Some of them were actually CHEAPER than the Indians who replaced them. I tried very hard to keep one of these people and after much politics up and down the management chain ultimately got "yes, he's a proven coder who does great work and costs less than all our recent Indian hires, but you have to let him go anyway because he's not based in India". I've never encountered something like that and it tells me that money wasn't the primary driving factor at all.
I have also observed strong racial preference in american companies just as you describe -- indian, chinese, and korean management building almost exclusively same-race teams or outsourcing work to their home country, etc.
It's really gross but I'd never been in the position to be told explicitly to find a $whatever. That's illegal in the US but appears to be unenforced.
> When you get bullied in American public schools for being a "nerd" and liking science and math, your country doesn't exactly produce a lot of state-of-the-art STEM professionals.
Its worse than that. when I lived in america, I found that being a software engineer was a dealbreaker when it came to dating most women. Imagine my surprise going to other countries and finding that my chosen profession made me high value proposition to most women.
Vets, climate change scientists, doctors, environmental lawyers and athletics. Bonus points for trustfunds and influencers. Women want to make as much as men but also want their partner to make more than them.
Ever see a female doctor marrying a plumber or construction worker? No they marry Male doctors or lawyer of higher status.
Has it ever occurred to you that all those fields have one thing in common? it's empathy. The people in those positions tend to not be the kind to murder you when you say no. Not saying that's true for blue collar men, but the odds are significantly higher. Also doctors and lawyers naturally tend to be around doctors and lawyers, that's hardly the crazy observation you seem to think it is
Not sure lawyers or climate scientists have more empathy then a middle age man who lives with his mother and cares for her while getting a disability check. But woman prefer the former.
The answer is woman value status.
Getting murdered is a hollywood / news fear that rarely happens. People should be worried about deadly things that happen often like cancer or heart attacks. Those are rarely the leading story on the nightly news.
Programmers are around programmers but the rate they marry another programmer is much less. Even with a gender imbalance women programmers are not seeking male programmers like women doctors.
I don't think most professional athletes are lauded for their "personality".
The other 3, sure. Bartenders need to be good at talking to people to succeed, and artists need to be more eccentric (in a different way from nerds) for their own success.
Tech industry has no problems working with state police forces to imprison woman that get abortions or just generally profit off of making teenage girls depressed.
We should applaud those women for not willing to date people that inflict misery and death upon them.
What industry has put actual resistance to these in these times? Plenty of Hollywood has wool over their eyes (though a few are starting to speak out), Sports bent the knee for a full year (especially FIFA), law firms capitulated, hospitals aren't gonna lose their massive profit margins over the health care stuff.
No industry is coming out of this with a clean bill of health. You as an individual can only choose to not work with the most evil ones.
Industries don't, people do. One thing to keep in mind is that corporations have always worked with fascism, they will never resist but workers can. Sabotage takes many forms and one can just look at how Dutch resistance worked against the Nazis.
You can do many things to sabotage that are nonviolent and also highly effective:
I'd also be weary with your examples; many hospitals are experiencing effective strikes or law firms that capitulated are struggling finding clients or lost valuable workers.
>I'd also be weary with your examples; many hospitals are experiencing effective strikes or law firms that capitulated are struggling finding clients or lost valuable workers.
Well yes. That was partially my point. Tech is no different; there's a lot of companies capitulating but I see a huge surge of people speaking out against this. Even people you largely think of as non-partisan previously. I don't think it's fair to pit me into some fascist state because of a company I no longer work for nor perhaps never worked for.
But tech lacks the unions that other industries have and by its nature is a lot more scattered out. I can't do much more than the ones criticizing the companies with regards to providing a "Dutch resistance"; I don't work for them (heck, I don't even have a full time job as of now) and I've done a lot of culling of what I use over the decade. Probably more than what many have done, but still seemingly insignificant in terms of their bottom line.
I'm all for collective action, but I'm still looking for that collection. It seems like things need to get as bad as Minneapolis before that collection emerges.
I mean, I'm a woman and a software dev.. I suppose I'm not most women though.
Anecdotally men in tech jobs tend to either be the best I've ever met or the worst I've ever met (loosely related to why they're in the field to begin with)
> When you get bullied in American public schools for being a "nerd" and liking science and math, your country doesn't exactly produce a lot of state-of-the-art STEM professionals. You get a small handful of exceptional people who overcame the adversity but that's it.
Is bullying nerds still happening? It was commonplace when I was young in the 1980s. (In fact, it was so common that it was the basis of the 1984 movie Revenge of the Nerds.) But I had thought the social status of nerds and geeks had leveled up a few times since then. Did the level-ups not happen?
Yes and no. Generally, you don't necessarily get bullied but you lose opportunities to interact with people. Most students in the US do not care about academics more than they need to, and the kind of "nerd" to care about math and science likely doesn't have much to talk about with these people or even is able to have a meaningful conversation without being told something along the lines of "it's not that deep" or "I'm not reading allat"
Because it's an attack on 'american culture', I'm not even sure if nerds get bullied that much in school anymore.
Often "nerds" are the ones bullying, i say "nerds" because the people getting good grades and into great universities, the ones getting into tech, are often just strivers instead of nerds.
"Real nerds" are a tiny minority of people in any country and I doubt they account for most immigrants in the US, it's mostly just upper middle class strivers I've noticed.
> there are enough american job seekers in CS to justify not needing H1B.
As an interviewer in a big tech company, it seems all candidates I interview are foreigners who often graduated in the US. Either the company discriminates (which I really doubt it does), or there aren't enough qualified Americans for some jobs. And even if there are, the largest pool of candidates, the better.
> And even if there are, the largest pool of candidates, the better.
More competition is not inherently "better" nor does it necessarily yield greater innovation. Trying to impose arbitrary competition as some abstract principle is just masochism.
Big tech companies are biased to sourcing from big name universities that have a lot of foreign students, and big tech companies were much more likely to go through the effort of H1B than smaller companies. As such your candidate pool is more heavily skewed than elsewhere.
All the conspiracies theories can be put to bed by walking into any engineering department (maybe outside of biomedical engineering…which makes me think this may be related to how Americans demonize math) and observing that the majority of students are foreign or maybe second generation immigrants.
This ratio gets worse because American students are disproportionately more likely to follow up their engineering undergrad with law or business school, so even if they may be engineers they’ll get into business and/or something like patent attorney going forward.
There wasn't any demonization of math when I was in school, but no shortage of "you can grow up to be anything" and "do what you love" rather than "get a job that will pay for doing all the things you love".
There's nothing wrong with being a librarian or getting an MA in Museum Studies, aside from the price of getting the degree and the low odds of getting a job without waiting for someone to die so another position opens up.
There's a reason you won't find a lot of foreign students pursuing them, though.
The conspiracy here is that somehow US spending on primary/secondary education ranks among the top, yet we are unable to produce competitive college students. And we mask this very serious problem from directly rippling into our economy by... importing students and workers.
1) There's a very reasonable chance the company discriminates. Sorry, but once bitten, twice shy. One company gets caught at it and the whole industry develops a reputation.
2) If you've got a problem finding candidates, there's 16,000 more on the market now. Congratulations!
3) If you think there must be something wrong with those 16,000, well, that would explain where your pipeline is going wrong.
> There's a very reasonable chance the company discriminates
I don't see how this is even possible. There would be a memo from the CEO to 1000s of recruiters asking them to favor foreigners? that would leak immediately.
It's really easy to see that big tech is interviewing only people who passed an initial filter which at this point is AI based. They're clearly filtering for some characteristics they want in a candidate, and most probably the filter is giving you the people you mentioned.
The global workforce benefits from higher salaries and higher demand for labor, not from zero- or negative-sum moves of jobs from one place to another.
This is still the case in US Comp Sci programs. There are some Americans in these programs but it's mostly Indian and Chinese. The American kids gravitate to the business schools.
The company itself might not discriminate as a policy, but some hiring managers certainly have their preferences. Or exclusively pull talent from their overseas cousin's brother's spouse's college roommate's consulting firm that is most certainly not a grift.
There haven't been any meaningful attacks on H1b visa. When running for office, Trump said very clearly that H1b was good for his companies (saving money), but bad for the American people.
Today, he's claiming that we need H1b because we don't know how to build computer chips (~75% come from India with zero advanced production and another ~12% come from China which is also far behind).
His "massive" $100k increase over 7 years is just a bit over $14k/yr. I had a former H1b programmer (now legal immigrant) I worked with tell me about his experience. Getting paid less than $40k to live in Austin, TX and living with a half-dozen other H1b indenured servants/slaves in a tiny shared apartment just so they could survive the 7 years and get on the path to citizenship.
Do you think those companies would bat an eye about increasing their expenses from $40k to $54k per year when median dev salary back then (2015) was around $92k/yr? After a decade of inflation, that $14k is even less important.
Over-immigration with H2b and illegal immigration suppresses blue-collar wages (Bernie Sanders famously called open borders a "Koch brothers proposal"). H1b and outsourcing to India centers suppresses white-collar wages.
Do you see prices dropping as they cut worker salaries and outsource? Can you even buy things when you don't have a job?
Trump (and the rest of the uniparty) has enabled corporate theft on a scale that's never been seen before and the chickens are going to be coming home to roost really soon.
Maybe they wanted to live together to save money (remember, the rest of their family isn't in the US), but that is irrelevant to the fact that they were paid way less than half the going rate in that city (I remember his stated salary being a little over $30k, so I errored on the high side). We were pretty close and when he told me the story, there wasn't any reason for him to lie. Who am I to say his experience isn't real?
If you read this person's comments, looks like they are just making up crap. Apparently this one person has met or interviewed all the Indian H1Bs in the US.
Once again the mask of "AI" is really just human labor underneath.
I've personally seen founders raise millions of dollars because of "AI" that is really just manual labor. I know, I wrote the code that enabled the manual laborers. This was like 10 years ago; the lie is even easier to tell now. And that is so so important in an economy where gaining favor from those who already have money is far better than just selling a good or service.
Back when IBM Watson was a thing, the rumor I heard was that it was actually just a big team of data people and programmers who would bang out stuff in a hurry and then they would pretend like the AI came up with it.
I've sat on many meetings and gotten to trial many "AI products", and a good portion of them do have actual LLMs attempting to perform work. Though most of them are brittle wrappers of the big AI labs, with an aspirational markup.
The AI of today can do more, yes. But the path to funding and success doesn't require actual AI use, just the appearance of AI. No need to actually sell a good or service in a profitable manner. Just convince those with money that you have some secret-scaling-AI-sauce, and you'll be a success without ever having to sell an actual product.
The founder I mentioned earlier sold the company and thanked us all for the amazing journey, and then started his next thing in his multi-million dollar house. All built on a lie that made the company look good.
This is and always has been an eventuality. It's like fighting inertia or gravity to think otherwise. When the pay disparity is so massive, what is the incentive to hire US talent?
I say that as an American that is concerned with our local economies and employment but that's not looking through rose colored glasses.
If a company is looking to offshore a function purely on the basis of cost differential, that’s a sure sign the company believes the function has been commoditized and is immune from competitive selection.
That’s a specific slice of the workforce, not all of it.
It’s only really needed on true blue ocean innovation and where the company has to find the skills where they exist. If that’s the US, then sure they’ll continue some small slice of employment here for those projects. But as you said, a majority of software is a commodity now (has been for a long time, really). I don't feel like many companies are doing much innovative anymore and I feel people severely underestimate the talent present in other countries. So, even if you pointed to 10 innovation projects at Amazon then I could counter by saying even 85% of those teams could be in India.
I wonder what kind of unprecedented economic growth we'd be seeing right now if we kept with the status quo rather than imposing tariffs and scaring off foreign investors.
Yeah, and as part of the "class war", a majority of the lower classes decided to elect a billionaire whose first order of business was to implement giant tax cuts for the richest Americans while cutting programs like Medicaid and SNAP.
Class war will never work in America because we're too stupid.
Correction: the class war already started long ago. Unfortunately the lower classes are not only getting trounced, they mostly don’t know the war is happening.
It turned out the revolution was always being televised, only it was us thinking what we saw was a reflection of society, not that it was being delivered to us disguised as our own ideas.
Mass layouts started when the government increased the interest rate to fight inflation. By 2024, inflation was already under control, the interest rate was falling slowly, and companies were starting to hire.
I don't think that's how it works. It's not like coiling a spring it's more like starting to roll a ball down a hill, once you ruin it it keeps getting worse in a feedback loop as various systems feed on each other (populism, erosion of norms, etc).
I think you're grossly underestimating European naivete. You probably did fuck up your relationship with Canada though. They didn't seem happy about that one.
I'm talking more about intra-country dynamics, rather than inter-country. Momentum, good or bad, is a thing. It's not that mysterious, we can trace it to things that feed off each other, like the inflation <-> populism loop, which makes civic institutions progressively worse over time. Turkey is a modern case study. This is the opposite of the "coiled spring" analogy, where if a country get worse it is bound to get better even stronger.
And yet prices are marginally up while all the "economists" expected major inflation.
Dollar vs Euro is at same level now as it was in 2019 - there are benefits to the economy as well when the currency is less strong.
I keep seeing this “marginally higher” statement about prices, usually as part of a “things are actually fine” argument, but everything in my life has increased in cost in a way I just don’t understand. Is it that these are counterbalanced in some way making it not macroeconomically relevant?
Gold front runs monetary policy and "economists" aren't the only ones trading that. Look at the gold chart for the past year. I don't think it's really disputed that high inflation is on the horizon due to the debt situation (which Trump has made worse with the OBBB)
> there are benefits to the economy as well when the currency is less strong
Care to list those? I can think of a few but it assumes that we're already in the position of being an export based economy which we're not and not tangibly working towards.
> I don't think it's really disputed that high inflation is on the horizon
This is moving the goalpost because you know economists (the critics) forecasted major inflation sooner/now, and it hasn't happened.
> Care to list those? [...] it assumes that we're already in the position of being an export based economy which we're not and not tangibly working towards.
You're not making sense or making coherent thoughts. The US is still the #2 exporting country in the world in absolute terms despite importing a relatively higher amount.
> This is moving the goalpost because you know economists (the critics) forecasted major inflation sooner/now
Yes, because no one expected him to chicken out as hard as he did. It also came out that people in his cabinet (specifically Howard Lutnick) were betting against tariffs while simultaneously advocating for them. The legal opinion is heavily leaning towards them being illegal after many lower court decisions. Do you care to explain how tariffs wouldn't be inflationary if the actions matched the rhetoric?
> The US is still the #2 exporting country
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Look at how much we import vs how much we export. What would you call an economy that imports more than it exports? A ___ based economy?
> Do you care to explain how tariffs wouldn't be inflationary if the actions matched the rhetoric?
It's like you're asking people to explain something that happened as if there's no explanation beyond your hatred of Trump. Why do you choose to dismiss drivers like stockpiling inventory, increased USMCA compliance, broader economic offsets (AI/tech boom, energy production) that could explain how tariffs aren't necessarily inflationary?
> Look at how much we import vs how much we export. What would you call an economy that imports more...
You ask this as if I didn't say the US imports more than it exports.
> Why do you choose to dismiss drivers like stockpiling inventory, increased USMCA compliance, broader economic offsets (AI/tech boom, energy production)
Okay, so you're admitting that they're inflationary but choose to rattle off a list of random stuff that somehow, magically, offsets the increased costs from tariffs. Please go into detail on one of those, including what you're talking about (e.g. what is "increased USCMA compliance"?)
AI datacenters have increased energy costs in the localities where they're based and raised memory prices by eating up all the supply.
> You ask this as if I didn't say the US imports more than it exports.
So.. you were agreeing with my point then? I don't understand why you'd call my thoughts "not coherent" then agree with it.
> Okay, so you're admitting that they're inflationary but choose to rattle off a list of random stuff that somehow, magically, offsets the increased costs from tariffs.
Haha! I haven't seen someone try to dismiss counterarguments as "magic." I should've said that more when I got answers wrong on my tests in high school.
> So.. you were agreeing with my point then?
If not "magic," then the objector "actually agrees" with you.
I asked you to elaborate since you didn't explain anything, hence the use of "magic" which is sometimes referred to as hand waving. I'll take your non-response as a sign that you're not interested in elaborating for reasons.
You’re arguing that tariffs aren’t inflationary by bringing up other events affecting the economy, which I agree with ‘hypeatei needs explaining, but even assuming those do offset the tariffs you’re still incorrect.
>You’re arguing that tariffs aren’t inflationary by bringing up other events affecting the economy
Huh? You're not reading what I said and instead are relying on accusations. It's also weird to say direct behaviors triggered by tariffs don't play into realized inflation. That's mental gymnastics.
>Tariffs definitionally are inflationary.
No. Weird thing to be confidently incorrect about. Tariffs are price increasing (colloquially "inflationary"), but not definitionally inflationary in the economic meaning. Look it up.
> Tariffs are price increasing (colloquially "inflationary"), but not definitionally inflationary in the economic meaning. Look it up.
Weird (okay, not all that weird, but ironic, in context) thing to be confidently incorrect about.
Outside of the overtly ideology-over-description Austrian School of economics, which has a different jargon designed to advance their ideology, the general definition of (unqualified) inflation in economics is a sustained increase in general price levels.
And belief that the Austrian School usage is just the “economic meaning” is a pretty good sign that someone doesn't understand even Austrian School economics beyond rote recitation of doctrines and aphorisms.
The introduction of tariffs does, assuming no additional countervailing policy changes, result in sustained general price increases. (Over time, adaptation to the tariffs will, in cases where there aren't hard reasons preventing this, become more diffuse across products than they are initially at introduction, but the net long-term effect is still a general price increase.)
> assuming no additional countervailing policy changes
When you add this qualifier who is disagreeing? This is tautological.
It's like you're making a point that doesn't flow from the original discussion and point raised that economists missed the mark on how much Trump's tariffs would cause extreme inflation for everyday US citizens. They still can (TBD), but haven't to the extent predicted.
> > assuming no additional countervailing policy changes
> When you add this qualifier who is disagreeing?
Anyone who disagrees that tariffs are inflationary. If you enact them, price level increases are produced which are sustained unless some other event unrelated to the tariffs introduces a deflationary effect which offsets the inflationary effect of the tariffs.
>some other event unrelated to the tariffs introduces
I appreciate your good faith approach to discussion.
IMHO, this has devolved into semantics and has fallen astray from the original discussion above.
Here's an example to demonstrate semantics:
1. Trump put tariffs.
2. USMCA (read: NAFTA 2.0) exemptions, pre-existing policy, started to get used more to avoid tariffs.
They are unrelated in that the policies are different. However, they are related because companies became more incentivized to use the exemptions as a result of the tariff. Nothing new (AFAIK) was "introduced" on just this combo alone.
It's very very easy to make stocks go up. Zimbabwe and Venezuela have stock markets that have gone up millions of times over for instance. The stock market is mostly just an inverse of currency health and tends to be inline or slightly above inflation on average, even when the economy is a complete mess.
No one ever judges economic health by the stock market which you seem to be doing. You judge it be things like median wealth (currently below 2007 levels in the USA) and employment figures.
You can use non-USD currencies to judge how the US stock market has fared to avoid the issues with currency health. You may argue that dollar-denominated returns aren't real, but SPY isn't down even when denominated in EUR https://ycharts.com/indices/%5ESPXEUR
>median wealth (currently below 2007 levels in the USA)
> The stock market is mostly just an inverse of currency health and tends to be inline or slightly above inflation on average...
This is demonstrably false? Long-term average US inflation since 1913 is 3.1% [0]. Long-term nominal average US stock returns since 1928 are 9.94% [1]. A nearly 7% advantage compounded every year for roughly a century is not "slightly above", it is absolutely enormous. Over 60,000% enormous.
Furthermore, when inflation is high, interest rates go up, and interest rates act like gravity on stock prices. See any number of Warren Buffett shareholder letters. See also: the year 2022. Stock market returns are mildly negatively correlated with inflation (with a coefficient of -0.229 [2]).
For rate rises that are enacted to slow inflation (which slows stock market growth as you said) i think you have the cause and effect reversed.
The best way to see how inflation and stocks are linked is to look at economies where inflation is not intentionally slowed by rate rises. The stocks go up more or less with inflation (and some small % of gains they may have on top as you say). When you have rate rises that slow inflation you do indeed slow stock growth. But this is also inline with the link between inflation and stock price.
Just to add onto your point, bad employment numbers can actually be bullish for stocks due to a higher chance of Fed rate cuts. Obviously there is a threshold there because if too many people are unemployed then no one can buy stuff, but it just highlights how disconnected stocks are from the economy.
> No one ever judges economic health by the stock market which you seem to be doing
On the news stations they do, and it was a bunch of FUD about the stock markets tanking.
Tesla, too. "Look what he's done to his brand, let's hit him in the wallet" blah blah.
That was while things were in a downtrend. It was going to be the biggest recession ever, Trump was so stupid he couldn't possibly understand the ramifications, etc.
The initial dip was bought up by retail investors then everyone realized TACO (Trump always chickens out) so the markets don't really care about tariff threats anymore.
What benefit have we gotten from the chaotic tariff policy? Any trade deals?
Oil prices have fallen. And likely will through the rest of the year. And the US conspicuously didn't apply tariffs on oil from Canada (while simultaneously saying "we don't need anything from Canada" and threatening our sovereignty and tariffing everything else) which is a huge amount of imports into the US.
Oil prices down isn't necessarily a good thing for an oil exporter like the US though. In aggregate.
If the US had actually applied tariffs on Canadian oil your gas pump prices would be up very significantly.
Canadian crude imports are about 20-25% of crude feedstock for gasoline in the US. Put a 10% import tax on top. Keeping things the same, that's <5% increase in domestic wholesale prices.
Since the administration have stopped releasing some data that usually is released, how fast would people be able to notice that the economy tanked, if it did?
Well technically, the economy has tanked (sort of), people say that the economy's doing great but the figures that we see in (q4?) are extrapolated from the previous quaters in which the only thing (from what people tell me) is keeping the "illusion" of economy doing good is the spending within AI datacenters. But a huge part of that is shrouded within mystery as well (Stargate project is really suspicious in my honest opinion though I can be wrong)
Also wasn't there some BLS figure which was pushed by the Administration to try to have good numbers or similar. I mean speaking from a different countries pov, Personally I wouldn't trust the numbers the current administration gives.
I don't know if this is the same belief that Americans within America also hold though.
You're accusing people of moving the goalposts on the tariff conversation, the goal posts were doing backflips and jazzercise from the day they were announced.
So yeah, the tariffs are still a net negative on the economy, but have been so erratically and poorly implemented that they're not nearly as bad as they could have been. It's like a plastered drunk guy swinging a knife at you. It's a lethal threat, but he's tripping over himself constantly and can barely stand so it's easy to dodge for now. Could be a more serious issue if he ever sobers up.
I agree they've been very erratic. What does that have to do with whether or not our economy tanked as a result? It didn't, the prophecies were FUD, everything he does is bad, blah blah.
Trump's a lethal threat that is too incompetent to be lethal? Okay. So quit with the FUD then.
So you'd turn your back on the knife wielding drunk guy and turn on Netflix because he hasn't managed to stab you yet?
FUD stands for fear, uncertainty and doubt. If you didn't feel any of that in the previous year you haven't been paying attention or don't have any serious responsibilities.
Smart people talk about differential impact; i.e compare what we’re seeing today against the counterfactual. / I’m not aware of solid reasoning that argues in favor of tariffs, differentially speaking. / I’m happy to look at models that aren’t a waste of time.
I guess you mean informed people. There's a whole lot of smart people in this thread who aren't talking about differentials.
I don't know shit about tariffs, except what everyone said in the news. It was going to tank the economy. Everyone's retirement was going to poof into smoke. Everything was going to cost 2 or 3x previous prices. None of that came to pass.
I bought gas at 2.27 a couple hours ago. Groceries are cheaper than last year. I'm personally making more money than I was a year ago. My business depends on other people having entertainment/spending money.
I'm just a dummy though, so I can't glean some expert insight into the differential. I don't have a model for you, just the real world.
How do you think the economy is doing? What do the differential impact models, that aren't a waste of time, say about it?
It sounds like you are interested, noticing some inconsistencies, and trying to get to the bottom of it, which is a good place to start!
> I bought gas at 2.27 a couple hours ago. Groceries are cheaper than last year. I'm personally making more money than I was a year ago. My business depends on other people having entertainment/spending money.
Comparing Metric(t=0) to Metric(t=1) is a tempting but incorrect way to assess the quality of an intervention. Lots of people think this way, but it is a flawed heuristic that should be avoided whenever possible. Instead, one should compare: PredictedMetric(action=A, time=1) to PredictedMetric(action=B, time=1). This is obvious when one thinks about it, but people get lazy.
To state in another way: when assessing economic policies, it is smarter to compare the observed outcome against the counterfactual outcome. Forgetting or overlooking this is common, but I won't defend or excuse such sloppy thinking.
--
The problem with stating it that way is that I don't think it really drives the point home. Think about someone in a hurry or someone who doesn't know what "counterfactual means... will they stop and _think_? I wouldn't bet on it. So, I'm a fan of hitting people over the head. Show a table:
You can find an example table (with values) at https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-novembe... (Table 1). For example, it shows that removing tariffs would differentially increase household income by about $900 and reduce employment by 0.3%. That's about 500,000 jobs in the US, assuming a labor force of around 170 million.
Will people agree on the models? To say it bluntly (using the "hit them over the head principle"), asking the question like that is bone-headed. Asking it like that is the wrong question, and it misses the whole f-ing point. How on earth we claim to have an educated society when people pose questions like that? We really need to step it up a notch. We've all heard "good journalism gives equal weight to both sides". Fine. But in practice this doesn't get us very far. First, there are more than two sides. Second, hearing out all sides is only the beginning, not the end. Third, practically speaking, if we actually want to make sense of the world in real situations, we're going to discount and possibly completely toss out a whole lot of extraneous, uninformed crap. (Very few serious economists take Trump's economic plans seriously, and there are good reasons for throwing them in the trash! Once one understands what is happening, even mentioning them is usually a waste of time.)
But I digress.
A better question is: on what bases do reasonable people agree and disagree? Using quantitative and substantive models, how can we move forward on making actual testable predictions? Assessing the error in a prediction must not be a matter of opinion. Unless there is a tie, someone is going to be less wrong than the other person. There is no wiggling out of it due to vague language or "miscommunication". That's one key advantage of models. People that care and seek the truth are more likely to share their models. Done right, this will shift the discussion into model specifics and people will have to show their work. This tends to weed out unserious people pretty quickly. (Unfortunately, in many cases, closed models are valuable and so are not shared openly.)
--
I don't often find mainstream journalism that covers any technical topic very well, and this includes economics. I'm not here to blame anyone -- many journalists operate in contexts where time constraints and audience expectations are unlikely to meet my quality bar. Sometimes I will give business analysts a bit more credence, but not much. The world lacks good systems for (a) disseminating clear, testable predictions that (b) lay out their counterfactuals. Heck, I'm surprised when I find even one of the two.
Here's my unsolicited advice. Don't bother reading what "most people" say about economic issues. Ask various friends and network for high quality sources and explore on your own. On this topic, I suggest starting with "When Are Tariffs Optimal?" by Thomas Lubik [1].
Once you have an understanding of what economic models predict, then you can dig a bit deeper. I put close to zero weight when reading mainstream writing on technical topics. If you don't go to the primary sources, you are delegating your thinking. It doesn't take that much work to read the summary from the source material.
That's because Trump gave many extensions and concessions to so many countries. Remember there was 125% on China in May 2025 before Xi decided to use rare earth minerals to fight back. Maybe you have heard of TACO. So the tariffs as threatened never panned out in reality.
They are affecting specific industries and consumers. The inflation right now is stable only because oil is so cheap. And that has nothing to do with tariffs.
Sure, when the arbitrary tarriff formula was announced for every nation, the stock markets were down thousands, and the bond market was fluctuating. Then you had the short term trade war with China were both countries set tarrifs so high no imports/exports between the two happened for a month, and there was a concern about empty shelves in major department stores.
But as one Wall Street executive put it, "Trump also chickens out", so Wall Street learned he would backdown on any tariffs that had too much negative economic impact.
The impact to social bonds between the US and other Western nations has been thrown completely off track, and now they are looking for exits from anything US related.
These tarrifs were the absolutely dumbest thing imaginable, and have brought the post WWII period of US economic prosperity to a point it can never recover.
It's only down from here. We pissed off our friends.
The difference between the reaction on HN to the Amazon layoffs and the ASML layoffs is interesting. Perhaps it's driven by the fact that people here are employed by US companies and not by ASML, so we're able to admire how ASML is cutting 4% of its workforce as reducing the number of managers but Amazon cutting 1%^H^H 4% of its corporate workforce so that they can get to "reducing layers, increasing ownership, and removing bureaucracy" is considered to be because of other secret causes that are a sign of the company failing.
dont count warehouse works and corp folks in the same bucket. thats like mixing commercial and residential real estate markets in one report without diff
Excuse is only half the story. I don't fully understand why they are doing it though. Companies hire people to make money, not as an act of social conformance.
Global economy doesn't look that terrible. Nor is the AI story that believable. Is it just the CEO Zeitgeist? All the guys at Aspen talking about what fraction they cut, just as 5 years ago they bragged how bloated their org chart is?
TBH the "ZIRP overhiring" seems like the most likely real reason. I could never understand how all these companies could hire so many people for so much money, only to have them work on later-to-be-canned open source projects.
It doesn't? I was born in the 90s (so admittedly 2008 was before I started working), but the economy is looking the worst it's been in my lifetime to me.
The economy is currently great if your income is from your investments rather than from your labor. The relative comfort and power of the capital class vs. labor class has never been farther apart in my lifetime.
This is all the USofA. Elsewhere, China is allegedly also printing GDP growth like crazy. Europe is maybe a little stagnant but also not, on the whole, awful.
At the face of it, it's at least a C+ if not better. So if you'd claim it's terrible, there's some explaining to do.
> So if you'd claim it's terrible, there's some explaining to do
Here's the explaining:
- Unemployment has increased.
- Long-Term unemployment has increased.
- Number of gig workers is at an all time high.
- Layoffs have continued.
- Personal household dept is at an all time high.
- Polls show most people have financial anxiety and feel squeezed.
- Inflation is not under control.
- Buy now pay later usage is up as much as consumer spending is.
- Income and wealth inequality are near records high.
- GDP and consumer spending were also seen peaking before the last 5 recessions as well...
We're all talking predictions, I don't think either of us should pretend to know the future, but there are counterpoints and so the data does not all look rosy.
I'd say these are symptoms (and I'm not denying them) rather than causes. My point is that it's hard to find hard data that would say the economy is doing poorly. Even unemployment, which is your top line, seems... fine?
I just don't understand where the squeeze is coming from. Either companies figured out how to do more with less people, or they started the cycle with too many people, or they don't know what they are doing. Undoubtedly they are laying people off, especially in tech. But I he symptoms you list don't explain it to me.
I don't think they're a symptom or a cause. Just indicators the economy may not be doing well.
> Even unemployment, which is your top line, seems... fine
My lines were in no particular order. The issue with unemployment data is it counts gig workers as "employed." What doesn't add up is that there are fewer job openings, mass layoffs, and rising long-term unemployment (people who can't find work past 6 months).
> I just don't understand where the squeeze is coming from.
Nobody really knows. It's hard to model the economy and identify cause and effect. But likely candidates are low competition, businesses with coercive leverage on pricing/pay since buyers and workers have no alternatives. Essentials like housing, health, and food have skyrocketed, and we haven't scaled them as demand grew. Companies have abandoned stakeholders, they only care about shareholders. They're squeezing record profits, sustained because buyers are supplementing with gig work, have all adults working, are taking on more debt (and there are more ways to get credit than before), or are abandoning their savings (YOLO).
> Undoubtedly they are laying people off, especially in tech. But the symptoms you list don't explain it to me.
My list wasn't about layoffs, just signals the economy may be doing poorly. One reason for layoffs is companies believe the economy is at risk. They're avoiding hyper-growth and cutting fat. In tech specifically, I think a lot of it is undoing the mess of Covid, such as ventures that didn't profit, hiring before knowing what to use people for, workers distributed across too many places. Even if one part is growing, redistributing is hard. Easier to lay off and rehire where needed. There's probably some offshoring too. But in general, cost-cutting happens when companies feel they need to be conservative.
Cause wise, we probably shouldn't ignore the delayed hangover from covid. But also the longer term trends towards an economy that is extractive rather than productive, and increasingly unequal, neither of which are sustainable.
> Even unemployment, which is your top line, seems... fine?
The unemployment one is interesting because if you look at that graph, the universal pre-2022 pattern is basically a spike of unemployment during recessions followed by a gradual drop.
The recent pattern is a gradual increase.
I'm not a big fan of "numerical only / shape of graphs" analyses, but this does seem strange. Of course, the 2020 Covid spike is also unusual, so...
I'm going to set aside GDP for a moment, which is hardly the full story but instead I want to zoom in on inflation.
The Federal Reserve of St. Louis is using the CPI numbers, as most government agencies do. I would contend those numbers in and of themselves lie. The ALICE index, which is based on more comprehensive data[0][1] and closer to what CPI used to represent before the major adjustments in the 1990s, tells a different story[2]
Inflation against the ALICE index is much higher than the 3% reported in by the Federal Reserve, running at a stark 5.9% YoY change. This honestly lines up much closer to the reality I see in my day to day life than the CPI numbers reported by the Federal Reserve do.
It always takes 6 to 12 months for the graphs to match the reality on the ground. Because that's how long it takes most people to run out of money and credit.
U.S. tariffs created inflationary pressure that has so far been mostly absorbed by producers and retailers, but they can’t do that forever. In fact the Amazon CEO said a week ago that they will have to raise prices this year due to tariffs.
2008 didn't really impact tech sector much though. Companies continued to hire through it, and in fact those that didn't often had a headcount deficit afterwards.
And also the worst of 2008 was confined to the US.
What we have now is more like 2001.
Also most of these big companies were completely dysfunctional on their hiring through 21/22, just going completely apeshit. Now they're making everyone suffer for it.
Much less severe than 2001, where tech lost 250,000 jobs peak to trough (~18.5% from 2001 to 2003). Current downturn from peak (2022) is about 80,000 jobs (~3.2%). The timeframe for this period is longer and the magnitude is much lower.
In 2001, there were a ton of non-dotcom jobs where big companies, non-profits, governments, etc. wanted to move online for the real benefits it offered but had struggled to lure people away from bubble money. The people I knew who were laid off got jobs pretty quickly once they were looking outside of SF startups—not always the same money, but sometimes better and never much worse, and still building relevant career experience.
The market is mature now, and most sectors of the economy are getting hammered at the same time: tariffs have most industries cautious about new commitments if they aren’t already cutting, academia is reeling from grants being rescinded, large chunks of federal spending are gone or frozen, and state/local governments are getting less federal funding at the same time everything else is affecting tax revenue and increasing demand for social services. With so much uncertainty affecting the entire economy, you hear from people who have hundreds of interviews because even established companies in stable industries are unsure what tomorrow will look like after the next whim of an unstable octogenarian.
Everyone was trying to pretend the bottom of the market back in 2007 right up until they couldn't keep up the farce and everything collapsed.
I believe that's what we have today. The economic indicators are all worse than they were in 2008. Our economy is Wile E Coyote running at full speed in midair until he realizes the truth then falls.
> I could never understand how all these companies could hire so many people for so much money, only to have them work on later-to-be-cannes open source projects.
Given how much of these companies runs on such projects, it really shouldn't be surprising. It's a numbers game for them; Facebook doesn't mind if 300 little OSS initiatives fail if it gets them React.
This is quite likely a big part of it. There's a lot of herd behavior in the financial markets. A few companies fire a bunch of people, stock price goes up, others follow suit.
Also, in many cases, this isn't something that anyone pays attention to on an ongoing basis, because very few execs have the mandate to do it at a large scale, and their attention is scarce. So in practice, it tends to be done at intervals, and doing it when other companies are also doing it gives cover.
It is an open secret among the ownership class that the labor market got too good for the workers around 2021-2022 especially for tech. What you are seeing now is a possibly colluded squeeze on tech employment to keep the workers on their toes and stay docile and servile.
> Companies hire people to make money, not as an act of social conformance.
I think you also underestimate how much hiring gives these large companies political leverage. A town can be completely destroyed when one of these companies threatens to move a factory or office
Sure but the lower hanging fruit is mostly squeezed, so what else is driving the idea of _job replacement_ if the next branch up of the tree is 3-5 years out? I've seen very little to indicate beyond tooling empowering existing employees a major jump in productivity but nothing close to job replacement (for technical roles). Often times it's still accruing various forms of technical debt/other debts or complexities. Unless these are 1% of nontechnical roles it doesn't make much sense other than their own internal projection for this year in terms of the broader economy. Maybe because they have such a larger ship to turn that they need to actually plan 2-3 years out? I don't get it, I still see people hire technical writers on a daily basis, even. So what's getting cut there?
What exactly would that evidence look like, for you?
It definitely increases some types of productivity (Opus one-shot a visualization that would have likely taken me at least a day to write before, for work) - although I would have never written this visualization before LLMs (because the effort was not worth it). So I guess it's Jevons Paradox in action somewhat.
In order to observe the productivity increases you need a good scale where the productivity would really matter (the same way that when a benchmark is saturated, like the AIME, it stops telling us anything useful about model improvement)
Productivity is by definition real output (usually inflation adjusted dollars) per unit of input. That could be per hour worked, or per representative unit of capital + labor mix.
I would accept an increase in the slope of either of these lines as evidence of a net productivity increase due to artificial intelligence (unless there were some other plausible cause of productivity growth speed up, which at present there is not).
First, I'd expect the trajectory of any new technology that purports to be the next big revolution in computing to follow a distribution pattern of that similar to the expansive use of desktop computing and productivity increases, such as the 1995-2005 period[0]. There has not been any indication of such an increase since 2022[1] or 2023[2]. Even the most generous estimation, which Anthropic itself estimated in 2025 the following
>Extrapolating these estimates out suggests current-generation AI models could increase US labor productivity growth by 1.8% annually over the next decade[3]
Which not only assumes the best case scenarios, but would fail to eclipse the height of the computer adoption in productivity gains over a similar period, 1995-2005 with around 2-2.5% annual gain.
Second is cost. The actual cost of these tools is multiples more expensive than it was to adopt computing en masse, especially since 1995. So any increase in productivity they are having is not driving overall costs down relative to the gains, in large part because you aren't seeing any substantial YoY productivity growth after adopting these AI tools. Computing had a different trend, as not only did it get cheaper over time, the relative cost was outweighed by the YoY increase of productivity.
[1]: First year where mass market LLM tools started to show up, particularly in the software field (in fact, GitHub Copilot launched in 2021, for instance)
[2]: First year where ChatGPT 4 showed up and really blew up the awareness of LLMs
Well you would think if there is increased productivity there would be at least a couple studies, some clear artifacts, or increased quality of software being shipped.
Except all we have is "trust me bro, I'm 100x more productive" twitter/blog posts, blant pre-IPO AI company marketing disguised as blog posts, studies that show AI decreases productivity, increased outages, more CVEs, anecdotes without proof, and not a whole lot of shipping software.
If that's the case I feel like you couldn't actually be using them or paying attention. I'm a big proponent and use LLMs for code and hardware projects constantly but Gemini Pro and ChatGPT 5.2 are both probably the worst state we've seen. 6 months ago I was worried but at this point I have started finding other ways to find answers to things. Going back to the stone tablets of googling and looking at Stackoverflow or reddit.
I still use them but find that more of the time is spent arguing with it and correcting problems with it than actually getting any useful product.
> I still use them but find that more of the time is spent arguing with it and correcting problems with it than actually getting any useful product.
I feel the same. They're better at some things yes, but also worse at other things. And for me, they're worse at my really important use cases. I could spend a month typing prompts into Codex or AntiGravity and still be left holding the bag. Just yesterday I had a fresh prompt and Geminin bombed super hard on some basic work. Insisting the problem was X when it wasn't. I don't know. I was super bullish but now I'm feeling far from sold on it.
The reason is the same as always - they want to cut costs and increase profits. And there are no laws in America that prevent them from indiscriminate firing.
> TBH the "ZIRP overhiring" seems like the most likely real reason. I could never understand how all these companies could hire so many people for so much money, only to have them work on later-to-be-cannes open source projects.
The same way they hire so many people for so much money to work on AI projects and build datacenter which haven't produced actual revenue for any customers (corporate or otherwise). I'd rather light money on fire to employ people tbh.
I say this as someone who has the 200 dollar Claude sub.
The US economy is struggling heavily. Population shrank for the first time in a long time that will reduce economic demand. The USD has gotten a lot weaker in the past few years. The regulatory environment is unpredictable and so risk being priced in is high. Every company is chasing scarcer and scarcer energy and chip resources. And then add on top irrational and constantly changing tariffs.
This causes companies to constantly review costs and look for ways to trim, which they're doing.
...or 2 years ago they agreed that employees should return to the office for at least 3 days per week, of course only as a temporary measure before full RTO?
> TBH the "ZIRP overhiring" seems like the most likely real reason. I could never understand how all these companies could hire so many people for so much money, only to have them work on later-to-be-canned open source projects.
I agree this is the root cause, also a big reason for inflation are all these do-nothing white collar management/tech jobs subsidized by the post-pandemic money printer with fat paychecks burning holes in their pockets. Of course these companies tried to use the free money to grow when they could, now they want to fix the balance sheets. And AI is a great excuse, especially if you're in the business of selling AI products!
It's why Trump wants to turn the money printer back on, inflation be damned, because mass unemployment due to belt tightening would be politically even worse than inflation.
I think the thing to remember is that with interest rates being essentially 0 during the (middle/end of) pandemic that made it really easy for a lot of companies to finance a virtually free checkbook. They were at liberty to try out all sorts of new experiments, virally for free (at that moment).
Now those bonds are all coming up for renewal at much higher interest rates, and the companies don't have the growth to organically support the higher head-count (in addition to the interest payments), and so are cutting.
Was this all wildly irresponsible? Yes. But the people who made those decision are never going to personally pay for any of it.
You underestimate how sclerotic large corporations can be. I've seen people do zero work, quite visibly, at fortune 500s and not be fired for over a year.
There are people at my office who haven't really done anything since March 2020 when we all got sent home. They probably weren't doing anything before then either, but at least they were there eight hours a day.
I've never understood this meme. Maybe I'm naive, but why would a company hire someone to "not do anything?" How would they stay employed if their performance review showed they "weren't doing anything?" Everyone around me is busy doing 3x the amount of work they can sustain because we're so short staffed. Where are these companies that have people just sitting there picking their nose watching YouTube? I've never really seen this either in BigTech or MediumTech companies.
Maybe these employees are actually doing things--just things you don't see or appreciate?
To defend ICs against middle management a bit: a lot of IC work is dependent on decisions that need to be made by upper level managers. A 2 week contiguous workstream can take 2+ years easy once a few managers ask a few questions and need 10-20 meetings to get 5 bullet points clarified (so many projects can't even produce that). But if that person gets replaced their institutional knowledge and work readiness evaporates.
I've been on 10+ projects at big companies and have begged to do work. Mostly it was showing up to 3-5 meetings/week while managers try and figure things out, and their VPs reconfigure budgets, priorities, and resources. Sometimes I do the work and hold it until someone wants it.
There's usually no standard top-down view about what happens when 3 VPs change the scope on 5 projects. But in reality, that usually means 10-30 people downstream are paralyzed. This is also where the tension between "new work" and "scalable processes" comes into play (need a consultant?).
Add regulatory compliance and approval gates, and then..
If you're a contractor, it's often preferable to keep qualified people on staff even if they have nothing to do because it makes bidding for future contracts easier. You can say "I have X people qualified in Y ready to go" instead of "we'll have to hire X people to do Y".
But there's also just bad hires who can get through interviews, they won't just leave, and building a case to fire those people takes time and management that gives a shit. At a large enough program at a large enough company with uninvolved management (and they can afford to be uninvolved because the program's doing well on all tracked metrics), you can get away with being negligible deadweight for a shocking amount of time. I wouldn't recommend it because your team will hate you, you'll build no skills or relationships, and you'll be the first to go when cuts happen, but some people are fine with that trade for whatever reason.
Headcount increase means growth which means stock go up which means short term profit at the expense of long term quality of product or service.
Soooo many people doing absolutely nothing and really no one cares.
It is beneficial to have someone doing nothing as oppose to someone pro active, because doing things breaks things.
Think about, companies optimize for inertia. Extraordinary levels of burocracy, governance, quality assurance...at some point it becomes impossible to move. Measures are in place not because they increase quality, but they reduce movement, and then this is perceived as safer. Think about it, less movement == safe.
People doing absolutely fucking nothing while virtue signaling is a perfect fit.
To be fair I've never worked at Amazon, but at this point they have 1.6 million employees worldwide. I don't care what their hiring brochures say, if you think they don't suffer the same ailments as every corporation that size I have a bridge to sell you.
Certain sectors are high performing centers of excellence whose staff write blog posts that get posted to HN, publish papers, get put on the covers of hiring media and give speeches. The majority of the company is somewhere in the middle holding down their relatively uneventful but important functions, and probably a larger chunk than Corporate leadership would like to acknowledge are deadweight hiding in the cracks.
Yeah, if that culture is actually widespread I imagine their deadweight is more the variety that's figured out how to game the system or has connections, rather than the "I'm going to do literally no work and watch youtube all day" varieties that I've witnessed.
Of course it's biased. I'm just saying I find it quite believable that some program was funded 5 years ago under different financial conditions and has remained funded until now despite no longer being viable.
People generally don't like losing their jobs, and will put a positive spin on every report that might be good enough to pass muster with middle management bureaucracy at a large firm. All it takes is for enough people in the chain of command to shrug, sign whatever docs are needed and move onto something they care about more.
Economic headwinds are rarely used. There is always something else they blame it on. It has been this way for the 30 years I've been old enough to pay attention - and those older than me report it has been even longer. There are downturns every few years, in turn meaning layoffs - and they always blame something other than the downturn.
They also always claim the layoff will enable more efficiency.
- September 2025: US imposes additional 100k USD per visa as a condition to eligibility. (previous was 5k - 20k USD)
- October 2025: Amazon cuts 14k jobs
- December 2025: Amazon announces additional 35b USD investment to India (total 75b USB by 2030); promises to create ~1m jobs there
- December 2025: Random H1B lottery is dismantled, giving preference to higher company salary spending e.g. the more salary H1B applicant would receive, the better the chances
- January 2026: Amazon cuts 16k additional jobs (30k jobs cut in total)
You really don't have to be a detective to figure out that this has nothing to do with AI.
1. Ramp up offshore hiring and relocate jobs in low-cost-of-living (LCOL) countries (India) to avoid paying the 100K H1-B visa charge.
2. Train their AI and robotics by researchers in LCOL countries (to eventually replace the high-cost-of-living (HCOL) warehouse labor workforce)
3. Deploy robots and AI agents to then layoff more people in HCOL environments and repeat (1) until their margins improve and they achieve AGI.
> In November 2017, Twitter increased its character limit from 140 to 280 characters. In 2023, Twitter boosted the character limit for Twitter Blue subscribers. In February, it was increased to 4000. In April, it was again increased to 10,000, and in June, to 25,000.
He is right, but what I don't see in the post is a solution.
How do you stop multinational companies like Amazon from using the global talent pool as they see fit and pay whatever wages the local market will bear?
Without that it comes off as the standard "elect me because foreigners are bad".
This is possible in the first place because labor cannot freely move across borders, but corporations can freely shop around.
You can either open borders to both people and goods, or you can have restrictions on both that go hand in hand. But one without the other is a massive gift to corporations who can and do cash in on that disparity.
They need to understand that their profits depend on people with disposable income. The US has some of the most profitable consumers for retailers. If they are all living hand to mouth, what happens to Amazon’s sales?
The solution according to the poster is regulation made by experts which is why he's running for Congress. It's maybe not the solution you were hoping for but it is the solution he proposes :)
Be the change you want to see in the world. Honestly, it'd be good to have passionate congressfolk who aren't overtly corrupt or beholden to corporate interests
I don't see a clean solution here. The price/craft distinction matters - companies competing on price (Amazon retail) have different incentives than those competing on quality and craft (Notion, Linear). If you're in the price business, replacing expensive US labor with cheaper global labor is rational. If you're in the craft business, it usually isn't.
But that framing is incomplete. Amazon isn't just retail - AWS, logistics tech, and AI enablement are craft-heavy. Cutting experienced people in those areas might be short-term thinking dressed up as strategy, not actual optimization.
The policy question is where I get stuck. Regulate this, and US companies risk losing ground to foreign competitors who don't follow those rules. Do we want Alibaba as the default American retailer? But do nothing, and experienced workers keep getting squeezed while "efficiency" narratives provide cover.
What's the intervention that doesn't just shift the problem somewhere else?
Generally speaking the boomer generation has a different set of ideals from gen-x/millennials, and they are on the way out of shot calling. I don't think things repeat.
At least in the US, we've spent the better part of 80 years building a huge amount of wealth and growth on the backs of debt and externalized costs.
Its interesting, in a morbid humor kind of way, to see people realize that these costs always come due.
Globalization allows a huge amount of growth and many benefits you simply can't get with smaller or stronger borders. It also comes with risks, chief among them the risk that any one country loses self sufficiency and competitive advantage.
I do hope that the heaviest cost we (in the US) pay anytime soon is the cost of outsourcing jobs. We don't know how to manufacture anymore, our populace is extremely unhealthy in historical standards, and both political parties are toying with different forms of socialism. There are a lot of bad outcomes that can come where we're heading, we'd get off easy if it stops at outsourcing some of our high paid jobs to cheaper foreign labor.
On one hand, he claims that he "fixed problems that had been sitting untouched because no one else could untangle them." And on the other hand he claims his layoff on "a global labor market with almost no guardrails."
So which is it: did he really work on problems no one else could solve, or was he replaced by cheap foreign labor?
Probably neither. The most likely scenario here is one of two things:
a) Amazon made a mistake by firing him. They laid off someone truly valuable.
b) He wasn't as valuable as he thinks he was. Those problems were not worth paying him a meaningful fraction of a million dollars a year (what an L7 makes at amazon).
What I can guarantee is that he wasn't replaced by a cheap, foreign, plug-and-play replacement.
It all makes sense when you realize the point of his tweet is that he's plugging his run for congress: so yeah, of course he's tapping in to the absolute worst nationalistic sentiment. Shame on him.
If this is AI slop as the knee jerk comments next to me suggest, it’s goin to be a hell of a surprise if he gets elected this year! https://www.nleeplumb.com/about
While reading the text, my mental AI alarm bells were going off, sent it all to pangram.com and it flags both the layoff post and his campaign website text as being 100% AI generated
Yikes, the "[contraction] just" phrases on that campaign website alone are really over the top. Horrendously inauthentic writing, whether it's AI or not:
"wasn't just a job; it was a profound responsibility"
"This isn't just a statistic; it's a sign that we need to re-evaluate how we support those who serve"
"My experience isn't just about past success; it's about understanding the logistics, technology, and economic realities that shape the job market now and how we can create future opportunities right here."
"This experience didn't just teach me about law and order; it taught me about managing complex operations under pressure, the critical need for clear strategy, and the importance of unwavering integrity when the stakes are high – lessons desperately needed in Congress today."
"This campaign isn't just about me; it's about us."
can someone even prove that this guy is real and not an AI persona at this point? like, at what point do we have AI agents running for govt with a warm meatsack acting on behalf of them?
Perhaps more importantly here, when it comes to writing, "AI slop" is basically management speak - it's all about waxing poetically about simple things in ways that make you sound complicated (and useful!). And this guy is a career manager. So I bet this is actually human slop, the kind from which ChatGPT et al learned to speak the way they do.
AI detectors in general are unreliable, but there are a few made by serious researchers that have only 1-in-10000 false positive rate, e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.14873
Having worked in a bigcorp, I've read my fair share of management-speak, and none of it sounds quite as empty as the allegedly AI text.
The AI sounds like someone conjuring a parody emulation of management speak instead of actual management speak.
More broadly — and I feel this way about AI code at well as AI prose — I find that part of my brain is always trying to reverse engineer what kind of person wrote this, what was their mental state when writing it?
And when reading AI code or AI prose, this part of my brain short circuits a little. Because there is no cohesive human mind behind the text.
It's kind of like how you subconsciously learn to detect emotion in tiny facial movements, you also subconsciously learn to reverse engineer someone's mind state from their writing.
Reading AI writing feels like watching an alien in skinsuit try to emulate human face emotional cues — it's just not quite right in a hard-to-describe-but-easy-to-detect way.
"moved wherever the company needed me and fixed problems that had been sitting untouched because no one else could untangle them."
A screenshot later on shows he was a manager who spent his entire career in Houston. So... he didn't move and I associate "untangling difficult problems" as something an engineer should brag about not a manager.
Reads like AI generated slop that doesn't correlate with the actual situation.
I took “moved wherever the company needed me” as hopping from troubled project to project to help fix. This is often what the most senior engineers do, and also the Manager label doesn’t necessarily mean much in this context.
I thought it was fairly obvious too. We have a few of the most senior engineers being assigned to multiple critical initiatives just because they've led others successfully
i don't think that's what this means. it just means to me a certain population of people are clueless and don't use these tools enough. what's _actually_ damaging/obnoxious are the ones arguing that this guy is a good writer and that this isn't AI. IMO, telling the difference can be as simple as looking for the common giveaways, or as complex as reading between the lines of the structure of sentences, the terrible adjectives, and the soullessness of it. If you have half a brain and are well read, you can _probably_ tailor these LLMs to write in a way that reads better. But, it requires people to read a lot of content and literature to understand what good writing is, and this contrived, overly convoluted soulless soup of words is certainly not an example of it.
I agree with you and I definitely noticed the “it’s not just X, it’s Y” pattern.
But I find your comment funny because it ironically has the same “not that, this” pattern in a more verbose and less polished & less formulaic pattern.
It's not written "well", it lacks that human touch, especially when writing about such a sensible subject, such as getting fired. It's too cold, actually too well written from a syntactic pov, which makes it inauthentic hence most probably AI.
i've been using AI for as long as GPT has been out, so if you can't see through the rambling, overly complex to make you sound smarter kind of text, as well as the written patterns that are always used ad nauseam like "this thing isn't JUST this, it's THIS" -- i dunno how else to prove it to you. IYKYK.
I have also used GPTs since 2020. I am also a writer. Much of the writing equated with “generated by AI” is so precisely because it’s broadly trained on real writing.
So the claim of “AI slop” without proof is little more than heresy. It would be helpful to have any evidence.
It’s not about just the writing in one example, it’s about writing patterns—which are common—being equated with AI simply because they’re common.
if you're a writer, and you're using GPT for so long and you can't see it as obvious, i dunno what to tell you at this point. i guess LLMs are trained particularly on this guy's writing.
If you read his original draft you can see how much of it was still carried over, as well as how his original writing conveys much of your same arguments that an AI wrote the final text.
I don’t think your point is as strong as you believe it is.
Lastly, I work directly with AI models and utilize all popular generators every single day, so I don’t know why you think you’re the expert here.
my point was that its AI slop. whether his original point is intact doesn't matter to me. the fact that you're now defensively doubling down and steering the conversation into a direction which serves you better is just cringe. i bet you're a pleasure to work with. c ya later nerd.
i just don't feel like enumerating all of the common patterns ai slop produces. again, if you don't see this as obvious, i can tell you're clearly not using this stuff often enough (which might be a good thing)
The thing is, these stylistic patterns existed before AI, and weren’t completely atypical. Maybe you’re using LLMs so much that you’re over-associating them with AI now. Or maybe the author is using LLMs so much that he’s unconsciously adopted some of the patterns in his own writing.
Well he literally confirms it was from ChatGPT in a later reply, so there's that.
And his original draft is conspicuously missing the telltale "it's not X -- it's Y" and overall breathless dramatic flair that people like the poster you're replying to (correctly) picked up on.
i think the much higher probability isn't that this guy wrote literally like an LLM before LLMs came out, but rather that he just used an LLM to write all of it. You can see even more of these examples directly on his campaign site.
> certainly feels nice to place these obnoxious HN know-it-alls into their place.
You don't have to take the time to explain your reasoning if you don't want to, but "obnoxious know it all" is not a stone you should throw while at the same time refusing to explain yourself and saying anyone who can't see what you see is necessarily missing the obvious.
it's too difficult honestly. there are a lot of the classic easy traps -- "it's not just X, it's y" which are a dead giveaway, especially when they're used like 3-4 times in one essay. But the harder to spot ones, IMO, are ones where the overall tone is unnecessarily complex. E.g:
"When replacement is cheaper than retention, the decision gets framed as strategy instead of consequence."
This sentence is tight and on paper reads well, but it's robotic. It's kind of like taking a dead simple if/else statement that's pleasurable to read into a one line ternary statement. Technically a one line sentence, but now I have to re-read it like 5 times to understand it. The flow is dead.
Another example:
'AI becomes the excuse, not the cause. It’s the clean narrative that hides what’s actually happening: experienced workers being swapped out through global labor substitution while leadership talks about “efficiency” and “the future of work.”'
Starts off with a short & trite sentence (LLMs loves this if you don't steer it away). The other thing LLMs _love_ to do unprompted is: "It's the X: _insert_next_loaded_statement_here"
It's hard to get my point across, and I hope you kinda see it? I'm not a linguist, but these patterns are literally in every piece of LLM writing I've ever seen.
Again, you don't have to explain yourself, just don't be rude about it. It's hypocritical to call someone obnoxious and a know it all while you are engaging in schoolyard behavior and refusing to allow them to challenge your reasoning.
Saying nothing is an option. Other people who agree with you will be happy to explain their reasoning. Or maybe they won't and the conversation quietly fades away. Both are preferable.
give me a break. have you read the other comments? asking for proof in the most smug attitude possible. it's the definition of obnoxious HN commenters. and that's not even counting the one guy that wrote "you sound and write like a bot", got downvoted and deleted the post. i don't need to take any high roads here--it's the internet. As far as being "rude" it's a solid 2/10.
I am doomed, I guess. I didn't detect that. I thought this was sincere expression from an actual person, but an actual person who is also running for office and thus needs to tweak his writing accordingly.
Although I did note that it was a bit long (I guess I am out of the loop on tweets as well. I thought tweets were supposed to be short "hot takes". But this is practically an essay).
it's insane. people just don't want to use their brains to communicate anymore i guess. you've just experienced something traumatic like a layoff, and you can't even just take a few hours to internalize it and be vulnerable online, rather than jumping immediately onto social media to use the opportunity to sound like a market analyst
having worked there. Amazon has toxic managers, culture that turn ICs against each other. no tech vision. insane politics. low caliber people gatekeeping.
Their stock will go up the next year or two only because of their luck of partnering with Anthropic (back when they were a distant second choice to OpenAPI)
but the partnership is fake marketing. Amazon uses TPUs more than it uses graviton, it trains on GCP, and Google owns a larger percentage because they were much earlier investors, despite amazon investing more money.
Amazon is flailing at this point and now in a pattern of mass layoffs every 3-6 months. Not good.
Leadership can’t even gets its story straight about why… “It’s AI” correction “Pandemic over-hiring” correction “delayering” correction “restoring our culture” correction “actually AI!”.
There’s a whole mess of rando projects and teams with bloated management layers and often little to show for it revenue wise.
While on the one hand it’s obvious that mess needs to be cleaned up, on the other hand the top leadership has been in place for a while so the very people that created/oversaw the mess are struggling to position themselves as the one to fix it. That seems unlikely to work and the best talent in areas like AI seems to be fleeing voluntarily.
Everything I hear from the inside says moral is in the toilet and the once proud “culture of innovation” is in shambles with teams focused on politics, infighting, and endless reorgs.
Frankly, sounds like a s*itshow and what Jeff Bezos predicted as “Day 2” for the company’s eventual slow decline.
Meanwhile the core public use products and platforms are pretty poor. Tried shopping for clothes or anything on Amazon? 9/10ths of any page is ads, you can’t find anything you’re looking for.
It’s getting real close to “we’re customer obsessed, and our shareholders are our real customers”
Doesn't say it's programmers though but middle management:
> Amazon slashed 14,000 white-collar jobs in late October, with CEO Andy Jassy stressing the need for the company to eliminate *excessive bureaucracy* by trimming operational levels and reducing the number of managers.
You can find the warn notices here. [0]
From a quick script I wrote up, it seems that ~60% of layoffs noted on 1/26/2026 are from individual contributors
This always feels like the result of leadership too scared to build. It's so much safer and easier to tear down.
Amazon spent a lot of time and money and built a top-tier workforce. But now they are out of ideas for what these people can do? They don't have any untapped opportunities left? No projects that never quite made it to the top of the stack? No deferred maintenance that could be taken care of now?
I've been hearing about massive Amazon layoffs for a few years now. How come the company still exists? Are these layoffs followed by hiring at cheaper regions or different parts of the company? From my perspective as an occasional Amazon customer, things are pretty much unchanged.
The simple answer is that they hire more than they fire. In a lot of cases they will fill a role immediately after they fire the last person who was in it. Average employee retention at companies like Amazon (both voluntary and forced) is ridiculously low - something like 1.5 years. PIPs, forced burnout, mass layoffs etc. are all part of the corporate strategy. The revolving door helps keep costs low because employees leave before the bulk of their stock grants have vested.
> The revolving door helps keep costs low because employees leave before the bulk of their stock grants have vested.
I am not sure it applies to Amazon though. Amazon in the first year pays bonus in cash to compensate for 5% of the RSUs vesting. So, they actually loosing cash if people are let go after a year.
Amazon has 350K corporate roles, so yearly layoffs of 16K is only 5% - if you assume some modest re-hiring in lower-cost locations, this is just a relatively standard (at least lately) pivot out of high-cost US roles into other lower-cost economies.
Yea I had to Google their total headcount when I saw the headline since the number does sound high, but in reality is only 5%.
When you factor in low performers and how most people here would view middle management in any other topic thread, it's not that insane. If in a pool of 20 workers around you, you can't find 1 worker you don't think is a step below the others, your hiring pipeline is better than most.
My company behaves similarly to Amazon and we drop the bottom % performers every year via PIP. IDK if this is what Amazon did with this layoff but it's probably intentional churn.
Amazon’s hiring bar has historically been very low, with a philosophy that if it doesn’t work out you can always just fire the person later. A similar philosophy exists for staffing up teams for speculative projects. If it doesn’t work out you can just axe the whole division after a couple of years. Periodic large layoffs are a natural consequence of operating like this.
The 1.5M number includes non-corporate employees (warehouse). They likely included this number to soften the message. The corporate workforce is ~300K so this is actually ~4% of their workforce.
I'm outside the US, and boycotting Amazon for anything I can get elsewhere (which turns out isn't everything, but best efforts and all that). The shift towards AI is either a very bad thing (as per Microslop and the raft of recent articles about quality dropping), or just a cheap excuse to replace expensive staff with cheaper people.
Alternatively they may be using AI in HR as part of the decision making, and it's made the determination that these folk can go "because of AI" based on past firings and performance since then.
I have been noticing recently that the level of quality of Amazon support has been dropping steadily.
And I’ve also been trying to do the same, shopping elsewhere.
Sometimes yes but this not apple-to-apples unfortunately. Shipping and support are two places where Amazon _currently_ reigns supreme. Getting an item fast and returning an item easily are often lacking in alternative marketplaces.
I do try to buy stuff directly but so many times I order it and then it comes 10+ days later and often very little info upfront or during about when I will receive the order. I ordered from a website the other day where it said Dec 22nd delivery, it came mid-January and support was unhelpful (parroting the FAQ, might have been a LLM).
Now, I've head great experiences purchasing directly as well. The Smartest House [0] is where I buy everything I can smart-home-related. Their pricing is excellent, their shipping is fast, and their support is top-notch. I had a problem with 1 device, they got on a call and tried to fix it, then when that didn't work, they shipped me a replacement.
So I agree, there are great alternative out there and I also like B&H. I just wish it was easier to be (more) sure about how quick something will ship or how easy returns will actually be. Finding consistently good merchants online sometimes feels like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
I find it very hard to believe you can't boycott Amazon completely. They don't even exist in my country and it has never been a struggle to find anything you might get there.
From March 16, 2020 (Covid scare reality / market-drop), the marketcaps of Top 10,000 traded companies has doubled (from low $70 Trillion USD to low $140 T)
But bullion has done even better (particularly past month).
So — extrapolating — I'd recon the USD is inflating away its problems (mostly: itself).
What's interesting is that the strength of US dollar vs other currencies is barely budging in the meantime. Seems like everyone else is inflating away their problems too, so it all evens out in the end (unless you're poor with no assets, in any country).
Swiss franc is strongest of fiats — but still fiat.
Many historians of many generations contend that debased currencies fail first slowly, then fast.
Watching gold has been eye-opening to all living generations. Just a few months ago my lawyer didn't believe me when I told him "gold just broke four thousand dollars!" [day of this post gold hit ATH of $5400]
> But bullion has done even better (particularly past month).
No wonder, people are fed up with the US administration and its constant firehose of bullshit. But there are no viable contenders to the US Dollar as reserve asset - the Eurozone is too fractured, China is under currency controls, Germany on its own outclasses India, and Japan's economy is headed for some serious BS once it follows their population age graph.
That only leaves gold... the question is, is it physical gold? (And my opinion is: as long as it's not in a vault under your control, you're buying IOUs, not gold)
I don't think it's low-key at all, it's plainly obvious that there's a recession "on the ground" except that people's stock portfolios are being spared. If you're looking for employment right now or at prices for staples it's pretty dim.
Though, I think the title is a bit of a misnomer here. In part the
axing of jobs was done to reduce costs; now AI also may relate here
or be even a main driver, but I think the title oversimplifies it
a bit.
Amazon stock is flat over the past year. The rest of the "magnificent seven":
- Google: +70%
- Nvidia: +49%
- Apple: +7%
- Meta: Flat
- SHOP (closest comp): +19.41%
- Mercado Libre (international comp): +20.73%
So basically, the "tech world" is dividing itself, in the eyes of investors, into two camps: companies that will benefit from AI tailwinds and companies that will not. And all the money is going to the companies that will.
Amazon is more and more considered to be part of the latter group.
This is especially concerning of Amazon because it seems like AWS--the cash cow--has somehow missed becoming the cloud provider for AI compute needs.
As such, Amazon needs to give investors some reason to hold amazon stock. If you're not part of a rising tide, the only reason left is "we are very profitable."
So yeah, Amazon will have to cut costs to show more profitability and become further investable.
So yes, the layoffs have to do with AI...but not the way they are spinning it.
They just wanted to do a mass layoff and (for now) it looks better if you say “because AI”. It tranquilizes stakeholders because they think “AI is taking those tasks, the business will be unaffected”
I have always been saying: don't be optimistic about AI. Software people prepared their end with this optimism without knowing how the economy works. "AI will make our jobs easier, I will have more time with my family," blah blah. Now we will see more news like that in the coming years. I am okay with supporting AI for curing cancer, but I am against supporting AI for disrupting the white-collar economy without a proper government plan.
Funny enough, I have an acquaintance who has been job hunting for almost a year. They are expecting an offer from Amazon Corporate later this week or early next week. They are early in their career and will cost less to hire, so it still makes sense I guess.
Some of these are obviously related to the closing of some of the retail businesses. And some might simply be middle management bloat that happens often at tech companies.
But imagine you're one of the people who remain (e.g., not impacted by the eliminated companies or products) and now there are fewer people to do the same amount of work? I've seen that movie and it usually has an economic impact 6-9 months later when people burn out.
It's almost like you can write the script:
Month 0–3:
Survivors are relieved, grateful, and over-perform. Leadership reads this as “proof the cuts worked.”
Month 3–6:
Context loss shows up. Decision latency increases. Domain knowledge walked out the door.
Month 6–9:
Burnout, attrition, and quality failures begin. The “hidden layoffs” start as top performers quietly leave.
Month 9–12:
Rehiring or contracting resumes (usually at higher cost)
The key misunderstanding here is assuming AI substitutes for organizational slack and human coordination. It doesn’t.
And sometimes middle management "bloat" is misdiagnosed. Remove them without redesigning decision rights and workflows, and the load doesn’t disappear it redistributes to the IC's.
Watch for Amazon "strategic investments" in early Q4 2026 (this will be a cover for the rehiring).
I haven't detected overproduction after layoff I have seen. It was other way round, people who remained were sad, depressed and demotivated. What happened was general slow down of remaining people + organizational chaos as people did not figured out yet who should fill for missing positions and how.
I've noticed at my company after a lot of layoffs and restructuring and moving people between projects, when I ask "who is responsible for X now?" there can be a lot of confusion getting the answer to that question.
That is not an answer to the "who is responsible for X now" question. Laid off Bill is not responsible for X now.
Also, it is not useful answer at all, it is an uncooperative answer. Whoever is asking about the responsible person is trying to work. They have legitimate question about who they should contact about X, sending them to someone who does not work there is less then useless.
But it doesn't change that Bill was the person who was responsible, and now is gone. So what exactly are they supposed to say? In the context of the GP's post, that seems to be the point - there is no longer anybody there who is responsible for X anymore.
Several options, pretty much all of them involve being actually cooperative rather then intentionally unhelpful. If Bill was part of some other team, point to that team or its leader.
If he was in your team, you or leader can ask about what the person wants and move from there. Maybe you can actually answer the question. Maybe the proper reaction involves raising jira ticket. Maybe the answer is "we are probably not going to do that anymore". It all depends on what the person who came with the question wants.
> But it doesn't change that Bill was the person who was responsible, and now is gone.
The other people are still there. And the team IS responsible for X. And without doubt, they are fully responsible for helping figure out who should be contacted now and what should be done.
That is normal part of work after any reorganization.
I have seen it many times that when Bill leaves, the thing he was responsible for doesn't get picked up by anyone.
It doesn't necessarily even mean that the organization is "abnormal". Perhaps the reason Bill was let go was because X was not considered business-critical any more.
> I have seen it many times that when Bill leaves, the thing he was responsible for doesn't get picked up by anyone.
I LITERALLY offered the "we are probably not going to do that anymore" option. In your situation, you can scratch the probably away. That answer is still actually helpful unlike the original answer.
My hot take is that AI is shaping up to be a tax on big tech.
Yet another round of layoffs being blamed on AI. As with last time, this is not due to productivity gains from AI, rather it's due to wanting to reallocate budget towards investing in AI. (and maybe an excuse for something they already wanted to do)
I think some productivity gains from AI are real, and I've experienced some firsthand, but reductions in force being ENABLED by AI are not, and I don't think we will see much of that for a good while still.
AI is attracting a lot of investment dollars because it's seen as disruptive; the capabilities it potentially unlocks for people are enormous. The problem is that general intelligence is still far away (fundamentally cannot be reached with the current approaches to AI, in my opinion), and the level of investment required is so high that the only way folks are getting that money back is if it does enable a level of layoffs that would be crippling to the economy.
Additionally, there is not a huge difference between the top models, and thanks to the massive investments the models are incrementally improving. It seems obvious from the outside that AI models are going to be a commodity, and good free models put downward pressure on prices, which they are already losing money on. So I think it's going to be a race to the bottom, and is very unlikely to be a winner-takes-all situation.
I think this means that the reward for big tech companies pouring insane amounts of money into AI will be maintaining their current position, or maybe stealing a bit of business from each other. That's why I think AI is more of a tax on big tech than a real investment opportunity.
It does have the feel of a tactical crouch and hold position by Amazon. AI / LLM for the masses is still just a bet, and perhaps an overly invested bet
The problem is that Amazon cuts a lot of jobs all the time, then re-hire. This could just be just regular, routine amazon evil, and they are leveraging this to make Wall Street happy
Denial everyone. Amazon will have the same profits running on AI and robots with minimal expenses. All the other companies will follow. Wake up to reality.
> In-office work is now mandatory five-days a week, making Amazon one of the only major tech companies to require its employees to be in the office full-time.
With this kind of employee hostile policies and threat of job cut, how does it manage to be the A of FANG (or as they call it, MANGA)? But apparently people still want to get a job there? The pay is a little less than other companies in the same league. So pay can't be the reason. Or is it? Honestly want to know what it is that make IT people get a job there?
The one phrase I've come to despise is "entrepreneurial risk", especially when it's used to justify exorbitant salaries of the higher ranks. Because, really, that "risk" for the most part is trickled down to the peasants who get laid off at a heartbeat whenever business is bad. They're not people with families and liabilities and lives, they're commodities.
I'd say your risk of losing your livelihood is higher as a simple employee than as a CEO when we're talking about post-startup companies.
I’ve seen Bezos’s yacht and can tell you he is creating new jobs! His yacht is accompanied by a supply vessel that carries staff, food, etc. At least 20 people work on the secondary boat!
This is great news! Hopefully so many people have stopped buying crap from Amazon, that a tipping point is near, and there entire business will fold.
I personally haven't bought anything from Amazon or Ebay in 4 years, and will never again. I only buy local, or I don't buy. Starving the beast one purchase at a time.
From the article it seems like this is mostly corporate side - fulfillment appears to be OK as long as consumers continue consuming... or until Amazon pushes robotics side of fulfillment to its logical conclusion - getting rid of those pesky humans that require toilet breaks and dare to talk about unionization.
One thing I don't understand when it comes to these big data-center investments in India is what will they do when the water runs out? Because I do not think that this is environmentally sustainable.
Looping water through a closed heat exchanger doesn't consume the water, but using water to evaporatively cool a condenser in an industrial chiller does.
We’ve had crazy covid years where every new grad was making 250k+, and now every 3-6 months we have layoffs which has not surprisingly been paired with blaming it on offshoring, H1b etc. Clearly the current system can’t withstand much of a shock, what’s going to happen if we get a full 2007 style recession, will the blame game go even higher on steroids, some times it feels like it’s quite bad already. I don’t look forward to that.
I think and I know HN commentators are going to hate this, but Thiel was right when he wrote that the current system only works with fast continuous growth. Ideally multiple growing sectors, contributing to the economy. Anything else, and everyone immediately starts fighting for scraps joining their tribal identity or whatnot. The only way out, would be more rapid growth in multiple sectors, not just AI, or a complete breakdown of the existing system which does not leave me hopeful for anything better. I in fact like the existing system quite a bit, but maybe that’s just me.
"Earlier this month, top executives at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting said while jobs would disappear, new ones would spring up, with two of them telling Reuters that AI would be used as an excuse by companies planning to cut jobs anyway."
you always hear about a stream of layoffs but It doesn't give the full picture. what i'm more interested in is what is their total employee count over time. that represents the net hiring net lay offs, is what counts at the end of the day
Again, I feel like the general comments are missing the forest for the trees by relying on witty quips about AI or retreading (legitimate) outsourcing grievances, instead of actually addressing the root problem on display:
Companies, be they highly profitable global conglomerates like Amazon or smaller Mom and Pop shops, have zero incentive whatsoever to retain staff. None. In fact, they have every incentive to axe as many workers as possible, as often as possible, profit be damned. So long as governments and shareholders reward job cuts with stock price or compensation bumps, this trend will continue.
To simplify: we have built a global society where 99% of people must work to survive but have zero mandates that employers provide jobs with livable wages and benefits. That is, and will remain, the crux of the issue at hand.
I don’t think it’s a controversial idea to impose broad and lenient regulations on companies to prevent this sort of activity. Made a profit last year? No layoffs allowed without a year’s worth of severance and benefits is such an immense deterrent that most employers will find ways to repurpose staff internally rather than fire them for a quick share bump - though with the consequence of slower hiring, as companies don’t want to be burdened with too much unnecessary talent. There are literally hundreds of policy ideas out there that nobody wants to pull because it’d inconvenience Capital, but we’re at a crossroads where we either mandate Capital behave with the barest of minimums of decency and respect for the workforce they mandate exist through Capitalist markets, or we break their arm outright and tax the absolute shit out of them to provide a high quality of life for every worker regardless of present employment.
Right now, they get to keep all the money while outsourcing risks to the workforce, and all that’s done is create shit like this: thousands let go not out of business need, but of business greed.
> Companies, be they highly profitable global conglomerates like Amazon or smaller Mom and Pop shops, have zero incentive whatsoever to retain staff. None. In fact, they have every incentive to axe as many workers as possible, as often as possible, profit be damned.
Every single individual on Earth does not like spending more money than they have to. Just because I hire a crew of landscapers for my house doesn’t mean I will retain them if I think a better offer comes around and can do the same job for half the price.
> I don’t think it’s a controversial idea to impose broad and lenient regulations on companies to prevent this sort of activity.
This is extremely inefficient and opens avenues for corruption, as well as increases costs for policing the corruption.
The far better solution is governments collecting the appropriate taxes and providing the appropriate benefits it deems are necessary for a minimum quality of life. Let businesses do business however they want, let governments provide the public services.
In fact, the US does have that in some form via unemployment insurance payroll taxes and unemployment benefits, but obviously they need to be better and consistent.
I love that you basically retread everything I said, but from a neoliberal or outright libertarian perspective of perpetuating the status quo because of “BuT tHe BuSiNeSs EfFiCiEnCy”.
And by love, I mean “am sick and tired of the same old CorpoSlop Bootlicking”.
Let me show you what I mean. You proudly kneel down and lick the boots of Capital by saying:
> Just because I hire a crew of landscapers for my house doesn’t mean I will retain them if I think a better offer comes around and can do the same job for half the price.
You are deliberately conflating business operations with consumer transactions. I see this happen in exactly two different arguments: someone deliberately trying to mislead the reader into conflating the two in an effort to confuse them into supporting Capital (because the two are not the same thing, and the speaker knows it), or by someone who doesn’t understand market transactions are fundamentally different from business operations. I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’ve not done your reading and therefore are just making a misinformed argument until your very next line:
> This is extremely inefficient and opens avenues for corruption, as well as increases costs for policing the corruption.
Ahh, the old “inefficiency” chestnut, as if the sole goal in life for any organism should be optimal efficiency of capital distribution and business operations as opposed to, I dunno, a higher quality of life for the organism? Then you throw on scare tactics like “corruption” and “policing”, and I can see you’ve already started digesting the first bites of those thick laissez-faire Capitalist wellies with a bit of Randian dressing:
Proving you’re not an idiot, but just a manipulative shyster, is the next paragraph:
> The far better solution is governments collecting the appropriate taxes and providing the appropriate benefits it deems are necessary for a minimum quality of life.
Gee whiz, now where have I heard that before? Oh, right, I literally just wrote it:
> …or we break their arm outright and tax the absolute shit out of them to provide a high quality of life for every worker regardless of present employment.
This is what really grinds my gears about you lot: you storm into the comments, insult others with flowery Randian arguments about the infallibility of business and Capital as if they’re gods, and then parrot back watered-down forms of the arguments of your opponents in an effort to seem smart and/or reasonable. Forgive me if I do not tolerate your naked bullshit in the current era anymore.
> Let businesses do business however they want, let governments provide the public services.
For what it’s worth, this is where you ultimately footgunned your entire argument. You cannot simultaneously “let businesses do business however they want” while also trusting governments to provide public services, and you have centuries of evidence proving this. Letting business operate freely means they will destroy government, while handing total power to governments will destroy business. It has always been a delicate balancing act, and the modest proposals of people like myself is that, y’know, the scale seems so heavily weighted towards business right now that it risks toppling the government. Your entire counter-argument is some form of “this is fine, actually”, which it might be for you at the moment but won’t be forever, and certainly isn’t fine for the majority of your countrymen or working classes.
I am sick and tired of allowing misguided or actively manipulative chuds shout over calls for reasonableness and decency in life and defend themselves with this naive fantasy that if we just let people do what they want, everything will be sunshine and roses.
If you’re that naive, grow up and join reality. If instead you’re that manipulative, fuck off into the sea.
I refuse to entertain otherwise anymore, because the evidence is insurmountably opposed to such a perspective.
How's the $100K H1B fee that was announced to distract from the Trump Gold Card announcement [0] going? The HN hive mind said it would bring back the jerbs and those of us who warned [1][2] it would incentivize mass layoffs and offshoring were hounded.
Before the layoffs were announced Amazon also committed to expanding hiring and infra expansion in India [3], and depending on the org, affected employees on work visas were offered transfers to India in lieu of being laid off [4].
The Trump admin won't do anything about offshoring either - in fact technology transfers to India are being encouraged by the admin as part of Pax Sillica [5] and GOP leaders in Purple Ag states like Iowa [6] and Montana [7] are lobbying for India after China pivoted away from American soybeans [8] and India began leveraging the China playbook [9].
When forced to choose between swing state farmers and GOP leaning SWEs, it's going to be the farmers who win.
Ignoring the reality that the higher fee has only been in play for four months; have you considered that there are likely H1-B employees in the 16,000 that Amazon laid off?
A large portion of employees on immigration visas were offered the ability to keep their job if they transferred to Amazon's India offices assuming a team was co-located there as well.
The Indian government has been encouraging [0] the H1B rule change as well as it helps kick off a reverse brain drain [1] right as India was launching it's own version of the Thousand Talents [2] program.
Does the H1B fee only apply to people not yet in the country? I have a student on a student visa who claims I can do the h1b sponsor without the 100k fee because they are already there with their student visa.
> How's the $100K H1B fee that was announced to distract from the Trump Gold Card announcement [0] going? The HN hive mind said it would bring back the jobs and those of us who warned [1][2] it would incentivize offshoring were hounded.
Yep, offshoring needs to be heavily penalized as well.
FWIW, the employees in question are at least in the 90th percentile of US salaries if not 99th percentile (L5 is ~ $250K, L6 is ~ $399K, and L7 is north of $500K)
In regards to fairness, many times these cuts are based what group you are in, rather than performance. You wonder, hypothetically, would the L5s and above all agree to accepting a 20% pay cut in exchange for not having layoffs. It strange that one person keeps the job paying $500K, while the other unlucky one will have trouble getting a new $150K job due to the terrible job market.
I feel like this is the most natural layoff I've seen in twenty years (that is not the same as saying I feel good about it). Truly, most software companies need to cut their entire roster and re-draft quite frankly. You will need less people and have entirely new goals. This is beyond "economic" reality, AI has made it intuitive to restructure and reorient. Not doing so will just mean you will be blind-sided by any company that leaned down and re-envisioned their entire product.
So many products turned into feature mill factories. If things can get more concentrated and directed, then I think this will be better for all in terms of finding their true purpose in life.
> I think this will be better for all in terms of finding their true purpose in life.
I'm sure people losing their good paying jobs and being forced into shitty ones, or not finding replacement employment at all, will be just what they need to find their true purposes in life
This is the way I see it. A lot of people can already be replaced or should be doing entirely different work to boost productivity. It is going to be a battle between people fighting for inertia and those that are looking to be ahead of the curve.
If it wasn't for an ageing society we would probably be seeing things move along faster but people have children to raise and mortgages to pay so we will see more inertia for now.
I'm currently hiring engineering roles in SF for my startup. I am in the middle of closing my $1.5M pre-seed this week so I don't have job descriptions posted yet. But, here's a short pitch:
AI agents are about to orchestrate trillions in commerce, but today they shop on thin data: product specs, studio photos, and text reviews. Agents need evidence, not marketing. Today, the most influential product evidence lives on TikTok and Reels, outside the surfaces brands control and agents can use. Vidably puts verified buyer video directly onto e-commerce product pages through a lightweight widget. We capture that video post-purchase and link it to real purchasing outcomes. Every video is SKU-linked and structured so shopping agents can reason over it. The widget is the wedge, the dataset is the moat.
We're already live with brands and are seeing pull from both brands and creators and I would love for anyone interested to DM me!
Edit: I'm an idiot, HN doesn’t have DMs. Email me at hn at vidably dot com.
This summer I went camping and at the campground next to me was a middle manager at Amazon. I’ve been out of the workforce for about a year, so I asked him how much of an impact AI was having in his role.
He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him.
His hope was that he would be retained to maintain the system that he built, knowing that every other manager at his level was going to be terminated.
It felt like watching someone who is about to be executed be responsible for building the gallows. He should’ve been so aware that his job was going to be the first one cut, and he was responsible for building a tool to cut his own job. But he was optimistic that the cuts wouldn’t come for him
Makes me wonder how he’s doing today
> He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him.
Any manager whose job was this simple was on borrowed time anyway.
I think the person was feeding you a story around the campfire to impress you. Real management work doesn't operate like this.
Fake management is far more common than real management. Most of management is centered around hyper-realistic work like activities.
My experience with ex Amazon managers is that they brought a toxic culture and destroyed more value than they created.
Some people are so focused on whether they could automate their work output with an LLM to ask themselves if they even should.
I got the brunt of this when Amazon banned me from KDP for life over a complete nonsense hallucination by a fraud detection bot.
I thought at some point I'd get to talk to a human who would immediately say "Oh this is ridiculous, sorry." Nope. I just got passed around between either more bots or offshore customer support employees, with I assume a gigantic incentive to not go against the fraud detection bot, until I ran out of appeals.
One of the most soul-sucking experiences I've ever gone through. I can't imagine the toxic culture that produced that system.
Yup
Why did you leave Amazon?
> I couldn't stand the management culture
Sooo... Why are you trying to bring it with you
An extremely common problem in the wider world too.
>they brought a toxic culture and destroyed more value than they created
Yeah, I've been in one of such places.
[dead]
No, this is exactly how Amazon management works.
Members of a team creates a report explaining the state of their small section of the business, usually a 2x2 grid of boxes to fill.
This is then reviewed, usually in an in person meeting that requires full team participation.
These are joined together to create a weekly business review, that will require another meeting to review.
Each month the WBRs are combined to created the monthly business review, with a massive meeting requiring participation by multiple teams.
The pyramid of documents and meetings continues all the way up to the CEO.
I should probably point out, none of this information is unavailable at any level, its copied and pasted from system to 2x2 then copied from doc to doc. It's a spectacle that needs to be seen to be believed.
And that just the reporting, planning is another exercise in multiple report writing that I'll save for another day. But, hopefully you get the idea.
Amazon is 90% internal document writing and 70% work (9-5 does not really exist, it could, it just doesnt).
It's essentially a massive jobs program for middle management that aren't capable enough to join the TSA and that's being unfair to the TSA.
The only reason I can think for the existence of the reporting is to give managers something to do between pipping staff.
> Real management work doesn't operate like this.
Don't know about Amazon but my experience with middle management is that it's exactly like that.
Also, if you bite them after telling them five times "please don't touch me", it's somehow your fault.
>> gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him.
> Real management work doesn't operate like this.
I agree but in the opposite direction. So many managers not only doing that but doctoring, filtering and tainting it as well. So AI would be more effective for the most of bad managers.
I left amazon, in part, because of this realization: Much of management was exactly doing that. That was back in the BERT days and even then writing was on the wall.
Amazon in particular has a highly formalized ritual for reporting up and down that consumes managers entirely. If you don't play, youll be humiliated and fired. The engineers self-organize while the managers are working in their own, different universe.
Actually I've worked at companies where management is exactly like this. Literally just status updates and asking when things are going to be finished. I have no respect for middle managers whatsoever. These people are a parasite on the industry.
Ok, Ok, I get the disdain for middle management. It's basically exactly like you described, but middle management didn't come about for no reason. There really is a value and the idea of automating it away with AI is extremely dubious.
One could even argue that middle management is THE most critical role in corporations over a certain size. In that it is the glue that allows them to get to that size. But it's also what gave rise to things like Dilbert and the idea of rising to the level of your own incompetence.
Middle management is like the lug nuts on a wheel. If you start with 5, you can take one away and be OK, even two and no issues with normal driving. You can go down to two and as long as you aren't hitting large bumps and they aren't adjacent you mostly likely will be fine for a short trip. You could even remove ALL of the lug nuts and if you travel in straight line over a smooth road you can still drive.
After all they mostly just sit there, the tire, the transmission, all the other parts of the car are doing the work. But it's not fair to say that any of the removed lug nuts were doing nothing.
The point of middle management isn't really to do anything spectacular on a daily basis. If the company is working well, middle management effectively has no function. It's when things get out of line. Even then though, it's not really middle management that's calling the shots or fixing the problem, but they are critical in noticing the problems and directing resources. Middle management's role is in reducing the time that things are out of line.
At least that's the idea, and much like any position, the bulk of the group benefits are overwhelmingly produced by the groups most effective producers.
Middle management is the hardest role to hire while simultaneously being the hardest to gauge employee effectiveness.
This is most definitely an overgeneralization, but in my experience, engineers that constantly talk shit about management are either shitty engineers themselves or they're incredibly difficult to work with and blame everyone else for their shortcomings.
Middle management is playing a completely different game. I don't envy them one bit.
Sure, there are toxic cultures created by bad management, but that can be said about any leadership role. There is a reason for the hierarchy, if you think you have a better approach to structuring a company, have at it.
Agreed I think shitty people are just shitty people. You can tell when someone is trying to make the lives of their coworkers easier, from those who are on a power trip.
Having ended up in management by accident and then just sticking around with it for a while just because.... I am now back in an IC role and I mostly feel sorry for my manager honestly.
Middle management is a tremendous market for lemons. It's difficult to do well, and each layer requires a very different skillset. One of the side effects of the hypergrowth era of big tech between 2008-2023 is that a lot of managers were needed to support the amount of hiring, and they weren't very well trained, and often they could claim success for a rising tide almost by default as long as they didn't do anything too blatantly stupid.
The Peter Principle is of course well-known, but one of the insidious things is that once you have enough incompetent management and they are entrenched for a while, they will teach all the wrong lessons to an entire generation of new hires coming in. Due to the incentives and optics of large orgs, managers tend to spin everything in a positive light publicly, and the real unfiltered discussions of failure happen in tighter circles. At some point a lot of "successful" folks can have job hopped their way through a bunch of brand name companies just cargo culting on what they've seen done before with no real understanding of how their work actually impacts the company's bottom line.
This is one of the reasons I'm incredibly thankful to have spent most of my early career in small companies and startups where the big picture was so much easier to see.
Well said! I'd also add that a critical function of middle management in healthy companies is bidirectional information communication: sharing what their teams are doing up and sharing leadership priorities down.
Having worked at some dysfunctional companies where that didn't happen (and a few companies that were amazing at it), it makes a difference at scale.
Nothing is more disheartening than working your ass off as an IC, shipping, then finding out that your VP pivoted approach and your project won't be used.
In the past, my job has been exactly this.
A few times I took my hands off the wheel to see if I was truly redundant. Let's just say, I wasn't.
At worst, I was the only one looking at the schedule.
At best, I was a support mechanism for people working on an absolutely boring product.
> management ... literally just status updates and asking when things are going to be finished.
True. But there are many people whose productivity slumps unless they are asked for progress updates every day. You have to offset this against the people whose productivity slumps BECAUSE they are asked for updates every day. In large orgs with unknown quality of people I guess it's not impossible that middle managers add value.
Sounds like something an LLM on a timer could do.
> I think the person was feeding you a story around the campfire to impress you.
Yeah, this sounds like the guy was just exaggerating for effect. Haven't we all joked before, "I'm writing a tool to automate my own job away."
I’m more surprised that it’s not believable for some of management depending on how process driven there job is.
I’ve definitely had roles where I sadly realized I’m automating the QA person next to me well before LLMs were mainstream.
In my experience I think, you would automate enough of a mid manager role that upper management doesn’t care for, and whatever left over responsibilities that couldn’t be automated is split between a high level IC and the next above. Then the bureaucracy sells is as a success.
you would be amazed at the amount of middle managers who keep failing upwards in organizations like Amazon
Happens in the Govt too. I think it's pretty common that if you can "sell a story" you're in a better spot than simply doing well at the job.
That's literally the current president
I think he might be the greatest person at failing up who has ever lived. It has to be some kind of savant-like skill.
After this he’ll probably become the literal king of the world.
That certainly seems what he believes he will be.
I think he might be the greatest person at failing up who has ever lived.
Went bankrupt six times and is still hailed by his followers as an economic genius. Few people can pull that off.
I think what is hard to understand for people is how you can go bankrupt six times and still have loads of assets and money. How does that work?
Back in the 80's and 90's he was pretty well known for noting that if you owe a bank enough money, it is in the bank's interest not to let you fail.
My guess is that it also helps to owe lots of money to lots of banks at the same time. That way when one goes after you, the others will help you out or risk losing their money, too.
Married 4 times, still seen as a saint
Buried his wife on his property alone to get tax breaks as a cemetery for mar a lago
That was not mar a Lago but in New Jersey
He's going for number 7 it seems
All you need is to pretend to be successful
( And produce a show "the apprentice" to also pretend to be successful)
He's pretty lucky that he needed to pretend to be successful to at least let his name lease as a brand.
Basically the only thing that worked out in business.
lol. it does. its a good description of about 90% of the mgrs
Seems like Amazon is doing the right thing cutting down its corporate workforce then.
[dead]
TBH the last 20-30 years was exactly like that but computers were eliminating other peoples jobs for really good profits for the investors and really good salaries for the workers doing the elimination. Before that people were eliminating blue colar workers with highly productive machines and industrial robots.
I don't see how eliminating your co-workers is any different. Software ate the world and now AI will eat the "software professionals".
When this is over, just like the rust belts there will be code belts where once highly valued software developers will be living in decaying neighborhoods and the politicians will be promising to create software jobs by banning AI.
I kill jobs for a living, and always wondered when the promise of "Low code" would kill my job.
Turns out AI reduces the barrier juuuuuuuust enough for competent managers and clerks to automate their own processes.
Thank god most managers aren't competent, I might just make it to retirement.
There might be a time when software developers become obsolete, and I don't pretend to know the future, but if today's models are anything to go by then it won't happen any time soon.
At the end of the day, there'll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts, whatever that job looks like.
I'll be curious to see how the next generation of highly skilled technical experts will be raised.
That's an interesting paradox of the current AI: useful enough to make the industry less competent (either directly by helping students to not learn or indirectly by replacing people in entry level formative jobs) while not being smart enough to replace all the chain to the top
I have a nasty suspicion that far fewer of them will be, that CS and SE based professions will end up collapsing and consolidating into a handful of AI megacorporations and a guild-like elite of AI-herders will be what's left.
Guilds of Knowledge hoarders and AI adepts are my bet as well.
> At the end of the day, there'll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts, whatever that job looks like.
Well, this is kind of obvious right. Highly skilled people of next generation will do fine. The point is millions of highly skilled successful people of today could soon be below average category, jobless and can be called clueless, stuck in old ways who didn't simply see what is happening in the world.
And I am not blaming anyone. Despite seeing changes coming even I am not able to do much either. Just hilariously trying to do "cloud technology" courses which folks did decades back, made money and by now even forgot about it.
> Highly skilled people of next generation will do fine.
I would bet for the opposite. In a huge rush to optimization and job elimination, early career people suffer the most. However it also makes it impossible to switch careers, start from scratch, and etc.
In my experience, many highly experienced professionals are already below average. That's not to say they don't work hard, but if their solutions are on par or worse than what an LLM can produce, then they might see themselves out of a job if the LLM can work harder.
As another commenter said, we'll likely see a big change on the junior end, which will affect the more experienced hire pool as time goes on.
> software developers become obsolete
> there’ll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts
Two different things.
Yes, many, many software developers will become obsolete in certain industries. It’s already happening. Putting on blinders doesn’t make it go away.
Yes, highly skilled technical experts will absolutely still be needed.
> At the end of the day, there'll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts, whatever that job looks like.
Why? There was a time when there was a need for highly skilled seamstresses. And we never developed the technology to do their jobs as well as they could. But people just learned to deal with mass produced clothes that didn’t fit perfectly because it was so much cheaper.
Not sure what the point is here because highly skilled seamstress is still a well-paying job, and all the mass-produced clothes are also still sewn by hand.
Where do you live that skilled seamstress is such a valuable job? Just because a handful of people make bank doesn't mean there is some large unfilled market for those skills. I can find some highly paid blacksmiths too, but 99% of people who know how to blacksmith well will never make more than a paltry sum if anything at all off of it.
Pretty much anywhere being a competent seamstress pays well. The difference between highly skilled and competent is open to interpretation. The difference between being competent and the very basics that can assemble cut and sew patterns is huge though. Pretty much anyone can do cut and sew with like a week of training which is all the mass produced clothes.
But someone who is competent and can do quality alterations, mending, customize patterns etc, is going to make decent money. But I'm pretty sure where ever you live there are seamstress working and making good money.
I'm not even really sure where automation would have impacted being a seamstress. Sewing machines have been around since the 1700's and if anything the demand for textiles has increased more than the speed of production.
Maybe you are thinking more of knitting, which is highly automated and used to be a big job, now it's basically just a hobby.
Blacksmiths just evolved to modern day welders, iron workers, boilermakers etc. Still pays well.
this is a very pessimistic take
could be, but the universe is odd in so many different ways
it's hard to be sure
It feels more like a really optimistic take on AI. I won't say it is impossible, but I haven't seen anything that suggests AI is going to do what OpenAI and Nvidia claims it will.
Ha, that was exactly my thoughts to! Code is turning into a commodity. Nothing special anymore or something you need to protect. It's turning into cheap coal.
>> AI will eat the "software professionals"
you mean AI will eat everyone, because if software professionals will be automated - all other white collar jobs will be too via software.
And then all resources will be poured in hardware and blue collar jobs will be automated too, at least those that have more value.
That’s the thing here. Software engineering is an intelligence-complete problem. If AI can solve it, then it can solve any sort of knowledge work like accounting, financial analysis, etc
Only if by "solving it", you mean being able to write any program to do anything.
Software engineering is a hubris-complete problem. Somehow, being able to do so much seems to make us all assume that everyone else is capable of so little. But just because we can write 1000 programs to do 1000 different things, and because AI can write 1000 programs to do 1000 different things, it doesn't mean that we can write the million other programs that do a million other things. That would be like assuming that because someone is a writer and has written 1 book, that they are fully capable of writing both War & Peace and an exhaustive manual on tractor repair.
Financial analysis is not easier than programming. You don't feed in numbers, turn a crank, and get out correct answers. Some people do only that, and yeah, AI can probably replace them.
"Computing" as a field only made sense when computers were new. We're going to have to go back to actually accomplishing things, not depending on the fact that computers are involved and making them do anything is hard so anyone who can make them do things is automatically valuable. (Which sucks for me, because I'm pretty good at making computers do things but not so good at much of anything else with economic value.) "What do you do?" "I use computers to do X." "Why didn't you just say you do X, then?" is already kind of a thing; now it's going to move on to "I use AI to do X."
Then again: the AI-dependent generation is losing the ability to think, as a result of leaning on AI to do it for them. So while my generation stuck the previous generation with maintaining COBOL programs, the next generation will stick mine with thinking. I can deal with that. I like thinking.
</end-of-weird-rant>
> Financial analysis is not easier than programming. You don't feed in numbers, turn a crank, and get out correct answers
It’s not, but if software engineering is solved then of course so is financial analysis, because a program could be written to do it. If the program is not good enough, then software engineering is not solved.
I think this what you were getting at with this part, but it’s not clear to me, because it seems like you were disagreeing with my thesis: “ because AI can write 1000 programs to do 1000 different things, it doesn't mean that we can write the million other programs that do a million other things”
I’m not sure if you’re saying that people weren’t using computers to solve problems before, but that’s pretty much everything they do. Some people were specifically trained to make computers solve problems, but if computers can solve X problem without a programmer, then both the computer programmer and the X problem solver are replaced.
I don't think software engineering is ever going to be solved, but financial analysis will definitely never be solved. It's impossible, the nature of it dictates that, whatever changes happen will further change the results. Financial analysis requires novel thinking, and even if you have AGI that can engage in novel thought they will just be another input into the system.
Just like AI, the winners will (continue to) be the ones with the most access to data and the technical and financial capital to make use of it.
This is the crux of it. The digital world doesn't produce value except when it eases the production of real goods. Software Development as a field is strange: it can only produce value when it is used to make production of real goods more efficient. We can use AI to cut out bureaucratic work, which then means that all that is left is real work: craftsmanship, relationship building, design, leadership.
There are plenty of "human in the loop" jobs still left. I certainly don't want furniture designed by AI, because there is no possible way for an AI to understand my particular fleshly requirements (AI simply doesn't have the wetware required to understand human tactile needs). But the bureaucratic jobs will mostly be automated away, and good riddance. They were killing the human spirit.
> Software Development as a field is strange: it can only produce value when it is used to make production of real goods more efficient. We can use AI to cut out bureaucratic work, which then means that all that is left is real work: craftsmanship, relationship building, design, leadership.
Thats a really odd take. Software is merely a way of ingesting data and producing information. And information often has intrinsic value. This can scale from simple things like minor annoyances of forgetting your umbrella, to avoiding deaths/millions of dollars in losses due to ships sinking in storms.
Now the long term value of software does approach zero, because it can usually be duplicated quite easily.
Extraction and manufacturing are considered the primary and secondary economic sectors. In a closed loop system, tertiary and onward sectors, like services and technology, cannot exist without the primary and secondary.
I value your weird rant. Yes it did go on as a thought stream, but there's sense in there.
I've been thinking a lot around a kind of smart-people paradox: very intellectual arguments all basically plotting a line toward some inevitable conclusion like super intelligence or consciousness. Everything is a raw compute problem.
While at the same time all scientific progress gives us more and more evidence that reality is non-computable, non linear.
> While at the same time all scientific progress gives us more and more evidence that reality is non-computable, non linear.
What scientific problems are non-computable?
ANNs are designed to handle non-linearities BTW, thats the entire point of activation functions and multi layer networks
non computable, non-linear as in given known input parameters you can determine the output parameters.
we can't do that for mostly any complex physical system, as would be for something like living organisms.
> non computable, non-linear as in given known input parameters you can determine the output parameters.
These two words do not mean the same thing.
Non-linear functions do not mean you cannot determine the output for a given input.
All non-linear means is that the condition f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(kx) = kf(x) do not hold for arbitrary x,y,k
For example f(x) = x^2 is a non-linear function. Can you determine what f(x) for arbitrary x?
Perhaps you meant what used to be called "chaotic systems", those which were highly sensitive to initial conditions. Yes, they are non-linear but they are completely deterministic. A classic example would be the n-body problem in physics under most conditions.
And I'm not sure what you understand what non-computable means. It means that the computation will not halt in a finite amount of time for a general input. For a particular input, it may indeed halt in a finite amount of time.
Most real numbers are non-computable, such as the square root of 2 or Pi.
Practically speaking however, we can get approximations as close as we want. In other cases, such as the Busy Beaver function, we can set bounds
You're correct. I only have a very casual understanding of these things. For the non-linear thing, I just mean that for any advanced system there are say trillions of parameters, like cellular systems, and even if you mapped them in you couldn't be sure what the output would be.
Sounds familiar, the "halting problem"? I suppose I'm too loosely tying concepts together. Particular vs general input is same as simple vs complex input above, given a complex enough input, the compute involved approaches boundless/infinite.In practice, yes, as I understand it, modern science is all about stochastic approximations and for all intents and purposes it's quite reliable.
I probably should stop using "non-linear" terminology. I really just mean that it's not 1:1. You mention how systems can be deterministic and I looked it up and yes wave function collapse specifically says:
We can compute the possible states, but not the exact state. We can't predict the future.Thanks for the reply, this is much more interesting to me as it approaches philosophy, so admittedly I too loosely throw words-that-mean-things around.
You are right, but I think at the moment, a lot of people are confusing "software engineering" with "set up my react boilerplate with tailwind and unit tests", and AI just is way better for that sort of rote thing.
I've never felt comfortable with the devs who just want some Jira ticket with exactly what to do. That's basically what AI/LLMs can do pretty well.
Those people have always annoyed the hell out of me and I would prefer to not work with them.
You're right. I think the current AI direction is a dead end for real artificial intelligence, so it is not the thing that will replace all jobs, but the day a machine with the real cognitive capacity of a 5 year old exists is the day almost all of humanity becomes useless.
And before that the current direction is still enough to massively hurt the world because there will be less and less places for us humans.
Another point I noticed that nobody is talking around us is the technology adoption rates. When the car industry started, decades happened between the early users and cars being ubiquitous in the population (especially taking into account the world and not the richest countries). So a sizeable part of the transportation industry that was ultimately replaced by cars had the time to adapt, move to other jobs or arrive at the end of their work life.
But now the technology goes from its few first users to being used by everyone and their cats in years if not months. There is absolutely no time to adapt, love over or endure things until you don't work anymore.
Software was already at its limits on automation, the last thing automated will be writing code that does the required thing but automating other stuff that wasn’t already automated by software will take some time because will require AI advances in those particular domains.
Once an AI runs a single company well, all publicly traded companies will have a legal obligation to at least consider replacing the C-suite with AI. In theory. I'll believe it when I see it.
They should reboot Silicon Valley with this premise.
I'm super sympathetic that losing your job sucks. I lost mine once.
At the same time, what's the alternative? Progress happens. We no longer have liveries for holding horses nor horse shoe makers (not at the level we used to). We no longer have telephone operators.
Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward.
I guess maybe I can imagine making it harder to fire people so you have to find something to do with them. But that also has negative consequences. Small companies won't/can't hire because they can't make the guarantees big companies can.
IMO, this is one of the better takes in this thread. I'm a big fan of Hazlitt's book Economics in One Lesson, which gives a very condensed version of some economic ideas - one of them being automation, with really good examples in the past of labor saving machines like the printing press being created. When I first read it a decade ago I didn't think my profession might be like the printing press, but it's definitely in the crosshairs now.
If I lost my software engineering job tomorrow and was unable to find work within a few months, I have a repurposing plan ready to go. Yes it would be terrible for me economically and I'm sure there would be some sad days, but sometimes bad things happen and we have to make the best of them and move on.
The printing press also led to books changing from being something only rich people had to everyone having books. This also enabled the industrial revolution, as books made literacy worth having, newspapers, and became a great storehouse of knowledge.
I.e. it created far, far more jobs than it destroyed.
I have not heard even the most enthusiastic AI booster describe net job creation as a possible outcome. If you have any details on that prediction, I'd be interested to hear what they are.
Nobody remotely believed what the printing press invention would lead to.
After all, Gutenberg had only a modest goal of printing and selling indulgences. He didn't understand what the printing press was good for, either.
Pretty much all the jobs today did not exist before the printing press that enabled them.
I mean in some countries today, the idea of universal literacy helping people is still met with skepticism by some segments of the population.
It's apparently not obvious that mode access to books , learning, and literacy will improve lives
we all be employed as hunters, gatherers or revolutionaries
Net job creation will be the outcome as the insane number of businesses that were once too expensive to start due to lack of knowledge labor suddenly come online.
I mean... you can't think of any ways that AI could actually generate new value? Or more abstractly, of a way that Jevons' paradox can't apply in the case of AI?
Indeed, and I think this is one of the things Hazlitt mentions. After the first initial shocks, opportunities and pathways will eventually present themselves.
One wonders if a German in 1600 would have cursed the invention of the printing press. The printing press accelerated the reformation, which led to over a century of bloody religious wars. Something like a third of the German population died as a result. From the perspective of 2025, the printing press was undoubtedly positive for humanity. But millions of people suffered.
People are still engaging in religious wars. The printing press didn't change that.
What is your repurposing plan, if you don't mind my asking? I am trying to think of alternatives too, but it's quite stressful.
I have friends in commercial sheet metal/plumbing/electrical, and the work is endless right now in my area in the Midwest. My immediate goal would be to get on a journeyman program making a fraction of what I make now, and then onwards and upwards from there as I know the more skilled people in these jobs are making top tier money in my area. When I was in college I worked part-time in residential, so it seems logical that I would gravitate in this direction, especially with the supply of work.
At the same time I'd be applying to senior software engineering positions geared towards anything energy/nuclear and possibly datacenter tech/engineering positions as well, but I would be extremely picky. Since everyone is so obsessed with AI/productivity, the electrical grid is going to be more stressed than ever. I'd target positions with no H1B competition, cleared positions and whatnot - this isn't a crack on H1B, but I would imagine there is higher probability in getting interviews without them in the picture. BUT I'm at the whim of hiring managers and whiteboards at that point, which isn't ideal, hence the trades route mentioned first.
I love software so much and have spent the majority of my life doing it, spent all that time getting a CS Master degree and whatnot. It would be a sad day for me, but you do what you have to do. I have a family as well, so not as much mobility and time to burn as a person without.
I think this plan is specific to my situation, but I hope it helps getting a few ideas kicking around in your mind. It is definitely a stressful thing if you think about it too deeply, but I try to distance myself from that mental mode and focus more on what I would have to do if that time comes.
same here
for notification purposes, see one of my latest comments above.
Your plan, whatever it is is still predicated on the world as it is today being more or less as it is today. The problem with anything truly disruptive is that it may very well cause your plan to become infeasible for a variety of reasons. For your sake I hope that you were aware of that little detail and made your plan bullet proof or flexible enough that that is not going to cause you any headaches.
Of course things can change and I wholeheartedly agree with you. If a plan goes bad you adapt and overcome. Also, I've experienced being poor and lived in warzones/slept in terrible places, which gave me a very positive look at life in the USA. No need to worry about me as I assure you I'll be good either way.
Life is actually very good here and there is a lot of mobility if you have even a small amount of motivation. I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here though jacquesm - if I recall correctly (I'm not going to look at your comment history), I feel like I read once that you come from a family of first gen immigrants that experienced conditions similar to what I did when I was younger, and I would love to hear more about their/your perspective on being in a place like the USA and the opportunities it did/didn't bring.
I've moved around a lot in my life but I would not describe myself as coming from a background of family of first gen immigrants, however, I do have family that is in that position. My family was well established (since the 1600's or so) in the country where I was born.
My apologies, I have confused you with another long term user!
Np, I'll make more effort to stand out ;)
No... You make enough quality comments that I remember your username, so I think you already have that one in the bag. Looking forward to more from you as well.
All very well to have a plan, and I'm sure some people manage to successfully "repurpose" themselves, but historically the way this plays out is that redundant workers live out their days in relative poverty and it's their children/grandchildren who find new opportunities out of economic necessity. Usually takes 2-3 generations for the impact on workers to fully shake out.
Your repurposing plan would work only if it is not automated too and if the numbers of people that would choose a similar plan is low enough
Agreed, supply and demand - there are some negatives, but this is the only way I would choose for it to be.
> If I lost my software engineering job tomorrow and was unable to find work within a few months, I have a repurposing plan ready to go.
Get back to me when you need to execute that plan with millions of others joining the bread line.
> Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward.
If this is what you think needs to happen and you live in the US, then you should be freaking out right now, not calmly posting takes like this. UBI is not a thing almost any current American politician is considering, and the overton window is speeding in the opposite direction.
You should not expect people to be reasonable about this. I don’t know what the answer here is, but if you want it to be UBI, you need to fight for it. The alternatives (artificial price controls, the dumb make-work policies you correctly disdained, first-amendment-breaking/privacy-violating AI bans) are out there, and if you don’t fight for the thing you want, you’re gonna get one of those.
> UBI is not a thing almost any current American politician is considering, and the overton window is speeding in the opposite direction.
That will change real quick if everyone loses their job to AI. But until then, yeah, it's not going to happen, and it shouldn't.
> That will change real quick if everyone loses their job to AI.
No, this is exactly my point: they will be angry, unreasonable, and thirsty for revenge. They’ll hand over freedoms like Halloween candy. How about a law where the government gets to survey your hard drive to make sure you’re not harboring an AI model? Sounds crazy, sounds insane, but in the current political climate I’d rate it more likely than UBI.
Yeah. We’ve seen this movie before, and most of us didn’t like the way it ended.
> I don’t know what the answer here is
Blood. If things don’t reverse course this trajectory historically leads to bloodshed.
In many respects it already has. How many people have died just this year already because businesses didn’t do what they were suppose to? Because cutting costs with no consequences is seen as the norm?
Of course nobody wants to account for those externalities and when that blood comes back on them they become scared and use government force instead. You’re seeing the trial run with ICE as we write our comments on this forum
The math doesn't work out for UBI.
Would you like to elaborate why the math doesn't work out? An article explaining your position would be nice, but I'd settle for some broad gestures.
342,000,000 people in the US. Multiply by $10,000/yr.
Cost of UBI: 3,420,000,000,000
Where is $3.5 trillion going to come from?
From corporate profits, which should be rising from labor cost cutting? Ultimately if the pie is growing and accruing to a few organizations, then either we create new wealth transfer mechanisms (progressive tax codes being one such previous example) or become a feudal society, which will probably stagnate.
From cancelling pointless military projects?
The entire defense budget is $874b.
As I remarked, the UBI math doesn't work.
UBI would be pure deficit spending which would basically double it. Our interest is already the #2 federal outlay at $1 trillion (defense is #5 last I heard) and we're already in fiscal dominance. So the end result is UBI would trigger much higher inflation which would make those UBI checks worthless.
UBI will become at least as complicated as federal taxes. Perverse incentives will creep in.
Paying people to not work will never work.
It's working in the farm bills for a hundred years.
Paying people to not work accomplishes what?
No idea, you'd have to ask the farmers
I'm going to sound like a luddite I'm sure but I'm tried of these analogies using horses, tractors and so on. Labor involving muscles was replaced with tractors but people could just switch to using the other half of their body; The Brain. Now that a lot of the creative tasks and knowledge work is being replaced there isn't anywhere for those people to go. Maybe people with esoteric industry knowledge, vibe-coding skills or trade skills will be fine.
For a while. It will be musical chairs without many chairs as a growing number of people retrain into a fixed or shrinking job pool.
I still don’t understand why people oppose that rather than enthusiastically desire it. The end state you’re describing is the culmination of the enlightenment project. Automating labor is the point! Then you can paint, or play chess, or eat amazing food, or do whatever you want. Work isn’t the end, it’s the means. Products and services is the end. If we can achieve the end via technology, who cares about the work?
That automation will be owned by a few and they're known for avoiding taxes not supporting something like a UBI. The masses a mostly likely to be kept busy watching propaganda on Tiktok not painting.
Food continues to go downhill the more agritech progresses and the planets population grows. Proteins are replaced by carbs with savoury flavouring, fats are replaced by thickeners etc. Eating good food like a good cut of steak requires out bidding other people which requires income.
There's always two sides to a coin right? While everything you said is true, I think that there's a pattern people are generally aware of in this world. Things that don't serve a purpose, vanish.
We see it in worker replacement, in vestigial organic structures that shrink over millinea, and in the tools and objects we keep with us in our lives.
The question, once achieving this grandiose goal, is how long, and by what mechanism, will we continue to enjoy the fruits of our labor?
Perhaps there will be a time when we may enjoy this world without the pressure of being a cog within it, but ultimately this time may be short if we are able to manifest it at all.
The unease comes from the power we lose when we cease to be the means of production, and instead become a vestigial organ on a beast much more complex than ourselves.
Yes work is the means, the means to earn an income. Do you live in a country that has a big enough social safety net that you trust it to provide you the necessary income and healthcare so that you can just paint and play chess all day? I certainly don't... I live in the U.S.A :-/
Safety nets only work while there are people paying (a lot of) taxes.
I guess you could tax the companies and people still earning money at like 95% or something.
We industrialized and a few at the top enjoyed a life of leisure while the rest of us worked in the new ways to build, operate, and do endless maintenance.
Any more room as part of the painting and chess class this time, or are we all maintenance again?
Once the rich own machines that do everything for them, they have no need for us and we have no leverage over them. What's left for us then?
The end game is like the planet of Solaria in the Asimov universe. Only a few ultra-rich with robots doing everything else.
You are missing the part where we built our society on the fact that people need at least some money to exist with the basic level of dignity.
Because in the world people currently live in, a small class of people own the means of production and the land you stand on, and everyone else has to have a job to access all of the necessities to live. Eliminating jobs means, quite literally, eliminating people's livelihood.
And that same class of people who own everything would rather kill everyone else and also destroy the planet than give up their position or allow any of the socioeconomic changes necessary to change the distribution of wealth.
> At the same time, what's the alternative? Progress happens.
I actually wonder if solving this problem - this feeling of powerlessness in the face of progress is an interesting problem to solve in our time. Plenty of people have figured this out. The Amish, people move to islands and other countries to not be part of modern progress.
"Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. " Why not? I mean Keynes argued something like: if the Treasury filled old bottles with banknotes, buried them in disused coal mines, filled the mines with rubbish, and then left it to private enterprise to dig them up again, there would be no more unemployment and the real income of the community would probably become a good deal larger than it actually was."
But it really does feel sometimes like. Why do we feel this powerlessness to progress? Why can't we architect the world we want to have? I have really been wondering. Lots of religious groups want to revert some progress. Maybe these whole network cities folks have a point. Maybe we can have a city like pegged to the like technical and architectural standards of the victorian era.
> Why can't we architect the world we want to have? Side effects. Society is not planned, it evolves
You want Victorian healthcare? Or privacy? No air conditioning? Dirty air? Horse shit everywhere? No different, people stink, can't shower, and it takes hours of labor to wash clothes without a washing machine?
No, it’s 2026, we can create a hybrid, that’s the point! The ability to choose our destiny!
Also - Horse shit doesn’t sound that bad. People stink in 2026 too.
But I do think, I dunno if inflection point is precisely the right concept, there will plenty of future developments I’ll be glad , but I think less and less of a percentage of our innovation is positive for general human happiness.
Big tech ceos even often talk about this sort of longtermist perspective where today’s human happiness doesnt matter, just progress toward an unknown future.
Thinking that because in the past the effect of progress was a net positive after a while it will always be like that is a cognitive bias. When looking at the large scale, in previous cases, people replaced by automation would go into jobs that were not automated.
But what will happen when there is no job that can't be automated anymore ?
have been hearing from several ex-AWS colleagues about the job losses within their teams and the number of people impacted since yesterday. it’s depressing, but also symptomatic of a much larger obvious shift already underway for some time now, now being further accelerated by new technology.
AI and automation are rapidly erasing roles across both white and blue collar work. this is now a present present reality in almost all sectors. extrapolating this, it is clear this ongoing displacement will drive successive waves of unemployment and underemployment, placing severe strain on social contracts and accelerating societal instability. countries with strong social compacts may weather the coming storm. but others, especially those with larger population that lack "cultural ballast" >cough USA< will likely to slide into chaos, if not outright anarchy.
harder question to ponder is this: in a world where human labor is no longer the primary allocator of income and resources remain finite, sustaining nearly half of today’s global population under existing economic models begins to look fundamentally untenable. china’s one child policy starts to feel less irrational and more prescient.
beginning to think that perhaps I should be advising my kids to learn a trade on the side, as a backup plan, even as they chart their budding careers in the corporate world.
> Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me.
It’s going to sound naive and stupid, but I think it somehow works. There are millions of jobs here in Japan that exist for the sake of existing. Government knows, people know, workers know as well. But everyone understands that the flipside also sucks. Sure, we can say we should optimize and people need to re-learn and etc and etc. But that’s not the reality. At some point people just want to exist without worrying about 50 years down the road, or if they can feed their family tonight.
On the other hand the Japanese economy has been quite stagnant since 1990, and the yen is right now on a downwards spiral, so I don't think it is such a good solution.
And as a gaijin living in Japan, I usually get extremely pissed off at the extreme inefficiency of Japanese companies, things that in any other country would take one month here take 5 years.
Every country has their own problems. Honestly, there aren't a single large country where everything is perfect. Too many opinions, too many needs, increase median age of the politicians and the population, and etc. causes imperfect solution to every problem. At the end of the day, you have to prioritize and figure out what's important to you.
I agree with literally every point you made. Sure economy is stagnant, but I'd rather take stagnant economy than a collapsing one. I agree with a lot of things are slow, but also, most of things are just... not a big deal, at least for me? I lived in Canada, and have parts of my family living in NYC as well. For every slow government related slow things, you can find something that's also slow in the NA as well. I'm not going to mention Europe at this point, as from what I've witness from my European partner, you can find inefficiencies there as well. Again, pros and cons everywhere, just gotta pick and choose what matters to you.
I was going to comment the same thing.
The prime example for me was always driving at night in Japan and coming across some grandma waving a traffic light for construction. On the surface, it's ridiculous that she's even there - but then again she has a job and can pay her bills (presumably).
Shit might be annoyingly inefficient over there, but it does just work.
Just lost my UX Researcher, Designer, UI Developer and CX Support job (8 years) two weeks of ago. They said doing a great job but have to lay you off. Within a week i put my house up for sale and received an offer.
Time to downsize, "try," to stay in tech yet study to be a nurse.
My field and career of 20 years seems like a vanishing one.
Sorry to hear that.
But coming to this point, its absolutely unfathomable seeing the difference between these two types of things
On One hand we have cursor whose burning like 5-6 Million $ of money in trying to build a browser only for it to be riddled with bugs and literally just the money went into fire (read emsh's post and how he built better alternative)
I mean I guess I learnt something from them burning 5 million $ but I see a lot of Companies burn so much money.
My point is that all of these companies burn massive amounts of money in LLM's sometimes just for the sake of it and then some of these same companies go the other way and then fire people working.
I mean is there no way for a company to be reasonable. You worked there 8 years, You knew how things worked. Getting anyone new up and running would be hard especially given you had customer relations.
Tf they mean doing a great job but they have to lay you off? I mean, is the company doing really bad (I am considering something like tailwind happening here?) or what exactly.
But tailwind's situation was (unique?) because their business was eaten by AI itself. Not sure about your (former) company though but I hope that you can tell more specifics if possible.
Well it's a small govt contracting company. The adminstration cutting down on federal jobs, IT contracts and the tech layoffs has/is flooding the market with UX/UI folks in these parts (mid Atlantic region). Now AI is hastening the shrinking of this field.
The contracting company I worked for promotes on their LinkedIn their use of AI saying we created this prototype with AI in less then a day vs. years, months and days. In September they told us this is the way forward as all govt contractors are bidding for contracts with smaller teams using AI. Per that story they are telling they need to change to survive.
> Well it's a small govt contracting company. The adminstration cutting down on federal jobs, IT contracts and the tech layoffs has/is flooding the market with UX/UI folks in these parts (mid Atlantic region). Now AI is hastening the shrinking of this field.
> The contracting company I worked for promotes on their LinkedIn their use of AI saying we created this prototype with AI in less then a day vs. years, months and days. In September they told us this is the way forward as all govt contractors are bidding for contracts with smaller teams using AI. Per that story they are telling they need to change to survive.
Thanks for providing more context, This feels much the govt. faults than the contractor but I feel like moves like these will come to bite the govt. sooner than later.
I feel like though contracting companies also might've overhyped. Like yea sure for basic things AI's fine but AI won't be fine for govt. projects & shouldn't be fine.
Govt.'s can spends an unknown amount of money on defense with literally no accountability with billions of $ literally not knowing where they went but they will try to price squeeze thigns here only to some years down the line have catastrophic event.
I mean LLM's still hallucinate and they can be poisoned. If govt.'s use LLM the aspect of poisioning becomes really important.
Chatgpt still pulls grokipedia whose primary source is X where bots can be created and spread and a certain narrative can be established.
I am pretty sure that if we see govt.s in any capacity have AI generated websites then the idea of poisoning the whole web to negatively impact the other nation becomes a good strategy for agressions between countries.
Although I may have gotten off topic but sorry to hear this that you were in such a weird and messy chopping block due to mistakes from the govts in general.
Wishing you the best in your future that things get better for ya :hug:
The fear, which many (like myself, and Andrew Yang) have since before GenAI hit it big, is that the coming automation revolution will be magnitudes more disruptive than prior economic revolutions. It's one thing for particular skilled industries to evolve or go away; it's another when massive, diverse, frontline-and-management roles across the economy will all be wiped out in the coming decade or two.
Management, warehouses, logistics, driving, retail/service industry, entertainment and advertising, programming/software engineering, even research and education. Potentially tens of millions of jobs in the US alone.
COMBINED with the seemingly zero discussion in mainstream politics about improving the welfare system of the country to prevent system-scale unemployment and poverty, while the profits from "efficiencies" go to the small group of already-wealthy shareholders and owners.
The safety net in the U.S. today is completely inadequate, and under constant fire from the right. I have no idea how we’re going to cope with the coming waves of layoffs.
> We no longer have liveries for holding horses nor horse shoe makers (not at the level we used to). We no longer have telephone operators.
As you point out we've had plenty of examples in the past of jobs being displaced but (while I'm sure it always sucked to be one of the people displaced) those displacements were always relatively contained to certain industries within different time periods.
The nightmare-inducing aspect of AI-related job displacement is the possible combined breadth and speed of it, which we have absolutely never seen before.
Assuming the optimistic (from the perspective of the AI providers) AI predictions pan out the oncoming rush of AI job displacements are going to upended a lot of industries simultaneously, causing both increased uncertainty of what the (stable) other options are (the ground will be shifting everywhere, all at once) plus drastically increased competition for whatever other options do still exist when the music stops playing. I don't think it'll work out for us all to be nurses, plumbers, electricians and influencers.
> Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward.
I agree that these sorts of solutions are the rational way forward, but it just seems incredibly unlikely that this is how it is going to play out, at least in the US where we seem to be putting approximately zero political or corporate effort into planning for these possibilities. A violent class war seems far more likely of an outcome to me if we're being honest.
The alternative is indeed UBI, and the obvious way to fund it is to tax automation so that it actually scales to however many people end up without jobs.
But for all the talk about UBI in techbro circles, it seems to never actually translate to any meaningful political moves. Microsoft, Amazon etc are pretty happy to throw millions of dollars at politicians to ensure that they can keep building their data centers, but UBI just gets lip service.
> Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me.
And what is? AI slop? There is no objective purpose to any of this, all of it is preference.
I prefer that people have a way to express themselves in a way that gives them subjective meaning, maybe a bullshit job is a good enough solution.
> Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me.
That's what the TSA is in the US
This is exactly how I feel. I entered the software industry right before GPGPU programming was becoming a thing. I was aware of AI and neural nets back then and saw the future and decided I wanted to be part of it.
So what if my job is no longer a thing in several decades. That's the entire point.
There's infinite number of ways to make a living. My way isn't better than anyone else's.
People willing to adapt will always have opportunities awaiting them. The world is rich and fruitful.
Plus all the fun parts of computer science are still remaining to be pondered. The fun of computers is the high of the aha moment, not the coding lol
> Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward
Everyone works 20 hours/week.
The 'problem' isn't what you think it is. The people in power are worried that lifting the boot off of the neck of the working class may result in loss of power for them.
They are right. Hence the stalemate.
What progress? Our planet is dying and those who have most loudly touted "Progress" are the ones killing it.
If "Progress" means a massive immiserated underclass is necessary for it to proceed, then who is it for? The answer is obvious.
The people benefitting from the profits accumulated from layoffs would never allow their margins to be cut by having to pay for UBI. Why do people act like this even remotely on the political horizon? There will simply be an even larger underclass and the wealthy enclaves will build higher walls. “At least the companies will be more efficient” is such a cucked take, insane
This is goofy. Your job isn't special and this already happened to a lot of other people while coders were laughing in libertarian. It doesn't suddenly get real when it happens to you.
The people whose jobs were shipped overseas were physically stronger and less sheltered than you. If they couldn't stop it, your pencil arms and retreat into revolutionary cosplay fantasy certainly doesn't bode well for you. They weren't even fired because of an advance in technology, they were fired because we just dismantled workers rights and allowed every job to be shipped to China, Mexico, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines. And literally, now, the "opposition" is angrily protesting for free trade and for illegal workers with no rights; you all still don't get it.
Automation raises productivity, and creates wealth that we can choose to share, even though "we" don't. Not lowering labor standards and not allowing jobs to be shipped out to poverty stricken countries with low labor standards would have just taken compassion and not being completely self-centered for at least 5 minutes a day. Fighting when you had something to lose rather than waiting until you have nothing. I'm supposed to make up a fake job for you?
There won't even be Oxy for you to turn to. You'd better be happy with legal weed, even if you can barely afford it on your Taskrabbit income.
How could you say something so controversial and yet so brave?
You really made an astounding number of assumptions which I don’t think you have the insight to extract from a single comment. You clearly have zero idea where I’m coming from so try to chill.
I stand by my point that there is no political will among the current elites for meaningful distributional policies.
For the record I am a staunch defender of worker rights in all industries and deeply despise neoliberal economics.
Geez man
#TrvthNvke
Actual effective managers do much more than "gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him."
> Actual effective managers do much more
And how many managers are effective vs. only information funnels?
Even “only” information funnels have value if they seek out valuable info, filter, curate. In reality some funnels in this context mutate the message they’re supposed to pass on :-)
LLMs do all that pretty well :-)
Firing a bunch of ineffective managers because they can easily be replaced by AI seems like a net improvement to me.
Where are the failed programmers supposed to go then?
Product Management.
the key for managers is like business owners
1) understand what success means for their area 2) assemble a team and remove roadblocks for them to achieve 1.
The bad ones tend not to be information funnels.
In some organizations, the upper management generates a real burden on people below them with ever changing demands for information.
I have to assume some of it serves a social, rather than practical purpose, like having people re-assure them that projects are going well. If that's the case, automation may just not make sense.
might be able to get a fat contract fee from letting Amazon know about that
"What would you say you do here?"
It's interesting that the AI is taking job story is so prevalent in these sorts of posts even though there's zero indication of it in any financial analysis. Amazon and big tech companies like it are using AI as the smoke screen to cover up the obvious, which is these companies have lost their ability to grow exponentially. Since their stock price and debt demands this impossible growth, they are now starting the dying process. It will probably take years and maybe even decades, but they will continue to cut costs until they become the next Sears.
when you consider AMZN's p/e ratio is under 35 and WMT is closer to 45, what makes you think this?
P/E isn't a future projection. There is literally no analysis that asserts Amazon will achieve the same growth rate in the future that it achieved in the past. It will retain stock value by eating itself for a while (could be a long time), then die.
But it’s priced at a growth rate less than Walmart’s. That’s hardly an extreme growth outlier.
I agree and I also think a lot of what used to require the cloud is now becoming local and private.
Cost structures are changing everywhere, not just in big tech. Hiring has stayed about the same everywhere else and the job descriptions for an SWE in the normal corporate world seem focused on getting off AWS, GCP, etc.
I have always felt that if I could do a job really well, do work that required no maintenance, was basically 'self-healing' so to speak, with documentation so clear and easy to understand that someone could pick up where I left off without asking me a single question. For me that was always my aesthetic and goal in any work I did.
Yet, here I am, an experienced software engineer, unemployed for over a year now. It still seems to me the right ideal, so the 'karmic' outcome feels unjust really.
Oh dear. I wish middle management was simply "gathering information" from the decks below and reporting it to the bridge.
Tell you what, why don't we get rid of management altogether and just have a flat org ?
> A few years into the company’s life, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin actually wondered whether Google needed any managers at all. In 2002 they experimented with a completely flat organization, eliminating engineering managers in an effort to break down barriers to rapid idea development and to replicate the collegial environment they’d enjoyed in graduate school. That experiment lasted only a few months: They relented when too many people went directly to Page with questions about expense reports, interpersonal conflicts, and other nitty-gritty issues. And as the company grew, the founders soon realized that managers contributed in many other, important ways—for instance, by communicating strategy, helping employees prioritize projects, facilitating collaboration, supporting career development, and ensuring that processes and systems aligned with company goals.
https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-man...
IMO, this could be solved by having a finance team with good workflows and a real human resources team/psychologist on staff that would handle all of the interpersonal drama. It's an interesting anecdote but I don't think it was that great of an attempt or structured well enough to work.
> this could be solved
With a USB stick and FTP. It's very easy to underestimate a problem when you've never encountered it or tried to tackle it in practice. Your shallow dismissal gives that away and brings no insight.
Human beings will always organically organize hierarchically. In a group one will have more initiative, one will be happier to be told what to do, etc. In the end informally you will end up with the same structure. And it's hell to deal with that when formally all have the same authority so none can override each other, but one guy just gathered enough support to do whatever he wants.
Do you think someone far away from everything you do will have a magic "workflow" that tells them what to do about the budget you requested, about the strategic decision you need, or about your conflicts, about who has to do the nice jobs or the shitty ones? And why would they have any say, they're not the boss.
Your logic is no better that those pretending today that a team of AI agents "with good workflows" can just replace all the programmers.
I think it could work if it was designed for it from the ground up. Google's experiment's lasted months, and was, what seems like a whim of the owners, where as a lot of the workers probably expected a traditional company.
Valve the "game" company, has a relatively flat structure from what I've heard, and it's working pretty well for them, but they've also had it for a long time.
So if you have a company, that works like that from the start, that people know it works like that, that it has support for it. You could make it work.
I agree that forcing this structure everywhere wouldn't work, some people can work like this, others can't.
> Valve the "game" company, has a relatively flat structure
Valve has ~300 employees and operates in a field where they can afford more freedoms (try building large infrastructure projects with flat structures). Valve struck a good balance between autonomy for employees while still having some informal central coordination. Formally there are few bosses but in practice project managers and some people with seniority also act in those roles. At scale it can't work if you don't delegate any of the authority to smaller units.
It's bad to have too many or too few layers. Sometimes the result looks the same, lack of coordination and inability to deliver consistently.
Amazon has 1.5M workers. Can't imagine a flat structure working but I'm sure they were overdoing it with layers of management.
Yes this was a joke. Apparently not a well enough known joke, because a bunch of people took me seriously
haha thanks for clarifying mate.
Why not get rid of job titles and just have people do whatever needs to be done?
Because no one person is good at everything, and even if you managed to build a team of people who were good at everything, it is inefficient to make everyone keep up with all details of every aspect of the company so that they can be productive in an arbitrary role at the drop of a hat. Giving people a role allows them to specialize their knowledge and concentrate all their efforts into their area of expertise/competence.
Managers fill a role. Sure, some managers are bad, and some workplaces have seemingly mostly bad managers, and it leads to cynical opinions about how managers are busy-work-making dolts who don't understand anything. Some employers have mostly good managers and I feel sorry for you if you have never had the experience.
I'm 40 years into my EE career and I have always deflected efforts to make me a people manager or a project manager. I like being a grunt in the trenches solving problems at the bottom level, and a good manager increases their reports' productivity by shielding them from needing to deal with project management crap. I would have retired already except I've been blessed to have good managers for the past 20 years, while my managers have been attending umpteen resource allocation meetings and all the attendant report-making that requires.
Been there, done that. It brings its own set of chaos and office politics. The shadow org structures can be worse than the official ones.
Because social animals have hierarchical social structures.
We also have flat social structures, what is your point?
Really? How often and for how many people? Which ones dominate and are more frequent, flat or hierarchical? Which ones do we use for our most complex endeavors?
Did you copy paste this from LinkedIn?
lol thank you I was trying to see if anyone else also read this with a raised eyebrow. “Yes so these ICs and other non-management staff are going to be reporting to this LLM and then magic and executives are informed of everything they need to know.”
People have had jobs where their entire job function was figuring out how to outsource work overseas. When there's no one left to outsource then it's your turn. Tale as old as time.
“He should’ve been so aware that his job was going to be the first one cut, and he was responsible for building a tool to cut his own job”
That tool was going to get built whether he did it or someone else did. Maybe only thing to do is buy time building it while actively looking elsewhere.
the answer is build it again and start selling it to other companies.
> “He should’ve been so aware that his job was going to be the first one cut, and he was responsible for building a tool to cut his own job”
> That tool was going to get built whether he did it or someone else did. Maybe only thing to do is buy time building it while actively looking elsewhere.
This has such a dark vibe to it that I am unable to explain. It really feels like an I was only following orders command just hoping that you don't get to the wrong side of this stick as they was hoping for
At the same time protest isn't an option. It does feel like some form of active suffering for someone to write the replacement of themselves while the economy goes to complete dumpster fire and nobody's hiring (much).
All while Completely pure form of AI slop goes up and up so even any interesting idea or anything will have to fight really hard for attention in public spaces like say show HN or other websites.
So you are forced to pay "Internet rent" to the overlords like Google & Meta who will use the same money to then train better models (especially Google?) to continue this cycle.
All while people lose their privacy and nobody even talks about it. With all the thousands of problems happening.
Can we please just stop this circle just once and evaluate where things are going if they are net positive for humanity itself & if there is anything to stop this cycle.
Fundamentally most countries are democracies. Yes there are lobbying efforts but one forgets that these large corpos pay to somehow pursuade you or the politician that you elect.
Can someone smart in politics talk about such issues & raise them & a fight towards lobbying/corruption (all throughout the world?) be established.
I guess this becomes way too broad of a goal but somehow I always end up feeling corruption and politics & money's lobbying connection can be a root cause of many issues (much throughout the world)
> gathering information from folks below him
I thought that information is only available through organic conversations by the watercooler and cross polination of teams.
Does it mean you no longer will have to come to office as long as you talk to AI over Slack?
Or are they going to slap laptop on a Roomba and still mandate office attendance?
Let's split the difference and put a brain on a Roomba like in Fallout.
There is a lot of middle management. I would include PMs in this. Salesforce does planning from Benioff down. Goals -> each report goals, etc. Planning based off goals - much horse trading. Planning from the lead/pm level - weekly - more horse trading. Reality was urgent stuff got taken care of. Literally over a two year period, outside fancy wording, the technical component of the initial goals maybe completed 30%.
There are a lot of inefficiencies I can see what this manager at AWS was trying to optimize for.
> He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him.
That sounds an organizational issue. I always thought that a manager should push product vision at their own level, get and organize resources, and assess the talent as fairly as possible. That is, a combination of the job of a general and a PM. Controlling the information may be necessary for survival, but it should not be the job description.
> I always thought that a manager should push product vision at their own level, get and organize resources, and assess the talent as fairly as possible.
LOL, reality is very different. Manager first of all is working to keep his position, second to get promoted. Most of them. For keeping he need to become irreplaceable. For that they create kill zone around eliminating competitors. Working against those with brain, not promoting, giving negative reviews, creating 'cases', taking credits for others job. Making those who can leave. I've seen a lot of this shit. This creates a local depressive shithole. It can go for decades in monopolies and in low competition markets.
You should watch this movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527793/
Or Office Space (warning, Rated R for some language and crude distractions / conversations.) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804
Still, it documents the typical work culture of the US in the late 1990s / early 2000s. It's sad and amazing how much of that remains the same.
So much conversation is around AI replacing developers, but I've been to so many meetings where a middle-manager (gleefully) shows me some AI slop they produced to do their job and I think to myself "If you did this with AI, why don't I do this with AI and replace you?"
Most experienced devs already know writing code is the easy part, it's really understanding the business requirements that takes time (I think a lot of junior devs don't understand this so they get overly enthusiastic about AI). But it turns out that most middle managers were already churning out slop to begin with so replacing them with AI is a big improvement.
As an engineer, roughly speaking, every task AI helps me get done faster is roughly negated by someone else's AI slop I need to clean up. But when it comes to middle management, I can't tell the difference. I'm pretty sure most product roadmaps generated by AI are actually more sensible than those generated by clueless managers.
Where was he from? Recent hires are sometimes the first to go, depending on certain other factors.
If that's his value add as a manager then that's a problem in itself
If he was a middle manager it wasn't him doing the work anyway
Undoubtedly his tool turned out to suck, and his managers realized that it made him faster but didn't eliminate the need for his role. "Every other manager" is a pipe dream and if it's true it means that group is pathetically inefficient and underutilizing the talents of even an average manager.
That's what I'd say in 2026. 2-3 years from now, not sure. But right now, AI can't run a vending machine without selling too many tungsten cubes.
> It felt like watching someone who is about to be executed be responsible for building the gallows
Perilaus of Athens designed the Brazen Bull, a hollow bronze statue used to roast victims alive. When he presented it to the tyrant Phalaris, Phalaris was so disgusted by the cruelty of the device that he ordered Perilaus to be the first person tested inside it.
usually this is called a program manager, not really a manager (like a people manager) per say...
No offence, but this is 5% of what a middle manager does. We automated this task years back without LLMs too.
Reminds me of the movie Office Space.
He probably still lives there
I'm in a well funded somewhat greenfield org - not a startup - we use mcp servers of that specific ticket tracking system within the coding tools to handle ticket creation, assignment, tracking, status, completion, updated by what code is being hit. mostly inheriting existing workflows like git comments, pull requests, tickets referenced in those already, just AI writes those commit messages and PR comments too. reports about all of that are made by AI as well to the stakeholder that needs to see that distilled in their language.
We won't be hiring middle management, no product managers, no engineering managers, VPs
The only aspect we don't have solved is a buffer between sales/execs and engineers, but all other functions are automated away alongside other AI assisted coding that there actually is bandwidth for the schizophrenic ideas. Things that used to be tech debt and not prioritized by engineers without management suddenly are all solved, AI makes the cleanest REST API's I've ever seen, obscure verbs properly implemented immediately. Test cases all done.
It's working really well and the friction with non technical PMs and hierarchies is gone
its a 1 liner to add relevant mcp servers to Claude Code, and every ticket tracker already has an mcp server out
for triaging between UX designers, we also just don't. we use an mcp server for UX, I can point playwright - which is usually used for testing your own site - at a competitor's website and feed all the UX information and implementation into Claude Code to promote the synthesis of an extremely advanced and already engaging design pattern into the project
at this point, I would say its a lack of competence to manage a software project or org, any other way. Amazon's deep cuts are a shot across the bow to others that know they need to "do the needful", and will be watched closely
Honestly he's probably doing fine That man is clearly very smart and proactive. I'd be worried for the poor middle manager caught completely off guard.
[flagged]
Yes that is how anecdotes work
[dead]
If I set aside for a moment, and for the sake of argument, the fact that we all have to earn a living, why would anyone want a job where you distill a bunch of input from those "below you" and relay it to those "above you"? That sounds like a job I would never want to get out of bed to do. If I were one of the people fired, I would be so friggen happy I don't have to do this BS job anymore.
> If I set aside for a moment, and for the sake of argument, the fact that we all have to earn a living
Congrats for making an argument completely disassociated from reality.
I guess people need money to buy food to survive?
> I would be so friggen happy I don't have to do this BS job anymore.
Alright the freezer's empty with no food and you have no money. Probably a family to manage with kids and demands or say have hobbies which costs money.
I am an extremely frugal person myself but even I will admit that there is just no way that one can purely just exist without a FIRE & even within FIRE some aspects of FIRE want you to have a job but not only just any job but the job you like.
Judging from GP's comment. I feel like the person they are talking about might not have saved enough money so they were a bit worried about it but even if they did, losing a job still impacts mentally and they (didn't?) want to go through such transition.
I guess the point is to really save money & be frugal at times. It's usually something which benefits me but I am single right now but I can imagine that with a family & a wife & different dynamics, frugality can be hard to live by when you have to convince your wife to say down-size or your children to & it can impact one's freedom probably.
Personally wishing to have a lot of savings to go through when single before getting married.
Unironically this & some sense of getting respect within society & getting the prospectus of some good dating connection in such sense is the reason why (many) people look for any jobs.
I will admit that if someone offers me such a job, the offer to take will be hard to resist (even though I would consider I have a stronger than average desire for a job that I truly like/enjoy fwiw)
Insightful Comment from X - https://xcancel.com/PlumbNick/status/2016500347053773198?s=2...
I was an L7, I led global AI enablement. I built systems executives depended on, moved wherever the company needed me and fixed problems that had been sitting untouched because no one else could untangle them.
And I was still cut.
Here’s the part we’re all supposed to politely ignore: in the U.S. right now, experience isn’t an asset, it’s a liability. And if you’re expensive because you’re good at what you do, the system eventually “optimizes” you out.
We're now in the realm of hold onto your nuts -- sink or swim -- ownership of your own company is the only way out
That person's pinned message shows that he started his campaign for Congress almost 2 months ago. He says he was laid off today. He's been Tweeting non-stop daily and appears to be working hard on his campaign.
I don't think you can separate his active run for Congress from this layoff. Making an actual run for Congress is a huge time commitment and I don't see how it would be compatible with being an L7 manager at Amazon. It's not something you do in your free time.
His campaign platform also appears to be about AI taking jobs, so I'm more than a little suspicious that getting laid off was part of the plan rather than an actual surprise.
The claim that he "built systems" should also be taken in the context of his job title, which was in product management. I've held the Product Manager title for a few years, but I wouldn't claim "I built" during those times, because I was not the one doing the building. This strikes me as a little misleading.
Also that post is full of classic LLM-ism from beginning to end. Note the overuse of the "It's not this, it's that" format and other LLM tells. I might give someone the benefit of the doubt if they were immersed in LLMs so long that they started speaking like an LLM, but given all of the other context surrounding this post I have a high suspicion it was written by AI.
From my LinkedIn feed I feel those Nigerian princes of past are now Amazon L7 managers.
Check the Twitter comments, he had an llm 'improve' his draft.
> Making an actual run for Congress is a huge time commitment and I don't see how it would be compatible with being an L7 manager at Amazon.
Does that matter? If people vote for him, he'll end up in Congress, regardless of "it matching" or not. The current president is a TV celebrity who ran a bunch of failed businesses, some middle manager from Amazon could surely be in Congress then?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that planning and running his campaign for Congress is incompatible with being in a demanding position at a FAANG company because campaigning and fundraising is a job in itself.
If you scroll through his timeline, he's been gaining publicity by releasing videos critical of Amazon, too. There's too much of a conflict of interest involved with letting someone like that remain in a high position within the company.
Regardless what one may think of this guy, we are talking about mass layoffs. I doubt this mattered, or that they were very personally targeted.
I think you missed what GP was implying, which is that the tweeter must have been slacking at their Amazon job and spending company time on their congressional run.
Ah, yes, that might be, that'd make sense too. Thanks.
Unless I'm mistaken, isn't it illegal to base layoffs on individual performance? My understanding was that it can't legally be considered a layoff unless it meets pretty strict selection requirements at the group level (cutting orgs, cutting a "random" % of a role or org to reduce headcount, etc).
Not sure why that would illegal? Your own performance isn’t protected in anyway as a class that you can’t control. I know Lyft 100% laid off people not hitting meets expectations in 2020 first
Again I am no expert here, this is just my understanding after being in the industry for a couple decades.
As far as I'm aware, there's a fine line between layoffs or reductions in force and firing for poor performance. Its legal to cut an entire division, or to cut some percentage of a division's head count and come up with some way of distributing it across the org. It is not legal to find your worst performers, fire them all at once, and call it a layoff.
Happy to be wrong here though, just trying to be clear with the line as I understand it. Someone coming by may know for sure.
In the US, saying that "your job has been eliminated" mitigates various legal risks (discrimination lawsuits for example). So although companies can do pretty much WTF they want, they also don't like being sued.
Your suspicion is right; it is 100% AI-generated. https://www.pangram.com/history/8b593dcc-6a7d-496f-8c80-a588...
Oh wow, the guy used the word "versatility"... he even dared "narrative" and "just" - the latter one two times! Astonishing, does he have no shame copy pasting this obvious AI slop? It is obvious that no person in their right mind would utter such things!
>Pangram can detect AI-generated content in both short-form and long-form written content, with up to 99% accuracy. [0]
Yeah, 0% accuracy is still "up to 99%"!
[0] https://www.pangram.com/
7 years at Amazon without being laid off (promoted, in fact) and you blame it on 2 months of what you assume is poor performance
In my experience, big corporate employers get extremely nervous when their employees start doing anything high profile (i.e. successful) in the political sphere.
After all, if 250 people report to me, probably some of them are going to have opinion A and some are going to have opinion B. If I take a strong public stance in support of A and against B, some of the more nervous B supporters are going to worry I hate them personally and fear I'm a threat to their career - and they're probably going to go to HR about it.
And even if my job doesn't give me any hiring-and-firing powers - if I'm high profile enough that a load of random haters decide they're going to try to get me fired by subjecting my employer to a campaign of harassment, well, now folks like HR and customer services are getting harassed.
Obviously, though, I've never seen a corporation have a blanket policy saying employees can't engage with the political system - that would be pretty bad as a policy. Instead they'll quote policies about 'bringing the company into disrepute' and similar.
It's simpler than that. In his timeline he's showing how he's getting headlines for releasing videos critical of Amazon, his own employer. He was using his position at Amazon to lend more credibility to his platform.
> and you blame it on 2 months of what you assume is poor performance
The official registration and launch of the campaign was 2 months ago, but he started long before that. If you read his timeline he didn't just wake up one day and decide to run for Congress 2 months ago.
What's especially funny is that the post reads exactly like it was written by an AI.
He's writing in the academic/upper-class style that it's training data focused on.
I'm convinced that one of the largest frictions to common use of LLMs is that it translates everyone's writing to the that same style. Having it punch-up or flesh-out your proposal or outline, or whatever, isn't really adding any new material, but it's translating it to a writing style that has historically been exclusive and difficult to learn, and that difference in style is what made the original text sub-par, from the perspective of academia and members the upper class.
> in the U.S. right now, experience isn’t an asset, it’s a liability
this is a HUGE red flag for this comment being written be AI. Before 2025, nobody talked like this.
Uhm, plenty of phrases like this existed before 12 months ago.
Apparently, before ChatGPT, the english was devoid of any occurrence of "It's not X, it's Y"!
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
> Before 2025, nobody talked like this.
I enjoy writing posts online and I've been doing it since the days of BBSs and 300 baud modems, transitioning to Usenet and nowadays mostly just here on HN. People seem to find my posts generally informative and sometimes even mention they're well written. In school I always got good marks on creative and essay writing and in the early days of my startups I wrote some of the user documentation and all the advertising copy (one of which won an advertising award). So, I think I'm at least a bit better than average at writing. And I've never used AI for writing anything.
But in the last few months I've had posts accused of being "AI writing" TWICE (once here on HN and the other was on a retro-computing forum). So I Googled through a random sampling of around 50-ish of my own posts going back a couple decades. Damn. 90s me was naive about a few things. And I found three examples which are kind of like that pattern you described. I guess I'm screwed because apparently that's just how I sometimes write and no one ever minded before. And I have proof I wrote that way long before AI did... oh.
It just occurred to me that maybe some of my Usenet posts could be a small part of why AI writes like that. But I was here first! I should have dibs on writing like me. Regardless, I definitely don't want anyone here to think my writing is AI output - using AI would be disrespectful to the community I enjoy participating in. Recently, I've noticed a few times where I start second guessing something I wrote before hitting "Reply" which makes writing not fun. Once, I just hit delete and logged off without posting. It wasn't that good of a post anyway.
Now it occurs to me I'm not really sure what my point is other than venting. So much for being a better-than-average writer. I guess I'd like people to at least be really careful about making accusations - unless you're very sure. I mean, I get it. I hate AI slop too. I enjoy reading good posts here even more than writing posts. Slop sucks. But errant accusations can have a chilling effect or they've had some effect on me.
Oh, wait was that last sentence too much like THE pattern? No... it's an either/or so I think it's probably okay.
And, to be clear, I promise I didn't plan that sentence as some kind of example. I wrote it and only then did I wonder if it might be too much like THE pattern. Maybe this is one of the ways AI destroys community. Simply by making us second guess each other - and then that gets some of us second-guessing ourselves. Shit, I just noticed I used a dash in the last sentence... but at least it's not an em dash, so I should be good. I just suck at semicolons and started using dashes as a lazy shortcut. My freshman comp teacher complained about it too. Wait, did I use dashes anywhere else? Checking... Shit. I did. Now anyone reading this will definitely think I planned that both times or that maybe I'm an LLM. Because no one writes like that. Fuck.
You made me realize I got used to determining whether something was written by a LLM before reading stuff
I can't tell if this is satire or not because it reads just how LLMs think before giving their final output
Hence my point. :-) Subjecting each other to drive-by Turing tests is going to cause more net damage to online communities than it'll help.
They admitted to it, with a pic of their original draft https://xcancel.com/PlumbNick/status/2016666185949962309#m
Yeah, it looks to me like the best time to be a business owner, and the worst time to be employed.
Americans pay a pretty hefty health insurance penalty when they leave steady employment to start their own business. There have definitely been better times to be an entrepreneur in this country.
Finding investment is harder than usual in this current economic climate, too. At least in some industries like mine.
> Finding investment is harder than usual in this current economic climate, too. At least in some industries like mine.
If I may ask, what industry are you referring to?
Game development has been seeing cuts on the order of 10k+ jobs/year for a couple years now and investment in studios/titles has dried up. It's extremely competitive now and the deals being signed are for smaller amounts of money with worse terms.
Europe/ (Anecdotally India, I have seen some good health insurances for what 50$ here?) might have a better time for being business owners as well.
One of the issues in these countries is usually Funding. I am unable to understand how people get money to fund the projects & have people be willing to pay when there are alternatives which will cut you down as well probably burning through their funding in the first place.
Suppose, I want to create a cloud provider, A) ownership costs went up due to ramflation, B) there are now services which are using VC money which will burn insane amount of money to give users for free.
As a person without VC money or without wishing to seek VC money to simply burn it, (I personally much much prefer seedstrapping and bootstraping), the idea of business ownership becomes difficult as well.
Plus don't forget the fact that the idea of getting a customer becomes hard in the first place given how organic mediums are being overwhelmed (like Show HN etc.) and personally the idea of marketing doesn't really click with me of things like paying for this as if its a rent to the overlords like google and facebook smh but I guess if someone's a business owner, they might be forced to play this game.
It’s hard to be a small business right now. Everything is dominated by a few who have massive resource advantages.
It's strange when upper-middle-class workers finally realize what life has been like for lower-class workers for 40 years
A pro-labor republican that worked on global AI enablement. So many contradictions that they almost cancel all out!
The two major US parties are in the midst of another swap of which is conservative and which is liberal.
Marin County California, probably the area most heavily voting for the Democrat party, is clearly the most classically conservative part of the country, allowing almost no development and strongly objecting to even the slightest offenses in speech, whereas rural counties in the south want classically liberal safety nets and protections and heavily vote for the Republican party.
Written/amended by AI, political talking points, run for Congress included.
Idk how insightful that is. It’s not even entertaining anymore.
> if you’re expensive because you’re good at what you do, the system eventually “optimizes” you out.
This is how layoffs have always worked. The pretext changes.
Was the X poster saying in a very long winded way that his job was taken and lots of our jobs will be taken by foreigners who cost less?
Yes, and he is running for office on an anti-immigration platform, so I'd take anything he posts with a heap of salt.
>>This is a rules problem
Oh no, it's much worse. It's a global market working efficiently problem.
Bad news for jobs that can flow over the intertubes...
Ex Amazon here. Left as an SD6.
Basically, I wouldn't trust accounts of people who got cut from Amazon in terms of their work experience. Most employees at Amazon, engineering and others are salary seekers - their only goal is to get into higher brackets. None of what they do is as impactful at they make it sound, especially in management. And there is false sense of achievement created when people do annual reviews and most of the time, you are never going to try to fuck over your coworker so you embellish their accomplishments (again because you want them to do the same for your higher paid position).
The thing is, for software at least, most of Amazon software engineering follows a predefined template, and you don't need a lot of management to organize engineering. As for engineers themselves, there is quite a bit of friction for the vast majority of them to do anything impactful because of lack of experience, and LLMs haven't bridged that gap because they don't even know what questions to ask.
That comment he wrote was written with AI :)
I wonder what a few years of this mentality will do. Greed is never reasonable. This will have consequences.
> experience isn’t an asset, it’s a liability
Weirdly impressive. This guy just invented galaxy-brained AI slop.
I like to think about this story from years ago when Nintendo wasn't doing so well and there was talk of layoffs
"Nintendo CEO’s refusal to layoff staff goes viral following industry-wide cuts"
https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/nintendo-ceos-refusal-t...
I realize these companies aren't identical, but interesting to compare approaches. I also expect Amazon hires and fires more easily instead of growing more slowly and steadily.
Bear in mind Nintendo has ~0.005% of the employees Amazon does
It's also ... Nintendo's share price was stagnant, Japanese business culture...
FWIW, 8,000 (nintendo) / 1,600,000 (Amazon) is 0.005, so 0.5%.
Revenue per corporate employee are both ~1.5m/corp employee. I think it really comes down to how the company is managed and culture.
Nintendo Japan pays its engineers ~$62k a year
https://www.portal.e2r.jp/fixurl/nintendo_career_job/id/4/2?...
Amazon starts at 3x that and goes up
https://www.levels.fyi/companies/amazon/salaries
Some additional context to explain the numbers:
Game industry in general pays like shit - japanese software engineering pays even worse, so double negative modifiers on salaries in this comparison.
source: worked in games, worked at japanese tech company with us division.
You need to compare the US division to get a more accurate comparison. Nintendo US pays quite well.
I don't not. The person making the claim they weren't going to fire anyone was the president of Nintendo Japan
If you exclude non-corporate it's only ~300k.
Wow.. that sounds like a huge number..
Corp or total? Amazon employees a lot of labor for fulfillment centers and other labor jobs.
Only off by a factor of 100.
Nintendo stock is up 7.5x since 1998, compare that to amazon which is up like 200x. Nintendo shareholders would be pissed about its performance if they were american, cant say how Japanese feel about it given cultural differences.
Yeah, sure, starting from 1998 just a year after Amazon went public, when it was still just a glorified online bookstore, is the most relevant and honest comparison one could make to Nintendo.
Nintendo shareholders seem to have a fundamentally different value set.
I'd argue it's a better one.
not better for making money
Yes, that’s the point.
> not better for making money
I guess this is part of the problem. There is a term for this & it's called greed in such sense.
I will admit that I would love juicy returns on my investments as well but this doesn't make me not (admire?) the value set that Nintendo shareholders might have.
But I do feel like the fact that such options exist where pure capitalist greed can operate is the issue in the first place because if you have this option, then it becomes too lucrative for many to ignore not realizing the inner costs (like currently the AI bubble weights but also before that the moral and social implications of something like amazon let's say where workers had to pee in bottles and were so anti against Union that people were shocked when its videos were released in Youtube and effectively has really impacted all the local shops in your local communities impacting the income of members of your local community.
I guess some sort of regulatory action should be called out on but the govt. is lobbied by these mega-corps again as well so :/
Although that being said, Nintendo's really price jacking and becoming EA. and unironically EA is having a turnover and (actually listening to users?)
AI is just the disguise. It's the economy, just like it is in every recession.
AI is genuinely good at hallucinating. So is middle management. Probably displacing some of those jobs.
Many of these announcements are bluffs as many users here have pointed out. But real LLM-driven layoffs do happen, and from what I have anecdotally seen, they follow a pattern: leadership assumes the new LLM service will make human workers redundant. They then make cuts before the evidence is in. What this means is that today, there are many LLM service deployments that replaced humans while their actual impact remains a mystery. Though it won't be a mystery to leadership forever.
One example client that shouldn't dox me: Odom Corporation, a beverage distributor. They purchased an LLM-driven purchasing solution and immediately laid off their entire purchasing team, save for a few members who exist on the periphery. A follow-up with them showed that the system was ordering summer beverages coming into the winter (among many other bad purchasing decisions) and causing a dramatic increase in unsold inventory. Since they believe that LLMs will exponentially improve, they're dismissing it as a one-off because this year's models "will be so much better". We attempted to advise differently, but stakeholders got extremely emotional at even small suggestions that there was a fundamental problem. Good luck to them.
Yeah. I keep running into LLMs in customer service functions where I would previously have been talking to a human, and in literally every case they're beyond worthless and I end up talking to a human anyway.
I think the execs are either using it as an excuse to reduce opex to boost share prices or they're actually buying into this delusion that the productivity improvements are right around the corner. Though I don't really buy into that second option since any reasonably intelligent person would wait to see concrete evidence of said improvements before crippling your company based on some hope.
I also think some of the companies that operate in the AI space are using the layoffs as a form of marketing to prove the capabilities of their tech (while also using it as an excuse to cut costs).
Anyways, I work at one of the major players in the space and the amount of AI code slop I see on a daily basis is absurd. My prediction is that within two years most younger SWEs will only have a high-level understanding of their code. I already see it happening.
It's also great at writing programs that kind-of, sort-of mostly work, just like human programmers: https://xkcd.com/2030/
And 'The economy' is just the disguise for getting rid of expensive workers and hiring cheaper workers elsewhere in the world.
I think AI is the scapegoat for the massive overhiring that happened in 2021 and 2022. These corporations kept thinking that the nearly-interest-free loans were going to keep on going forever, and since no one really knows how to grow a business they spent the money the only way they know how: hiring more people. It didn't really matter if they were filling jobs that were "necessary", just as long as they were filled.
Now, this is extremely short-sighted and frankly it makes me question the intelligence of these BigCos' executives, because unless they're utterly incompetent at this whole "business" and "living on the planet earth" thing they should have realized that the economy fluctuates and this infinite free money wouldn't last.
Now that AI is around, these companies finally have a way to do these layoffs while not looking quite as idiotic.
The US economy is mostly AI at this point.
Artificially Inflated?
About to Implode
Afghani Insurgents
Alarmingly indebted.
Amazing Indians.
Artichoke Influencers
Asinine Idiocracy
AI is definitely a solid reason. Even a 10% increase in developer efficiency translates to roughly 9% fewer workers needed to do the same job. For AI to be cost effective, it must reduce headcount.
Jevon's Paradox will show up too though. When employees get more efficient companies just demand more of them.
You really have to be in "the room where it happens" to know the motivations behind any one layoff.
I have noticed this while working in a startup, how efficiency gains impacted work in the last 3 months with better coding models coming in. If you have someone senior that is effective at using these tools and can own the outputs and be capable of correcting things that are sloppy, you are immensely more valuable than 2-3 more developers in the same area of work. It's actually faster to empower fewer people than try to have 3 fast guys where there would be coordination overhead, which would become a bottleneck and bring down a lot of the efficiency gains. A good full stack engineer who can work with these tools at speed with caution is more valuable similarly as it requires less coordination. 3 junior devs shipping 90% good code and 10% slop would make the senior who is reviewing everything the bottleneck.
To help us use your anecdote, could you tell us what product area is your startup is working in?
Amazon is mostly laying off managers, however, not developers.
>Amazon axes 16,000 American jobs as it ... relocates to a larger campus in India
https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/10/amazon-to-invest-additiona...
I realize it’s easy to pattern-match this news to 'hiring in India vs. firing in US' given the current climate, but having worked at Amazon India for 4 years, I can tell you the cuts happen there too.
Amazon has a history of annual restructuring that hits every region. It isn't necessarily a direct relocation strategy so much as their standard operational churn. The 'efficiency' cuts are happening globally, India included.
Sure, but at some point in the past, "Amazon India" was not a thing. Nor was "Microsoft India" and so forth. Surely you can understand what it feels like to be an American tech worker in a super high cost of living area, looking at reduction in headcount and continual offshoring of jobs as time goes by. I live in Seattle area, work at one of these big companies, I work with people in India almost every day and have been to India three times on business. When parts of my department's work was allocated to a new team in India, of course I was nervous about that.
I get the fear, but look at it from the investor's perspective. The US market is tapped out, Amazon is already everywhere it can be.
Amazon isn't expanding in India out of love for the country or a desire to see it grow. They are doing it because Wall Street demands infinite growth every single year. Amazon India went from zero to a market leader in a decade not because of charity, but because that is where the new money is.
To keep the valuation climbing (which sustains everyone's RSUs), they have to capture these emerging markets. If they don't, the stock stagnates, and the compensation model for US tech workers falls apart.
They can capture the market without moving the workforce there. Meta/Instagram/WA have dominated Indian market for a decade now.
It seems like this is pure labor arbitrage. Growth is gone so the only way to increase profits is by cutting costs, with labor force being the top line item.
> They can capture the market without moving the workforce there. Meta/Instagram/WA have dominated Indian market for a decade now.
The former is a logistics company. They need an on-the-ground workforce in places they operate. The latter are social media products, no local workforce of significance needed.
That said, we are in a world where Amazon is able to do labor arbitrage of software-adjacent jobs by moving them to India. That's been happening for more than 2 decades. Nothing short of new laws levying penalties, or a massive consumer boycott will stop that or slow it down.
You are describing a colonial model, extract all the wealth while investing nothing in the local economy. That era is over.
If anything, Meta is the anomaly, not the role model. They should be required to invest more given their dominance, rather than being praised for extracting maximum value with minimum local footprint. Regulators will likely close that gap eventually.
"Exchanging goods and services for money to a locale" is not a colonial model.
I, a strawberry farmer in Florida, should have no obligation to create an office of locals in every geographic location I sell strawberries in.
If a foreign entity came into Florida and bought up 35% of the entire retail infrastructure, you bet the US government would regulate it and demand local value capture.
Case in point - US actively forced TSMC and Samsung to build $65B+ of factories in Arizona and Texas to secure domestic interests.
And Chinese/Korean workers being fired while American workers are being hired by their companies would absolutely be correct to see their jobs being offshored
No but you give up a large margin to shippers, importers, distributors and retailers in those geographic locations.
Which is an entirely different dynamic than what the person I responded to was calling for
> If anything, Meta is the anomaly, not the role model.
Meta try very very hard to avoid having any data within Indian borders, because of their privacy laws.
This necessitates not hiring product or data people there.
Source: worked there for five years many moons ago.
and why do i care for the investor's perspective? they already made enough money to last them 100 lifetimes
>I get the fear, but look at it from the investor's perspective. The US market is tapped out, Amazon is already everywhere it can be.
Heaven forbid we forget about the investors, and don't forget about the executive compensation!
I mean, seriously, is there no such thing as balance? I'm not saying investors should be arbitrarily shorted, but on the same token it doesn't mean workers need to always take the brunt of the change, which is how it goes down 90% of the time.
If layoffs were seen as executive leadership failures first and foremost it would be a small step toward the right direction of accountability.
>To keep the valuation climbing (which sustains everyone's RSUs), they have to capture these emerging markets.
Fallacy that the stock must continue to rise to the detriment of the workforce that supposedly would benefit. Never minding that RSUs shouldn't be seen as a primary form of compensation to begin with, there is a myriad of things companies can do to maintain the valuation of employee RSUs, like bigger grants.
Secondly, you're assuming to capture these emerging markets, a layoff is a must. In reality, it likely is not. If you have a surplus of resources, deploying them effectively would be a net win, as you re-allocate these folks to higher priority projects and workstreams. The incentive structure that C-Suites have built up since the 1980s however don't align with that, because executive compensation is entirely based around juicing the numbers on a spreadsheet, as opposed to being rewarded for building sustainable businesses.
>If they don't, the stock stagnates, and the compensation model for US tech workers falls apart.
It doesn't, compensation is more broad than RSUs, and could be adjusted in kind. This is a solved problem.
I'm pretty sure that most American software engineers would take a stable job with a salary without RSUs over RSUs but you can get laid off tomorrow.
True. This is Globalism at work. If these companies were not selling goods and services globally then they wouldn't have to deal with setting up offices, staff, pressure from local politicians to hire locals around the world.
Companies hiring more in cheap labor countries is quite obvious for long time. In case of Amazon I feel most of the stuff that was cutting edge 2 decades back is now low value work where cost is the only edge.
The parent comment is obviously cherry picking news and trying to push an agenda.
Uk investment: https://www.aboutamazon.co.uk/news/job-creation-and-investme...
Us investment: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-invest-50-billion-ai
The US investment link is broken, and most of the UK jobs are in "fullfillment", some of the least fullfilling jobs - piss bottles all round.
And the original link about investment in India is also about fulfillment jobs and even worse, “investing in AI”, aka building data centers, which contribute essentially no jobs at all.
The AI investment is largely earmarked for data centers. Low staff but expensive because the hardware is currently very expensive.
It's not equivalent in the least. They aren't expanding headcount by 20K, they're building more expensive AI tailored servers
Amazon also employs 1.5 million people globally, 350k of which are in corporate. These 16k were corporate. Still sucks for everyone involved, I know a corporate sales guy who got laid off Microsoft and it disrupted his life pretty seriously. As Stalin says one's a tragedy, a millions a statistic.
Since the HN reaction to layoffs almost always is about blaming H1B, here’s a few more things the headline misses:
1. Cuts were global 2. Cuts in US also include H1B employees 3. 16000 roles are corporate roles, not just tech related, H1B program is not generally utilized for those roles 4. Expansion in India is not just tech. Amazon is a big retailer in India. Understandably if you’re seeing revenue growth in India, you will grow corporate presence in India. If Walmart becomes a massive retailer in EU, it will hire EU nationals in EU. That’s not shipping jobs to EU.
Shouldn't we all want H1B rather than offshoring?
That keeps the facilities here, the local employment options here, the growth here, the tax base here...
We should want more smart people moving to this country. More business creation, more capital, more labor, more output.
Immigration is total economic growth for America, non zero-sum. Offshoring is not only economic loss, but second order loss: we lose the capacity over an extended time frame.
> Shouldn't we all want H1B rather than offshoring?
That's my opinion.
However there are issues with who's sucking the tit. If you bring in a bunch of people from outside instead of hiring locals that's not a win for the locals. On the other hand whats the difference for someone in San Francisco if Apple hires a guy from India vs New Jersey? Not much.
And H1B visa's can be low grade indentured servitude.
Guy in San Francisco can move to NJ easier than Mumbai.
I am not so sure on that. They raise inflation, home prices, etc. The locals see no real benefit except having to pay more for everything. While more taxes are collected, most of that goes to offsetting just some of the economic pain induced by the people living there.
and it is in fact zero sum. every spot filled in university or company is a spot not taken by a local, as its obvious by the numbers, more local people are not getting admitted into CS programs nor are they being hired. its 100% zero sum when we are looking at these numbers and %s.
Companies want to cut costs. They will.
If you don't bring more fungible labor into the US, the jobs will be offshored.
Look at what just happened to film labor in 2022-2023. The industry was burgeoning off the heels of the streaming wars and ZIRP. Then the stikes happened.
Amazon and Netflix took trained crews in the Eastern Europe bloc and leveraged tax deals and existing infra in Ireland and the UK. Film production in LA and Atlanta are now down over 75%. Even with insane local tax subsidies - unlimited subsidies in the case or Georgia.
Software development will escape to other cheaper countries. They're talented and hard working. AI will accelerate this.
Then what? America lost manufacturing. I think we've decided that was a very bad idea.
We need to move the cheaper labor here. More workforce means more economic opportunities for startups and innovation. Labor will find a way as long as the infrastructure is here.
De-growth is cost cutting and collapse. Immigration is rapid growth, diversification, innovation, and market dominance.
All those people start buying from businesses here. They start paying taxes here. It supercharges the local economy. Your house might go up in price, but way more money is moving around - more jobs, more growth, second order effects.
America doesn't have the land limits Canada has. And we can set tax policy and regulations to encourage building.
I'd rather be in an America forecasted to hit 500 million citizens - birth or immigration. And I want to spend on their education. I want capital to fund their startup ideas. I want the FTC/DOJ to break up market monopolies to create opportunity for new risk takers and labor capital.
That was the world the Boomers had. Exciting, full of opportunity. That was the world of a rapidly industrializing America.
Right now, the world we have ahead looks bleak. People aren't having kids and we aren't bringing in immigrants. We'll have less consumerism, less labor, and everything will shrink and shrivel and be less than it was.
> If you don't bring more fungible labor into the US, the jobs will be offshored.
Offshoring is not always a substitute for an employee chained to the job by a visa. I'm sure you can get a million and one anecdotes here on HN about the perils of working across timezones, cultures, and legal systems.
If you really think that companies are moving out of country because "there's not enough talent", despite having some of the more relaxed tax codes and most talented universities here: well, sure. That would be hopeless. It also sounds like you're buying snake oil.
They had decades to off shore, and they chose not to. I don't think Ai in the near term (<15 years) is going to change that dial much. If they do leave, there's plenty of talent to fill the void.
> If you really think that companies are moving out of country because "there's not enough talent", despite having some of the more relaxed tax codes and most talented universities here
The US has a huge delta between its great universities and its mediocre ones. There are some smart and sharp kids everywhere in even the lowest ranked schools. But altogether the amount of people who can pass a code screen in the US is pretty low. If you ever interviewed people for a software position in a big tech firm, you'd realize this.
>The US has a huge delta between its great universities and its mediocre ones. There are some smart and sharp kids everywhere in even the lowest ranked schools. But altogether the amount of people who can pass a code screen in the US is pretty low. If you ever interviewed people for a software position in a big tech firm, you'd realize this.
I'm convinced that the code screen functions as a somewhat arbitrary filter/badge of honor.
FAANG and equivalents get tens of thousands of applicants and they cannot hire them all
If too many pass the code screen, they will just make it harder, even though the job hasn't gotten any more difficult.
Or they get failed at system design. Which is BS in many cases.
It's a necessary filter. Again, you need to interview candidates for these jobs to understand. Our industry doesn't have any qualifications, any exam to pass to certify, so there are just a ton of people who can't do the basic job but think they are qualified because we don't have a good way to screen people for this work.
>Our industry doesn't have any qualifications, any exam to pass to certify,
By design of FAANG, yes. They put down any attempts to certify SWEs
>The US has a huge delta between its great universities and its mediocre ones.
Like any other country, yes.
>But altogether the amount of people who can pass a code screen in the US is pretty low. If you ever interviewed people for a software position in a big tech firm, you'd realize this.
Compared to India? Or is it fine to lower standards of quality when you are paying an 8th of the cost and it turns out most people don't need to be from MIT to contribute?
That's perfectly fine and dandy. But that's not what H1Bs are for.
H1Bs aren't paid 1/8 their counterparts in the same company.
And no, the same applies to India and to China but because the number is small here we pick the small numbers from the rest of the world as well. We don't only hire people from India and China in tech they are just more populous countries so their best workers are far more numerous.
Go to any FAANG in the US and you will see people on H1B from all over Europe, Africa, South America, etc. but Indians and Chinese are the largest group because they are the largest population countries with established pipelines from schools there to schools here to jobs here.
>We don't only hire people from India and China in tech they are just more populous countries so their best workers are far more numerous.
So we are talking H1Bs. Does that mean this small pool of "best foreign talent" also all happen to speak English and are able to communicate their ideas on a team?
>the same applies to India and to China but because the number is small here we pick the small numbers from the rest of the world as well.
Well you're already shifting your point:
> But altogether the amount of people who can pass a code screen in the US is pretty low.
You're criticizing America as an excuse to find people overseas and bring them in. Thanks for proving the fact that H1B is being abused. So you're telling me your fine taking the time to find the finest H1B workers but not Americans?
> We need to move the cheaper labor here
Very smart & pragmatic.
however political sentiment is going the other way - which is an own goal
You could use this exact argument to say nobody should ever have children-- children also raise inflation, home prices, etc. And the majority of your property taxes go specifically towards programs which would be unneeded if nobody had any children.
The fact that naive anti-immigration arguments can be copy-pasted unchanged into arguments against having children is a sign that maybe those arguments are stupid. To understand why, you might start with the fact that immigrants also purchase goods and services, and hence pay the salaries of the ~70% of people in this country employed in some way or another by consumer spending.
Children are future taxpayers the majority with parents who were not a tax burden --net positive tax contribution. People without Children benefit from the taxes paid by the children of people who rear children -i.e. people without children aren't "cashing out" their tax contributed retirement --that contribution went to other retirees.
And citizens benefit from the taxes paid by non-citizen immigrants, whether documented or undocumented. Not just income and payroll taxes that might be dodged by under-the-table arrangements, but sales taxes, property taxes (perhaps paid indirectly via rent to a taxpaying landlord), the consumer share (nearly 100%) of tariffs, etc. And much of that tax base is spent on benefits and services that are not accessible to taxpaying non-citizens.
So from that standpoint, immigrants are a /better/ economic deal for the public than children are. At the end of the day, though, it shouldn't matter where people were born if they're contributing to society, and the grandparent post is 100% correct that the whole debate is stupid.
Sales tax is actually paid by the vendor, they just pass the cost along. The landlord pays the property tax, they just pass the cost along.
It is absolutely impossible for an undocumented alien to meaningfully contribute towards their tax burden in any meaningful way.
> Sales tax is actually paid by the vendor, they just pass the cost along. The landlord pays the property tax, they just pass the cost along.
This is sophistry. Ultimately the tax is paid by the person that brings their money to the table.
Oh, in that case no w-2 employee pays income taxes, their employer does. I guess we’re all just mooches on society and only the company owners do anything.
Ah, you arrived at the point. Undocumented people don't pay taxes in a W2.
No, they just pay sales tax and other taxes on use. I was being sarcastic because you are fundamentally incorrect and as the other comment said, engaging in sophistry.
Disrespectfully, get fucked.
Oh man, struck a nerve here huh. We escalated from sarcasm to rude quickly.
I enjoy both fucking and getting fucked, I shall take you up on that.
Have a nice day!
[dead]
The vast majority of adults and their children will never pay their tax burden proportionately.
How do you figure that?
Grade school math. Look at income tax receipts: the top 5% pay >61% of all income taxes.
You can try and split hairs with "sales taxes" and "payroll taxes" and try to shimmy things into some anti-capitalist stance ("but the companies benefit from their labor!!!," "renters pay property taxes indirectly!"), but the overwhelming majority of all tax payments come from a small percentage of individuals.
Which is a very stupid way to look at things since it only means they are able to get the majority of the richest made by the country
> Grade school math. Look at income tax receipts: the top 5% pay >61% of all income taxes.
This is a nonsense comparison unless you include the proportion of income that said taxpayers earn.
Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N.
The government would not be able to fund every social program or services if it weren't for these receipts, which, most people cannot afford to pay. Even 100% of the majority of salaries can't cover this amount.
Pretty cut and dry.
> Why does this matter? The government spends X dollars each fiscal year, divided by the number (N) of people. Most people aren't paying X/N.
It matters because we don't know if these people are being taxed more proportionately or less. Like, Elon Musk pays more tax than you or I, but he probably pays at a much lower rate.
What you don't want (from an equity and fairness perspective) is for people with more money to pay a lower rate of tax. That will cause problems.
From a total population perspective, given some amount of money S it doesn't really matter who pays it (except for downstream impacts around fairness and elections).
However, your original point was:
> The vast majority of adults and their children will never pay their tax burden proportionately.
I would argue that this is incorrect, everyone pays some proportion of their income in income/sales/property/estate taxes. And really, your point about who pays the majority of US federal taxes doesn't actually support your point.
Finally, I would note that I mostly replied because I really hate those top x% comparisons as they're deceptive without looking at the proportion of income earned.
"Fairness" - it's not about fairness, it's about basic accounting.
Government could not afford to provide the services they provide if these taxes weren't paid, full stop.
Progressive taxation or 'fairness' doesn't change this reality.
> Government could not afford to provide the services they provide if these taxes weren't paid, full stop.
Of course they could. Taxation is not necessary in the short term for a government to provide services (especially if we're talking about the US which both issues its own currency and benefits from massive foreign demand for its debt).
Over the long term, taxation needs to at least pay back the debt but that long-term appears to be much longer than I would have expected (when was the last time the US government ran a surplus?).
Immigrants pay social security taxes, unemployment taxes, ... that they also will never be able to benefit from. Those are purely for the benefit of US citizens
It depends if the immigrant is hired because the native worker is deemed too expensive. In this case, it contributes to reducing contributions through wage suppression.
If you have access to data that shows big tech is preferentially hiring visa holders over US citizens you should get on that class action lawsuit right away. That's probably hundreds of thousands or even millions per person in lost wages, and even after lawyers take their 30% cut, that's still a sizable chunk.
It's anecdata, but a college friend who now works at as a manager in an IT/Data consultancy in my birth country in the EU told me bluntly that they prioritized hiring foreigners as they were 20% cheaper.
Given that the company sponsors them and come from lower incomes countries, they are ready to accept lower wages. If they do it I don't see why everyone wouldn't be doing the same.
It's of course hard to prove formally as those companies will comply with regs to make it look like they aren't discriminating (fake job ads, etc...). By the way in the US Indian consultancies got busted for this.
There is a good case for vetted legal immigration (there is need and they fill that unmet need), no question; however, that should not be at the expense of the local population, regardless of country. In other words, the locals should not suffer a depressed job market because of immigration. The whole reason for a state to exist is to first and foremost look after the wellbeing of its citizens that elect the bodies of government.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from in my comment. I never said US citizens should want H1Bs for everyone with zero vetting, only that they are a net tax positive.
It's not a dichotomy of maintaining the status quo or getting rid of H1b completely. At least in big tech companies, they do follow labor market tests and prevailing wage tests and so on that are designed to vet that there is an unmet need and that visa holders aren't underpaid. I won't deny there are visa mills and consultancies that game the system and pretty much explicitly just hire cheap foreign labor, but this is a thread about H1B in the context of Amazon layoffs, not InfoSys layoffs.
Yep. The negativity around H-1Bs is centered around using them for low/mid-level roles in the pursuit of wage suppression, racial/caste discrimination with hiring managers abusing the system to get their friends in, and the tech industry unnecessarily hogging them when we really need them in niche industries (e.g. nuclear engineering).
Trump made the cost change some months ago to address those concerns but I haven’t seen any studies showing whether or not those changes had a positive effect or not.
GDP matters very little when I’m homeless.
If you're homeless due to losing your job, then you'll be homeless whether your job goes overseas or to someone else in the US.
At least in the latter scenario the job is still here for you to get back one day
Based on the "Worst Case Housing Needs: 2025 Report to Congress" released in late 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found that foreign-born population growth accounted for approximately two-thirds of the increase in nationwide rental demand between 2021 and 2024.
Of course. In any growing services-based economy you will have foreign born population growth. If you eliminate that population growth, economic growth will decline with it.
If we were a growing manufacturing-based economy that wouldn't be the case as much.
I'd also recommend you read this. Many government reports since Trump took over and fired long standing professionals and hired loons are suspect: https://www.nashville.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/2025_1...
I want the loopholes on H1Bs to be closed. H1B is a great concept to get foreign talent that found domestically. But these days is a shell game that's turned into a way to put shackles on employees who can't job hop. It hurts both groups in the long run.
would job hop allowance help?
Yes, but also salary minimum at top industry percentile to prevent use for wage suppression domestically.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45229180 (Top 40 H-1B employers)
Corporations are trying to hide job openings from US citizens - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45223719 - September 2025 (526 comments)
Job Listing Site Highlighting H-1B Positions So Americans Can Apply - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44892321 - August 2025 (108 comments)
H-1B Middlemen Bring Cheap Labor to Citi, Capital One - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398978 - June 2025 (4 comments)
Jury finds Cognizant discriminated against US workers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42385000 - December 2024 (65 comments)
How middlemen are gaming the H-1B program - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123945 - July 2024 (57 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42454509 (additional citations)
Several of the links of yours are about PERM applications, not H1B.
I agree abusers (employers) should be put on he H1B visa blacklist which already exists.
H1B already mandates that employees be paid within the wage window of their peers. And anecdotally I know several who make more than their citizen peers in the same company same level
Not fully, the problem is much deeper than compensation. Let's not have large companies game around the slots allotted and using various means to get more slots. And put some serious enforcement on how they justify their H1b's to begin with as a start.
> want the loopholes on H1Bs to be closed. H1B is a great concept...
There are no loopholes on H1B, it's working exactly as it was intended - replace, not just supplement - American workers with cheaper, more obedient tech slave workers dependent of their master-employer for their survival.
The talent visa is called O-1 not H1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=envbbUc4LhU
Wait why doesn't India get to have these things, too?
There's no reason why it shouldn't, but why should American corporations subsidize it?
Because they can hire 5 programmers in India for the cost of 1 in America, and American programmers aren't 5x better than Indian ones ? Amazon is an online shop, not a jobs program. I'm sure they would rather eliminate a position altogether even more than sending it to India.
Seems just to me, honestly.
We should want open borders. Immigration is a significant net positive. But we can settle for controlled immigration with liberal limits.
H1-B is stupid on its face. You're seriously telling me that this software engineering job absolutely cannot be filled by an American? That doesn't pass the laugh test.
> H1-B is stupid on its face. You're seriously telling me that this software engineering job absolutely cannot be filled by an American? That doesn't pass the laugh test.
The job description is a senior full stack product developer fluent in all programming languages and frameworks. Salary is $70,000/year. Somehow they can never find Americans to fill those jobs. They'll go on Linkedin complaining that Americans are too lazy and don't have the right hustle culture and talk about made up concepts like work life balance when the bosses demand 100 hour work weeks without overtime pay.
That seems low. Is it a corporate strategy to set a low salary and when nobody local fills it (because it's below the competitive rate) they get to hire H1-B?
No, because H1B has pay requirements. As someone who went through the process with Amazon I can confirm that they definitely do offer you a salary that is in line with the local market. There might be lower incentive for raises down the line, but that's a conspiracy theory at best
Yes.
That's the commonly used method for more than a decade, yes.
Link the job description because I don't believe this is real.
Our competitors in another country will have no problem building those products.
Then they'll be sold in America to American consumers.
Then our industry deflates, because we can't compete on cost or labor scale / innovation.
If we put up tariffs, we get a short respite. But now our goods don't sell as well overseas in the face of competition. Our industries still shrink. Eventually they become domestically uncompetitive.
So then what? You preserved some wages for 20 years at the cost of killing the future.
I think all of these conversations are especially pertinent because AI will provide activation energy to accelerate this migration. Now is not the time to encourage offshoring.
If my job is shipped to India today why would I care that twenty years later the boss is Indian instead of American?
> If my job is shipped to India today
Immigration isn't "shipping the job to India". It's bringing the labor here and contributing to our economy. This might have a suppressive force on wages, but it lifts the overall economy and creates more opportunity and demand.
Offshoring is permanent loss. It causes whatever jobs and industry are still here to atrophy and die. The overall economy weakens. Your outlook in retirement will be bleaker.
If you have to pick between the two, it's obvious which one to pick.
> This might have a suppressive force on wages
And that's the general problem. People don't care about the overall economy when wages are going down and cost of living is going up. Even myself, I couldn't care less about the overall health of the economy. I care about being able to subsist mine and my family's life style, put food on the table, someday own a home, not live paycheck to paycheck because all the jobs are paying below a living wage, etc.
I'm extremely fortunate to make the salary that I do, but I know plenty of others not so fortunate, in other fields that don't pay nearly as well as tech does, and probably never will. The answer can't be "go into tech" nor should it be "let's suppress wages so labor isn't so expensive for our domestic companies." And obviously offshoring isn't great either.
We can still import talent without suppressing wages, by not abusing the program and actually only importing for roles that truly, beyond all reasonable doubt, could not be filled by a domestic worker.
Usually the next step of this failed discourse is to explain that locals are so entitled that they don't want to do hard jobs for the minimum wage, due to decades of wage suppression done thanks to immigration.
In France, being a cook used to pay very well, now that most cooks in Paris are from India or Sri Lanka, often without a proper visa or at the minimum wage, no local wants to do this anymore (working conditions are awful).
The industry then whines loudly about "the lack of qualified (cheap) workers"
Turns out this is a difficult problem with no one good solution. Subjecting labor to a race to the bottom is probably the most efficient individual system from a capitalist standpoint, but it destroys itself just as much as your customers can no longer afford to buy most of the products made. The selfish strategy ruins the entire system if everybody does it.
Capitalism and Communism have opposite problems. Communism attempts to manage the markets from a top down approach, making it relatively easy to handle systemic problems but almost impossible to optimize for efficiency because there is far too much information that doesn't make it to the top. Capitalism by contrast pushes the decisions down to where the information is, allowing for excellent efficiency but leaving it blind to systemic problems.
So the best solution is some kind of meet in the middle approach that is complex and ugly and fosters continual arguments over where lines should be drawn.
Innovation is why american salaries in tech are so high. They funded trillion dollar companies.
If that becomes so much of a commodity that some other countries can do it for pennies on the dime, then yes. Salaries will deflate. But we sure aren't offshoring (nor using most H1bs) to see more innovation. Quite the opposite.
Tech isn't manufacturing where the biggest supply line wins by default. That's why I'm not holding my breath that the US isn't going to be outcompeted on talent anytime soon. Of anything, its own greed will consume it.
> Salary is $70,000/year
The lowest allowed limit for such a job is around $140k in areas like Seattle.
Allowed by whom?
By law. H1b requires the wages to be greater than the prevailing wage for similar positions in the region. They are published by DoL: https://flag.dol.gov/wage-data/wage-search
For this kind of experience, you'd be looking for level 2 _minimum_ and likely level 3. For King County in WA it's right now $149240 and $180710 respectively. Level 4 wage is $212202, btw.
The H1B requirements are even higher, but also WA state law requires software developer salaries to be 3.5 x minimum wage x 52 weeks per year. Currently, that is $124k+, because minimum wage is $17.13 per hour.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=296-128-535
https://www.lni.wa.gov/forms-publications/f700-207-000.pdf
You say "we should want open borders" then argue for something that is objectively not open borders. "Open borders" and "controlled immigration" are diametrically opposed things, regardless of whatever liberal limits you're imagining. Almost nobody is arguing for zero immigration.
> 1. Cuts were global 2. Cuts in US also include H1B employees
Hell no, Amazon has been a top 10 filer of H1-B LCAs for decades. The only H1-Bs being laid off, if any, are the older ones (over 39) to be replaced with cheaper models https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS8LNhxJq9Q
Many Software Engineers gone. At L6 and L7 level.
Details here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amazonemployees/
It not pattern matching, it’s literally two things happening at the same time… in a business… that strictly budgets everything…
It’s not a pattern it’s a plan.
[flagged]
Amazon is a big retailer in India, believe it or not, if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will have a big corporate presence in that country.
> if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will have a big corporate presence in that country.
Is that true? Could you think of some large retailers in other countries, like the United States, without a big corporate presence? What do you mean when you say "big"? 1,000 employees? 10,000? 100?
It's not really on them to think of an example to disprove themselves? Do you have one in mind?
Ok let's try this another way:
if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will not have a big corporate presence in that country.
Now it's on you to think of an example to disprove me, certainly I'm not going to think an example to disprove myself.
Do you see the problem with this pattern? I could claim all sorts of things and then say, well sorry you have to go do all this work to refute my claims. Something claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I really was asking whether that's true or not, because in my mind there are a number of large online retailers that operate in the United States for example, without a large corporate presence here.
> because in my mind there are a number of large online retailers that operate in the United States for example, without a large corporate presence here.
Amazon has a market share of 30-35% of ALL e-commerce in India. You’re making claims yourself, so I’d like to see examples of companies that operate at that scale in a country without corporate presence.
Also, there is a logical fallacy here that doesn’t make sense. If I claim A is true (and for a second let’s assume is actually true), then I cannot actually have an example of A being not true. If someone else claims that A is not true, they provide evidence of A not being true, instead of demanding such evidence.
And my evidence for my claim about big retailers having big corporate presence is based on all the big online retailers like Amazon, Wlmart, Target, Best Buy, EBay and others (top 20) all having big corporate presence in the country.
Here was the OP's claim:
> if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will have a big corporate presence in that country.
They made a general claim that a big retailer in a country will have a big corporate presence in that country. I don't know if that's true or not - hence my response.
They didn't claim that a big retailer in India will have a big corporate presence, nor did claim that a retailer approaching 35% of e-commerce must have a large corporate presence in the country. It was an ambiguous claim, which is why I asked a few follow up questions.
> You’re making claims yourself, so I’d like to see examples of companies that operate at that scale in a country without corporate presence.
I didn't make this claim so there's nothing for me to provide.
Here’s the claim you made:
because in my mind there are a number of large online retailers that operate in the United States for example, without a large corporate presence here.
That was commentary on the poor format of the arguments that were made by the OP and you. It's not a "claim".
But sure, if you insist, Temu is a large online retailer that operates in the United States without a large corporate presence here. QED.
Places like Temu are the exception and they should be banned. Garbage dumpers.
Sure, they've already done it, Amazon, in India.
Thanks, let me make some other claims and then you can spend time disproving them. Does that sound like a good idea?
As is the case with many mass layoffs. AI just makes a good reason to claim. It makes you look progressive to investors and it doesn't make you look bad to the public. If AI didn't exist it would be some other excuse to spin this as a positive for the company and not bad for the affected workers.
People may have forgotten what happened back in early 2000s. Outsourcing was all the rage, and people in the US were really concerned. And then it came the explosive growth of internet, of mobile, of cloud, of social network, and etc. And then discussion died or at least dwindled enough that we stopped paying attention.
It looks to me that massive outsource means that companies turn to focus on incremental improvements, which won't require rapid communication in the same location. Besides, the tech has been growing amazingly for decades, other countries have caught up and therefore have growing number of talent. It's a matter of time for them to own more R&D.
Outsourcing in the 90's/2000's failed because you didn't want to deskill engineers and reduce their scope, you wanted Jeff Dean building pagerank and building Google.
Outsourcing happens when the economy forces companies to cut costs. When innovations return substantial growth, most companies don't think much about the costs. We have a rough economy, bad tariff policy, a weakening dollar, and immigration policy that's reducing the overall US population (and with it, spend in the economy). All those factors push companies to need to cut costs
Convenient how you absolve Amazon of responsibility. They were forced to do it!
They aren't the only company in their sector laying off. It stands to reason the economy as an outside factor is heavily involved
Where are you seeing “American” jobs? Amazon workers in India were laid off too.
There are similar stories about Amazon investing in American cities too. Cherry picking a story that Amazon is renovating their office in India is ingenuine.
I don't understand this overreaction to this news. Amazon does massive layoffs every fucking year.
2026: 16,000
2025: 14,000
2024: 500
2023: 18,000
2022: 10,000
It was pretty obvious what is going to follow axing of H1B
It's even less expensive! Problem solved. Mr. President, we have successfully axed all H1B positions, as you have wished.
I guess we just need the other shoe to drop: punish companies that are based in the US and outsource to India. It’ll happen in time if this trend continues
Then the US companies will be outcompeted by more competitive companies located outside the US. Now the US lost the jobs and the workers' income tax and the corporate tax.
America cannot eternally capture a disproportionate share of global wealth, even with such rent seeking moves. It's unsustainable.
We had a golden age after WW2 when we were the only undamaged industrial economy but that age has ended.
It would be far smarter to have invested in the workforce continually. A microcosm of this is how we mismanaged college education and is a symptom of a larger problem: As far as US policy goes, got complacent and extractive over innovative and additive. The narrative shifted from 'abundance for all' to 'the pie is only so big' (that is, unless you're a favored incumbent, like defense contractors). It doesn't stop here. Job training programs, continual education, robust workforce displacement services, proper social welfare programs. We lack all of this (and more).
Another would be to remove burdens off companies that are better handled by the collective of society, via the government. Take universal healthcare. An often unnoticed benefit is how it would shift liabilities off the books of a huge number of companies, from the auto manufacturers to smaller businesses. A tax is a much easier and simplified expense to deal with over legacy healthcare costs that can weigh down a business. It also has a secondary knock off effect: employers can't use it as a pair of handcuffs. In all likelihood, an unintended side effect of universal healthcare would be an increase in entrepreneurship from the middle class. People who would otherwise be handcuffed to their job because of health insurance.
Somehow, the lesson everyone took away from the G.I. Bill was not that the government providing robust funding of social services (IE college, home ownership) works. That part is seemingly ignored by the vast majority of the conversation around the 'good times past' that many Americans romanticize.
Too many of my fellow citizens are prioritizing their own short term gains over the long term health of the community and society in which they were empowered by to get ahead in the first place. This will inevitably crater quite spectacularly bad.
> employers can't use it as a pair of handcuffs.
I think you misunderstand the point of the system.
I don’t, I’m calling it out as toxic and a drain on society
> The narrative shifted from 'abundance for all' to 'the pie is only so big' (that is, unless you're a favored incumbent, like defense contractors).
It would surprise you to know that Booz Allen laid off 3k people last month then, huh?
Or Boeing laid off 3200 people in September 2025.
You should look these things up before you pop off like that. Three minutes of research is all it takes.
Sure, and how about executive compensation? The gains aren’t spread throughout the company. You see highly revenue positive businesses like Google and Amazon laying off thousands of employees while record profits are abound.
You missed the point entirely, and if you were to take a few minutes to look this up you’d know that
Or they just move their "headquarters" and the US part of the business will be a subsidiary.
This is an old, and well tested strategy.
E.g. Commodore International formally had its head office in The Bahamas, but the entire leadership team worked out of the US.
You can try putting more constraints on what will get a company considerd a US company to catch those kinds of structures, but as you indirectly point out, there are really only downsides to playing that game.
You don’t have to dig commodore from the grave, there are current-day examples of companies doing the same.
Just to name one (even if it’s not American): Canonical.
It (canonical) is registered in the isle of Man, a fairly known tax haven.
Also pretty much every company with a "headquarters" of some kind in Ireland, notoriously including Apple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
I didn't have to, but the reason for doing so was to point out that it is an old strategy.
> I didn't have to, but the reason for doing so was to point out that it is an old strategy.
Good point, i had not thought of that!
It's fiat wealth so... write the ledger however.
The majority don't care so long as they have enough food and shelter and healthcare.
The whole scoreboard based on bank accounts is all made up wankeroo.
Let's just have AI avatars fight for gloating rights; Goku beat Superman on PPV so Japan gets to host the inter dimensional cable world cup! And otherwise keep the biologically essential logistics flowing cause that collapse is when the meat suits will toss aside socialized truths of history and go crazy primate.
> It's fiat wealth so... write the ledger however
I'd like to see a serious study about the word "fiat" and whether it has been used to make a single valid economic argument in the last 30 years (auto maker excluded)
Just kidding, I know it has not.
The whole point of it seems to be to dismiss the entire economic system in favor of something that almost nobody has bought in to like bullion or cryptocurrency or somesuch for the benefit of the speaker. Currency, even paper currency, is one of the most pervasive societal "grand illusions" that we share. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing as it greases the entire system of exchange for literally everyone everywhere.
Well, history has those uniquely medieval (or early modern) situations where kingdoms adopt fiat currencies just before they fail. I dunno how much academics discuss those.
Well, history has those uniquely medieval (or early modern) situations where kingdoms adopt fiat currencies and don't fail. I dunno how much academics discuss those
Yeah, so funny how they say "fiat" but never say "shiny metals"
The judges of validity will be the architects of the current system.
I'd like to see a study about why the opinions of economists, who are still just human meat suits, are more important than anyone else's.
Just kidding, I know they are not. Economists only succeeded while US government played along. Government has quit playing along. Did economists see it coming? No? Well what good are predictions that intentionally ignore entire categories of externalities because it would break our capitalism if they were included?
Useless knowledge workers. A reality the labor market is highlighting: https://www.chrisbrunet.com/p/the-collapse-of-the-econ-phd-j...
I'd like to see a serious study where an economist did more than summarize past economic trends with high school math and hand waved a prediction at an unknowable future by just assuming political and cultural stability (that aren't guaranteed).
Society is little more than dumb semantics games; dollars and contracts only have value if it is socially beneficial to the majority to value them.
Capitalism only remains so long as we ...socially... see a ...communal... upside to capitalism. Sure sounds like capitalism relies on socialism and communism.
Too many have read the rambling ignorance of long dead authors too busy scribbling out semantic wank to invent useful technology. Knowledge workers are akin to useless priests; allegory is all they contribute.
How much further along might we be if Adam Smith's of history contributed more than empty pontification.
Physics of reality itself does not intrinsically value human society or it would preserve them and not tear them asunder via entropy.
Signal attenuation is coming for every society. Just physics things.
Conveniently India and the EU just signed a major trade deal.
Canada’s industrial economy was also undamaged. And so, by definition, the US was not the only one.
No, I think companies that want to stay competitive will leave the US.
That's what the third shoe is for - aircraft carriers.
Pretty much. America is destined for a decline. The billionaires can make money regardless of border by always moving things around and utilizing their expansive resources for any possible loopholes and escape hatches while manipulating public policy.
This is reductive and wrong. The billionares make money hand over fist either way. They own the companies. They don't care if the new campus or factory is in China or India. They skim their cut off it's productivity either way.
It's your fellow countrymen who are peddling the policies that, at the margin, push those investments overseas.
If you want American companies to not outsource any jobs AND have full foreign market access, get ready to get market access revoked from places like India. They’ll just incentivize their local companies to compete, and Amazon has plenty of local competition there already.
Amazon themselves have experienced in the past how heavy-handed Indian regulators can be.
It’s not a zero-sum game anymore. You cannot have only one side (US companies) capture 100% of the value.
> They’ll just incentivize their local companies to compete
They already do.
> You cannot have only one side (US companies) capture 100% of the value.
This is the value prop of the US military
It was, at least it worked for Europe, but Trump has seemingly managed to ruin that too.
Amazon has contributed enough to the current administration that I doubt they will face any consequences. Maybe another round of shakedowns and more financial contributions, but they have figured out pretty quickly how to play the game and end up on the good side of the current administration.
Amazon's MGM subsidiary spent 75 million dollars thus far on the Melania Trump documentary that by all accounts, is looking like its going to be a box office bomb. Reportedly, 30 million of that 75 went directly to Melania[0]
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/jan/28/melania-trump-d...
https://youtu.be/B1zKWNB2rho?t=230
How do you punish them? Have ICE raid their offices? There is already a significant tax benefit for hiring developers domestically.
> [p]unish companies that are based in the US and outsource to India. It’ll happen in time if this trend continues
They ain't doing squat.
The Trump admin is encouraging technology transfer to India as part of Pax Silica [0] and GOP politicans in Ag heavy Purple States like Iowa [1] and Montana [2] are trying to mollify India after China pivoted from American to Brazilian soybeans [3] and India began tariffing pulses/lentils [4].
Additonally, Indian ONG majors like Reliance are negotiating with the Trump admin to purchase Venezuelan oil now that Maduro is in custody [5] and India SOEs have starting creating partnerships with ExxonMobil [6], Chevron [7], and Phillips66 [7] to "drill baby drill".
As such, what are you going to do lol - Agriculture and Ag adjacent industries employs 22 million Americans [8] and the Energy sector employs 7 million Americans [9] mostly in Red and Purple states. Software only employs around 2 million Americans [10] in either Blue states or Blue pockets of Red States.
[0] - https://x.com/USAmbIndia/status/2010718052992618815
[1] - https://governor.iowa.gov/press-release/2025-09-07/gov-reyno...
[2] - https://www.daines.senate.gov/2026/01/20/daines-travels-to-i...
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-favour-brazilian-s...
[4] - https://www.cramer.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cramer-dai...
[5] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-reliance-talk...
[6] - https://www.livemint.com/companies/ongc-exxonmobil-collabora...
[7] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chevron-phillips-66-...
[8] - https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-d...
[9] - https://usafacts.org/articles/renewable-energy-jobs-grew-in-...
[10] - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
Iowa hasn't been purple for a while. Montana maybe a bit more recently.
For the presidential election sure, but I wouldn't underestimate state level organization of the DNC in the rural west and Midwest.
The issue is fractured fundraising basically undermines the local organization by funding challenger candidates, which alienates local Dems and depresses turnout (TDP is notorious for this).
Iowa is going to be a competitive race hence why Joni Ernst decided to not run for reelection.
TDP?
Fire h1b positions, make them leave the US and rehire them back in their home country. They can train their new co-workers.
I'm not serious but I'm sure some people on H1B have had similar happen. From a business POV this would be an ideal situation.
Just Walk Out was actually 1000 people in India. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-just-walk-out-actual...
This is a nicer way to say to say layoffs/outsourcing while being rewarded by the market for "adopting AI".
Based on what Amazon team you are in more than half are born in India. Makes sense they’d be moving operations there.
For who does not know, in tech Amazon has always been the biggest H1B shop.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2025/11/17/top-u...
I wonder how this is also related to the attacks on the H1B visa.
I'm not american, but it seems to me there are enough american job seekers in CS to justify not needing H1B.
I'm not sure anyway what is the relationship between the potential difficulty of hiring new folks, and firing current folks in USA to offshore roles, are relates.
> it seems to me there are enough american job seekers in CS to justify not needing H1B.
Anecdotal so hold on to your salt but in my social circle here in the US natural-born US citizens vs visa-holders self-select for types of jobs. For example, if my the starting pay is < $80k most of my natural-born American friends don't bother applying. Whereas, my visa-holding friends routinely go well below $50k when searching for jobs or "2 year internships". So, when a company posts a certain type of a job they have a certain demographic in mind already.
Not saying my US friends are uppity as much as visa holders are desperate.
I suppose that is "in the tech field" too, as non-tech people would be happy with an $80K job where a lot are under $50K
I will say my first tech job was $40K and now I have to have a six-fig job just because of my debt.
> I suppose that is "in the tech field" too, as non-tech people would be happy with an $80K job where a lot are under $50K
Indeed. The median salary in America for full time employment is a little over $63K.
Edit: if the message from H1B folk earning $300k+ to voters who earn $63k on average[1] is "You need our superior intellects, you uneducated rubes", then its unlikely to be well-received, especially at a time when blaming foreigners is in vogue.
1. Or a laid-off American tech worker
> as visa holders are desperate
That is the point of most of these programs. If we (as a country) do h1b, those people should be on an automatic path to a green card.
Why? They are obviously being weaponized to suppress wages for native Americans in an environment where tech leaders were saying "learn to code". I think the H1B needs to be cancelled and companies should incur financial penalties for using foreign labor to undercut American workers.
Making h1b an automatic track to a green card (partially) removes the ability for employers to exploit employees on an h1b.
Hiring American workers at current market wages avoids this problem entirely.
>native Americans I know you don't mean indigenous people, so what's the cutoff?
Is it birthright citizenship? But then what about naturalized citizens? And if they count, thennare they screwing over "natives" up and until their swearing in when they instantly join the screwed, or is it more of a continuous spectrum of screwer/screwed? Or, in the other direction, does your family need to have been here a couple of generations for you to count?
However many generations it takes for your skin tone to be white. See also: the President's wife.
you see the reason h1b is so popular with the c-suite in a lot of cases is that you get absolute loyalty to a company that holds all the power of your being allowed to stay in the us. you lose the h1b job and you have limited time to find a new valid employer to sponsor you or else you go back to your country. it's one of the reasons musk loves it for twitter.
H1B transfers are easy. You aren't beholden to an employer.
I've had three different H1Bs. Yes, transfers are easy, but they're sure a hell more risky than staying at your current job and enduring whatever you have to.
You're not beholden to your employer, but you have borderline coercive reasons to stay.
Even a 5% chance you and your partner/kids have to uproot their life is a bigger sacrifice than a 30% wage increase, at least to some people.
Great, yes, but you sure as hell don't have "absolute loyalty" to a company.
Its all relative. A burned out American can drop out tomorrow with no short term plan. H1Bs cannot fo that unless they are ready to go back to their previous country.
You have 60 days to find a new job or get deported. It's a pretty strong lever.
How is that related to a transfer? If you have a job on an H1b, you can get another job and switch to it any time with a transfer.
re-read OOP, not your own jump to "transfer"
My logic is if you can transfer you don't have absolute loyalty. Your logic is... what exactly?
It is unbelievable the kind of misinformation that is spread about immigrants. Thanks for pointing that out
The "problem" is that you have to compensate natives better / treatment.
Just look at the open roles for these companies, all India. They're not hiding it. Don't even need H1B.
There's not a surplus of American developers that can pass interview loops at top tech employers.
They are creating this very surplus by firing 16,000 people who already did. And that's on top of all the mass firings last year.
FAANG has been engaged in mass layoffs for two years now. How can you possibly make the claim that there is a surplus of people who can pass the interview loops? Obviously, there isn't because they are firing people who passed those loops.
You’re ignoring the part where FAANG massively overhired in the years preceding.
Meta and Amazon doubled their headcount in the 2-3 years of the pandemic.
Others like Google increased by 60+%.
You’re also forgetting about this little thing popularly called AI that happened in the intervening years.
There may be an argument that H1B isn’t fit to purpose in a post AI world (although that argument is also false if we think software engineering will remain a viable job going forward, but that’s a different topic).
But it’s much harder to argue that H1B hurt US employers when thr industry they hired the majority of H1B employees in the first 2 decades of the 2000s, also saw some of the highest growth in jobs while simultaneously posting the highest growth in salaries (there may have been certain minor industries hiring a few thousand people, like Oceanographer that had a slightly higher increase, but even that was likely not true because BLS data doesn’t factor compensation in the form of stock options which disproportionally provided wealth for SW engineers relative to other workers).
>You’re ignoring the part where FAANG massively overhired in the years preceding.
Yes, because overhiring is a lie generated to justify layoffs. I'd hope by year 3 that we'd see through this. If they "overhired", why is hiring still up globally while down in the US?
>You’re also forgetting about this little thing popularly called AI that happened in the intervening years.
What about it? Hiring numbers are still up. Its clearly not replacing workers as of now.
Quality outcomes of top tech employers are still somehow lacklustre despite all that.
https://layoffs.fyi/
The domestic talent exists, and companies can leverage it or be punished financially for attempting to “contain labor costs” through leveraging visa workers.
Then why all the layoffs? You don't fire people you've got a shortage of.
Ok, then hire them on an O-1 visa. H1B is the problem as it creates a indentured servitude class that is going to work for less.
H1B workers cost more on average than permanent residents. That’s just based on salary. Once you account for the fees and legal costs and risks of the immigration process, H1B workers are way more expensive. Also, these visas can be transferred between companies.
There’s no such thing as an indentured servitude class here - this is just part of the giant racist misinformation machine of the right, to make it seem like shutting it down would somehow be doing those employees a favor. In reality it’ll hurt the entire country.
None of what you're saying is related to what the parent post is saying at all. He's saying, if the immigrants are exceptional, they should be on an O-1 visa, which is specifically designed for exceptional people. If they're not exceptional, then why not hire an unemployed American worker instead?
H1B supposedly is designed to address "shortages", but there are no actual shortages.
bUt wE wAnT tHe BeSt oF tHe BeSt!!!11
> there are enough american job seekers in CS
To be blunt: Not enough qualified ones. Look at the names of all the top AI papers of the past 3 years, not too many are American.
When you get bullied in American public schools for being a "nerd" and liking science and math, your country doesn't exactly produce a lot of state-of-the-art STEM professionals. You get a small handful of exceptional people who overcame the adversity but that's it.
The top 0.1% are perhaps mostly American-educated. The top 10% on the other hand are mostly not American. And you need the top 10% to code for the top 0.1%.
Producing AI papers isn't the job requirement for 99.9% of STEM jobs.
I won't talk about other fields, but American devs (regardless of race) tend to be much more passionate about computer science and (perhaps as a result) tend to be much better at their job than those from the big-name outsourcing countries.
I was tasked with finding an Indian hire a while ago. I lost count of exactly how many people I had to interview. (I spent a huge portion of my time for over a year doing interviews). We were looking for a senior developer, but settled for at most an intermediate developer. We swapped between multiple top-rated Indian recruiting firms, gave automated tests, had their interviewers ask pre-screening questions, but nothing helped improve candidate quality in any real way. I caught more people than I could count cheating answers on technical interviews (probably how they got past the screeners). We didn't even look at anyone without at least 10 years of "experience", but less than 10% of candidates could write basic fizzbuzz (and some of them accidentally showed that they were using GPT to try to code what we wanted because they didn't have a clue).
It may be an anecdote, but the sample size was quite large and we are a F500 company with the ability to attract talent, so I think its likely that we were attracting better-than-average candidates too.
EDIT: I'd add that it's not just my team. I've sat as an observer for a lot of other hiring interviews and they had the same problem. Across our company, we've had massive turnover in our outsourced India centers because the people they hired did such poor work.
> I won't talk about other fields, but American devs (regardless of race) tend to be much more passionate about computer science and (perhaps as a result) tend to be much better at their job than those from the big-name outsourcing countries.
Then why are half the websites I use broken? Why is my hospital's billing estimate system broken? Why did my FSA provider send a request of documentation to the wrong e-mail address? Why is my bank's website always broken? Why did Equifax leak data? Why did Doordash mis-charge me?
> Indian recruiting firms
There's your problem. Most top talent doesn't find jobs via recruiting firms.
> Then why are half the websites I use broken? Why is my hospital's billing estimate system broken? Why did my FSA provider send a request of documentation to the wrong e-mail address? Why is my bank's website always broken? Why did Equifax leak data? Why did Doordash mis-charge me?
I can't speak to all of those, but Doordash has extensively outsourced its software teams to India. I also know that lots of hospital software companies also outsource to India. Your FSA provider probably had someone in a call center transcribe an email incorrectly and we all know most call centers aren't in the US either...
> There's your problem. Most top talent doesn't find jobs via recruiting firms.
You'd need to prove this statement. F500 companies have more money than most companies and pretty much exclusively hire through recruiters. If you were top talent and wanted to work for a top overseas company, it seems like working with a recruitment agency would be a no-brainer.
In any case, I had zero say in who to use. I was handed some contacts and told to make it work.
Why is everything broken? American MBA culture. PE wealth extraction. A bought and paid for political class.
Zero situational awareness, DGAF as long as number go up.
> Then why are half the websites I use broken? Why is my hospital's billing estimate system broken? Why did my FSA provider send a request of documentation to the wrong e-mail address? Why is my bank's website always broken? Why did Equifax leak data? Why did Doordash mis-charge me?
Well… you may be answering your own question if you think about it really, really hard.
tell us more about your racial-based hiring
We used to have contractors/employees from a bunch of different countries (India, EU, Eastern Europe, South America, etc). Our (largely Indian) tech management pushed very hard for us to offshore to India exclusively.
We had to let people go who had been great contributors. Some of them were actually CHEAPER than the Indians who replaced them. I tried very hard to keep one of these people and after much politics up and down the management chain ultimately got "yes, he's a proven coder who does great work and costs less than all our recent Indian hires, but you have to let him go anyway because he's not based in India". I've never encountered something like that and it tells me that money wasn't the primary driving factor at all.
I have also observed strong racial preference in american companies just as you describe -- indian, chinese, and korean management building almost exclusively same-race teams or outsourcing work to their home country, etc.
It's really gross but I'd never been in the position to be told explicitly to find a $whatever. That's illegal in the US but appears to be unenforced.
> When you get bullied in American public schools for being a "nerd" and liking science and math, your country doesn't exactly produce a lot of state-of-the-art STEM professionals.
Its worse than that. when I lived in america, I found that being a software engineer was a dealbreaker when it came to dating most women. Imagine my surprise going to other countries and finding that my chosen profession made me high value proposition to most women.
As an American this does not match my experience at all.
What profession were those women looking for?
Vets, climate change scientists, doctors, environmental lawyers and athletics. Bonus points for trustfunds and influencers. Women want to make as much as men but also want their partner to make more than them.
Ever see a female doctor marrying a plumber or construction worker? No they marry Male doctors or lawyer of higher status.
> climate change scientists
They aren't known for making a lot of money, but I guess "I'm saving the world" is an attractive quality in a mate.
Has it ever occurred to you that all those fields have one thing in common? it's empathy. The people in those positions tend to not be the kind to murder you when you say no. Not saying that's true for blue collar men, but the odds are significantly higher. Also doctors and lawyers naturally tend to be around doctors and lawyers, that's hardly the crazy observation you seem to think it is
Not sure lawyers or climate scientists have more empathy then a middle age man who lives with his mother and cares for her while getting a disability check. But woman prefer the former.
The answer is woman value status.
Getting murdered is a hollywood / news fear that rarely happens. People should be worried about deadly things that happen often like cancer or heart attacks. Those are rarely the leading story on the nightly news.
Programmers are around programmers but the rate they marry another programmer is much less. Even with a gender imbalance women programmers are not seeking male programmers like women doctors.
I implore you to look at r/whenwomenrefuse
Sure but that doesn't fit the notion of "being a software engineer is a turnoff".
Bartenders, starving artists, musicians, and athletes?
They tend to have personality, which I and most women consider more important than looks or money in my experience
I don't think most professional athletes are lauded for their "personality".
The other 3, sure. Bartenders need to be good at talking to people to succeed, and artists need to be more eccentric (in a different way from nerds) for their own success.
Those are the ones they fool around with; not the ones they marry.
Ha yeah. “You’re a really interesting person and a great fuck, but you don’t make enough money for this to be serious”
the same person, a short while later
“Why doesn’t anyone love me!?”
What is going on in this page haha
Tech industry has no problems working with state police forces to imprison woman that get abortions or just generally profit off of making teenage girls depressed.
We should applaud those women for not willing to date people that inflict misery and death upon them.
Maybe the kids are alright after all?
What industry has put actual resistance to these in these times? Plenty of Hollywood has wool over their eyes (though a few are starting to speak out), Sports bent the knee for a full year (especially FIFA), law firms capitulated, hospitals aren't gonna lose their massive profit margins over the health care stuff.
No industry is coming out of this with a clean bill of health. You as an individual can only choose to not work with the most evil ones.
Industries don't, people do. One thing to keep in mind is that corporations have always worked with fascism, they will never resist but workers can. Sabotage takes many forms and one can just look at how Dutch resistance worked against the Nazis.
You can do many things to sabotage that are nonviolent and also highly effective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_resistance
I'd also be weary with your examples; many hospitals are experiencing effective strikes or law firms that capitulated are struggling finding clients or lost valuable workers.
>I'd also be weary with your examples; many hospitals are experiencing effective strikes or law firms that capitulated are struggling finding clients or lost valuable workers.
Well yes. That was partially my point. Tech is no different; there's a lot of companies capitulating but I see a huge surge of people speaking out against this. Even people you largely think of as non-partisan previously. I don't think it's fair to pit me into some fascist state because of a company I no longer work for nor perhaps never worked for.
But tech lacks the unions that other industries have and by its nature is a lot more scattered out. I can't do much more than the ones criticizing the companies with regards to providing a "Dutch resistance"; I don't work for them (heck, I don't even have a full time job as of now) and I've done a lot of culling of what I use over the decade. Probably more than what many have done, but still seemingly insignificant in terms of their bottom line.
I'm all for collective action, but I'm still looking for that collection. It seems like things need to get as bad as Minneapolis before that collection emerges.
I mean, I'm a woman and a software dev.. I suppose I'm not most women though.
Anecdotally men in tech jobs tend to either be the best I've ever met or the worst I've ever met (loosely related to why they're in the field to begin with)
> Look at the names of all the top AI papers of the past 3 years, not too many are American.
There are plenty of Americans who don’t have a European names.
> When you get bullied in American public schools for being a "nerd" and liking science and math, your country doesn't exactly produce a lot of state-of-the-art STEM professionals. You get a small handful of exceptional people who overcame the adversity but that's it.
Is bullying nerds still happening? It was commonplace when I was young in the 1980s. (In fact, it was so common that it was the basis of the 1984 movie Revenge of the Nerds.) But I had thought the social status of nerds and geeks had leveled up a few times since then. Did the level-ups not happen?
> But I had thought the social status of nerds and geeks had leveled up a few times since then.
Only in places like Palo Alto, Boston, Seattle, etc.
Not in most of the cornfield country.
Yes and no. Generally, you don't necessarily get bullied but you lose opportunities to interact with people. Most students in the US do not care about academics more than they need to, and the kind of "nerd" to care about math and science likely doesn't have much to talk about with these people or even is able to have a meaningful conversation without being told something along the lines of "it's not that deep" or "I'm not reading allat"
What's an American name? Are you referring to WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) names?
Sorry man, American raised autists beat chinese 996 every day of the week. shrug.
I mean that in the cultural sense, not racially. ABC autists are S tier too.
I’m not sure why you’re getting downvoted. The most important paper in the AI era was written by a team of immigrants.
Because it's an attack on 'american culture', I'm not even sure if nerds get bullied that much in school anymore.
Often "nerds" are the ones bullying, i say "nerds" because the people getting good grades and into great universities, the ones getting into tech, are often just strivers instead of nerds.
"Real nerds" are a tiny minority of people in any country and I doubt they account for most immigrants in the US, it's mostly just upper middle class strivers I've noticed.
> there are enough american job seekers in CS to justify not needing H1B.
As an interviewer in a big tech company, it seems all candidates I interview are foreigners who often graduated in the US. Either the company discriminates (which I really doubt it does), or there aren't enough qualified Americans for some jobs. And even if there are, the largest pool of candidates, the better.
> And even if there are, the largest pool of candidates, the better.
More competition is not inherently "better" nor does it necessarily yield greater innovation. Trying to impose arbitrary competition as some abstract principle is just masochism.
Big tech companies are biased to sourcing from big name universities that have a lot of foreign students, and big tech companies were much more likely to go through the effort of H1B than smaller companies. As such your candidate pool is more heavily skewed than elsewhere.
All the conspiracies theories can be put to bed by walking into any engineering department (maybe outside of biomedical engineering…which makes me think this may be related to how Americans demonize math) and observing that the majority of students are foreign or maybe second generation immigrants.
This ratio gets worse because American students are disproportionately more likely to follow up their engineering undergrad with law or business school, so even if they may be engineers they’ll get into business and/or something like patent attorney going forward.
There wasn't any demonization of math when I was in school, but no shortage of "you can grow up to be anything" and "do what you love" rather than "get a job that will pay for doing all the things you love".
There's nothing wrong with being a librarian or getting an MA in Museum Studies, aside from the price of getting the degree and the low odds of getting a job without waiting for someone to die so another position opens up.
There's a reason you won't find a lot of foreign students pursuing them, though.
The conspiracy here is that somehow US spending on primary/secondary education ranks among the top, yet we are unable to produce competitive college students. And we mask this very serious problem from directly rippling into our economy by... importing students and workers.
1) There's a very reasonable chance the company discriminates. Sorry, but once bitten, twice shy. One company gets caught at it and the whole industry develops a reputation.
2) If you've got a problem finding candidates, there's 16,000 more on the market now. Congratulations!
3) If you think there must be something wrong with those 16,000, well, that would explain where your pipeline is going wrong.
> There's a very reasonable chance the company discriminates
I don't see how this is even possible. There would be a memo from the CEO to 1000s of recruiters asking them to favor foreigners? that would leak immediately.
They pay the top Indian firms for candidate referrals. And a CEO would say we need more diversity and make that a company goal.
It's really easy to see that big tech is interviewing only people who passed an initial filter which at this point is AI based. They're clearly filtering for some characteristics they want in a candidate, and most probably the filter is giving you the people you mentioned.
Better for whom?
Businesses, the consumers who buy their products, and the global workforce.
The global workforce benefits from higher salaries and higher demand for labor, not from zero- or negative-sum moves of jobs from one place to another.
"foreigners who often graduated in the US"
This is still the case in US Comp Sci programs. There are some Americans in these programs but it's mostly Indian and Chinese. The American kids gravitate to the business schools.
The company itself might not discriminate as a policy, but some hiring managers certainly have their preferences. Or exclusively pull talent from their overseas cousin's brother's spouse's college roommate's consulting firm that is most certainly not a grift.
Nothing to do with it, just following a trend before the attacks: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-nadella-pledges-3-b...
There haven't been any meaningful attacks on H1b visa. When running for office, Trump said very clearly that H1b was good for his companies (saving money), but bad for the American people.
Today, he's claiming that we need H1b because we don't know how to build computer chips (~75% come from India with zero advanced production and another ~12% come from China which is also far behind).
His "massive" $100k increase over 7 years is just a bit over $14k/yr. I had a former H1b programmer (now legal immigrant) I worked with tell me about his experience. Getting paid less than $40k to live in Austin, TX and living with a half-dozen other H1b indenured servants/slaves in a tiny shared apartment just so they could survive the 7 years and get on the path to citizenship.
Do you think those companies would bat an eye about increasing their expenses from $40k to $54k per year when median dev salary back then (2015) was around $92k/yr? After a decade of inflation, that $14k is even less important.
Over-immigration with H2b and illegal immigration suppresses blue-collar wages (Bernie Sanders famously called open borders a "Koch brothers proposal"). H1b and outsourcing to India centers suppresses white-collar wages.
Do you see prices dropping as they cut worker salaries and outsource? Can you even buy things when you don't have a job?
Trump (and the rest of the uniparty) has enabled corporate theft on a scale that's never been seen before and the chickens are going to be coming home to roost really soon.
Sorry but making around $40k in 2015 would not, under any circumstance, require you to live with 6 roommates in Austin. That is EXTREME hyperbole lol
My first IT job in Austin in 2010 paid $18 an hour and I had my own apartment and car.
Maybe they wanted to live together to save money (remember, the rest of their family isn't in the US), but that is irrelevant to the fact that they were paid way less than half the going rate in that city (I remember his stated salary being a little over $30k, so I errored on the high side). We were pretty close and when he told me the story, there wasn't any reason for him to lie. Who am I to say his experience isn't real?
If you read this person's comments, looks like they are just making up crap. Apparently this one person has met or interviewed all the Indian H1Bs in the US.
Very related IMO. Even before Trump US workforce was expensive, now limit the influx of new workforce and hiring abroad looks like a logical decision
Imagine that! It's almost like it's coordinated. Surely the US government would never do something like that on purpose.
I can't imagine Donald Trump would harm the US on purpose.
He absolutely would harm some people in the US to benefit other people in the US. The same is true for many many other businesspeople and politiciansl
Once again the mask of "AI" is really just human labor underneath.
I've personally seen founders raise millions of dollars because of "AI" that is really just manual labor. I know, I wrote the code that enabled the manual laborers. This was like 10 years ago; the lie is even easier to tell now. And that is so so important in an economy where gaining favor from those who already have money is far better than just selling a good or service.
Back when IBM Watson was a thing, the rumor I heard was that it was actually just a big team of data people and programmers who would bang out stuff in a hurry and then they would pretend like the AI came up with it.
I've sat on many meetings and gotten to trial many "AI products", and a good portion of them do have actual LLMs attempting to perform work. Though most of them are brittle wrappers of the big AI labs, with an aspirational markup.
The AI of ten years ago is not the AI of now...
The AI of today can do more, yes. But the path to funding and success doesn't require actual AI use, just the appearance of AI. No need to actually sell a good or service in a profitable manner. Just convince those with money that you have some secret-scaling-AI-sauce, and you'll be a success without ever having to sell an actual product.
The founder I mentioned earlier sold the company and thanked us all for the amazing journey, and then started his next thing in his multi-million dollar house. All built on a lie that made the company look good.
But the scam is still the same.
"do things that don't scale" and what not
This is and always has been an eventuality. It's like fighting inertia or gravity to think otherwise. When the pay disparity is so massive, what is the incentive to hire US talent?
I say that as an American that is concerned with our local economies and employment but that's not looking through rose colored glasses.
If a company is looking to offshore a function purely on the basis of cost differential, that’s a sure sign the company believes the function has been commoditized and is immune from competitive selection.
That’s a specific slice of the workforce, not all of it.
How small can that slice be though?
It’s only really needed on true blue ocean innovation and where the company has to find the skills where they exist. If that’s the US, then sure they’ll continue some small slice of employment here for those projects. But as you said, a majority of software is a commodity now (has been for a long time, really). I don't feel like many companies are doing much innovative anymore and I feel people severely underestimate the talent present in other countries. So, even if you pointed to 10 innovation projects at Amazon then I could counter by saying even 85% of those teams could be in India.
Amazon's entire business model depends on importing cheap Chinese made goods so this isn't a real surprise.
AWS accounts for more than 50% of Amazon net profit though
AI = actually Indians
Maybe the support scammers can get some real jobs as prompt engineers? Hey I'm trying to find some upside around all this.
> Hey I'm trying to find some upside around all this.
More AWS outages means more breaks from work?
Sorry, VP says we're migrating. What? Will they see it through? Of course not!
I wonder what kind of unprecedented economic growth we'd be seeing right now if we kept with the status quo rather than imposing tariffs and scaring off foreign investors.
The US was setting itself for quite a recovery in 2024... and for a class war too, so IDK what would get there first.
Yeah, and as part of the "class war", a majority of the lower classes decided to elect a billionaire whose first order of business was to implement giant tax cuts for the richest Americans while cutting programs like Medicaid and SNAP.
Class war will never work in America because we're too stupid.
Correction: the class war already started long ago. Unfortunately the lower classes are not only getting trounced, they mostly don’t know the war is happening.
It turned out the revolution was always being televised, only it was us thinking what we saw was a reflection of society, not that it was being delivered to us disguised as our own ideas.
The needle has swung so far in the opposite direction that a class war is back on the menu.
Mass layoffs started in 2022, there was no setting for recovery in 2024.
Mass layouts started when the government increased the interest rate to fight inflation. By 2024, inflation was already under control, the interest rate was falling slowly, and companies were starting to hire.
Correlation without causation. In 2024 companies were not starting to hire.
I mean maybe that's the good news. There is huge potential for an upswing!
I don't think that's how it works. It's not like coiling a spring it's more like starting to roll a ball down a hill, once you ruin it it keeps getting worse in a feedback loop as various systems feed on each other (populism, erosion of norms, etc).
I think you're grossly underestimating European naivete. You probably did fuck up your relationship with Canada though. They didn't seem happy about that one.
I'm talking more about intra-country dynamics, rather than inter-country. Momentum, good or bad, is a thing. It's not that mysterious, we can trace it to things that feed off each other, like the inflation <-> populism loop, which makes civic institutions progressively worse over time. Turkey is a modern case study. This is the opposite of the "coiled spring" analogy, where if a country get worse it is bound to get better even stronger.
So Putin is culling his people so the next generation can have more!
It’s going to be so great. Everyone’s will notice it. Just you wait.
[flagged]
Dollar is losing value by the day, gold and silver on record high and somehow this is not an indicator for huge uncertainty?
China is beating the US on pretty much every stage and this only accelerates this.
And yet prices are marginally up while all the "economists" expected major inflation. Dollar vs Euro is at same level now as it was in 2019 - there are benefits to the economy as well when the currency is less strong.
I keep seeing this “marginally higher” statement about prices, usually as part of a “things are actually fine” argument, but everything in my life has increased in cost in a way I just don’t understand. Is it that these are counterbalanced in some way making it not macroeconomically relevant?
> "economists" expected major inflation
Gold front runs monetary policy and "economists" aren't the only ones trading that. Look at the gold chart for the past year. I don't think it's really disputed that high inflation is on the horizon due to the debt situation (which Trump has made worse with the OBBB)
> there are benefits to the economy as well when the currency is less strong
Care to list those? I can think of a few but it assumes that we're already in the position of being an export based economy which we're not and not tangibly working towards.
> I don't think it's really disputed that high inflation is on the horizon
This is moving the goalpost because you know economists (the critics) forecasted major inflation sooner/now, and it hasn't happened.
> Care to list those? [...] it assumes that we're already in the position of being an export based economy which we're not and not tangibly working towards.
You're not making sense or making coherent thoughts. The US is still the #2 exporting country in the world in absolute terms despite importing a relatively higher amount.
> This is moving the goalpost because you know economists (the critics) forecasted major inflation sooner/now
Yes, because no one expected him to chicken out as hard as he did. It also came out that people in his cabinet (specifically Howard Lutnick) were betting against tariffs while simultaneously advocating for them. The legal opinion is heavily leaning towards them being illegal after many lower court decisions. Do you care to explain how tariffs wouldn't be inflationary if the actions matched the rhetoric?
> The US is still the #2 exporting country
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Look at how much we import vs how much we export. What would you call an economy that imports more than it exports? A ___ based economy?
> Do you care to explain how tariffs wouldn't be inflationary if the actions matched the rhetoric?
It's like you're asking people to explain something that happened as if there's no explanation beyond your hatred of Trump. Why do you choose to dismiss drivers like stockpiling inventory, increased USMCA compliance, broader economic offsets (AI/tech boom, energy production) that could explain how tariffs aren't necessarily inflationary?
> Look at how much we import vs how much we export. What would you call an economy that imports more...
You ask this as if I didn't say the US imports more than it exports.
> Why do you choose to dismiss drivers like stockpiling inventory, increased USMCA compliance, broader economic offsets (AI/tech boom, energy production)
Okay, so you're admitting that they're inflationary but choose to rattle off a list of random stuff that somehow, magically, offsets the increased costs from tariffs. Please go into detail on one of those, including what you're talking about (e.g. what is "increased USCMA compliance"?)
AI datacenters have increased energy costs in the localities where they're based and raised memory prices by eating up all the supply.
> You ask this as if I didn't say the US imports more than it exports.
So.. you were agreeing with my point then? I don't understand why you'd call my thoughts "not coherent" then agree with it.
> Okay, so you're admitting that they're inflationary but choose to rattle off a list of random stuff that somehow, magically, offsets the increased costs from tariffs.
Haha! I haven't seen someone try to dismiss counterarguments as "magic." I should've said that more when I got answers wrong on my tests in high school.
> So.. you were agreeing with my point then?
If not "magic," then the objector "actually agrees" with you.
I asked you to elaborate since you didn't explain anything, hence the use of "magic" which is sometimes referred to as hand waving. I'll take your non-response as a sign that you're not interested in elaborating for reasons.
You’re arguing that tariffs aren’t inflationary by bringing up other events affecting the economy, which I agree with ‘hypeatei needs explaining, but even assuming those do offset the tariffs you’re still incorrect.
Tariffs definitionally are inflationary.
>You’re arguing that tariffs aren’t inflationary by bringing up other events affecting the economy
Huh? You're not reading what I said and instead are relying on accusations. It's also weird to say direct behaviors triggered by tariffs don't play into realized inflation. That's mental gymnastics.
>Tariffs definitionally are inflationary.
No. Weird thing to be confidently incorrect about. Tariffs are price increasing (colloquially "inflationary"), but not definitionally inflationary in the economic meaning. Look it up.
> Tariffs are price increasing (colloquially "inflationary"), but not definitionally inflationary in the economic meaning. Look it up.
Weird (okay, not all that weird, but ironic, in context) thing to be confidently incorrect about.
Outside of the overtly ideology-over-description Austrian School of economics, which has a different jargon designed to advance their ideology, the general definition of (unqualified) inflation in economics is a sustained increase in general price levels.
And belief that the Austrian School usage is just the “economic meaning” is a pretty good sign that someone doesn't understand even Austrian School economics beyond rote recitation of doctrines and aphorisms.
Wait.
We agree.
Saying it needs to be a sustained increase is consistent with what I said above.
No, we do not agree.
The introduction of tariffs does, assuming no additional countervailing policy changes, result in sustained general price increases. (Over time, adaptation to the tariffs will, in cases where there aren't hard reasons preventing this, become more diffuse across products than they are initially at introduction, but the net long-term effect is still a general price increase.)
> assuming no additional countervailing policy changes
When you add this qualifier who is disagreeing? This is tautological.
It's like you're making a point that doesn't flow from the original discussion and point raised that economists missed the mark on how much Trump's tariffs would cause extreme inflation for everyday US citizens. They still can (TBD), but haven't to the extent predicted.
> > assuming no additional countervailing policy changes
> When you add this qualifier who is disagreeing?
Anyone who disagrees that tariffs are inflationary. If you enact them, price level increases are produced which are sustained unless some other event unrelated to the tariffs introduces a deflationary effect which offsets the inflationary effect of the tariffs.
>some other event unrelated to the tariffs introduces
I appreciate your good faith approach to discussion.
IMHO, this has devolved into semantics and has fallen astray from the original discussion above.
Here's an example to demonstrate semantics:
1. Trump put tariffs.
2. USMCA (read: NAFTA 2.0) exemptions, pre-existing policy, started to get used more to avoid tariffs.
They are unrelated in that the policies are different. However, they are related because companies became more incentivized to use the exemptions as a result of the tariff. Nothing new (AFAIK) was "introduced" on just this combo alone.
Do tariffs increase the price paid for an item?
No one can continue discussing with you if base facts can’t be agreed upon.
Do tariffs increase the price I pay for an imported item subject to tariffs?
Yes or no? No quibbling about other shit.
Does the price increase?
Patty Melt at Waffle House is like $15 now. Thanks Trump.
Isn't China currently stuck in a deflation loop?
It's very very easy to make stocks go up. Zimbabwe and Venezuela have stock markets that have gone up millions of times over for instance. The stock market is mostly just an inverse of currency health and tends to be inline or slightly above inflation on average, even when the economy is a complete mess.
No one ever judges economic health by the stock market which you seem to be doing. You judge it be things like median wealth (currently below 2007 levels in the USA) and employment figures.
You can use non-USD currencies to judge how the US stock market has fared to avoid the issues with currency health. You may argue that dollar-denominated returns aren't real, but SPY isn't down even when denominated in EUR https://ycharts.com/indices/%5ESPXEUR
>median wealth (currently below 2007 levels in the USA)
This is outdated -- it surpassed 2007 levels in 2022. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/table...
> SPY isn't down even when denominated in EUR
*SPX and no, it's down 2% when denominated in Euros while up 15% when denominated in dollars. I wouldn't say the USD has fared well so far.
> The stock market is mostly just an inverse of currency health and tends to be inline or slightly above inflation on average...
This is demonstrably false? Long-term average US inflation since 1913 is 3.1% [0]. Long-term nominal average US stock returns since 1928 are 9.94% [1]. A nearly 7% advantage compounded every year for roughly a century is not "slightly above", it is absolutely enormous. Over 60,000% enormous.
Furthermore, when inflation is high, interest rates go up, and interest rates act like gravity on stock prices. See any number of Warren Buffett shareholder letters. See also: the year 2022. Stock market returns are mildly negatively correlated with inflation (with a coefficient of -0.229 [2]).
[0] https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term...
[1] https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2025/01/historical-returns-...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rmiller/2024/06/20/90-years-of-...
For rate rises that are enacted to slow inflation (which slows stock market growth as you said) i think you have the cause and effect reversed.
The best way to see how inflation and stocks are linked is to look at economies where inflation is not intentionally slowed by rate rises. The stocks go up more or less with inflation (and some small % of gains they may have on top as you say). When you have rate rises that slow inflation you do indeed slow stock growth. But this is also inline with the link between inflation and stock price.
I thought you were joking with you earlier comments.
> The stock market is mostly just an inverse of currency health
> The stock market [] tends to be inline or slightly above inflation on average
Now, you're saying the following, when there's no strong positive link.
> The stocks go up more or less with inflation
> and employment figures
Just to add onto your point, bad employment numbers can actually be bullish for stocks due to a higher chance of Fed rate cuts. Obviously there is a threshold there because if too many people are unemployed then no one can buy stuff, but it just highlights how disconnected stocks are from the economy.
> No one ever judges economic health by the stock market which you seem to be doing
On the news stations they do, and it was a bunch of FUD about the stock markets tanking.
Tesla, too. "Look what he's done to his brand, let's hit him in the wallet" blah blah.
That was while things were in a downtrend. It was going to be the biggest recession ever, Trump was so stupid he couldn't possibly understand the ramifications, etc.
Then it just never happened. Things went up.
The initial dip was bought up by retail investors then everyone realized TACO (Trump always chickens out) so the markets don't really care about tariff threats anymore.
What benefit have we gotten from the chaotic tariff policy? Any trade deals?
I think the talk was significant inflation, because everything will cost more. And it does.
My costs are falling.
I buy a lot of groceries for my business, so I have decent records. Beef is way up, though.
Gas is way down as well.
Oil prices have fallen. And likely will through the rest of the year. And the US conspicuously didn't apply tariffs on oil from Canada (while simultaneously saying "we don't need anything from Canada" and threatening our sovereignty and tariffing everything else) which is a huge amount of imports into the US.
Oil prices down isn't necessarily a good thing for an oil exporter like the US though. In aggregate.
If the US had actually applied tariffs on Canadian oil your gas pump prices would be up very significantly.
Really?
Canadian crude imports are about 20-25% of crude feedstock for gasoline in the US. Put a 10% import tax on top. Keeping things the same, that's <5% increase in domestic wholesale prices.
Since the administration have stopped releasing some data that usually is released, how fast would people be able to notice that the economy tanked, if it did?
Well technically, the economy has tanked (sort of), people say that the economy's doing great but the figures that we see in (q4?) are extrapolated from the previous quaters in which the only thing (from what people tell me) is keeping the "illusion" of economy doing good is the spending within AI datacenters. But a huge part of that is shrouded within mystery as well (Stargate project is really suspicious in my honest opinion though I can be wrong)
Also wasn't there some BLS figure which was pushed by the Administration to try to have good numbers or similar. I mean speaking from a different countries pov, Personally I wouldn't trust the numbers the current administration gives.
I don't know if this is the same belief that Americans within America also hold though.
if you look at non ai / tech stuff, isn't the economy pretty bad? they stopped reporting unemployment numbers and BLS statistics and all
AI investment/datacenter construction was roughly 1% of US GDP in 2025 all by itself.
That and people were expecting the tariffs to be consistently applied as stated, instead we got... this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr7OVWgqDIM&t=27s
So it wasn't what they expected?
You're accusing people of moving the goalposts on the tariff conversation, the goal posts were doing backflips and jazzercise from the day they were announced.
So yeah, the tariffs are still a net negative on the economy, but have been so erratically and poorly implemented that they're not nearly as bad as they could have been. It's like a plastered drunk guy swinging a knife at you. It's a lethal threat, but he's tripping over himself constantly and can barely stand so it's easy to dodge for now. Could be a more serious issue if he ever sobers up.
I agree they've been very erratic. What does that have to do with whether or not our economy tanked as a result? It didn't, the prophecies were FUD, everything he does is bad, blah blah.
Trump's a lethal threat that is too incompetent to be lethal? Okay. So quit with the FUD then.
So you'd turn your back on the knife wielding drunk guy and turn on Netflix because he hasn't managed to stab you yet?
FUD stands for fear, uncertainty and doubt. If you didn't feel any of that in the previous year you haven't been paying attention or don't have any serious responsibilities.
I felt it, because I believed the tariffs would tank the economy.
Now I'm rethinking my position.
Bröther look at the value of USD.
People are fleeing to gold.
Smart people talk about differential impact; i.e compare what we’re seeing today against the counterfactual. / I’m not aware of solid reasoning that argues in favor of tariffs, differentially speaking. / I’m happy to look at models that aren’t a waste of time.
I guess you mean informed people. There's a whole lot of smart people in this thread who aren't talking about differentials.
I don't know shit about tariffs, except what everyone said in the news. It was going to tank the economy. Everyone's retirement was going to poof into smoke. Everything was going to cost 2 or 3x previous prices. None of that came to pass.
I bought gas at 2.27 a couple hours ago. Groceries are cheaper than last year. I'm personally making more money than I was a year ago. My business depends on other people having entertainment/spending money.
I'm just a dummy though, so I can't glean some expert insight into the differential. I don't have a model for you, just the real world.
How do you think the economy is doing? What do the differential impact models, that aren't a waste of time, say about it?
It sounds like you are interested, noticing some inconsistencies, and trying to get to the bottom of it, which is a good place to start!
> I bought gas at 2.27 a couple hours ago. Groceries are cheaper than last year. I'm personally making more money than I was a year ago. My business depends on other people having entertainment/spending money.
Comparing Metric(t=0) to Metric(t=1) is a tempting but incorrect way to assess the quality of an intervention. Lots of people think this way, but it is a flawed heuristic that should be avoided whenever possible. Instead, one should compare: PredictedMetric(action=A, time=1) to PredictedMetric(action=B, time=1). This is obvious when one thinks about it, but people get lazy.
To state in another way: when assessing economic policies, it is smarter to compare the observed outcome against the counterfactual outcome. Forgetting or overlooking this is common, but I won't defend or excuse such sloppy thinking.
--
The problem with stating it that way is that I don't think it really drives the point home. Think about someone in a hurry or someone who doesn't know what "counterfactual means... will they stop and _think_? I wouldn't bet on it. So, I'm a fan of hitting people over the head. Show a table:
You can find an example table (with values) at https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-novembe... (Table 1). For example, it shows that removing tariffs would differentially increase household income by about $900 and reduce employment by 0.3%. That's about 500,000 jobs in the US, assuming a labor force of around 170 million.Will people agree on the models? To say it bluntly (using the "hit them over the head principle"), asking the question like that is bone-headed. Asking it like that is the wrong question, and it misses the whole f-ing point. How on earth we claim to have an educated society when people pose questions like that? We really need to step it up a notch. We've all heard "good journalism gives equal weight to both sides". Fine. But in practice this doesn't get us very far. First, there are more than two sides. Second, hearing out all sides is only the beginning, not the end. Third, practically speaking, if we actually want to make sense of the world in real situations, we're going to discount and possibly completely toss out a whole lot of extraneous, uninformed crap. (Very few serious economists take Trump's economic plans seriously, and there are good reasons for throwing them in the trash! Once one understands what is happening, even mentioning them is usually a waste of time.)
But I digress.
A better question is: on what bases do reasonable people agree and disagree? Using quantitative and substantive models, how can we move forward on making actual testable predictions? Assessing the error in a prediction must not be a matter of opinion. Unless there is a tie, someone is going to be less wrong than the other person. There is no wiggling out of it due to vague language or "miscommunication". That's one key advantage of models. People that care and seek the truth are more likely to share their models. Done right, this will shift the discussion into model specifics and people will have to show their work. This tends to weed out unserious people pretty quickly. (Unfortunately, in many cases, closed models are valuable and so are not shared openly.)
--
I don't often find mainstream journalism that covers any technical topic very well, and this includes economics. I'm not here to blame anyone -- many journalists operate in contexts where time constraints and audience expectations are unlikely to meet my quality bar. Sometimes I will give business analysts a bit more credence, but not much. The world lacks good systems for (a) disseminating clear, testable predictions that (b) lay out their counterfactuals. Heck, I'm surprised when I find even one of the two.
Here's my unsolicited advice. Don't bother reading what "most people" say about economic issues. Ask various friends and network for high quality sources and explore on your own. On this topic, I suggest starting with "When Are Tariffs Optimal?" by Thomas Lubik [1].
Once you have an understanding of what economic models predict, then you can dig a bit deeper. I put close to zero weight when reading mainstream writing on technical topics. If you don't go to the primary sources, you are delegating your thinking. It doesn't take that much work to read the summary from the source material.
[1]: https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_b... Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond - Economic Brief - May 2025, No. 25-21
That's because Trump gave many extensions and concessions to so many countries. Remember there was 125% on China in May 2025 before Xi decided to use rare earth minerals to fight back. Maybe you have heard of TACO. So the tariffs as threatened never panned out in reality.
How come all the existing tariffs don't tank the economy?
They are affecting specific industries and consumers. The inflation right now is stable only because oil is so cheap. And that has nothing to do with tariffs.
Sure, when the arbitrary tarriff formula was announced for every nation, the stock markets were down thousands, and the bond market was fluctuating. Then you had the short term trade war with China were both countries set tarrifs so high no imports/exports between the two happened for a month, and there was a concern about empty shelves in major department stores.
But as one Wall Street executive put it, "Trump also chickens out", so Wall Street learned he would backdown on any tariffs that had too much negative economic impact.
So Trump's tariffs didn't tank the economy because everyone outsmarted him?
Because the advertised quantity of tariffs exceeded the actual reality.
The impact to social bonds between the US and other Western nations has been thrown completely off track, and now they are looking for exits from anything US related.
These tarrifs were the absolutely dumbest thing imaginable, and have brought the post WWII period of US economic prosperity to a point it can never recover.
It's only down from here. We pissed off our friends.
I agree, social credit is changing. We're not as friendly with other western nations anymore, we're dictating terms.
When will we start seeing the downtrend?
When will we start?
Did you miss the thread about us losing 10,000 PhDs already because of these policies?
Or the threads about people looking for and starting to build alternatives for US tech?
These are wounds that will take a long time to play out, but your kids generation will feel it, though they may never realize what we lost.
Also, we already are: https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/americas-own-g...
The difference between the reaction on HN to the Amazon layoffs and the ASML layoffs is interesting. Perhaps it's driven by the fact that people here are employed by US companies and not by ASML, so we're able to admire how ASML is cutting 4% of its workforce as reducing the number of managers but Amazon cutting 1%^H^H 4% of its corporate workforce so that they can get to "reducing layers, increasing ownership, and removing bureaucracy" is considered to be because of other secret causes that are a sign of the company failing.
dont count warehouse works and corp folks in the same bucket. thats like mixing commercial and residential real estate markets in one report without diff
A reasonable correction. Apparently 25% of Amazon employees are in corporate or AWS[0]. So they're both roughly 4% layoffs.
0: https://redstagfulfillment.com/how-many-people-work-for-amaz...
Amazon has 150k in India alone, presumably corporate? So now you are looking at closer to 7%.
Who said employees in India are unaffected by these layoffs?
ASML isn't laying off their blue collar labor and neither is Amazon. Apples to Apples would be US based corporate numbers.
Every large company is updating its standard layoffs announcement press release from "economic headwinds" to "AI".
Excuse is only half the story. I don't fully understand why they are doing it though. Companies hire people to make money, not as an act of social conformance.
Global economy doesn't look that terrible. Nor is the AI story that believable. Is it just the CEO Zeitgeist? All the guys at Aspen talking about what fraction they cut, just as 5 years ago they bragged how bloated their org chart is?
TBH the "ZIRP overhiring" seems like the most likely real reason. I could never understand how all these companies could hire so many people for so much money, only to have them work on later-to-be-canned open source projects.
But if that's really it, no idea.
> Global economy doesn't look that terrible.
It doesn't? I was born in the 90s (so admittedly 2008 was before I started working), but the economy is looking the worst it's been in my lifetime to me.
The economy is currently great if your income is from your investments rather than from your labor. The relative comfort and power of the capital class vs. labor class has never been farther apart in my lifetime.
US real GDP is racing ahead: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1 . Inflation is fine, even if you don't fully believe the official numbers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA . Unemployment is increasing but below long term mean: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE . Interest rates are at a reasonably business-friendly level.
This is all the USofA. Elsewhere, China is allegedly also printing GDP growth like crazy. Europe is maybe a little stagnant but also not, on the whole, awful.
At the face of it, it's at least a C+ if not better. So if you'd claim it's terrible, there's some explaining to do.
> So if you'd claim it's terrible, there's some explaining to do
Here's the explaining:
We're all talking predictions, I don't think either of us should pretend to know the future, but there are counterpoints and so the data does not all look rosy.I'd say these are symptoms (and I'm not denying them) rather than causes. My point is that it's hard to find hard data that would say the economy is doing poorly. Even unemployment, which is your top line, seems... fine?
I just don't understand where the squeeze is coming from. Either companies figured out how to do more with less people, or they started the cycle with too many people, or they don't know what they are doing. Undoubtedly they are laying people off, especially in tech. But I he symptoms you list don't explain it to me.
I don't think they're a symptom or a cause. Just indicators the economy may not be doing well.
> Even unemployment, which is your top line, seems... fine
My lines were in no particular order. The issue with unemployment data is it counts gig workers as "employed." What doesn't add up is that there are fewer job openings, mass layoffs, and rising long-term unemployment (people who can't find work past 6 months).
> I just don't understand where the squeeze is coming from.
Nobody really knows. It's hard to model the economy and identify cause and effect. But likely candidates are low competition, businesses with coercive leverage on pricing/pay since buyers and workers have no alternatives. Essentials like housing, health, and food have skyrocketed, and we haven't scaled them as demand grew. Companies have abandoned stakeholders, they only care about shareholders. They're squeezing record profits, sustained because buyers are supplementing with gig work, have all adults working, are taking on more debt (and there are more ways to get credit than before), or are abandoning their savings (YOLO).
> Undoubtedly they are laying people off, especially in tech. But the symptoms you list don't explain it to me.
My list wasn't about layoffs, just signals the economy may be doing poorly. One reason for layoffs is companies believe the economy is at risk. They're avoiding hyper-growth and cutting fat. In tech specifically, I think a lot of it is undoing the mess of Covid, such as ventures that didn't profit, hiring before knowing what to use people for, workers distributed across too many places. Even if one part is growing, redistributing is hard. Easier to lay off and rehire where needed. There's probably some offshoring too. But in general, cost-cutting happens when companies feel they need to be conservative.
Cause wise, we probably shouldn't ignore the delayed hangover from covid. But also the longer term trends towards an economy that is extractive rather than productive, and increasingly unequal, neither of which are sustainable.
> Even unemployment, which is your top line, seems... fine?
The unemployment one is interesting because if you look at that graph, the universal pre-2022 pattern is basically a spike of unemployment during recessions followed by a gradual drop.
The recent pattern is a gradual increase.
I'm not a big fan of "numerical only / shape of graphs" analyses, but this does seem strange. Of course, the 2020 Covid spike is also unusual, so...
They are laying people off so they can spend the money on AI data centers.
Yep. It's the "K" shaped economy making your numbers and the GPs real at the same time.
(Well, at least the GPs 1st number. The 2nd ends in 2024, and the 3rd has questionable precision after September.)
I'm going to set aside GDP for a moment, which is hardly the full story but instead I want to zoom in on inflation.
The Federal Reserve of St. Louis is using the CPI numbers, as most government agencies do. I would contend those numbers in and of themselves lie. The ALICE index, which is based on more comprehensive data[0][1] and closer to what CPI used to represent before the major adjustments in the 1990s, tells a different story[2]
Inflation against the ALICE index is much higher than the 3% reported in by the Federal Reserve, running at a stark 5.9% YoY change. This honestly lines up much closer to the reality I see in my day to day life than the CPI numbers reported by the Federal Reserve do.
[0]: https://www.unitedforalice.org/methodology
[1]: I recommend downloading the PDF here: https://www.unitedforalice.org/Attachments/Methodology/ALICE...
[1]: https://www.unitedforalice.org/essentials-index
It always takes 6 to 12 months for the graphs to match the reality on the ground. Because that's how long it takes most people to run out of money and credit.
U.S. tariffs created inflationary pressure that has so far been mostly absorbed by producers and retailers, but they can’t do that forever. In fact the Amazon CEO said a week ago that they will have to raise prices this year due to tariffs.
There were points in 2008 where there were bank runs.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jul-12-fi-indym...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/oct/11/banking-cri...
Italy had to buy 3% of Parmigiano Reggiano production.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/europe/rome-stage...
2008 was a lot worse.
Once the dust settled, sure.
We're still on our way to hit the bottom for this round, and by all accounts it's likely to be much bigger when we finally do.
If you say so.
2008 didn't really impact tech sector much though. Companies continued to hire through it, and in fact those that didn't often had a headcount deficit afterwards.
And also the worst of 2008 was confined to the US.
What we have now is more like 2001.
Also most of these big companies were completely dysfunctional on their hiring through 21/22, just going completely apeshit. Now they're making everyone suffer for it.
Much less severe than 2001, where tech lost 250,000 jobs peak to trough (~18.5% from 2001 to 2003). Current downturn from peak (2022) is about 80,000 jobs (~3.2%). The timeframe for this period is longer and the magnitude is much lower.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES6054150001
Interesting. I guess I'm surprised, because having lived through both, this somehow feels worse.
In 2001, there were a ton of non-dotcom jobs where big companies, non-profits, governments, etc. wanted to move online for the real benefits it offered but had struggled to lure people away from bubble money. The people I knew who were laid off got jobs pretty quickly once they were looking outside of SF startups—not always the same money, but sometimes better and never much worse, and still building relevant career experience.
The market is mature now, and most sectors of the economy are getting hammered at the same time: tariffs have most industries cautious about new commitments if they aren’t already cutting, academia is reeling from grants being rescinded, large chunks of federal spending are gone or frozen, and state/local governments are getting less federal funding at the same time everything else is affecting tax revenue and increasing demand for social services. With so much uncertainty affecting the entire economy, you hear from people who have hundreds of interviews because even established companies in stable industries are unsure what tomorrow will look like after the next whim of an unstable octogenarian.
Yeah, that's one perspective :-) Objectively, the global labor market is the hottest it has been in modern history.
Well. Maybe not quite as hot as 2022. But by any standard from a year before 2020, yeah.
Which is why governments and firms in the capitalist core are trying to cool it down?
There is a case to be made that wage spirals are bad, actually.
2008/09 was the worst this xennial ever saw so I think you're as qualified as most of us.
Everyone was trying to pretend the bottom of the market back in 2007 right up until they couldn't keep up the farce and everything collapsed.
I believe that's what we have today. The economic indicators are all worse than they were in 2008. Our economy is Wile E Coyote running at full speed in midair until he realizes the truth then falls.
The fed was taking action by increasing rates up until the housing market collapsed, so at least some were taking the issues seriously.
I don't have the full context of what the thinking was back then since I was in highschool.
By what metrics?
> I could never understand how all these companies could hire so many people for so much money, only to have them work on later-to-be-cannes open source projects.
Given how much of these companies runs on such projects, it really shouldn't be surprising. It's a numbers game for them; Facebook doesn't mind if 300 little OSS initiatives fail if it gets them React.
> Is it just the CEO Zeitgeist?
This is quite likely a big part of it. There's a lot of herd behavior in the financial markets. A few companies fire a bunch of people, stock price goes up, others follow suit.
Also, in many cases, this isn't something that anyone pays attention to on an ongoing basis, because very few execs have the mandate to do it at a large scale, and their attention is scarce. So in practice, it tends to be done at intervals, and doing it when other companies are also doing it gives cover.
It is an open secret among the ownership class that the labor market got too good for the workers around 2021-2022 especially for tech. What you are seeing now is a possibly colluded squeeze on tech employment to keep the workers on their toes and stay docile and servile.
> Companies hire people to make money, not as an act of social conformance.
I think you also underestimate how much hiring gives these large companies political leverage. A town can be completely destroyed when one of these companies threatens to move a factory or office
Right - true.
So hiring people is ditching this political leverage. If that was the original driver, what's changes to make it not worth it anymore?
how does that relate to the comment you're replying to?
as a response to "Companies hire people to make money, not as an act of social conformance.". I've edited the comment to make it clear, thanks
Why isn't the AI story believable? It seems to me that AI is getting more and more productive
Sure but the lower hanging fruit is mostly squeezed, so what else is driving the idea of _job replacement_ if the next branch up of the tree is 3-5 years out? I've seen very little to indicate beyond tooling empowering existing employees a major jump in productivity but nothing close to job replacement (for technical roles). Often times it's still accruing various forms of technical debt/other debts or complexities. Unless these are 1% of nontechnical roles it doesn't make much sense other than their own internal projection for this year in terms of the broader economy. Maybe because they have such a larger ship to turn that they need to actually plan 2-3 years out? I don't get it, I still see people hire technical writers on a daily basis, even. So what's getting cut there?
Is there any quantitative evidence for AI increasing productivity? Other than AI influencer blog posts and pre-IPO marketing from AI companies?
What exactly would that evidence look like, for you?
It definitely increases some types of productivity (Opus one-shot a visualization that would have likely taken me at least a day to write before, for work) - although I would have never written this visualization before LLMs (because the effort was not worth it). So I guess it's Jevons Paradox in action somewhat.
In order to observe the productivity increases you need a good scale where the productivity would really matter (the same way that when a benchmark is saturated, like the AIME, it stops telling us anything useful about model improvement)
"What exactly would that evidence look like, for you?"
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MFPPBS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
Productivity is by definition real output (usually inflation adjusted dollars) per unit of input. That could be per hour worked, or per representative unit of capital + labor mix.
I would accept an increase in the slope of either of these lines as evidence of a net productivity increase due to artificial intelligence (unless there were some other plausible cause of productivity growth speed up, which at present there is not).
There are two sides to this that I see:
First, I'd expect the trajectory of any new technology that purports to be the next big revolution in computing to follow a distribution pattern of that similar to the expansive use of desktop computing and productivity increases, such as the 1995-2005 period[0]. There has not been any indication of such an increase since 2022[1] or 2023[2]. Even the most generous estimation, which Anthropic itself estimated in 2025 the following
>Extrapolating these estimates out suggests current-generation AI models could increase US labor productivity growth by 1.8% annually over the next decade[3]
Which not only assumes the best case scenarios, but would fail to eclipse the height of the computer adoption in productivity gains over a similar period, 1995-2005 with around 2-2.5% annual gain.
Second is cost. The actual cost of these tools is multiples more expensive than it was to adopt computing en masse, especially since 1995. So any increase in productivity they are having is not driving overall costs down relative to the gains, in large part because you aren't seeing any substantial YoY productivity growth after adopting these AI tools. Computing had a different trend, as not only did it get cheaper over time, the relative cost was outweighed by the YoY increase of productivity.
[0]: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-...
[1]: First year where mass market LLM tools started to show up, particularly in the software field (in fact, GitHub Copilot launched in 2021, for instance)
[2]: First year where ChatGPT 4 showed up and really blew up the awareness of LLMs
[3]: https://www.anthropic.com/research/estimating-productivity-g...
Well you would think if there is increased productivity there would be at least a couple studies, some clear artifacts, or increased quality of software being shipped.
Except all we have is "trust me bro, I'm 100x more productive" twitter/blog posts, blant pre-IPO AI company marketing disguised as blog posts, studies that show AI decreases productivity, increased outages, more CVEs, anecdotes without proof, and not a whole lot of shipping software.
If that's the case I feel like you couldn't actually be using them or paying attention. I'm a big proponent and use LLMs for code and hardware projects constantly but Gemini Pro and ChatGPT 5.2 are both probably the worst state we've seen. 6 months ago I was worried but at this point I have started finding other ways to find answers to things. Going back to the stone tablets of googling and looking at Stackoverflow or reddit.
I still use them but find that more of the time is spent arguing with it and correcting problems with it than actually getting any useful product.
> I still use them but find that more of the time is spent arguing with it and correcting problems with it than actually getting any useful product.
I feel the same. They're better at some things yes, but also worse at other things. And for me, they're worse at my really important use cases. I could spend a month typing prompts into Codex or AntiGravity and still be left holding the bag. Just yesterday I had a fresh prompt and Geminin bombed super hard on some basic work. Insisting the problem was X when it wasn't. I don't know. I was super bullish but now I'm feeling far from sold on it.
Ai is definitely able to sling out more and more lines of code, yes. Whether those LOC are productive...?
Tomorrow's Calc app will have 30mil lines of code and 1000 npm dependencies!
and 2+2 will output 4 almost all the time.. just like a human would.
The reason is the same as always - they want to cut costs and increase profits. And there are no laws in America that prevent them from indiscriminate firing.
> TBH the "ZIRP overhiring" seems like the most likely real reason. I could never understand how all these companies could hire so many people for so much money, only to have them work on later-to-be-cannes open source projects.
The same way they hire so many people for so much money to work on AI projects and build datacenter which haven't produced actual revenue for any customers (corporate or otherwise). I'd rather light money on fire to employ people tbh.
I say this as someone who has the 200 dollar Claude sub.
The US economy is struggling heavily. Population shrank for the first time in a long time that will reduce economic demand. The USD has gotten a lot weaker in the past few years. The regulatory environment is unpredictable and so risk being priced in is high. Every company is chasing scarcer and scarcer energy and chip resources. And then add on top irrational and constantly changing tariffs.
This causes companies to constantly review costs and look for ways to trim, which they're doing.
Your comment is wildly out of context.
This specific company is now the 5th most profitable company on the planet and its FOSS projects are pitiful and 99% fully self serving.
...or 2 years ago they agreed that employees should return to the office for at least 3 days per week, of course only as a temporary measure before full RTO?
> TBH the "ZIRP overhiring" seems like the most likely real reason. I could never understand how all these companies could hire so many people for so much money, only to have them work on later-to-be-canned open source projects.
I agree this is the root cause, also a big reason for inflation are all these do-nothing white collar management/tech jobs subsidized by the post-pandemic money printer with fat paychecks burning holes in their pockets. Of course these companies tried to use the free money to grow when they could, now they want to fix the balance sheets. And AI is a great excuse, especially if you're in the business of selling AI products!
It's why Trump wants to turn the money printer back on, inflation be damned, because mass unemployment due to belt tightening would be politically even worse than inflation.
The value of money halved in the past 5 years.
Salaries did not double in that same time.
That's why they're doing this. They can. Laissez-faire is the current regime of capitalism we live in.
10 days later: Amazon to hire 16 000 new workers in its new remote Indian campus
The layoff includes people in India.
You don't have to shop at Amazon. I know I don't. Anymore.
“Overhiring during the pandemic” was a common, senseless, catchphrase a few years ago.
Amazon just recently used that excuse for their 2025 layoffs a few months ago iirc.
I think the thing to remember is that with interest rates being essentially 0 during the (middle/end of) pandemic that made it really easy for a lot of companies to finance a virtually free checkbook. They were at liberty to try out all sorts of new experiments, virally for free (at that moment).
Now those bonds are all coming up for renewal at much higher interest rates, and the companies don't have the growth to organically support the higher head-count (in addition to the interest payments), and so are cutting.
Was this all wildly irresponsible? Yes. But the people who made those decision are never going to personally pay for any of it.
Ah yeah completely forgot that one.
yeah. pretending to innovate rather than just shed ZIRP-era deadweight. like IBM laid off a few thousand "due to AI" in 2023, lol.
"ZIRP-era deadweight"
that's 3-4 years ago now
You underestimate how sclerotic large corporations can be. I've seen people do zero work, quite visibly, at fortune 500s and not be fired for over a year.
There are people at my office who haven't really done anything since March 2020 when we all got sent home. They probably weren't doing anything before then either, but at least they were there eight hours a day.
I've never understood this meme. Maybe I'm naive, but why would a company hire someone to "not do anything?" How would they stay employed if their performance review showed they "weren't doing anything?" Everyone around me is busy doing 3x the amount of work they can sustain because we're so short staffed. Where are these companies that have people just sitting there picking their nose watching YouTube? I've never really seen this either in BigTech or MediumTech companies.
Maybe these employees are actually doing things--just things you don't see or appreciate?
To defend ICs against middle management a bit: a lot of IC work is dependent on decisions that need to be made by upper level managers. A 2 week contiguous workstream can take 2+ years easy once a few managers ask a few questions and need 10-20 meetings to get 5 bullet points clarified (so many projects can't even produce that). But if that person gets replaced their institutional knowledge and work readiness evaporates.
I've been on 10+ projects at big companies and have begged to do work. Mostly it was showing up to 3-5 meetings/week while managers try and figure things out, and their VPs reconfigure budgets, priorities, and resources. Sometimes I do the work and hold it until someone wants it.
There's usually no standard top-down view about what happens when 3 VPs change the scope on 5 projects. But in reality, that usually means 10-30 people downstream are paralyzed. This is also where the tension between "new work" and "scalable processes" comes into play (need a consultant?).
Add regulatory compliance and approval gates, and then..
If you're a contractor, it's often preferable to keep qualified people on staff even if they have nothing to do because it makes bidding for future contracts easier. You can say "I have X people qualified in Y ready to go" instead of "we'll have to hire X people to do Y".
But there's also just bad hires who can get through interviews, they won't just leave, and building a case to fire those people takes time and management that gives a shit. At a large enough program at a large enough company with uninvolved management (and they can afford to be uninvolved because the program's doing well on all tracked metrics), you can get away with being negligible deadweight for a shocking amount of time. I wouldn't recommend it because your team will hate you, you'll build no skills or relationships, and you'll be the first to go when cuts happen, but some people are fine with that trade for whatever reason.
Headcount increase means growth which means stock go up which means short term profit at the expense of long term quality of product or service. Soooo many people doing absolutely nothing and really no one cares. It is beneficial to have someone doing nothing as oppose to someone pro active, because doing things breaks things. Think about, companies optimize for inertia. Extraordinary levels of burocracy, governance, quality assurance...at some point it becomes impossible to move. Measures are in place not because they increase quality, but they reduce movement, and then this is perceived as safer. Think about it, less movement == safe. People doing absolutely fucking nothing while virtue signaling is a perfect fit.
This is really complicated in big companies.
Yep especially where the number of reports on an org chart matters to a Director or AVP.
> You underestimate how sclerotic large corporations can be. I've seen people do zero work (...)
This is the very first time I saw anyone with a straight face talking about Amazon workers and mentioning "people do zero work, quite visible".
To be fair I've never worked at Amazon, but at this point they have 1.6 million employees worldwide. I don't care what their hiring brochures say, if you think they don't suffer the same ailments as every corporation that size I have a bridge to sell you.
Certain sectors are high performing centers of excellence whose staff write blog posts that get posted to HN, publish papers, get put on the covers of hiring media and give speeches. The majority of the company is somewhere in the middle holding down their relatively uneventful but important functions, and probably a larger chunk than Corporate leadership would like to acknowledge are deadweight hiding in the cracks.
The comment was likely less about positive corporate spin, more about rumors of Amazon's allegedly grueling, PIP-centered culture.
Yeah, if that culture is actually widespread I imagine their deadweight is more the variety that's figured out how to game the system or has connections, rather than the "I'm going to do literally no work and watch youtube all day" varieties that I've witnessed.
I don't know your particular examples but likely your assessment is biased.
We always tend to think that others have it easier than us, as we do not have the full picture.
Of course it's biased. I'm just saying I find it quite believable that some program was funded 5 years ago under different financial conditions and has remained funded until now despite no longer being viable.
People generally don't like losing their jobs, and will put a positive spin on every report that might be good enough to pass muster with middle management bureaucracy at a large firm. All it takes is for enough people in the chain of command to shrug, sign whatever docs are needed and move onto something they care about more.
Yeah you cannot blame ZIRP anymore, you’d look like a fool at this point
In this case, there might be some truth to the statement.
Not in the sense that AI is replacing current jobs, but that they would rather invest that money in Anthropic or on Data Center buildouts
Economic headwinds are rarely used. There is always something else they blame it on. It has been this way for the 30 years I've been old enough to pay attention - and those older than me report it has been even longer. There are downturns every few years, in turn meaning layoffs - and they always blame something other than the downturn.
They also always claim the layoff will enable more efficiency.
They're increasingly intertwined these days, so it's not much of a lie
AI is the perfect scapegoat.
Insurance providers are also doing it.
AI is also used in the legal space too.
Quite true. Many corporations use AI as excuse to "re-structure" their internal and external costs.
- September 2025: US imposes additional 100k USD per visa as a condition to eligibility. (previous was 5k - 20k USD)
- October 2025: Amazon cuts 14k jobs
- December 2025: Amazon announces additional 35b USD investment to India (total 75b USB by 2030); promises to create ~1m jobs there
- December 2025: Random H1B lottery is dismantled, giving preference to higher company salary spending e.g. the more salary H1B applicant would receive, the better the chances
- January 2026: Amazon cuts 16k additional jobs (30k jobs cut in total)
You really don't have to be a detective to figure out that this has nothing to do with AI.
Can you explain in more details how changing h1b rules leads to layoffs?
I'll take a stab:
Higher cost h1b employees incentives offshoring where average employee cost is reduced.
Less h1b employees incentives offshoring.
Offshoring.
It's actually both.
It's not that hard to see.except they planned the January layoff in October or even earlier over the summer.
[dead]
Interesting perspective of an L7 who was laid off at Amazon
https://xcancel.com/PlumbNick/status/2016500347053773198
I'm not reading all that. I thought tweets were supposed to be short. What the hell happened?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_limit#On_Twitter
> In November 2017, Twitter increased its character limit from 140 to 280 characters. In 2023, Twitter boosted the character limit for Twitter Blue subscribers. In February, it was increased to 4000. In April, it was again increased to 10,000, and in June, to 25,000.
The character limit is just whatever the longest tweet Musk wants to send.
I remember 280, but jesus things clearly got out of control.
The sink got let in.
I would wager being remote made him a target. It seems like a stretch to say it's just the global job market when the layoffs are global.
This and being based in Houston, TX, where as far as I know no organization has a hub location.
Besides entire teams or business units, the targets were people who did not comply to RTO or were not sitting with their teams.
He is right, but what I don't see in the post is a solution.
How do you stop multinational companies like Amazon from using the global talent pool as they see fit and pay whatever wages the local market will bear?
Without that it comes off as the standard "elect me because foreigners are bad".
This is possible in the first place because labor cannot freely move across borders, but corporations can freely shop around.
You can either open borders to both people and goods, or you can have restrictions on both that go hand in hand. But one without the other is a massive gift to corporations who can and do cash in on that disparity.
They need to understand that their profits depend on people with disposable income. The US has some of the most profitable consumers for retailers. If they are all living hand to mouth, what happens to Amazon’s sales?
That is obviously a problem for next quarter.
The solution according to the poster is regulation made by experts which is why he's running for Congress. It's maybe not the solution you were hoping for but it is the solution he proposes :)
He says:
1. Strong data governance 2. Tax implications for layoffs (offshoring?)
Unions that can negotiate contracts that have consequences for mass layoffs.
> I saw this coming and that’s why I’m running for Congress.
Well, that's one way to go for that next job.
Be the change you want to see in the world. Honestly, it'd be good to have passionate congressfolk who aren't overtly corrupt or beholden to corporate interests
I don't see a clean solution here. The price/craft distinction matters - companies competing on price (Amazon retail) have different incentives than those competing on quality and craft (Notion, Linear). If you're in the price business, replacing expensive US labor with cheaper global labor is rational. If you're in the craft business, it usually isn't.
But that framing is incomplete. Amazon isn't just retail - AWS, logistics tech, and AI enablement are craft-heavy. Cutting experienced people in those areas might be short-term thinking dressed up as strategy, not actual optimization. The policy question is where I get stuck. Regulate this, and US companies risk losing ground to foreign competitors who don't follow those rules. Do we want Alibaba as the default American retailer? But do nothing, and experienced workers keep getting squeezed while "efficiency" narratives provide cover.
What's the intervention that doesn't just shift the problem somewhere else?
We must do something about labor offshoring to india. It's too much. I want my children to have opportunities here in the country they were born in.
Factory workers said that in the 90s too. Didn’t work out to well for them.
It didn't, but it got us Trump too, so there's that. Let's see what happens this time.
Generally speaking the boomer generation has a different set of ideals from gen-x/millennials, and they are on the way out of shot calling. I don't think things repeat.
At least in the US, we've spent the better part of 80 years building a huge amount of wealth and growth on the backs of debt and externalized costs.
Its interesting, in a morbid humor kind of way, to see people realize that these costs always come due.
Globalization allows a huge amount of growth and many benefits you simply can't get with smaller or stronger borders. It also comes with risks, chief among them the risk that any one country loses self sufficiency and competitive advantage.
I do hope that the heaviest cost we (in the US) pay anytime soon is the cost of outsourcing jobs. We don't know how to manufacture anymore, our populace is extremely unhealthy in historical standards, and both political parties are toying with different forms of socialism. There are a lot of bad outcomes that can come where we're heading, we'd get off easy if it stops at outsourcing some of our high paid jobs to cheaper foreign labor.
Inconsistent jingoistic nationalism.
On one hand, he claims that he "fixed problems that had been sitting untouched because no one else could untangle them." And on the other hand he claims his layoff on "a global labor market with almost no guardrails."
So which is it: did he really work on problems no one else could solve, or was he replaced by cheap foreign labor?
Probably neither. The most likely scenario here is one of two things:
a) Amazon made a mistake by firing him. They laid off someone truly valuable.
b) He wasn't as valuable as he thinks he was. Those problems were not worth paying him a meaningful fraction of a million dollars a year (what an L7 makes at amazon).
What I can guarantee is that he wasn't replaced by a cheap, foreign, plug-and-play replacement.
It all makes sense when you realize the point of his tweet is that he's plugging his run for congress: so yeah, of course he's tapping in to the absolute worst nationalistic sentiment. Shame on him.
Or c) Amazon knew about his running for Congress.
I'm sure someone in HR is writing him into the next round of mandatory training regarding code of conduct on social media.
If this is AI slop as the knee jerk comments next to me suggest, it’s goin to be a hell of a surprise if he gets elected this year! https://www.nleeplumb.com/about
While reading the text, my mental AI alarm bells were going off, sent it all to pangram.com and it flags both the layoff post and his campaign website text as being 100% AI generated
Yikes, the "[contraction] just" phrases on that campaign website alone are really over the top. Horrendously inauthentic writing, whether it's AI or not:
"wasn't just a job; it was a profound responsibility"
"This isn't just a statistic; it's a sign that we need to re-evaluate how we support those who serve"
"My experience isn't just about past success; it's about understanding the logistics, technology, and economic realities that shape the job market now and how we can create future opportunities right here."
"This experience didn't just teach me about law and order; it taught me about managing complex operations under pressure, the critical need for clear strategy, and the importance of unwavering integrity when the stakes are high – lessons desperately needed in Congress today."
"This campaign isn't just about me; it's about us."
All from the same page. Pretty nauseating.
can someone even prove that this guy is real and not an AI persona at this point? like, at what point do we have AI agents running for govt with a warm meatsack acting on behalf of them?
"AI detectors" are notoriously unreliable.
Perhaps more importantly here, when it comes to writing, "AI slop" is basically management speak - it's all about waxing poetically about simple things in ways that make you sound complicated (and useful!). And this guy is a career manager. So I bet this is actually human slop, the kind from which ChatGPT et al learned to speak the way they do.
AI detectors in general are unreliable, but there are a few made by serious researchers that have only 1-in-10000 false positive rate, e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.14873
Having worked in a bigcorp, I've read my fair share of management-speak, and none of it sounds quite as empty as the allegedly AI text.
The AI sounds like someone conjuring a parody emulation of management speak instead of actual management speak.
More broadly — and I feel this way about AI code at well as AI prose — I find that part of my brain is always trying to reverse engineer what kind of person wrote this, what was their mental state when writing it?
And when reading AI code or AI prose, this part of my brain short circuits a little. Because there is no cohesive human mind behind the text.
It's kind of like how you subconsciously learn to detect emotion in tiny facial movements, you also subconsciously learn to reverse engineer someone's mind state from their writing.
Reading AI writing feels like watching an alien in skinsuit try to emulate human face emotional cues — it's just not quite right in a hard-to-describe-but-easy-to-detect way.
> And when reading AI code or AI prose, this part of my brain short circuits a little. Because there is no cohesive human mind behind the text.
This is most succinct description of my brain's slop detection algorithm.
"moved wherever the company needed me and fixed problems that had been sitting untouched because no one else could untangle them."
A screenshot later on shows he was a manager who spent his entire career in Houston. So... he didn't move and I associate "untangling difficult problems" as something an engineer should brag about not a manager.
Reads like AI generated slop that doesn't correlate with the actual situation.
I took “moved wherever the company needed me” as hopping from troubled project to project to help fix. This is often what the most senior engineers do, and also the Manager label doesn’t necessarily mean much in this context.
Not AI.
I thought it was fairly obvious too. We have a few of the most senior engineers being assigned to multiple critical initiatives just because they've led others successfully
Yeah these bums better get with the program. If The Company needs you to uproot your life and move to Timbuktu start packing or hit the bricks pal.
It certainly looks like AI slop, so I stopped reading pretty fast.
It’s pretty sad that when people write well now, others dismiss it as AI.
It's also a pretty clear indication of AI undeniably passing the turing test in case that was in debate still.
No one can really tell if what's AI generated or not anymore. We're all going by vibes and undoubtedly getting it wrong.
i don't think that's what this means. it just means to me a certain population of people are clueless and don't use these tools enough. what's _actually_ damaging/obnoxious are the ones arguing that this guy is a good writer and that this isn't AI. IMO, telling the difference can be as simple as looking for the common giveaways, or as complex as reading between the lines of the structure of sentences, the terrible adjectives, and the soullessness of it. If you have half a brain and are well read, you can _probably_ tailor these LLMs to write in a way that reads better. But, it requires people to read a lot of content and literature to understand what good writing is, and this contrived, overly convoluted soulless soup of words is certainly not an example of it.
I agree with you and I definitely noticed the “it’s not just X, it’s Y” pattern.
But I find your comment funny because it ironically has the same “not that, this” pattern in a more verbose and less polished & less formulaic pattern.
yep, that's my signature way of writing -- "unpolished & verbose" :D
It's not written "well", it lacks that human touch, especially when writing about such a sensible subject, such as getting fired. It's too cold, actually too well written from a syntactic pov, which makes it inauthentic hence most probably AI.
The author literally admits to using AI in the preceding comments...
What exactly indicates the post was AI generated?
i've been using AI for as long as GPT has been out, so if you can't see through the rambling, overly complex to make you sound smarter kind of text, as well as the written patterns that are always used ad nauseam like "this thing isn't JUST this, it's THIS" -- i dunno how else to prove it to you. IYKYK.
I have also used GPTs since 2020. I am also a writer. Much of the writing equated with “generated by AI” is so precisely because it’s broadly trained on real writing.
So the claim of “AI slop” without proof is little more than heresy. It would be helpful to have any evidence.
It’s not about just the writing in one example, it’s about writing patterns—which are common—being equated with AI simply because they’re common.
if you're a writer, and you're using GPT for so long and you can't see it as obvious, i dunno what to tell you at this point. i guess LLMs are trained particularly on this guy's writing.
So you have zero evidence to convey something you claim is “obvious”? Got it.
here's your evidence, tanner https://xcancel.com/PlumbNick/status/2016590894485385347#m
I'm not going to say i told you so, but you should utilize these tools more before you start arguing, especially when it's so goddamn obvious
If you read his original draft you can see how much of it was still carried over, as well as how his original writing conveys much of your same arguments that an AI wrote the final text.
I don’t think your point is as strong as you believe it is.
Lastly, I work directly with AI models and utilize all popular generators every single day, so I don’t know why you think you’re the expert here.
my point was that its AI slop. whether his original point is intact doesn't matter to me. the fact that you're now defensively doubling down and steering the conversation into a direction which serves you better is just cringe. i bet you're a pleasure to work with. c ya later nerd.
If you can’t explain it, then you don’t actually understand it.
i just don't feel like enumerating all of the common patterns ai slop produces. again, if you don't see this as obvious, i can tell you're clearly not using this stuff often enough (which might be a good thing)
The thing is, these stylistic patterns existed before AI, and weren’t completely atypical. Maybe you’re using LLMs so much that you’re over-associating them with AI now. Or maybe the author is using LLMs so much that he’s unconsciously adopted some of the patterns in his own writing.
Well he literally confirms it was from ChatGPT in a later reply, so there's that.
And his original draft is conspicuously missing the telltale "it's not X -- it's Y" and overall breathless dramatic flair that people like the poster you're replying to (correctly) picked up on.
https://xcancel.com/PlumbNick/status/2016590894485385347#m
i think the much higher probability isn't that this guy wrote literally like an LLM before LLMs came out, but rather that he just used an LLM to write all of it. You can see even more of these examples directly on his campaign site.
And despite the downvotes, you were correct.
https://xcancel.com/PlumbNick/status/2016590894485385347#m
thank you. even without this tweet, i was willing to die on this hill. certainly feels nice to place these obnoxious HN know-it-alls into their place.
> certainly feels nice to place these obnoxious HN know-it-alls into their place.
You don't have to take the time to explain your reasoning if you don't want to, but "obnoxious know it all" is not a stone you should throw while at the same time refusing to explain yourself and saying anyone who can't see what you see is necessarily missing the obvious.
it's too difficult honestly. there are a lot of the classic easy traps -- "it's not just X, it's y" which are a dead giveaway, especially when they're used like 3-4 times in one essay. But the harder to spot ones, IMO, are ones where the overall tone is unnecessarily complex. E.g:
"When replacement is cheaper than retention, the decision gets framed as strategy instead of consequence."
This sentence is tight and on paper reads well, but it's robotic. It's kind of like taking a dead simple if/else statement that's pleasurable to read into a one line ternary statement. Technically a one line sentence, but now I have to re-read it like 5 times to understand it. The flow is dead.
Another example:
'AI becomes the excuse, not the cause. It’s the clean narrative that hides what’s actually happening: experienced workers being swapped out through global labor substitution while leadership talks about “efficiency” and “the future of work.”'
Starts off with a short & trite sentence (LLMs loves this if you don't steer it away). The other thing LLMs _love_ to do unprompted is: "It's the X: _insert_next_loaded_statement_here"
It's hard to get my point across, and I hope you kinda see it? I'm not a linguist, but these patterns are literally in every piece of LLM writing I've ever seen.
Again, you don't have to explain yourself, just don't be rude about it. It's hypocritical to call someone obnoxious and a know it all while you are engaging in schoolyard behavior and refusing to allow them to challenge your reasoning.
Saying nothing is an option. Other people who agree with you will be happy to explain their reasoning. Or maybe they won't and the conversation quietly fades away. Both are preferable.
give me a break. have you read the other comments? asking for proof in the most smug attitude possible. it's the definition of obnoxious HN commenters. and that's not even counting the one guy that wrote "you sound and write like a bot", got downvoted and deleted the post. i don't need to take any high roads here--it's the internet. As far as being "rude" it's a solid 2/10.
> i dunno how else to prove it to you
A prompt to generate similar output would be a good start.
how's this for your prompt, pal https://xcancel.com/PlumbNick/status/2016590894485385347#m
hopefully that's enough of a good start and a good end for this conversation
I've been writing in a contrasting style like that since probably 5th or 6th grade.
... I wonder how much the writings of a lot of autistic / borderline folks impacted the LLM writing style.
$foo isn't just $bar, it's actually $baz
is it me or is this ai slop
I am doomed, I guess. I didn't detect that. I thought this was sincere expression from an actual person, but an actual person who is also running for office and thus needs to tweak his writing accordingly.
Although I did note that it was a bit long (I guess I am out of the loop on tweets as well. I thought tweets were supposed to be short "hot takes". But this is practically an essay).
100%
it's insane. people just don't want to use their brains to communicate anymore i guess. you've just experienced something traumatic like a layoff, and you can't even just take a few hours to internalize it and be vulnerable online, rather than jumping immediately onto social media to use the opportunity to sound like a market analyst
having worked there. Amazon has toxic managers, culture that turn ICs against each other. no tech vision. insane politics. low caliber people gatekeeping.
Their stock will go up the next year or two only because of their luck of partnering with Anthropic (back when they were a distant second choice to OpenAPI)
but the partnership is fake marketing. Amazon uses TPUs more than it uses graviton, it trains on GCP, and Google owns a larger percentage because they were much earlier investors, despite amazon investing more money.
> Amazon uses TPUs more than it uses graviton, it trains on GCP
Can you share a source for this claim? Graviton is a CPU, it would be strange to train LLM (I assume you meant LLMs) on a CPU.
oops I meant tranium.
Amazon is flailing at this point and now in a pattern of mass layoffs every 3-6 months. Not good.
Leadership can’t even gets its story straight about why… “It’s AI” correction “Pandemic over-hiring” correction “delayering” correction “restoring our culture” correction “actually AI!”.
There’s a whole mess of rando projects and teams with bloated management layers and often little to show for it revenue wise.
While on the one hand it’s obvious that mess needs to be cleaned up, on the other hand the top leadership has been in place for a while so the very people that created/oversaw the mess are struggling to position themselves as the one to fix it. That seems unlikely to work and the best talent in areas like AI seems to be fleeing voluntarily.
Everything I hear from the inside says moral is in the toilet and the once proud “culture of innovation” is in shambles with teams focused on politics, infighting, and endless reorgs.
Frankly, sounds like a s*itshow and what Jeff Bezos predicted as “Day 2” for the company’s eventual slow decline.
Meanwhile the core public use products and platforms are pretty poor. Tried shopping for clothes or anything on Amazon? 9/10ths of any page is ads, you can’t find anything you’re looking for.
It’s getting real close to “we’re customer obsessed, and our shareholders are our real customers”
Hey taurath, I'd like to ask a question to you, could you possibly shoot me an email (in my bio)?
Sure thing just sent
10% cut of the corporate workforce in 2 months is wild lol
Crazy most of it is programmers (and/or various other white collar jobs) tbh
Doesn't say it's programmers though but middle management:
> Amazon slashed 14,000 white-collar jobs in late October, with CEO Andy Jassy stressing the need for the company to eliminate *excessive bureaucracy* by trimming operational levels and reducing the number of managers.
I woke up to two of my engineer friends telling me they got laid off, so it’s not all middle management
Seems sus, even if they got rid of half the managers, would that add up to the layoffs they've done?
Ah thanks for clearing that up.
Yes but this is a lie, a vast majority of the cuts in both rounds from October and today have been individual contributors, not managers.
Do you have a source for that?
I work at Amazon and I see who got cut.
You can also check the WARN notice in WA.
You can find the warn notices here. [0] From a quick script I wrote up, it seems that ~60% of layoffs noted on 1/26/2026 are from individual contributors
[0]: https://esd.wa.gov/employer-requirements/layoffs-and-employe...
This always feels like the result of leadership too scared to build. It's so much safer and easier to tear down.
Amazon spent a lot of time and money and built a top-tier workforce. But now they are out of ideas for what these people can do? They don't have any untapped opportunities left? No projects that never quite made it to the top of the stack? No deferred maintenance that could be taken care of now?
They could put that engineering effort to unifying the AWS console. :D.
I've been hearing about massive Amazon layoffs for a few years now. How come the company still exists? Are these layoffs followed by hiring at cheaper regions or different parts of the company? From my perspective as an occasional Amazon customer, things are pretty much unchanged.
The simple answer is that they hire more than they fire. In a lot of cases they will fill a role immediately after they fire the last person who was in it. Average employee retention at companies like Amazon (both voluntary and forced) is ridiculously low - something like 1.5 years. PIPs, forced burnout, mass layoffs etc. are all part of the corporate strategy. The revolving door helps keep costs low because employees leave before the bulk of their stock grants have vested.
> The revolving door helps keep costs low because employees leave before the bulk of their stock grants have vested.
I am not sure it applies to Amazon though. Amazon in the first year pays bonus in cash to compensate for 5% of the RSUs vesting. So, they actually loosing cash if people are let go after a year.
Amazon has 350K corporate roles, so yearly layoffs of 16K is only 5% - if you assume some modest re-hiring in lower-cost locations, this is just a relatively standard (at least lately) pivot out of high-cost US roles into other lower-cost economies.
Yea I had to Google their total headcount when I saw the headline since the number does sound high, but in reality is only 5%.
When you factor in low performers and how most people here would view middle management in any other topic thread, it's not that insane. If in a pool of 20 workers around you, you can't find 1 worker you don't think is a step below the others, your hiring pipeline is better than most.
My company behaves similarly to Amazon and we drop the bottom % performers every year via PIP. IDK if this is what Amazon did with this layoff but it's probably intentional churn.
Amazon’s hiring bar has historically been very low, with a philosophy that if it doesn’t work out you can always just fire the person later. A similar philosophy exists for staffing up teams for speculative projects. If it doesn’t work out you can just axe the whole division after a couple of years. Periodic large layoffs are a natural consequence of operating like this.
One disturbing possibility is us laborers aren't as important we think we are.
They hire like crazy. There is unfortunately no shortage of people wanting to work there.
They also hire to fire to meet pip quotas.
They actually still have 1,5 million employees. The number has been approximately the same since 2021, and those 16,000 won't make a dent.
The 1.5M number includes non-corporate employees (warehouse). They likely included this number to soften the message. The corporate workforce is ~300K so this is actually ~4% of their workforce.
Makes a dent when they fire at the high salary end and rehire at lower salaries.
I mean most of those are warehouse workers or delivery or customer support or something, right?
Pretty big difference between corporate Amazon and retail business Amazon division wise I think
[dead]
I'm outside the US, and boycotting Amazon for anything I can get elsewhere (which turns out isn't everything, but best efforts and all that). The shift towards AI is either a very bad thing (as per Microslop and the raft of recent articles about quality dropping), or just a cheap excuse to replace expensive staff with cheaper people.
Alternatively they may be using AI in HR as part of the decision making, and it's made the determination that these folk can go "because of AI" based on past firings and performance since then.
I have been noticing recently that the level of quality of Amazon support has been dropping steadily. And I’ve also been trying to do the same, shopping elsewhere.
I have yet to find something on Amazon that I can't find on either eBay, straight from the retailer, or B&H. And usually for less money.
Sometimes yes but this not apple-to-apples unfortunately. Shipping and support are two places where Amazon _currently_ reigns supreme. Getting an item fast and returning an item easily are often lacking in alternative marketplaces.
I do try to buy stuff directly but so many times I order it and then it comes 10+ days later and often very little info upfront or during about when I will receive the order. I ordered from a website the other day where it said Dec 22nd delivery, it came mid-January and support was unhelpful (parroting the FAQ, might have been a LLM).
Now, I've head great experiences purchasing directly as well. The Smartest House [0] is where I buy everything I can smart-home-related. Their pricing is excellent, their shipping is fast, and their support is top-notch. I had a problem with 1 device, they got on a call and tried to fix it, then when that didn't work, they shipped me a replacement.
So I agree, there are great alternative out there and I also like B&H. I just wish it was easier to be (more) sure about how quick something will ship or how easy returns will actually be. Finding consistently good merchants online sometimes feels like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
[0] https://www.thesmartesthouse.com/
Free returns are Amazon’s value.
I find it very hard to believe you can't boycott Amazon completely. They don't even exist in my country and it has never been a struggle to find anything you might get there.
Amazon UK is the only reliable source of Pentel Energel 0.7 Green rollerball pens. For everything else, there's other places.
But what if you want Amazon Basics brand batteries or counterfeit health products?
> They don't exist in my country ... it has never been a struggle to find anything.
Amazon absolutely crushed a lot of physical brick-and-mortar stores. Drove them out of business.
No, you and people like you drove them out of business by switching to Amazon.
Yes, please tell me about how it's my personal responsibility that a corporation that has millions of employees took over so much.
Was it the laws I passed to make them more profitable? Did I just start burning down the neighboring bookstores?
Absolutely not. In fact, if I were never even born, Amazon would be just as big and powerful today.
Wait, maybe it was all the time they bought out a small company and I told them they could!
We're basically in a low-key recession that is being masked by circular AI deals and speculation.
From March 16, 2020 (Covid scare reality / market-drop), the marketcaps of Top 10,000 traded companies has doubled (from low $70 Trillion USD to low $140 T)
But bullion has done even better (particularly past month).
So — extrapolating — I'd recon the USD is inflating away its problems (mostly: itself).
What's interesting is that the strength of US dollar vs other currencies is barely budging in the meantime. Seems like everyone else is inflating away their problems too, so it all evens out in the end (unless you're poor with no assets, in any country).
Swiss franc is strongest of fiats — but still fiat.
Many historians of many generations contend that debased currencies fail first slowly, then fast.
Watching gold has been eye-opening to all living generations. Just a few months ago my lawyer didn't believe me when I told him "gold just broke four thousand dollars!" [day of this post gold hit ATH of $5400]
> But bullion has done even better (particularly past month).
No wonder, people are fed up with the US administration and its constant firehose of bullshit. But there are no viable contenders to the US Dollar as reserve asset - the Eurozone is too fractured, China is under currency controls, Germany on its own outclasses India, and Japan's economy is headed for some serious BS once it follows their population age graph.
That only leaves gold... the question is, is it physical gold? (And my opinion is: as long as it's not in a vault under your control, you're buying IOUs, not gold)
I think not physically holding your bullion is equivalent to not your keys, not your crypto.
I do small amounts of both.
I don't think it's low-key at all, it's plainly obvious that there's a recession "on the ground" except that people's stock portfolios are being spared. If you're looking for employment right now or at prices for staples it's pretty dim.
I am beginning to dislike AI more and more.
Though, I think the title is a bit of a misnomer here. In part the axing of jobs was done to reduce costs; now AI also may relate here or be even a main driver, but I think the title oversimplifies it a bit.
Alexa, insert David and Victoria Beckham "be honest" meme
What's the real reason for the layoffs?
Amazon stock is flat over the past year. The rest of the "magnificent seven":
- Google: +70%
- Nvidia: +49% - Apple: +7%
- Meta: Flat
- SHOP (closest comp): +19.41%
- Mercado Libre (international comp): +20.73%
So basically, the "tech world" is dividing itself, in the eyes of investors, into two camps: companies that will benefit from AI tailwinds and companies that will not. And all the money is going to the companies that will.
Amazon is more and more considered to be part of the latter group.
This is especially concerning of Amazon because it seems like AWS--the cash cow--has somehow missed becoming the cloud provider for AI compute needs.
As such, Amazon needs to give investors some reason to hold amazon stock. If you're not part of a rising tide, the only reason left is "we are very profitable."
So yeah, Amazon will have to cut costs to show more profitability and become further investable.
So yes, the layoffs have to do with AI...but not the way they are spinning it.
Thanks for an insightful answer!
They just wanted to do a mass layoff and (for now) it looks better if you say “because AI”. It tranquilizes stakeholders because they think “AI is taking those tasks, the business will be unaffected”
Until the business gets affected
Might just be management doing that "you can cut the bottom 5-10% of your workforce every 5 years without impacting productivity at all" thing.
Unstable and uncertain economy
To lower costs
[dead]
I have always been saying: don't be optimistic about AI. Software people prepared their end with this optimism without knowing how the economy works. "AI will make our jobs easier, I will have more time with my family," blah blah. Now we will see more news like that in the coming years. I am okay with supporting AI for curing cancer, but I am against supporting AI for disrupting the white-collar economy without a proper government plan.
Funny enough, I have an acquaintance who has been job hunting for almost a year. They are expecting an offer from Amazon Corporate later this week or early next week. They are early in their career and will cost less to hire, so it still makes sense I guess.
Some of these are obviously related to the closing of some of the retail businesses. And some might simply be middle management bloat that happens often at tech companies.
But imagine you're one of the people who remain (e.g., not impacted by the eliminated companies or products) and now there are fewer people to do the same amount of work? I've seen that movie and it usually has an economic impact 6-9 months later when people burn out.
It's almost like you can write the script:
Month 0–3: Survivors are relieved, grateful, and over-perform. Leadership reads this as “proof the cuts worked.”
Month 3–6: Context loss shows up. Decision latency increases. Domain knowledge walked out the door.
Month 6–9: Burnout, attrition, and quality failures begin. The “hidden layoffs” start as top performers quietly leave.
Month 9–12: Rehiring or contracting resumes (usually at higher cost)
The key misunderstanding here is assuming AI substitutes for organizational slack and human coordination. It doesn’t.
And sometimes middle management "bloat" is misdiagnosed. Remove them without redesigning decision rights and workflows, and the load doesn’t disappear it redistributes to the IC's.
Watch for Amazon "strategic investments" in early Q4 2026 (this will be a cover for the rehiring).
I haven't detected overproduction after layoff I have seen. It was other way round, people who remained were sad, depressed and demotivated. What happened was general slow down of remaining people + organizational chaos as people did not figured out yet who should fill for missing positions and how.
I've noticed at my company after a lot of layoffs and restructuring and moving people between projects, when I ask "who is responsible for X now?" there can be a lot of confusion getting the answer to that question.
“It was Bill, but he got laid off”. It doesn’t need to be confusing.
That is not an answer to the "who is responsible for X now" question. Laid off Bill is not responsible for X now.
Also, it is not useful answer at all, it is an uncooperative answer. Whoever is asking about the responsible person is trying to work. They have legitimate question about who they should contact about X, sending them to someone who does not work there is less then useless.
But it doesn't change that Bill was the person who was responsible, and now is gone. So what exactly are they supposed to say? In the context of the GP's post, that seems to be the point - there is no longer anybody there who is responsible for X anymore.
> So what exactly are they supposed to say?
Several options, pretty much all of them involve being actually cooperative rather then intentionally unhelpful. If Bill was part of some other team, point to that team or its leader.
If he was in your team, you or leader can ask about what the person wants and move from there. Maybe you can actually answer the question. Maybe the proper reaction involves raising jira ticket. Maybe the answer is "we are probably not going to do that anymore". It all depends on what the person who came with the question wants.
> But it doesn't change that Bill was the person who was responsible, and now is gone.
The other people are still there. And the team IS responsible for X. And without doubt, they are fully responsible for helping figure out who should be contacted now and what should be done.
That is normal part of work after any reorganization.
You assume too much.
I have seen it many times that when Bill leaves, the thing he was responsible for doesn't get picked up by anyone.
It doesn't necessarily even mean that the organization is "abnormal". Perhaps the reason Bill was let go was because X was not considered business-critical any more.
> I have seen it many times that when Bill leaves, the thing he was responsible for doesn't get picked up by anyone.
I LITERALLY offered the "we are probably not going to do that anymore" option. In your situation, you can scratch the probably away. That answer is still actually helpful unlike the original answer.
They called it project dawn which is telling what they have in mind with these layoffs.
So new AWS outages can be expected
Official post: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-layoffs... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46793906)
My data is a bit incomplete for amazon but here is some analysis on where they seem to be focusing based on job postings:
https://jobswithgpt.com/company-profiles/amazon/
> Leave your affordable neighborhood with good schools to keep your job
> RTO to Seattle / Bay Area to a dingy condo , with diligence , at enormous personal expense
> Laid off a 18 mo later. CEO says "i'm taking responsibility" , no responsibility taken.
My hot take is that AI is shaping up to be a tax on big tech.
Yet another round of layoffs being blamed on AI. As with last time, this is not due to productivity gains from AI, rather it's due to wanting to reallocate budget towards investing in AI. (and maybe an excuse for something they already wanted to do)
I think some productivity gains from AI are real, and I've experienced some firsthand, but reductions in force being ENABLED by AI are not, and I don't think we will see much of that for a good while still.
AI is attracting a lot of investment dollars because it's seen as disruptive; the capabilities it potentially unlocks for people are enormous. The problem is that general intelligence is still far away (fundamentally cannot be reached with the current approaches to AI, in my opinion), and the level of investment required is so high that the only way folks are getting that money back is if it does enable a level of layoffs that would be crippling to the economy.
Additionally, there is not a huge difference between the top models, and thanks to the massive investments the models are incrementally improving. It seems obvious from the outside that AI models are going to be a commodity, and good free models put downward pressure on prices, which they are already losing money on. So I think it's going to be a race to the bottom, and is very unlikely to be a winner-takes-all situation.
I think this means that the reward for big tech companies pouring insane amounts of money into AI will be maintaining their current position, or maybe stealing a bit of business from each other. That's why I think AI is more of a tax on big tech than a real investment opportunity.
If you have to post this, you are the reason for fear factor:
Some of you might ask if this is the beginning of a new rhythm – where we announce broad reductions every few months. That’s not our plan.
What do you mean? Who is "we" and "our"?
I think its what was sent out
It does have the feel of a tactical crouch and hold position by Amazon. AI / LLM for the masses is still just a bet, and perhaps an overly invested bet
The problem is that Amazon cuts a lot of jobs all the time, then re-hire. This could just be just regular, routine amazon evil, and they are leveraging this to make Wall Street happy
Who needs jobs anymore? We have AI now! Oh and everyone can be an entrepreneur so everything will be fine.
Denial everyone. Amazon will have the same profits running on AI and robots with minimal expenses. All the other companies will follow. Wake up to reality.
Another article about this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ywzxlxnlo
> In-office work is now mandatory five-days a week, making Amazon one of the only major tech companies to require its employees to be in the office full-time.
With this kind of employee hostile policies and threat of job cut, how does it manage to be the A of FANG (or as they call it, MANGA)? But apparently people still want to get a job there? The pay is a little less than other companies in the same league. So pay can't be the reason. Or is it? Honestly want to know what it is that make IT people get a job there?
> what it is that make IT people get a job there?
The job market is toast, so people take whatever they can.
I think a lot of laid-off programmers would settle for any job in this environment... It is a employer market definitely.
The one phrase I've come to despise is "entrepreneurial risk", especially when it's used to justify exorbitant salaries of the higher ranks. Because, really, that "risk" for the most part is trickled down to the peasants who get laid off at a heartbeat whenever business is bad. They're not people with families and liabilities and lives, they're commodities.
I'd say your risk of losing your livelihood is higher as a simple employee than as a CEO when we're talking about post-startup companies.
I’ve seen Bezos’s yacht and can tell you he is creating new jobs! His yacht is accompanied by a supply vessel that carries staff, food, etc. At least 20 people work on the secondary boat!
This is great news! Hopefully so many people have stopped buying crap from Amazon, that a tipping point is near, and there entire business will fold.
I personally haven't bought anything from Amazon or Ebay in 4 years, and will never again. I only buy local, or I don't buy. Starving the beast one purchase at a time.
From the article it seems like this is mostly corporate side - fulfillment appears to be OK as long as consumers continue consuming... or until Amazon pushes robotics side of fulfillment to its logical conclusion - getting rid of those pesky humans that require toilet breaks and dare to talk about unionization.
All functions in Amazon are heavily impacted - especially AWS and WWOps.
I think by corporate they mean 'not people picking physical items' rather than just 'HR, Finance, etc'.
It’s giving “We’ve tried everything except layoffs and we are all out of ideas”
Except that’s been Jassy’s number one tool to try and get the stock price moving.
NES to the other. Drink to the only with cyanide.
One thing I don't understand when it comes to these big data-center investments in India is what will they do when the water runs out? Because I do not think that this is environmentally sustainable.
Water consumption is not what the headlines lead you to believe- using water for cooling doesn't "consume" the water
Looping water through a closed heat exchanger doesn't consume the water, but using water to evaporatively cool a condenser in an industrial chiller does.
We’ve had crazy covid years where every new grad was making 250k+, and now every 3-6 months we have layoffs which has not surprisingly been paired with blaming it on offshoring, H1b etc. Clearly the current system can’t withstand much of a shock, what’s going to happen if we get a full 2007 style recession, will the blame game go even higher on steroids, some times it feels like it’s quite bad already. I don’t look forward to that.
I think and I know HN commentators are going to hate this, but Thiel was right when he wrote that the current system only works with fast continuous growth. Ideally multiple growing sectors, contributing to the economy. Anything else, and everyone immediately starts fighting for scraps joining their tribal identity or whatnot. The only way out, would be more rapid growth in multiple sectors, not just AI, or a complete breakdown of the existing system which does not leave me hopeful for anything better. I in fact like the existing system quite a bit, but maybe that’s just me.
"Earlier this month, top executives at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting said while jobs would disappear, new ones would spring up, with two of them telling Reuters that AI would be used as an excuse by companies planning to cut jobs anyway."
But Amazon says there shortage of skilled labor and is the highest user of H1B visas
https://h1bgrader.com/h1b-sponsors/amazon-dot-com-services-l...
The start of the end.
Why pay people when you can steal from foss projects and use both forms of ai (Actually indians and Artificially Inflated)
Looks like they laid off a bunch of bean counters. Raw skills are still in demand
Is it a coincidence that my Amazon (UK) checkout is repeatedly hitting an error page at the moment?!
amazon is really doing it's things now, i say to stay cautious
"AGI" at Amazon has been achieved internally and as predicted. [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46741246
The government should start putting tariffs on outsourcing; otherwise, the U.S. job market will be in a bloodbath forever.
They're not outsourcing they're "buying a service from Amazon India"
Another case of “Corporate Autoscaling”! Don’t need so many worker instances right now? Just return some to the pool.
They’d scale to zero if they could!
you always hear about a stream of layoffs but It doesn't give the full picture. what i'm more interested in is what is their total employee count over time. that represents the net hiring net lay offs, is what counts at the end of the day
“If you’re not laying off tons of workers, do you even know to use AI? Shitty companies still use human labor… don’t invest in them.”
Again, I feel like the general comments are missing the forest for the trees by relying on witty quips about AI or retreading (legitimate) outsourcing grievances, instead of actually addressing the root problem on display:
Companies, be they highly profitable global conglomerates like Amazon or smaller Mom and Pop shops, have zero incentive whatsoever to retain staff. None. In fact, they have every incentive to axe as many workers as possible, as often as possible, profit be damned. So long as governments and shareholders reward job cuts with stock price or compensation bumps, this trend will continue.
To simplify: we have built a global society where 99% of people must work to survive but have zero mandates that employers provide jobs with livable wages and benefits. That is, and will remain, the crux of the issue at hand.
I don’t think it’s a controversial idea to impose broad and lenient regulations on companies to prevent this sort of activity. Made a profit last year? No layoffs allowed without a year’s worth of severance and benefits is such an immense deterrent that most employers will find ways to repurpose staff internally rather than fire them for a quick share bump - though with the consequence of slower hiring, as companies don’t want to be burdened with too much unnecessary talent. There are literally hundreds of policy ideas out there that nobody wants to pull because it’d inconvenience Capital, but we’re at a crossroads where we either mandate Capital behave with the barest of minimums of decency and respect for the workforce they mandate exist through Capitalist markets, or we break their arm outright and tax the absolute shit out of them to provide a high quality of life for every worker regardless of present employment.
Right now, they get to keep all the money while outsourcing risks to the workforce, and all that’s done is create shit like this: thousands let go not out of business need, but of business greed.
> Companies, be they highly profitable global conglomerates like Amazon or smaller Mom and Pop shops, have zero incentive whatsoever to retain staff. None. In fact, they have every incentive to axe as many workers as possible, as often as possible, profit be damned.
Every single individual on Earth does not like spending more money than they have to. Just because I hire a crew of landscapers for my house doesn’t mean I will retain them if I think a better offer comes around and can do the same job for half the price.
> I don’t think it’s a controversial idea to impose broad and lenient regulations on companies to prevent this sort of activity.
This is extremely inefficient and opens avenues for corruption, as well as increases costs for policing the corruption.
The far better solution is governments collecting the appropriate taxes and providing the appropriate benefits it deems are necessary for a minimum quality of life. Let businesses do business however they want, let governments provide the public services.
In fact, the US does have that in some form via unemployment insurance payroll taxes and unemployment benefits, but obviously they need to be better and consistent.
I love that you basically retread everything I said, but from a neoliberal or outright libertarian perspective of perpetuating the status quo because of “BuT tHe BuSiNeSs EfFiCiEnCy”.
And by love, I mean “am sick and tired of the same old CorpoSlop Bootlicking”.
Let me show you what I mean. You proudly kneel down and lick the boots of Capital by saying:
> Just because I hire a crew of landscapers for my house doesn’t mean I will retain them if I think a better offer comes around and can do the same job for half the price.
You are deliberately conflating business operations with consumer transactions. I see this happen in exactly two different arguments: someone deliberately trying to mislead the reader into conflating the two in an effort to confuse them into supporting Capital (because the two are not the same thing, and the speaker knows it), or by someone who doesn’t understand market transactions are fundamentally different from business operations. I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’ve not done your reading and therefore are just making a misinformed argument until your very next line:
> This is extremely inefficient and opens avenues for corruption, as well as increases costs for policing the corruption.
Ahh, the old “inefficiency” chestnut, as if the sole goal in life for any organism should be optimal efficiency of capital distribution and business operations as opposed to, I dunno, a higher quality of life for the organism? Then you throw on scare tactics like “corruption” and “policing”, and I can see you’ve already started digesting the first bites of those thick laissez-faire Capitalist wellies with a bit of Randian dressing:
Proving you’re not an idiot, but just a manipulative shyster, is the next paragraph:
> The far better solution is governments collecting the appropriate taxes and providing the appropriate benefits it deems are necessary for a minimum quality of life.
Gee whiz, now where have I heard that before? Oh, right, I literally just wrote it:
> …or we break their arm outright and tax the absolute shit out of them to provide a high quality of life for every worker regardless of present employment.
This is what really grinds my gears about you lot: you storm into the comments, insult others with flowery Randian arguments about the infallibility of business and Capital as if they’re gods, and then parrot back watered-down forms of the arguments of your opponents in an effort to seem smart and/or reasonable. Forgive me if I do not tolerate your naked bullshit in the current era anymore.
> Let businesses do business however they want, let governments provide the public services.
For what it’s worth, this is where you ultimately footgunned your entire argument. You cannot simultaneously “let businesses do business however they want” while also trusting governments to provide public services, and you have centuries of evidence proving this. Letting business operate freely means they will destroy government, while handing total power to governments will destroy business. It has always been a delicate balancing act, and the modest proposals of people like myself is that, y’know, the scale seems so heavily weighted towards business right now that it risks toppling the government. Your entire counter-argument is some form of “this is fine, actually”, which it might be for you at the moment but won’t be forever, and certainly isn’t fine for the majority of your countrymen or working classes.
I am sick and tired of allowing misguided or actively manipulative chuds shout over calls for reasonableness and decency in life and defend themselves with this naive fantasy that if we just let people do what they want, everything will be sunshine and roses.
If you’re that naive, grow up and join reality. If instead you’re that manipulative, fuck off into the sea.
I refuse to entertain otherwise anymore, because the evidence is insurmountably opposed to such a perspective.
[dead]
What a shithole of a company, why does anyone work there, is it just all H1B slaves there now?
a16k anyone?
How's the $100K H1B fee that was announced to distract from the Trump Gold Card announcement [0] going? The HN hive mind said it would bring back the jerbs and those of us who warned [1][2] it would incentivize mass layoffs and offshoring were hounded.
Before the layoffs were announced Amazon also committed to expanding hiring and infra expansion in India [3], and depending on the org, affected employees on work visas were offered transfers to India in lieu of being laid off [4].
The Trump admin won't do anything about offshoring either - in fact technology transfers to India are being encouraged by the admin as part of Pax Sillica [5] and GOP leaders in Purple Ag states like Iowa [6] and Montana [7] are lobbying for India after China pivoted away from American soybeans [8] and India began leveraging the China playbook [9].
When forced to choose between swing state farmers and GOP leaning SWEs, it's going to be the farmers who win.
[0] - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-signs-proclamati...
[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-09-25/a-100-...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-r...
[3] - https://www.aboutamazon.in/news/economic-impact/amazon-econo...
[4] - https://www.reddit.com/r/amazonemployees/comments/1qfesvs/6_...
[5] - https://x.com/USAmbIndia/status/2010718052992618815
[6] - https://governor.iowa.gov/press-release/2025-09-07/gov-reyno...
[7] - https://www.daines.senate.gov/2026/01/20/daines-travels-to-i...
[8] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-favour-brazilian-s...
[9] - https://www.cramer.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cramer-dai...
This poster is right. Offshoring is a growing factor as US companies do to white collar work what they did to manufacturing
Ignoring the reality that the higher fee has only been in play for four months; have you considered that there are likely H1-B employees in the 16,000 that Amazon laid off?
A large portion of employees on immigration visas were offered the ability to keep their job if they transferred to Amazon's India offices assuming a team was co-located there as well.
The Indian government has been encouraging [0] the H1B rule change as well as it helps kick off a reverse brain drain [1] right as India was launching it's own version of the Thousand Talents [2] program.
[0] - https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/us-loss-will-be-indi...
[1] - https://vrfbharat.org/how-will-the-h1-b-visa-restriction-ena...
[2] - https://theprint.in/india/education/reversing-brain-drain-mo...
Does the H1B fee only apply to people not yet in the country? I have a student on a student visa who claims I can do the h1b sponsor without the 100k fee because they are already there with their student visa.
I thought Bezos paid enough in bribes for it to not affect AWS/Amazon?
Sorry, donated.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46805081 in re 6 and 7
> How's the $100K H1B fee that was announced to distract from the Trump Gold Card announcement [0] going? The HN hive mind said it would bring back the jobs and those of us who warned [1][2] it would incentivize offshoring were hounded.
Yep, offshoring needs to be heavily penalized as well.
[dead]
It would be too much to ask to have fair and equal society, so instead we observe how capitalism/fascism will ruin the world over and over again.
FWIW, the employees in question are at least in the 90th percentile of US salaries if not 99th percentile (L5 is ~ $250K, L6 is ~ $399K, and L7 is north of $500K)
In regards to fairness, many times these cuts are based what group you are in, rather than performance. You wonder, hypothetically, would the L5s and above all agree to accepting a 20% pay cut in exchange for not having layoffs. It strange that one person keeps the job paying $500K, while the other unlucky one will have trouble getting a new $150K job due to the terrible job market.
Good for them
Tech is dead. Has been since 2020.
"AI" - "Always Indian" :D
I feel like this is the most natural layoff I've seen in twenty years (that is not the same as saying I feel good about it). Truly, most software companies need to cut their entire roster and re-draft quite frankly. You will need less people and have entirely new goals. This is beyond "economic" reality, AI has made it intuitive to restructure and reorient. Not doing so will just mean you will be blind-sided by any company that leaned down and re-envisioned their entire product.
So many products turned into feature mill factories. If things can get more concentrated and directed, then I think this will be better for all in terms of finding their true purpose in life.
> I think this will be better for all in terms of finding their true purpose in life.
I'm sure people losing their good paying jobs and being forced into shitty ones, or not finding replacement employment at all, will be just what they need to find their true purposes in life
This is the way I see it. A lot of people can already be replaced or should be doing entirely different work to boost productivity. It is going to be a battle between people fighting for inertia and those that are looking to be ahead of the curve.
If it wasn't for an ageing society we would probably be seeing things move along faster but people have children to raise and mortgages to pay so we will see more inertia for now.
You first.
This is where the Upton Sinclair quote comes in.
"radical ethics" indeed.
unfortunate but true
What’s your favorite kool aid flavor? I hear mango is quite good
I'm currently hiring engineering roles in SF for my startup. I am in the middle of closing my $1.5M pre-seed this week so I don't have job descriptions posted yet. But, here's a short pitch:
AI agents are about to orchestrate trillions in commerce, but today they shop on thin data: product specs, studio photos, and text reviews. Agents need evidence, not marketing. Today, the most influential product evidence lives on TikTok and Reels, outside the surfaces brands control and agents can use. Vidably puts verified buyer video directly onto e-commerce product pages through a lightweight widget. We capture that video post-purchase and link it to real purchasing outcomes. Every video is SKU-linked and structured so shopping agents can reason over it. The widget is the wedge, the dataset is the moat.
We're already live with brands and are seeing pull from both brands and creators and I would love for anyone interested to DM me!
Edit: I'm an idiot, HN doesn’t have DMs. Email me at hn at vidably dot com.
There's no DM capacity on HN.
Your likely talking to an AI agent
Just an actual human trying to be helpful.