Yes, and? They're in no obligation to share that profit with the workers. They're bound to providing value to their shareholders. If the firings don't negatively impact profits or share value, then where's the problem (for Microsoft) if this is the behavior that shareholders reward right now?
>Yes, and? They're in no obligation to share that profit with the workers. They're bound to providing value to their shareholders
Yes, and?
You're describing the state of things and the law as if that makes it a good thing and an optimal situation. It's neither.
All kinds of very good things were no legal obligation for businesses to perform (like no obligation to not use child labor, or to have filters in your factory's chimneys), and all kinds of very bad things were an obligation for businesses to do (like seggregated areas), at different times.
Microsoft laying off some people and child labor are in nowhere comparable. You lost the argument here. What's next, are you gonna compare getting a traffic fine to the holocaust?
If they want to, Microsoft employees could unionize to make sure the company can never fire any of them, but of course that would mean saying goodbye to all those juicy jobs with compensation packages that make big-tech and the US attractive places for lucrative business in the first place.
Nobody forces you to choose to go work at Microsoft or any big-tech that focuses on pleasing Wallstreet. People go work there because they chase wealth building and that comes with higher risks. You can go work at your local mom & pop SW shop if you want a cushy job for life. Of course you won't get a 400k TC package to buy that dream house either.
>Microsoft laying off some people and child labor are in nowhere comparable. You lost the argument here.
Only the comparison, based on the part I quoted and replied to, wasn't about merely laying off some people. It was of maximizing shareholder value - of which this, and treating employees as disposable in general, is just one of countless examples.
And whose results, in aggregate, are comparable, if not worse, than child labor.
>You can go work at your local mom & pop SW shop if you want a cushy job for life. Of course you won't get a 400k TC package to buy that dream house either.
It's as if you're talking about some imaginary universe, where mom&pop SW shops are squashed by Big Tech in all kinds of ways, and where regular shitty jobs, with no "400k TC packages", from Walmart stuff to diaper-wearing Amazon warehouse workers, and countless others, are not also treated like disposable "human capital" and fired without second thought even when those companies make record profits.
How are they treated as disposable? Should companies never let people go ever once they hire them? How would that ever work?
Even in Europe many companies had layoffs and some are still laying people off as we speak with plans all the way till 2026. It's how private businesses work, they're free to adjust their workforce numbers as they see fit, they're not a charity to guarantee people life employment.
>And whose results, in aggregate, are comparable, if not worse, than child labor.
Yeah being a laid off Microsoft employee with that generous severance package, is worse than being a slave child in Bangladesh.
Looking at the payroll of Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Apple, etc. a lot of people apparently. Are you new to the labor market or how for-profit publicly listed companies work? Or do you think your company cares more about you than it does about its profits.
>I just think it’s not wrong to want something better than fuck you, you’re disposable and the only thing that matters is profit.
How are they being treated as disposable? Should companies never be allowed to let anyone go ever?
And what do you suggest? Communism? I work in Europe for a private local company and for them profit is also the only thing that matters hence why they had layoffs and hiring freezes.
If I stop being perceived as being productive do you think the company won't fire me here too? If I drop dead tomorrow do you think the CEO will come to my funeral or send money to my family? I have the exact worth to the company my US peer do except for much less pay and a safety net paid from my own high taxes and lower financial opportunities.
I was responding to GP's assertion that firings like this only happen in bad economies. My point was that it's hard to believe it's a bad economy when they made $146b in profit.
How? Profits are not always proportionally related to the number of employees. On-boarding more bodies results in bigger payrolls but not guarantees of more profits.
> You don't prioritize maximizing profits over your workers' livelihoods.
Are you 5? Every company prioritizes profits over its employee livelihoods (even in Europe) otherwise no entrepreneur would ever bother working 60h/week and taking huge risks to start a company if their main focus would be charity for workers, and not profits for them and the investors.
it's certainly not a bad economy right now. Record low unemployment, record high stock market prices. Inflation is back to reasonable rates. Prices are inflated, but that alone does not define the economy.
If all companies are using AI in development, all programmers will get more efficient. Laying off programmers because the remaining ones are more efficient only makes sense if other companies will never have access to the AI.
He never said that, he just pointed out a statistic. You choose to assume that. Please top braking HN rules by assuming bad faith.
HN rules state: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
The layoffs from mixed reality aren't all that surprising since lots of tech companies thought VR/AR was going to be the next hot thing and then AI popped up instead. Azure is a bit surprising, but that division has grown so rapidly that they likely did hire some poor performers, and this is their opportunity to get rid of them under the cover of AI instead of admitting they staffed up poorly.
>The layoffs from mixed reality aren't all that surprising since lots of tech companies thought VR/AR was going to be the next hot thing and then AI popped up instead.
Yeah, to be followed by layoffs from AI when the next-next hot thing comes.
Always so surprising how its easier to hire new grads than to just redirect your existing staff thats already integrated into the process and culture to work on something else.
- the "current hot thing" is usually something bogus that requires token effort (it's more about signalling to the market "we do that too") so doesn't need much experience until it actually gets real.
- the new hires are cheaper, while the existing staff was starting getting dangerously more senior and more jaded (and thus demanding more, and seeing through the bullshit grind culture more)
- the new grad hires also come familiar with the latest "hot thing" for free
One take on Azure's apparent rapid growth - "receipt swapping" aka dubious financial engineering:
> ...the number of users only grew by ONE percent between 2017 and 2022 while Azure revenues grew by 273%. Did companies really spend three times more for cloud services in the same period of time? Let’s have a look at that starting from the list of the biggest annual contracts with Azure.
>...I checked all the names above and their cloud computing expenses are so minimal that they are not shown separately in their financial statements
It’s this kind of stupid biased comment that I hate the most. What logic says that these folks were “poor performers” rather than Microsoft hiring too many people?
Everyone knows that in massive layoffs these companies aren’t competent enough to pick and choose the worst employees, it’s such a bad take.
You’re just perpetuating corpo bullshit and harming the reputations of those who are laid off.
I hope someday you get laid off and everyone thinks you’re a poor performer because of it.
Can someone with experience in hiring and firing help me understand something? Microsoft has many open positions listed on their website[1]. Why would they lay off people they've already invested time and money into hiring and developing, instead of offering these employees the open positions within the company? Doesn't this seem counterproductive? Why are big tech companies so quick to fire employees?
It's the law regarding redundancies where I live (currently going through one now) that everyone should be evaluated against all open positions. Not just open, all remaining ones as well. So you can't just axe a specific team, those people could lay claim on the same role in different positions, and be evaluated against objective criteria (like experience, tenure etc).
So it's a huge thing we're going through in my company now. Last week lay offs were announced, and by end of this week everyone will have been evaluated against the remaining positions.
Funny, probably have no communication between these departments either, the people hiring them think they are excellent and then the ones firing them don't.
But the problem never gets solved because the hiring people just go "I don't know at all why this person got laid off, looks great on paper! Let's re-hire them."
"AI Wave" being -> cheaper indian workers that cannot keep up with the support tickets and move them all over emea, asia and US. Azure AI that helps with tickets cannot replace a real agent.
64 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 56.5 ms ] threadFrom the other perspective, 1 fired person is a lot for a family - especially in a bad economy
Yes, and?
You're describing the state of things and the law as if that makes it a good thing and an optimal situation. It's neither.
All kinds of very good things were no legal obligation for businesses to perform (like no obligation to not use child labor, or to have filters in your factory's chimneys), and all kinds of very bad things were an obligation for businesses to do (like seggregated areas), at different times.
If they want to, Microsoft employees could unionize to make sure the company can never fire any of them, but of course that would mean saying goodbye to all those juicy jobs with compensation packages that make big-tech and the US attractive places for lucrative business in the first place.
Nobody forces you to choose to go work at Microsoft or any big-tech that focuses on pleasing Wallstreet. People go work there because they chase wealth building and that comes with higher risks. You can go work at your local mom & pop SW shop if you want a cushy job for life. Of course you won't get a 400k TC package to buy that dream house either.
Only the comparison, based on the part I quoted and replied to, wasn't about merely laying off some people. It was of maximizing shareholder value - of which this, and treating employees as disposable in general, is just one of countless examples.
And whose results, in aggregate, are comparable, if not worse, than child labor.
>You can go work at your local mom & pop SW shop if you want a cushy job for life. Of course you won't get a 400k TC package to buy that dream house either.
It's as if you're talking about some imaginary universe, where mom&pop SW shops are squashed by Big Tech in all kinds of ways, and where regular shitty jobs, with no "400k TC packages", from Walmart stuff to diaper-wearing Amazon warehouse workers, and countless others, are not also treated like disposable "human capital" and fired without second thought even when those companies make record profits.
How are they treated as disposable? Should companies never let people go ever once they hire them? How would that ever work?
Even in Europe many companies had layoffs and some are still laying people off as we speak with plans all the way till 2026. It's how private businesses work, they're free to adjust their workforce numbers as they see fit, they're not a charity to guarantee people life employment.
>And whose results, in aggregate, are comparable, if not worse, than child labor.
Yeah being a laid off Microsoft employee with that generous severance package, is worse than being a slave child in Bangladesh.
That’s not a stable environment for people to live in.
No need to pretend like I’m an idiot. You know exactly what I meant.
How are they being treated as disposable? Should companies never be allowed to let anyone go ever?
And what do you suggest? Communism? I work in Europe for a private local company and for them profit is also the only thing that matters hence why they had layoffs and hiring freezes.
If I stop being perceived as being productive do you think the company won't fire me here too? If I drop dead tomorrow do you think the CEO will come to my funeral or send money to my family? I have the exact worth to the company my US peer do except for much less pay and a safety net paid from my own high taxes and lower financial opportunities.
Where do you live that you think your employer won't try to replace you the second you dropped dead?
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem on top of being a smug prick.
Are you 5? Every company prioritizes profits over its employee livelihoods (even in Europe) otherwise no entrepreneur would ever bother working 60h/week and taking huge risks to start a company if their main focus would be charity for workers, and not profits for them and the investors.
If theyre dogfooding? The singularity is a natural belief'
HN rules state: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
This is a heading of interest since we all are concerned about being laid off.
> That's less than 1% of their workforce
Focuses on how the lay offs look from the perspective of the company.
> No problem for those people to suffer then
Points out that looking at it from the company focus omits the negative impacts lay offs have on on individuals
I mean we are having a conversation here and not just listing factlets, right? So do you really see any bad faith in the above?
Yep, the "AI" thing here smells of BS... like most of AI anyway. Just look how well our AI business is doing, we don't need that many people anymore.
Yeah, to be followed by layoffs from AI when the next-next hot thing comes.
- the "current hot thing" is usually something bogus that requires token effort (it's more about signalling to the market "we do that too") so doesn't need much experience until it actually gets real.
- the new hires are cheaper, while the existing staff was starting getting dangerously more senior and more jaded (and thus demanding more, and seeing through the bullshit grind culture more)
- the new grad hires also come familiar with the latest "hot thing" for free
> ...the number of users only grew by ONE percent between 2017 and 2022 while Azure revenues grew by 273%. Did companies really spend three times more for cloud services in the same period of time? Let’s have a look at that starting from the list of the biggest annual contracts with Azure.
>...I checked all the names above and their cloud computing expenses are so minimal that they are not shown separately in their financial statements
https://justdario.com/2024/05/what-if-nvidia-simply-tagged-a...
The articles on nvidia are just as mind blowing.
Everyone knows that in massive layoffs these companies aren’t competent enough to pick and choose the worst employees, it’s such a bad take.
You’re just perpetuating corpo bullshit and harming the reputations of those who are laid off.
I hope someday you get laid off and everyone thinks you’re a poor performer because of it.
Microsoft exec blames Azure layoffs on the 'AI wave' in leaked memo
https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-exec-blames-azure-...
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40593559)
[1] https://jobs.careers.microsoft.com/global/en/search?rt=profe...
Because the co believes they can be replaced tomorrow, with adequate help, costing the same, or less.
Because they're "too old", or have a chance at retirement benefits.
Because they're politically active.
Because they've been around for 14 months and they seem complacent, compared to the new hires killing themselves for the role.
So it's a huge thing we're going through in my company now. Last week lay offs were announced, and by end of this week everyone will have been evaluated against the remaining positions.
So they layoff and try again, sometimes hiring the same people back.
But the problem never gets solved because the hiring people just go "I don't know at all why this person got laid off, looks great on paper! Let's re-hire them."
They laid off non-AI roles, to redirect funding to AI.