The start of 2023: Mass layoffs

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The most successful managers and businesses I have encoutnered know this inside and out, they plan at least 15 years in front ((up to 50 for major company), and they play growth carefully. 

The most places I have worked for look to the quarter and maybe the year. Its all about making the shareholders happy at the expense of the current employees. 

[SassyPants]

+12K to the figure... https://blog.google/inside-google/message-ceo/january-update/

[Mihle]

I wonder if the current situation should affect my possible choice to become a computer engineer(software engineer)? Hm....

[optimuss]

Nothing has changed, all big IT companies overhired during covid and now trimming the fat. Because everyone is doing it, it is easier to explain from PR perspective.

CEO - "I'm willing to make this sacrifice" fires 10k people to keep profits up and get his bonus. That's how it goes.

[Donut417]

4 hours ago, Mihle said:

I wonder if the current situation should affect my possible choice to become a computer engineer(software engineer)? Hm....

Everything electronic runs on some kind of software. Honestly I dont think you have to worry. Those people will probably find new jobs. ALSO, how many of those people were maybe near retirement age? Ive seen the auto makers do the same, they will generally dangle buy outs in front of older workers so they can let them go. The only difference between the auto makers and the tech companies is the auto workers are represented by the UAW, which is why the auto makers have to dangle buyouts instead of just cutting the workforce. 

[mr moose]

22 hours ago, Donut417 said:

The most places I have worked for look to the quarter and maybe the year. Its all about making the shareholders happy at the expense of the current employees. 

You are talking about middle management yeah? 

[Arika]

Also doesn't surprise me with how many videos I've seen like this lately.

 

 

 

Sure seems to be a severe lack of "work" going on. Paying people to do yoga and fuck around in a music room

 

 

[12345678]

On 1/19/2023 at 5:39 PM, Holmes108 said:

 

Well, people have been saying stuff like that for over 100 years with every major innovation, and it has yet to negatively affect our livelihood and wealth as a society, so I'm not willing to scream the sky is falling just yet.

oh well that isn't so true outside of pollution that nobody gives a shit of

there had been majour displacement in wealth

at the industrial revolution the livehood or the working class did decrease in wealth

they were already poor fucks, then with machines they got even less job

and since wealth wasn't so distrubuted, those who could work were basically in slave like condition

only in the first 19/20th century workers condition improved due to social distress and organized strikes of sorts

the govs/owners started to give more rights to calm down the social distress

you didn't got a better livehood thanks to the industrial revolution, it was quite the opposite

it's always the same shit, capitalize as much as you can, give something if there's social distress to calm down things

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, 12345678 said:

oh well that isn't so true outside of pollution that nobody gives a shit of

there had been majour displacement in wealth

at the industrial revolution the livehood or the working class did decrease in wealth

they were already poor fucks, then with machines they got even less job

and since wealth wasn't so distrubuted, those who could work were basically in slave like condition

only in the first 19/20th century workers condition improved due to social distress and organized strikes of sorts

the govs/owners started to give more rights to calm down the social distress

you didn't got a better livehood thanks to the industrial revolution, it was quite the opposite

it's always the same shit, capitalize as much as you can, give something if there's social distress to calm down things

That's just all wrong. Distribution of wealth was way worse before the IR.  Life before and during the IR was absolutely shit, if it wasn't for machines being able to make larger profits you wouldn't have better taxes or better social services, and you had people who had the opportunity to work beyond just a coal miner or tanner, they could literally train to work in many new fields.

 

Not only that but every time we have had a technology advance where machines have replaced jobs, the unemployment rates have always only risen temporary and quality of life and wealth has always gone up.   The industrial revolution has given us what we have today.  Especially where it all kicked of in England where you have public health, social security, etc. 

 

Yes there are still people living in poverty, but that poverty is no where near the same level or size as during the IR.  

[12345678]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's just all wrong. Distribution of wealth was way worse before the IR.  Life before and during the IR was absolutely shit, if it wasn't for machines being able to make larger profits you wouldn't have better taxes or better social services, and you had people who had the opportunity to work beyond just a coal miner or tanner, they could literally train to work in many new fields.

 

Not only that but every time we have had a technology advance where machines have replaced jobs, the unemployment rates have always only risen temporary and quality of life and wealth has always gone up.   The industrial revolution has given us what we have today.  Especially where it all kicked of in England where you have public health, social security, etc. 

 

Yes there are still people living in poverty, but that poverty is no where near the same level or size as during the IR.  

alright my english is bad, but I think that I was clear enough?

you didn't got better rights as soon as industrial revolution landed/started

it was quite the opposite for a while.

you got them after mass protests by the labour, which forced the elite so to say, to give them better rights

at the time this was also breeding ground for ideologies such as comunism

you can explain a lot of trends if you look at the foreground so to say

[Kronoton]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Not only that but every time we have had a technology advance where machines have replaced jobs, the unemployment rates have always only risen temporary and quality of life and wealth has always gone up.

 

This kinda works/worked because consumption rose and it was possible to push some of the adverse effects outside.

 

Doesn't mean there is a point where this just won't work anymore or that it needs/will need some sort of forced redistribution of wealth.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, 12345678 said:

alright my english is bad, but I think that I was clear enough?

you didn't got better rights as soon as industrial revolution landed/started

it was quite the opposite for a while.

you got them after mass protests by the labour, which forced the elite so to say, to give them better rights

at the time this was also breeding ground for ideologies such as comunism

you can explain a lot of trends if you look at the foreground so to say

Damn it, I just finished writing up a post and my browser crashed.

 

Long story short, yes you are correct, but it's important to separate human condition from human intention.  By this I mean that how workers are treated, paid, given rights etc is a problem that is only seen after the fact,  yes there were mill owners who were callous arseholes who didn't care about workers (and even fought to not have to pay more), but you can't make laws to force companies to pay workers for issues they don't yet have.  You'd need a crystal ball for that, which is why such issues still occur today,  however thanks to the development of technology these issues are smaller and have less impact than they used to.

[12345678]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Damn it, I just finished writing up a post and my browser crashed.

 

Long story short, yes you are correct, but it's important to separate human condition from human intention.  By this I mean that how workers are treated, paid, given rights etc is a problem that is only seen after the fact,  yes there were mill owners who were callous arseholes who didn't care about workers (and even fought to not have to pay more), but you can't make laws to force companies to pay workers for issues they don't yet have.  You'd need a crystal ball for that, which is why such issues still occur today,  however thanks to the development of technology these issues are smaller and have less impact than they used to.

the intention was obviously profit, nobody gave a shit about proletariat

otherwise you wouldn't have got into a point of social pressure to obtain more rights

because they were many, poor as fuck, so even if you can't do the job, there's plenty of other people who are willing to do it

you get things over pressure, you shouldn't suppose things being for granted

and no, you don't need a crystal ball, issues are clear, if they aren't that usually strategies of deviding and conquerring

so rather than adressing policies, it's easier to scapegoat the problem to the illegal migrant, the drug trafficker

or to some idiot throwing paint to paintings

 

although I feel like this is going towards politics which is a taboo here, and a totally waste of time

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Kronoton said:

 

This kinda works/worked because consumption rose and it was possible to push some of the adverse effects outside.

 

Doesn't mean there is a point where this just won't work anymore or that it needs/will need some sort of forced redistribution of wealth.

 

There are two problems with wealth distribution,  the first time we saw wealth more evenly distributed was due to the IR,  since then people have been calling for more wealth distribution, but have yet to explain how to do that without destabilizing entire economies, the other issue is do we actually need the wealth to be more distributed or do we just need to ensure everyone has access to the tools to build their own wealth?  The more I look into poverty, climate, social unrest and the issues that stem from them, the more I see a problem not with the wealthy but with education,  life skills and culture being about absolutes causing ideals to be either right or wrong with no grey area.  Large layoffs now might seem like a big issue superficially, but (and I feel sorry for those who do suffer from them) given we have just had the worst viral outbreak the world has seen since 1918, but it appears that this recent boom/bust cycle is way smaller than the spanish flu. 

 

But there are lots more factors than just this.  So please consider what I am saying as a very generic appraisal.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, 12345678 said:

the intention was obviously profit, nobody gave a shit about proletariat

otherwise you wouldn't have got into a point of social pressure to obtain more rights

because they were many, poor as fuck, so even if you can't do the job, there's plenty of other people who are willing to do it

you get things over pressure, you shouldn't suppose things being for granted

and no, you don't need a crystal ball, issues are clear, if they aren't that usually strategies of deviding and conquerring

so rather than adressing policies, it's easier to scapegoat the problem to the illegal migrant, the drug trafficker

or to some idiot throwing paint to paintings

 

although I feel like this is going towards politics which is a taboo here, and a totally waste of time

Then I am not sure what your point is.  As someone who has spent a lot of time researching the IR, there are a lot of opinions about it that are misplaced or out of scale.  I read your first post as one that was trying to blame the IR for making things worse when the actual effects have largely only been positive.   Covid has had a bigger effect on family economies and quality of life than the IR did directly.

 

 

 

 

[Kronoton]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The more I look into poverty, climate, social unrest and the issues that stem from them, the more I see a problem not with the wealthy but with education, 

 

Many of these problem are due to "the elites" wanting more, more and some more for themselves and crippling education (for the general public) is both a side effect of that AND a way to make sure they will be able to do in the future.

[Donut417]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

You are talking about middle management yeah? 

No even upper management. Remember publicly trade companies are required to bend to the will of shareholders. Shareholders want returns, quickly. Thats why these companies are laying off. Because now they can cut 10K from payroll and to shareholders it looks like they had a good quarter. Upper management feels they will do more with less people because for at least the time Ive been employed thats how its been. I recall at one of my first jobs, I was literally told I was 2 people. My response was, "I get two paychecks?" 

[Gamer Schnitzel]

As long people don't march to the stock exchange and burn it down this will continue happening. Your entire purpose in life is one thing and one thing only. Make the billionaires on their islands into trillionaires. When people came together in Mesopotamia to start civilization they did not do so for a handful of people to own the planet. They did it for the common good of humanity and yet the only thing that matters in this day and age is how we can make investors richer and how we can squeeze money out of the poorest people and make them think that owning less property is actually a good thing. This system is not natural nor can it go on forever. There will be world ending riots within 10 years easily and the new iPhone showcase won't quell people's anger at that point. On a side note anyone wanna buy a couch for their imaginary metaverse apartment for $10,000? It's Gucci and you don't want your Metaverse neighbours to laugh at you do you?

[wseaton]

"World Ending Riots,"

 

Haha. Who's going to riot again? 

 

Current slow down in the tech industry is a ripple effect of the Covid shutdown. Not exactly the cause of the top 1%.who didn't want that in the first place. 

 

 

[mr moose]

18 hours ago, Donut417 said:

No even upper management. Remember publicly trade companies are required to bend to the will of shareholders. Shareholders want returns, quickly. Thats why these companies are laying off. Because now they can cut 10K from payroll and to shareholders it looks like they had a good quarter. Upper management feels they will do more with less people because for at least the time Ive been employed thats how its been. I recall at one of my first jobs, I was literally told I was 2 people. My response was, "I get two paychecks?" 

Wow, not my experience at all,  middle management yes, those guys generally don;t think about going anywhere else or climbing the ladder beyond what rungs are easily accessible.  Directors and CEO's on the other hand want to make the company stronger and more profitable because A shareholders and B there isn't always a better job on offer and if there was, in order to get it,  you have to show you did well in your current position. being that the buck stops at these levels it's hard to explain poor performance beyond "I didn't read the environment right"

[mr moose]

21 hours ago, Kronoton said:

 

Many of these problem are due to "the elites" wanting more, more and some more for themselves and crippling education (for the general public) is both a side effect of that AND a way to make sure they will be able to do in the future.

I see most of these issues being driven by socialist lobby groups.   The types that demand we ban fossil fueled cars but refuse to let us have the only power source that has any chance of making the switch to EV's feasible.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Directors and CEO's on the other hand want to make the company stronger and more profitable because A shareholders and B there isn't always a better job on offer and if there was, in order to get it,  you have to show you did well in your current position. being that the buck stops at these levels it's hard to explain poor performance beyond "I didn't read the environment right"

 Im not sure what world you live in but the CEO and Directors dont care. The shareholders dont care how you make profit. Cutting 10K workers for example, wipes out 10K workers worth of payroll. That then becomes more revenue. Sure, you're basically pushing more work on to employees who were not laid off, but who cares. As long as shareholders see a growth in the stock, they dont care how. Even if a CEO runs a company in to the ground, they will likely be given a golden parachute. I remember during the crash of 08, many of the banks CEO's leaving and were getting large golden parachutes. The whole system is about greed, and its a race to the bottom. How do they extract the most amount of money in the least amount of time? AND neither the CEO, the Directors, the Shareholders care about the guy who actually does the work, the people at the bottom are used up and thrown away like toilet paper. 

[mr moose]

21 hours ago, Donut417 said:

 Im not sure what world you live in but the CEO and Directors dont care. The shareholders dont care how you make profit. Cutting 10K workers for example, wipes out 10K workers worth of payroll. That then becomes more revenue. Sure, you're basically pushing more work on to employees who were not laid off, but who cares. As long as shareholders see a growth in the stock, they dont care how. Even if a CEO runs a company in to the ground, they will likely be given a golden parachute. I remember during the crash of 08, many of the banks CEO's leaving and were getting large golden parachutes. The whole system is about greed, and its a race to the bottom. How do they extract the most amount of money in the least amount of time? AND neither the CEO, the Directors, the Shareholders care about the guy who actually does the work, the people at the bottom are used up and thrown away like toilet paper. 

The world I live in is just not observational the same as yours.  The largest company I have direct experience with was only dealing in turnover in the billions, most day to day stuff was 100's of millions.  Also I am talking about stuff I have read and seen that seems to be inline with what I have experienced first hand.   So I dare say the truth may well be somewhere between your experience and mine.

[Sauron]

On 1/19/2023 at 5:32 PM, Gamer Schnitzel said:

Now that there is AI that you can tell what to do why should you have devs..? Just tell the AI to create a video game and it will code it?

We're not really anywhere near this being a thing. Frankly I doubt we'll ever get there with neural networks, though never say never I guess...

 

These layoffs aren't a consequence of AI taking over these jobs. It's a consequence of companies making wrong predictions a few years ago and being forced by investors to prioritize constant profit increases over long term projects and, of course, over people's well being.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

We're not really anywhere near this being a thing. Frankly I doubt we'll ever get there with neural networks, though never say never I guess...

 

These layoffs aren't a consequence of AI taking over these jobs. It's a consequence of companies making wrong predictions a few years ago and being forced by investors to prioritize constant profit increases over long term projects and, of course, over people's well being.

This forum is always sure of itself that when anything goes bad it is an intentionally evil or moronic decision that caused it.