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

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

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

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

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

    • @Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      Apple did not announce any layoffs last year. It’s been news worthy because some many of the other tech companies have had multiple rounds

    • It’s more devious than that. If company A lays off 1000 people due to “legitimate” reasons (e.g. twitter generally doing poorly), that’s 1000 people looking for new jobs. Company B, C, and D can then take that as an opportunity to lay off 1000 people each that aren’t immediately vital to the success of the company. Company A might not have the funds or desire to rehire right away, but the other three will slowly start building back up. You end up with 4000 people competing for 100 open positions. Many may not be willing to accept a pay cut, but some percentage will, and gradually the rest will be slowly starved down to accepting less pay.

      Software engineering is notoriously a high paid career path, and executives at these companies hate that, so any opportunity they get to suppress wages, they’ll jump on. Especially if you know every other big company is doing it to, so they won’t be able to turn that into an advantage against you

    • @WebTheWitted@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

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

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

    • @Truck_kun@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Actually… I see your point.

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

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

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

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

  • @Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1151 year ago

    A few things happened pretty quickly.

    During the pandemic, tech profits soared which led to massive hiring sprees. For all the press about layoffs at the big guys, I think most still have more workers than they did pre-pandemic.

    Interests rates soared. Before the pandemic interest rates were ludicrously low, in other words it cost almost nothing to borrow money. This made it easier to spend on long term or unclear projects where the hope seemed to be “get enough users, then you can monetize.” Once interest rates rose, those became incredibly expensive projects, so funding is now much more scarce. Companies are pulling back on bigger projects or, like reddit, trying to monetize them faster. Startups are also finding it harder, so fewer jobs.

    And of course, AI. No one is quite sure how much that’ll change the game but some folks think most programmers will be replaceable, or at least 1 programmer will be able to do the work of several. So, rather than hire and go through everything severance etc might entail, I think a lot of companies are taking a wait and see approach and thus not hiring.

        • @Donjuanme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. AI had the potential to alleviate a lot of pressures of society, to free up much of our time spent doing tedious mindless tasks. We just need to make sure to use it for the benefit of the many rather than the profit of the few. I don’t want a union that wants to keep labor busy and well compensated, I want a union that keeps people safe, happy, and compensated properly

          • @jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            Yeah, except there’s no way the owners would give up any of the profits for the betterment of society. Every technological improvement since the industrial revolution made productivity skyrocket, and yet the capitalists made sure working people were still hovering just above destitution. The only reason some of us have it better is because unions fought them, and that includes Luddites that would destroy the means of production.

          • IninewCrow
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            A lot of technology problems and utilizing AI for the betterment of humanity could all be dealt with easily if we just removed a large chunk of the bloated administrative, management and ownership hogs at the top that contribute nothing, stall everything and constantly sabotage development with their politics, infighting and warring with competitors. If you remove the profit factor, corporate greed and economic shortsightedness in these situations, a lot of problems can be dealt with fairly easily and fairly quickly.

            Unfortunately, we are greedy monkeys who want to rule the world and once you give power to one monkey or a small group of monkeys, they immediately try to overpower all the other monkeys and rule the jungle.

    • @sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      I completely agree, although I think AI is more likely to have impact marketing, communications, PR, creative and PM type roles (and there are a lot of those in tech companies). I suspect we will see a noticeable reduction in tech workers over the next decade.

  • MeepsTheBard
    link
    fedilink
    29
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

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

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

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

    • The correction I would make is that they can afford the workers. But the leadership needs to continue the growth. All they have left is to cut expenses, and the easiest way to do that is layoffs.

    • @olympicyes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Add something about the federal funds rate exceeding 2.5% for the first time since 2008 and you’re on the right track. I think interest rates affect startups more than Google so bigger tech firms were hoarding talent to prevent new competitors from having those workers.

  • @MostlyGibberish@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 year ago

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

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

    • @henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

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

    • davel [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

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

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

  • @MajorHavoc@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    851 year ago

    It’s interest rates.

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

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

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

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

    And the shareholders are all fucked.

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

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

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

    • @Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      201 year ago

      There are laws around how layoffs have to be communicated. Secret layoffs at large companies aren’t a thing.

      NDA’s occur at the start of employment. When someone is laid off, there is typically a severance that includes a separation agreement, these may have an NDA clause.

      The rest of this I agree with. This is being pushed by the shareholders. The scare tactic is an added bonus.

      Unionize.

      • @MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Secret layoffs at large companies aren’t a thing.

        Yeah. They aren’t supposed to be a thing.

        I’ve seen periods when a bunch of colleagues used to work for XYZ, and then didn’t, and were real quiet about why they left, and “didn’t have any hard feelings”. (And remodeled the bathroom the same month they stopped working at XYZ.) So I assumed they got an illegal NDA and a fat goodbye bonus to keep them from questioning it.

        I guess I’m technically just making assumptions as deeply cynical person.

        Edit: and I imagine the lawyers involved set the whole thing up so it’s technically not a secret layoff, by strict legal standards. Smelled like one, though. :)

        Edit 2: Could also just have been a company below some legal size cut-off, I suppose.

    • Carighan Maconar
      link
      fedilink
      241 year ago

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

      Plus, as this happens the first/second/third time to new employees, they lose any sense of company-loyalty they might have had at their first job. The next time anything goes wrong, these people are already writing applications, and then quitting the moment they get an offer somewhere.

      This behavior by company trains people to associate fuck all with their current job. Which is a good attitude as a worker, but usually not something a company would have wanted, historically. A privately held company would usually want to aim for high worker loyalty, allowing them to endure bad market times without immediately shedding most of their workforce.

      Modern shareholders+C-suites behavior reinforces this, however. Everything goes in the name of saving the quarterly report and making it look good and paying out your own bonuses.

  • @festus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

    TL;DR

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

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

  • @sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    371 year ago

    It’s an easy win for the balance sheet. Their products are still sellable, the services should be more or less unaffected (for the next few quarters), so they’ll continue to get the same revenue. But their costs just decreased, so they look more profitable.

    It looks good on quarterly calls. It’s a good way to juice a stock.

  • 𝕯𝖎𝖕𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖙
    link
    fedilink
    321 year ago

    Tech is hard, leaders aren’t always technical. AI is great at bullshitting, and it’s swooned many CEOs into thinking it will 10x (make them 10x more efficient than they previously were) existing employees / replace the need for programmers. Lots of leaders just look to what other leaders at companies are doing - some see what elon does at twitter as proof that downsizing drastically won’t kill your company.

    Programming is like editing a book with many chapters. New developers need time to learn the story line of the book before they can begin editing anything. If the book has been around and edited continuously for over a decade, it’s going to take some time for those developers to understand the book well enough to start making meaningful contributions. Lots of these tech companies have multiple books each with many chapters, and one thing leadership either doesn’t realize or doesn’t seem to factor into the equation is that maintaining these books and all their story arcs and character development gets harder and harder over time. Truly in the tech industry, it’s more expensive to train a new hire than it is to promote an existing hire.

    But again, leaders are listening to folks like elon musk…

    • ipodjockey
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      I agree this has got to be the root reason. They are scared.

    • @Pohl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      221 year ago

      This is a thing that sounds like some crazy uncle bullshit but it is actually completely true and non-controversial.

      The scariest thing to a central banker when it comes to inflation is that wages might start to go up. When that happens the inflations is basically permanent.

        • @makeasnek@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          -6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Bitcoin solves this. Clear, unambiguous, unchanging monetary policy that doesn’t constantly increase the supply and take a portion of your dollar’s value to give to anybody else. It is not aligned with any country or even block of countries and is truly the first international currency in that sense. No politician or even national or supra-national government can force Bitcoin do do anything that isn’t part of its protocol because it’s so decentralized.

          It has been running 24/7 365 for 15 years without a single major security issue in the protocol or a single hour of downtime. With lightning network upgrades, transactions confirm in under a second internationally with fees 1000x less than credit cards, often under a single cent.

          It is accessible to anybody in the world with a cell phone and internet access, including the billions, with a B, who don’t have access to stable banking infrastructure or local currency. No credit checks, no needing six forms of ID, no overdraft fees, no bank holidays, no middlemen, no nonsense. And it does this with less electricity than you’d think, less than 1% of global electricity usage, mostly from renewable sources as miners chase the cheapest electricity and the cheapest electricity is from renewables and over-provisioned grids.

          • davel [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            For anyone remaining in the world who still believes cryptocurrency nonsense, I have a bridge to sell you.

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

    • @MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      It’s this.

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

      CEOs hate this, so they’re playing chicken.

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

      Then they’ll go to the next place and evangelize about how “you’ve got to invest in talent”.