You must log in or register to comment.

ejpierle t1_j5x41jx wrote

I hope all these tech workers can get together and build something so cool it puts all their bosses out of business.


hibearmate t1_j5ydoj4 wrote

Please remember that ANY layoffs at these companies are reported as tech layoffs

So getting rid of PR, Marketing, Finance, and administrative staff is “tech“ layoffs


ejpierle t1_j5ye591 wrote

Well, any new company will need marketing and admin and whatever else also, so my point stands.


Fair-Distribution-51 t1_j5yukte wrote

Yeah but new companies won’t be able to pay them similar wages to what they earned at these huge tech companies


RieveNailo t1_j60gsl3 wrote

Pay at IBM is pretty bad though so once they find work elsewhere, it will probably be a raise


Fair-Distribution-51 t1_j61dbmi wrote

Fair enough, I don’t know much about IBM but just know the other big tech companies like google etc that are having layoffs pay a lot when including their stock they give so really hard to get something similar at a smaller company


Zhabba_Zheeba t1_j5z07hh wrote

$X > $0 for someone who just lost their job, even if $X < $Y.


Nebula_Zero t1_j5z22nv wrote

Low wages < unemployment benefits that pay a percentage of what you made while you hunt for a better paying job with benefits


Zhabba_Zheeba t1_j5z3xb8 wrote

Well, then that's the individual's fault for not doing that cost/benefit analysis. Have you ever tried to survive on unemployment? I have. Covid bonuses notwithstanding, it's very difficult, and usually much less desirable than actually having a job that pays less than what you made.


4Wf2n5 t1_j5zadqc wrote

There's a Google sheet of the affected Spotify employees that was shared on LinkedIn to help them find future opportunities. Most were engineers.


brickmaus t1_j60qnxc wrote

Build a company with no c-level executives and instead all exec-level decisions are just made by ChatGPT


diacewrb t1_j5xypzb wrote

Hopefully they won't become a big monopoly and start the cycle of layoffs all over again.


ytaqebidg t1_j5z1nvy wrote

Sadly these companies don't hire those kind of people.


NextDistrict t1_j605c7i wrote

By the way, it’s kind of ironic that you are also advocating for layoffs of the other employees that survived that round of layoffs. Outside of a scandal or activist investor, a lot of leadership in a company would not go unless there is a large downturn in business results… which would mean a lot of layoffs.


k0ty t1_j63raur wrote

I did exactly this few months ago and put IBM out of business in my region in consulting 😊


westplains1865 t1_j5wtvn0 wrote

>Shares of the company fell 2% in extended trading, erasing earlier gains on the largely upbeat results. Analysts said news of the job cuts and free cash flow miss was behind the drop. "It seems as if the market is disappointed by the size of its announced job cuts, which only amounted to 1.5% of its workforce," said Jesse Cohen, senior analyst at

Madness that Wall Street rewards these companies for putting thousands of out of work and actively encourages more misery just to boost quarterly profits.


[deleted] t1_j5x494c wrote



Tearakan t1_j5xb5tv wrote

Yep our entire economic system is set up for profits to increase every quarter forever. That's insanity but what we have collectively agreed on.


1800TurdFerguson t1_j6004rb wrote

Except it’s not something that we’ve collectively agreed upon. We sat and watched as Congress deregulated the financial industry and markets, and then sat on the sidelines as the public at large was further abstracted from the levers of power. Now we shrug our shoulders, throw up our hands, and exclaim exasperatedly as all manners of corporate fuckery go unmonitored and unpunished.


Tearakan t1_j600fq6 wrote

Okay yeah good point. The we there is the ruling bodies of humanity and they kinda dragged everyone else along.


econ101user t1_j5xi1z8 wrote

Yeah it's really fucked up that capitalist democracies keep expecting constant progress. And what have we got in return? The fastest advance of living conditions in human history? Life's gotta better for everyone so quickly in the last 200 years why not stop now and agree on no more improvement


Tearakan t1_j5xiekk wrote

Constant economic growth does not mean constant progress. Unlesd of course you are counting billionaires wealth growth and inequality being the worst its ever been.

Oh and this little thing called climate change which we keep ignoring in favor of more economic growth.

So about 500 years of progress leading us to utter ruin. Not a great run for an economic system compared to the rest of human civilization's history.


econ101user t1_j6137ch wrote

> Constant economic growth does not mean constant progress.

Just a coincidence I guess then that higher GDP correlates with higher quality of life.

> inequality being the worst its ever been

Not even close.

> Oh and this little thing called climate change which we keep ignoring in favor of more economic growth.

Economic growth doesn't have to stop to address combat change.

>So about 500 years of progress leading us to utter ruin

Utter ruin? You need to read a history book and touch grass.

>Not a great run for an economic system compared to the rest of human civilization's history.

What a shame this world is wasted on you. Somewhere in time there's a peasant in medieval Europe that deserves to swap time with you


Tearakan t1_j61ab4c wrote

No it doesn't. Our GDP is the best on the planet in the US. Life expectancy has dropped for the past several years. This includes before the pandemic.

There are many countries with much less GDP per capita that do markedly better on Healthcare for the majority of their citizens. As just one example of better lives.

Sure it's gotten better for the 1 percent and Americans and up. But again not better for the majority.

Wage growth for the majority of Americans has not beat inflation.

Yeah maybe look up climate change. It's a civilization ender. Especially if we can't farm because of wildly swinging temperatures and weather.


econ101user t1_j61bvlq wrote

> Our GDP is the best on the planet in the US.

Did you even bother to do a 10 second google before opening your mouth hole? The US is not the number one

But even your incorrect cherry picking isn't a valid counterpoint to a correlation.

That's like saying "no height doesn't matter for success in basketball. My uncle is 6'6" and sucks at hoops".

> As just one example of better lives.

Cool bro. Guess what we're not just picking single examples like US and healthcare.

Look at this data plot and stop talking

> Wage growth for the majority of Americans has not beat inflation

What does that have to do with anything? You think because eggs are more expensive that economic growth isn't linked to quality of life? Are you just shouting out random grievances?

> Yeah maybe look up climate change. It's a civilization ender. Especially if we can't farm because of wildly swinging temperatures and weather.

Okay what's your point? You think our choices are: grow the economy or solve climate change? That's a talking point created by fossil fuel industry interests to scare people into supporting measures to address it, staging a shift from carbon emitting activity as damaging to the economy. It's been refuted very well yet here we have not only right wing idiots believing it but left wing ones too. That's hilarious.


Tearakan t1_j61g14l wrote

By overall GDP we are. I only went into GDP per capita when discussing actual effects on the population.

My argument about climate change is we can't keep global capitalism which is defined by endless economic growth. That's incompatible with actually surviving climate change.

Endless economic growth requires either energy increasing endlessly or increasing efficiency.

We literally cannot get to 100 percent efficiency thanks to thermodynamics.

And endlessly demanding more energy will just lead us back to climate change and resource depletion on this planet.

Finally, healthcare and life expectancy are two very important parts of a good human life. You can't just throw them away from the whole "people are getting better due to increasing GDP" argument.


econ101user t1_j61ixnx wrote

> By overall GDP we are.

Why on gods green earth would you think that mattered?

> My argument about climate change is we can't keep global capitalism which is defined by endless economic growth.

So this is just all blather. Capitalism isn't defined by endless growth. Go find a book that defines it as such. Seriously stop talking and go find a book, open it and read it.

>That's incompatible with actually surviving climate change


> Endless economic growth requires either energy increasing endlessly or increasing efficiency. We literally cannot get to 100 percent efficiency thanks to thermodynamics.


So let me get this straight. Your argument is that based on your made up definition that capitalism requires infinite growth, that will require infinite energy which violates the laws of thermodynamics ergo capitalism is causing climate change.

Be honest with me: are you a teenager? You need to stop. You're just saying dumber and dumber shit.

> Finally, healthcare and life expectancy are two very important parts of a good human life. You can't just throw them away from the whole "people are getting better due to increasing GDP" argument.

I didn't throw them away. Theyre in the HDI. I just didn't cherry pick like you did.

I'm going to make this straight for you: economic growth is not a bad thing. It's strongly correlated with human living conditions. A growing economy is not one that is incompatible with policies that mitigate the growth and impacts of climate change. Or in crayon: more money in the system is better for everyone, you should try to make it more fair but overall it's a good thing. You can make money off non-carbon producing activities. The technology exists today to meet the overwhelm majority of energy needs currently provided by fossil fuels. It is a policy problem, not an economic one.


1800TurdFerguson t1_j5zmfd3 wrote

> What part of companies exist to make shareholders > money do you not understand.

We understand it, but I don’t think you do. It’s not an issue that companies exist to make shareholders money. It’s that they only exist to maximize shareholder value, emphasizing short-term profits over everything else…corporate citizenship, sustainability, and long-term growth. This is the dystopian Friedman-esque future financial deregulators wanted.

We substitute Wall Street as a stand-in for the broader public, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Wall Street is no more representative of the population at large than Friends was of 20/30-somethings in NYC. Wall Street is a collection of very wealthy individuals and institutions that exist solely to facilitate the mass transfer of wealth upward. It’s not Fred and Barbara in the suburbs who are constantly pushing to extract every dollar in value possible. It might be the financial institution that holds Fred and Barbara’s retirement funds, but they’d push Fred and Barbara out the door in a second if it meant an infinitesimal amount of increased value at that moment for this mutual and exchange-traded funds.


[deleted] t1_j5zpm16 wrote



1800TurdFerguson t1_j5zuqlz wrote

Delete your account. Go herd sheep in New Zealand or something. There’s nothing superfluous in what I wrote. I’m sorry that you can’t grasp that.


folstar t1_j5zxaar wrote

I think they were making a valid point, albeit somewhat poorly and unnecessarily rude.

You said "It's not an issue that companies exist to make shareholders money"

Then followed with a list of things you wish companies would do that are not making shareholders money. You could put a million things on that list (where I think the "superfluorsly expanded on" comment originated) and it won't change that none of those are making shareholders money. Maybe those items sometimes align with making money, but that is unlikely allies at best.

If you really want those things, then it IS an issue that companies exist to make shareholders money.


1800TurdFerguson t1_j6019hi wrote

I’m not sure whether your comment about being unnecessarily rude was directed at me or at vegdeg, but I think it’s high time we put Friedman’s thoughts on shareholder value in the same grave he inhabits. It’s an incredibly short-sighted and unsustainable ideal, and as an economic theory it’s been shown to be increasingly unworkable. The pendulum between regulation and deregulation has swung back and forth throughout American history, but never has corporate America been better positioned to halt the swing of the pendulum back into a more restrictive position. The American public is by and large unable to do anything to stop the incessant extraction of value from them by corporations and the financial markets.


folstar t1_j603ztx wrote

>It’s an incredibly short-sighted and unsustainable ideal

RAmen, but that's how the system works.

Maybe in the 2060s we'll have a POTUS willing to take on the system who gets shot in the head for totally unrelated reasons.


1800TurdFerguson t1_j63gjt9 wrote

Ramen is what I’m going to say at the end the next time I have to join a prayer. Thanks for that laugh.

I predict we’ll have AI’s of famous jurists duking it out on SCOTUS by the 2060. We’ll have Scalia and RBG going at it again, with Berger and Powell trying to build a consensus.


Quote_Medium t1_j5zyoxu wrote

I would heard sheep in New Zealand in a heartbeat. Are you trying to insult the guy or wish him well?


haversack77 t1_j600it9 wrote

"Curse you IBM for not ruining the lives of yet more of your loyal breadwinners, so that I might increase the yield from my passively earned income yet further" - Investors


unnamedplayerr t1_j6pgvf8 wrote

Most of these were result of the Kyndryll spin off. I’m this case they were actually cutting the fat.


econ101user t1_j5xhv9e wrote

Why? The stock market isn't meant to be a moral compass. It's a vote in companies fiscal viability.

There's nothing wrong with the stock market. There's something wrong with how people view it's place is society


tan5taafl t1_j5y1hyu wrote

That unit they described as involved, had been leaving IBM for over a year. Not really new


FIRSTFREED0CELL t1_j5xjhqe wrote

3,900 out of 282,000.


diacewrb t1_j5xyn7g wrote

3,900 so far.

The year has only just begun.


yarrr0123 t1_j5zegvn wrote

That's actually surprising it's so small. IBM is notorious for big layoffs, even in the best economic climates.


diacewrb t1_j5zg5l3 wrote

I am guessing if they announce a smaller number in comparison to everyone else then they just might avoid attention.


strangetrip666 t1_j5yz2pk wrote

Stop with your facts and numbers immediately! The news has been telling us that we need to panic about these extremely small layoffs so we all need to start doing so right now! Maybe also take a job way below your normal rate if your job hunting while your at it to get through these hard times ahead. /s

In all seriousness, main stream media really seems to want us to panic but the numbers just aren't adding up.


Deskshallrise t1_j5z6kri wrote

> these companies for putting thousands of out of work and actively encourag

are you trying to say this isn't a MAJOR indicator of what's to come? We are going to need a sobriety test boys.


Sushrit_Lawliet t1_j5xvy8z wrote

Wall Street rewards these companies for essentially putting so many people in worse economic and mental health conditions. The whole cycle of how modern day economics ticks is a plague.


Famous-Ebb5617 t1_j5yrs0r wrote

Are you suggesting, that if a division within a company is not successful or a group is overstaffed, a company should not fix their business plan?


Sushrit_Lawliet t1_j5zhpwd wrote

Let’s face it. Maybe what you said applies to a few tech companies, but the scale on which most companies are laying off and the kind of employees they’re choosing. It’s literally to appease the shareholders and little to do with the teams or products they’re on themselves.


Famous-Ebb5617 t1_j5zv8j3 wrote

But you should think about that for a moment. Why would this appease shareholders? Do you think they just get off on companies firing people? Or do you think maybe it has to do with a cost/benefit analysis? Microsoft didn't destroy their VR/AR team for fun, they did it because financially it wasn't paying off. Same for Amazon's Alexa/Devices division. 'Appeasing shareholders' is another way of saying downsizing areas with low ROI, which is exactly what a healthy business should be doing.


GBreezy t1_j5zpumm wrote

Can you add sources to this? That these people are doing something meaningful?


Sushrit_Lawliet t1_j5zq2c4 wrote

Just Google, about companies firing employees who did well with their performance reviews, and the kind of teams most got laid off from. There’s haphazard patterns everywhere almost like they played a game of roulette in some cases.


GBreezy t1_j5zsal6 wrote

Just google is not a source. And is the source of "did well in their performance review" from the employees themselves. Sounds just like how everyone in prison is innocent. And even if they did well, they were on the wrong team and their are equally as talented people on the other teams. Just because I hired the neighborhood kid to mow my lawn once doesn't mean I am now obligated to employ him even though I do it myself.


grumpy_princess t1_j5wtgal wrote

Has anyone been keeping track of how many jobs at these tech giants have been axed over time? Now’s about the time I’d expect for some /r/dataisbeautiful folks to show us how ugly the situation has gotten with an excruciatingly accurate GIF or something


Martholomeow t1_j5yeuqs wrote

I can’t even figure out what IBM sells anymore. Who hires them and for what?


Klumber t1_j5ynrhk wrote

They're essentially a service company now. Primarily supporting other businesses with complex information technology problems. The fact that you don't know them is part of their success, they switched entirely to B2B, where they do have consumer facing functions they're usually badged with a different name or in the shape of joint-ventures.


geekynerdornerdygeek t1_j5zi5re wrote

This guy IBMs.

The article references a quote from the CEO where he says very distinctly that he feels IBM is doing "better" than other tech companies because it is in fact a totally different business model, focusing solely in B2B, and no longer conducts business with direct consumers.

Making it a tiny bit less susceptible to consumer shifts. (Everything eventually rolls up).

And all layoffs are in relation to subsidiary business spin offs.

Not making light of layoffs. But this really should be in a different group of tech companies as far as layoffs go, and not lumped into Google and Facebook, etc.


eggrollinmypants t1_j5zcdqj wrote

Perfect example Truven Health analytics


Klumber t1_j5zuf7f wrote

They are very large in lots of fields, I'm in Libraries (Health currently) and once you know, you see them everywhere. Just working behind the screens making sure that all this eResource stuff works.


ssouthurst t1_j5zvmpd wrote

Primarily other companies products now (eg. Microsoft/Amazon) . Thankfully. Because every IBM product we used on the team I worked in while at IBM was utter garbage.

IBM has been slowly divesting itself from its own products. (notes, B2B etc) But they do have Redhat. They just haven't had enough time to drive it into the ground so they can sell it at a loss.


eoe6ya t1_j60tymt wrote

IBM has a huge consulting service and people are contracted out as project managers, business analysts, developers, etc


zaj89 t1_j5z42v0 wrote

This is literally no big deal, these cuts have been expected for a long time as Kyndryl got going, these 3,900 cuts have nothing to do with performance or the companies performance


Zeduca t1_j5zk1s2 wrote

IBM lays off and hires, on the same day. Just different kind of people.


yarrr0123 t1_j5zdu2f wrote

In IBM's defense, this is just a normal day in the office. Anyone who has spent a day at IBM knows they're using this climate as a cover for their regular "re-org".


HugzMonster t1_j5zgv3f wrote

Former IBMer here. Had a colleague that got fed up and left IBM for a smaller start up that ended up being purchased ... by IBM. It happened to him three times so he decided that it was his fate to work for them. I left the company in my twenties. All it took was a career change to medicine.


tendonut t1_j5zmfev wrote

I have a colleague that went through the same thing too. Worked for IBM, jumped ship for another company, company was acquired by IBM, rinse, repeat. Just twice so far though.


ZeroNine2048 t1_j5y89pl wrote

The big problem with this is that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, they state it is because of recession risks, but by laying of employees they literally cause unrest within society that causes consumers to not spend with the thought that they might get laid off.


CooksAndLives t1_j5y8rqe wrote

I'm no expert but this recession feels fabricated.


Chupacabra_Ag t1_j5ylk65 wrote

This is what happens when the federal reserve adds too much money into the market. They printed trillions during Covid in an effort to fight the pandemic issues which caused inflation. Today we are feeling the effects of the supply chain issues and fuel prices/commodity prices from the last 18 months so no one can spend money, so to fight the inflation the federal reserve drastically increased the interest rates. Most businesses have to borrow money to operate throughout the year and the price of that money has tripled. It takes a while for the full effects of the pandemic decisions to completely trickle down. So yes in a way it has all been fabricated.

And as someone who is on the production side of our nations food supply I will warn you now, buckle up. This year will likely be worse than last.


ZeroNine2048 t1_j5y963i wrote

It seems to be only the case for the companies who really inflated their employee numbers during corona and expected the growth to keep going at the same speed. So there are some reasons that can be pointed out. But not for all of them. Facebook and Google for example indeed have less revenue from their ad businesses etc. But for some companies including microsoft it has been put into question.

In the EU economics state that we just slightly avoid recession, even with the energy crisis going on.


The-Protomolecule t1_j5z76w7 wrote

The same day they announce record revenue increases.


Technical_Sir_9588 t1_j5ytnra wrote

Since the big guns are doing it companies have more cover to do the same.


Every-Swimmer458 t1_j5yybap wrote

US oligarchs just trying to lower wages for tech roles through making the roles look uncertain.

Stop trying to make implied job scarcity happen, CIA: it ain't gonna happen.


The-Aeon t1_j61n0s3 wrote

Gets huge grants from government, biggest profits ever, lays off thousands. It's all really comical.


Deskshallrise t1_j5z6els wrote

atleast the execs will have a good christmas.


allboolshite t1_j5ze5y0 wrote

I think a lot of people would be shocked to find out IBM still has 3,900 employees to lay off. If you're not in tech or government or a large Corp, IBM has pretty much disappeared.


ScreamingMemales t1_j5zkzaj wrote

They still have over 275,000 employees worldwide. Not that small.


allboolshite t1_j5zs1t8 wrote

Sure, but if you're not in the right industry they don't exist. Versus the time from WWII through the 90s when they were everywhere.


Zeduca t1_j5zjagm wrote

It has always been a backend company, since 1950’s, except type writers


GBreezy t1_j5zq7ao wrote

You clearly don't undertake that not every company is consumer facing. Next thing you know you will tell me Sysco doesn't have 1k employees


Subziro91 t1_j60ashk wrote

That learn 2 code meme aged really badly this year


monchota t1_j60jq5j wrote

So , I know people don't qant to hear this but a lot of these jobs. Are redundant jobs that don't add vaule to the company. It going to get worse, these are not all tech workers. They are unneeded PR, HR , accounting and others.


WiseIndustry2895 t1_j5z197j wrote

And they all get really good severances that nobody seems to mention


psychedoutcasts t1_j5ybb9n wrote

Lowest rates of unemployment my ass.


Zeduca t1_j5zkkjj wrote

If 3000 can affect unemployment rate, US is indeed small


stevejobed t1_j5z65ln wrote

IBM ain’t no tech company these days.


Zeduca t1_j5zjvcr wrote

IBM’s strength had always been business management, not tech, since 1950’s. It started the art of WFH in 80’s before we even know what it is.


EveningFew8463 t1_j5zar33 wrote

Liberals embracing capitalism... profits over people


thinkB4WeSpeak t1_j5xdv6p wrote

Doesn't look great for that new Ohio IBM factory with all these cuts.


FIRSTFREED0CELL t1_j5xjrc4 wrote

> new Ohio IBM factory

??? All Google finds is that Intel is building a new fab in Ohio.


King_Arber t1_j5x67b9 wrote

Musk really started the trend of laying off worthless redundant tech workers. Everyone saw him do it with twitter and it’s still totally functional so now other tech companies have their investors to do the same. Once again proving he’s a trend setter.


Jefeboy t1_j5ybhnp wrote

That is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on Reddit. Props to you.


King_Arber t1_j5yfqvw wrote

How so? Use sources and facts.

Twitter was the first tech company to lay of their worthless project managers and now other tech companies are following the trend. What exactly is wrong about that statement.

Edit: hahaha the loser I replied to couldn’t disprove my point so they blocked me and now I can’t reply to any of your comments. If you need a source for musk laying people off just use google.


Jefeboy t1_j5ytbg5 wrote

Seriously? No one running a major company gives a flying fuck about some asshole that is so mismanaging his vanity project that it’s cost him literally billions of dollars. It’s just too stupid to even consider. And I will block you now, thanks.


AssEYEs4u t1_j5ytvdv wrote

Good lord ya nut swinger, you keep asking for sources and facts. You're using conjecture and asking everyone else for sources and facts.


MooingTurtle t1_j5yul0n wrote

Asks for sources and facts yet doesnt even state real sources or facts.

Stop making conjectures using your feelings.


_mochi t1_j5xj6ps wrote

look at the amount these companies hired during Covid -2022 compared to any other year previously then look at what division these companies are axing

Will help a lot with getting that foot out of your mouth

> Microsoft had 221,000 employees as of June 30, an increase of 40,000 people or 22% from the same point the prior year, according to data included in the company’s annual Form 10K filing with the SEC.

>It was the largest annual increase in employment in Microsoft’s history, based on data tracked by GeekWire.

From 2022

Here’s a graph if numbers is too hard for u


King_Arber t1_j5yfjcm wrote

This does not disprove that musk started the trend of getting rid of redundant tech workers. In fact it only proves my point further.

Clearly the tech sector over hired and then had to make a correction. Musk getting rid of all the worthless program managers at twitter proved this correct. So other companies followed suit, and their investors requested they do so after seeing twitter was just fine without their worthless middle managers. Musk was the first to do it, now other tech companies did the same. Nothing you’ve said disproves what I said.

Clearly numbers aren’t too hard for me, but using proper punctuation and spelling the word “you” are too difficult for you.

Thank you for further proving my point for me!


whitebean t1_j5yycxy wrote

You *really* think these kind of tech layoffs started with Musk? I mean IBM alone has been doing it every year for at least a decade. Take a step back from the musky fumes.


_mochi t1_j5zajnz wrote

>This does not disprove that musk started the trend of getting rid of redundant tech workers. In fact it only proves my point further.

>Clearly the tech sector over hired and then had to make a correction.

The amount of mental gymnastics your doing is incredible you almost had it


King_Arber t1_j5zj4ey wrote

You’re so close to getting it but because it’s wrongthink to admit anything Musk does is correct, you don’t want to say it.

Let me explain it for you

  1. tech sector is over hired (we agree on this, see how I admit when you’re right about things)

  2. Musk notices this with twitter and gets rid of worthless people (you literally agree with Musk on this fact but don’t want to admit wrongthink)

  3. other tech companies and their investors notice how twitter is still doing great and follow Musks lead (you sadly won’t admit this is true because you are incapable of doing wrongthink even when it’s true)

It’s so sad how I’ll admit to you being correct about something you said, but you can’t do the same because your feelings won’t let you.


_mochi t1_j600rmb wrote

im not gonna agree on something that is wrong

/ have 0 understanding of a techs life cycle and how a tech company functions
google can still be "functional" if they got rid of 90% of their workforce and why dont they do that why dont they even shave 50% of their current workforce do you think they are stupid and enjoy wasting money?

heck all the websites and software that is on the market today would still be "functional" if they got rid of all the developers and why dont they do that Arber? do some research or hey ask a friend that works as a dev what they do in a company that already has a product built

  1. Tech companies have been known to go thru cycle of hiring and shaving because of overhired and axing projects the only difference this time is they hired way more than they ever did so naturally the amount of people that got laid off would be a bigger number too (MSFT case they still have more employees after the layoffs than any other year) another reason is huge tech projects are not hitting expectation like amazons alexa and MSFT's AR/VR

Did elon walk up early today and set a trend on waking up after sleeping? lmao

  1. Now on your idol he is getting rid of large amount of people and selling shit left and right is because he can't afford them sure there some bloat all company has some bloat but thats not the main reason his twitter deal is losing him a shit ton of money and twitter debt needs to be paid

he's dodging rent payments

Selling his tesla shares to cover Twitter

Fundraising to pay debt

dragging his Tesla employees to Twitter to help out

and more

there's a lot more to Twitter than just the website he paralyzed a shit ton of teams to save money he will rehire when he gets out of this debt and Twitter starts to turn around as much as I dont like the guy he's not stupid enough to run Twitter barebones long term or he would have done that to tesla/spaceX


King_Arber t1_j605c67 wrote

> 1. you have 0 understanding of a techs life cycle and how a tech company functions

>google can still be “functional” if they got rid of 90% of their workforce a

Go look back at this subs reaction when twitter laid off half its personnel, the hive mind was sure twitter would have functional problems but they don’t.

I clearly knew about tech companies life cycles. It’s not really hard to understand, remember I agreed with you, something you’re incapable of doing because your feelings won’t let you commit wrongthink.

Nothing you said disproves that the companies are following Twitters lead. If they weren’t following twitters lead, why did they all wait until after twitter did it to layoff their worthless workers? Investor letters to google even talked about how other companies laid off much more of their staff, showing how twitter set the precedence.

And he’s running twitter with the same method he successfully ran other companies.

Oh wow he sold shares to get money. What a shock.

Again, nothing you’ve said disproves that other tech companies followed twitters lead.


_mochi t1_j60e2q5 wrote

? All these tech companies has laid off people because of over hire or axed projects before Elon musk even bought Twitter

This is like saying I took a shit after a large meal but because Elon had diarrhea yesterday he’s starting a trend on expelling feces and I’m following his trend lol


King_Arber t1_j63qe75 wrote

There’s a trend of tech companies laying people off, and it started with Twitter. Nothing you have said changes that.

If they didn’t start laying people off after seeing it work at twitter why didn’t the other companies do it earlier? They only followed his lead.


_mochi t1_j6496p3 wrote

With your brain dead logic any one of these companies that laid off people before Elon in 2022 are the one who set the trend

Zillow layoffs: 5% of workforce laid off (October, 2022)

Peloton layoffs: 12% of workforce laid off (October, 2022)

DocuSign layoffs: 9% of workforce laid off (September, 2022)

Taboola layoffs: 6% of workforce laid off (September, 2022)

Snapchat layoffs: 20% of workforce laid off (September, 2022)

Outbrain layoffs: 3% of workforce laid off (July, 2022)

Lyft layoffs: 2% of workforce laid off (July, 2022)

The Mom Project layoffs: 15% of workforce laid off (July, 2022)

Opensea layoffs: 20% of workforce laid off (July, 2022)

Substack layoffs: 14% of workforce laid off (June, 2022)

Ninantic layoffs: 8% of workforce laid off (June, 2022)

MasterClass layoffs: 20% of workforce laid off (June, 2022)

Bird layoffs: 23% of workforce laid off (June, 2022)

Superhuman layoffs: 22% of workforce laid off (June, 2022)

Cameo layoffs: 25% of workforce laid off (May, 2022)

Robinhood layoffs: 9% of workforce laid off (April, 2022)

Virgin Hyperloop layoffs: 50% of workforce laid off (February, 2022)

Peloton layoffs: 20% of workforce laid off (February, 2022)

Beachbody layoffs: 10% of workforce laid off (January, 2022)

This is my last message to your Hope you dreams come true don’t give up he might just fuck you


King_Arber t1_j66luox wrote

Oh yeah those are all huge tech companies how could I forget those!

Your down votes and insults are super cute and show how much I’ve gotten to you. Cry more.