6 ms·

Tech giants aren't just cutting thousands of jobs – they're making them extinct

15 points by rustoo 3y ago

midiguy 3y ago
Kind of a stupid headline. The article goes on to explain that generative AI is just allowing for a lesser number of people to do jobs that will still exist for the foreseeable future. So in other words, tech giants aren't making jobs go extinct - they are just cutting thousands of jobs.
ericmcer 3y ago
These posts are stupid because they are predicated on the idea that corporations have finite tasks they want to perform and will hire the optimum number of employees to do those tasks and then stop. Corporations are made up of managers and those managers are going to hire as many people as their budget allows, and their budget is going to be based on the companies profits. Look at every tech startup that has VC money poured into it. Their headcount explodes in response to the huge budget they suddenly have. None of the FAANG companies need anywhere near their current staff if their goal is to milk profits from their IP until they get overtaken.
- blurbleblurble 3y ago
  There is a finite amount of "demand" in the market though and at the moment in an attempt to keep prices stable the Federal Reserve is choosing to squash demand at a time when new tools are enabling 10x - 1000x productivity increases. Kinda puts the squeeze on. Taxes, like windfall taxes, wealth taxes and negative tax, could help with price stability while keeping capital circulating, demand up. But these are politically unpopular. What seems to be politically popular these days is punishment.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Ultimately people need money to pay these companies to do things. Ford paid his workers more (supposedly) because he knew they would make better customers. As more and more work is automated there does come a point where folks cannot find anything they can get paid for. The barrier to entry in the workforce also goes up. How many years of school and training will be required in 2040? Will children have to train until they are in their mid 30s before they see their first paycheck? That's a long time to wait and consume with little to no income of ones own.
- BerislavLopac 3y ago
  > Look at every tech startup that has VC money poured into it. Their headcount explodes in response to the huge budget they suddenly have. This is not quite correct. The "headcount explosion" is not simply a reaction to the investment - rather, it is the whole goal of the investment. It's not like the founders say "oh great, we have the money now, let's hire people"; in fact, it is mandated by the VC investors: "we have invested to you to hire people, now go and do it". The whole point of VC investment is to grow the company value (evaluation) as much as possible in as short the time as possible, and then find someone who will pay that new value. to buy the company from them. There are nuances of course, but that is the bottom line.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

15 points by rustoo 3y ago

Kind of a stupid headline. The article goes on to explain that generative AI is just allowing for a lesser number of people to do jobs that will still exist for the foreseeable future. So in other words, tech giants aren't making jobs go extinct - they are just cutting thousands of jobs.

ericmcer 3y ago

These posts are stupid because they are predicated on the idea that corporations have finite tasks they want to perform and will hire the optimum number of employees to do those tasks and then stop. Corporations are made up of managers and those managers are going to hire as many people as their budget allows, and their budget is going to be based on the companies profits. Look at every tech startup that has VC money poured into it. Their headcount explodes in response to the huge budget they suddenly have. None of the FAANG companies need anywhere near their current staff if their goal is to milk profits from their IP until they get overtaken.

blurbleblurble 3y ago
There is a finite amount of "demand" in the market though and at the moment in an attempt to keep prices stable the Federal Reserve is choosing to squash demand at a time when new tools are enabling 10x - 1000x productivity increases. Kinda puts the squeeze on. Taxes, like windfall taxes, wealth taxes and negative tax, could help with price stability while keeping capital circulating, demand up. But these are politically unpopular. What seems to be politically popular these days is punishment.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Ultimately people need money to pay these companies to do things. Ford paid his workers more (supposedly) because he knew they would make better customers. As more and more work is automated there does come a point where folks cannot find anything they can get paid for. The barrier to entry in the workforce also goes up. How many years of school and training will be required in 2040? Will children have to train until they are in their mid 30s before they see their first paycheck? That's a long time to wait and consume with little to no income of ones own.
BerislavLopac 3y ago
> Look at every tech startup that has VC money poured into it. Their headcount explodes in response to the huge budget they suddenly have. This is not quite correct. The "headcount explosion" is not simply a reaction to the investment - rather, it is the whole goal of the investment. It's not like the founders say "oh great, we have the money now, let's hire people"; in fact, it is mandated by the VC investors: "we have invested to you to hire people, now go and do it". The whole point of VC investment is to grow the company value (evaluation) as much as possible in as short the time as possible, and then find someone who will pay that new value. to buy the company from them. There are nuances of course, but that is the bottom line.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]