6 ms·
Microsoft Lays Off 1,500 Workers, Blames "AI Wave"
- gauisterrence 2y ago[dead]
- cranberryturkey 2y ago[flagged]
- coldtea 2y agoFrom the perspective of the company/stock market yes. From the other perspective, 1 fired person is a lot for a family - especially in a bad economy
- Rinzler89 2y agoThe problem is firings almost always happen in bad economies and rarely in good economies.
- squigz 2y agoMicrosoft made $146 billion in profit last year. Terrible economy.
- Rinzler89 2y agoYes, 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?
- coldtea 2y ago>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.
- Rinzler89 2y agoMicrosoft 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.
- coldtea 2y ago>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.
- jjeaff 2y agoit'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.
- gsky 2y agoBefore you got to train and now you build your replacement
- cranberryturkey 2y agohaha. yes. i did this for paypal in 2006
- tolulade_ato 2y ago[dead]
- cyanydeez 2y agoI guess theyre dogfooding the AI will make programmers et al more efficient
- al_borland 2y agoIf 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.
- jjeaff 2y agoyes, but you would assume that if they are leading the way in AI product development, that they would need more employees than ever.
- cyanydeez 2y agoThe assumption is AI would exponentially improve itself. If theyre dogfooding? The singularity is a natural belief'
- e44858 2y agoThat's less than 1% of their total workforce.
- chomskyole 2y agoNo problem for those people to suffer then
- coldtea 2y agoI think the parent is more concerned about whether the poor company's stock might be in trouble...
- Rinzler89 2y agoHe 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."
- ruszki 2y agoOP was dismissive.
- chomskyole 2y ago> Microsoft lays off 1,500 workers 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?
- Proven 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Mountain_Skies 2y agoThe 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.
- yazzku 2y ago"under the cover of AI instead of admitting they staffed up poorly." 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.
- coldtea 2y ago>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.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoAlways 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.
- Arrowmaster 2y agoNew grads are cheaper
- coldtea 2y agoA few explanations: - 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
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoActual Business Insider article referenced: Microsoft exec blames Azure layoffs on the 'AI wave' in leaked memo https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-exec-blames-azure-layoffs-on-ai-wave-leaked-memo-2024-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-exec-blames-azure-... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40593559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40593559)
- utopianmonk 2y agoCan 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? [1] https://jobs.careers.microsoft.com/global/en/search?rt=professional https://jobs.careers.microsoft.com/global/en/search?rt=profe...
- vinyl7 2y agoThey're not real positions
- DANmode 2y agoThis, too, is often a component of the grey-area, (bordering or rhyming strongly with fraud,) that a lot of these firms are finding themselves in.
- DANmode 2y ago> Why are big tech companies so quick to fire employees? 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.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- matsemann 2y agoIt'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.
- throwaway290 2y ago"AI wave" that Microsoft itself and probably some of those laid off 1500 workers helped orchestrate...
- sneed_chucker 2y agoInteresting I guess, but hardly newsworthy for a company of over 220k.
- lupire 2y agoHeadline is misleading. They laid off non-AI roles, to redirect funding to AI.
- YaBa 2y ago"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.
- shabcreation 2y ago[flagged]
- MELEKE 2y ago[dead]