5 ms·
Once a company moves on to recurring, large-scale layoffs justified by vague corporate Mumbo-Jumbo, I think it is safe to assume it is a "day 2" company.
by marcusb 11mo ago
Once a company moves on to recurring, large-scale layoffs justified by vague corporate Mumbo-Jumbo, I think it is safe to assume it is a "day 2" company.
- johnnyanmac 11mo agoIs there any non-day 2 company in this day and age? Seems like everyone's laying off en masse. Even the job reports can't hide it. If you're not working in nursing the flux of retired Baby boomers you're either already rich or on unsteady ground.
- cheschire 11mo agoI was not aware of this term before. For others: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/jeff-bezos-day-1-versus-2-companies-which-you-simon-torrance https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/jeff-bezos-day-1-versus-2-com...
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 11mo agoNon-LinkedIn version: https://ourdinnertable.wordpress.com/2025/05/06/jeff-bezos-day-1-and-day-2/ https://ourdinnertable.wordpress.com/2025/05/06/jeff-bezos-d... > “Day 2 is stasis. Followed by irrelevance. Followed by death. And that’s why it’s always Day 1.” Sharks don't look back, cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- spoiler 11mo agoIs this one of those things that are meant to sound deep and profound by inventing terminology, but isn't? That's such a like day 2 person thing to do. (Actually don't know if I used day 2 correctly, feels a bit like trying to use skibidi ohio in a sentence)
- hugh-avherald 11mo agoDay 2 is like Switzerland---small and neutral. Day 1 is like Germany---ambitious and misunderstood.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- conception 11mo agoI hope the shark thing isn’t said in earnest ever by anyone. It is the height of parody of a hustle culture bro. On second thought would you want $1 million now or $5000 a day and the guy says neither because that’s not how you build wealth or something. It’s probably number one.
- reaperhulk 11mo agoThe shark line is a quote from Futurama in an episode where an 80s corporate raider takes over Planet Express.
- pavel_lishin 11mo agoWhich is the one people like to hug?
- reaperducer 11mo agoSharks don't look back, cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep Sharks eat sheep?
- CobrastanJorji 11mo agoWeirdly, someone checked: https://whitesharkdivers.co.za/02/shark-facts/food-sources-of-the-great-white-shark/ https://whitesharkdivers.co.za/02/shark-facts/food-sources-o... No, great white sharks do not eat sheep. They will eat pigs.
- Shilly_Shalley 11mo agoShark eats sheep, sheep clothes fisherman, fisherman kills shark. It's a new rock, paper, scissors.
- Modified3019 11mo agoHad completely forgotten that futurama bit: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FvrcvPNpdd8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FvrcvPNpdd8
- VBprogrammer 11mo agoI'm not really sure how this fits with Amazon's corporate culture. I thought all of the dead wood good pip'ed out of there on an ongoing basis. If people are surviving that then who are are the people being ejected? Unprofitable areas or new products which didn't pan out?
- llmslave 11mo agothere are alot of tenured people that are good at politics, but dont provide much actual value
- Covenant0028 11mo agoMy theory is that when an organization descends into a cycle of repetitive downsizings, it inevitably leads to people focusing more on protecting their jobs than on business value. By the process of natural selection, the people who survive such rounds of firings are the ones with the political skills to survive them. Some of those guys will be star performers, but most will simply be politicians. Over time, this process will result in an increase in the ratio of politicians to star performers.
- nilkn 11mo agoMy company’s been through layoffs/reorgs every 3–6 months for three years. One thing is true: performance management happens faster. Many chronic low performers were laid off, and a few “too many cooks” problems were resolved. Those benefits are real and genuine. But it’s a mistake to assume the remainder is automatically high‑performer‑only. Three patterns I’ve seen: 1) People with options leave first. If you can find a stable, supportive org at similar pay, you go. That’s often your top performers. We've lost some truly amazing people who left because they were simply not willing to tolerate working here anymore. Being absolutely ruthless in getting rid of low performers is honestly not worth it when you also lose the people who truly move the needle on creating new products, etc. If you make a mistake and get rid of some people who were talented high-performers, trust is instantly gone. The remaining high-performers now know that they may also be a target, and so they won't trust you and they'll leave whenever they can. And when you're axing 10k+ people, you're absolutely going to make mistakes. 2) The survivors change. Trust and empathy plummet. Incentives tilt toward optics and defensiveness, and managers start competing on visible ruthlessness. You can keep the lights on, but actually trying to innovate in this environment is too scary and risky. 3) In an atmosphere of fear, people who are willing to be genuinely dishonest and manipulative -- and who are good enough at it to get away with it -- have a serious competitive advantage. I've seen good, compassionate leaders go from a healthy willingness to make tough decisions on occasion to basically acting like complete psychopaths. Needless to say, that's extremely corrosive to meaningful output. While you could argue that skillful dishonesty is an individual advantage regardless of climate, an environment of repeat layoffs strongly incentivizes this behavior by reducing empathy, rewarding "do whatever it takes to win" behavior, etc.
- JKCalhoun 11mo agoOr they know something that the current Administration does not (or is withholding)? Maybe it's time to buckle up for a coming economic storm.
- fooqux 11mo agoOh no, they might only make $15 billion instead of $18 billion next quarter?
- gruez 11mo ago>Oh no, they might only make $15 billion instead of $18 billion next quarter? Exactly. It's a for-profit company, not a charity or a jobs program.
- johnnyanmac 11mo agoAt what point do we stop defending capitalism and realize that it's sucking society dry?
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- fooqux 11mo agoLots of people realized it long ago. Hell, the Monopoly board game was meant as a cautionary tale. The fact that it's been repurposed as a way for MB to rake in tons of cash says something, I think.
- Hendrikto 11mo ago> coming economic storm We are already in it.
- pjc50 11mo agoI wonder if the company that makes part of its money from consumer goods shipped from China knows something about the impact of tariffs on consumer spending. They've probably already assessed the impact on their models of Black Friday and Christmas purchases and decided it looks bad. (most of their money is from AWS, though. I wonder if AI is making that less stock-relevant.)
- JCM9 11mo agoThe original shareholder letter said the company wouldn’t pander to Wall Street or focus on short term improvements. It’s now slashing jobs a few days before earnings to try and placate Wall Street since it can’t grow via innovation. That’s all the proof you need to see that Amazon is now in full “Day 2” mode.
- onlyrealcuzzo 11mo agoDon't worry, when ZIRP returns, they'll be a day 1 company again. People mistook ZIRP for genius for 25 years.
- lotsofpulp 11mo agoThis is a little exaggerated, considering ZIRP was 2009 to 2022, 13 years, and came well after Amazon had established its trajectory. And they did kind of successfully roll out a global logistics network, at a time when no one thought anyone could compete with Walmart. And they became leaders in the cloud computing space. These aren't trivial accomplishments solely enabled by ZIRP.
- onlyrealcuzzo 11mo agoThe Yen Carry trade financed US VC since 1999, thanks to ZIRP from the BOJ. Not Ironic at all that Dot Com immediately followed.
- EasyMark 11mo agoI think stuff like this will eventually pull Bezos back in.