Most active commenters
  • johnnyanmac(8)
  • toomuchtodo(5)
  • wonderwonder(5)
  • sokoloff(4)
  • pjmlp(4)
  • atomicnumber3(3)
  • daxfohl(3)
  • heathrow83829(3)
  • trod1234(3)
  • triceratops(3)

←back to thread

209 points htrp | 104 comments | | HN request time: 1.64s | source | bottom
1. idkwhattocallme ◴[] No.44444622[source]
For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them get there drives home it's just a paycheck, do your job, but know it can and will end when convenient for the company. I know folks will argue, low performers, but really. This "productivity apps" company hired them, onboarded them, made $82B in profit, surely they can figure out how to uplevel folks. Also how do you have a layoff every couple of months for 3 years. Thinking about the middle class in the previous generation, it was unions that effectively ensured a labor job meant a secure future. I wonder if that's the solution (again).
replies(22): >>44444692 #>>44444744 #>>44444872 #>>44445007 #>>44445352 #>>44445600 #>>44445621 #>>44445705 #>>44445722 #>>44445743 #>>44445758 #>>44445853 #>>44445888 #>>44446540 #>>44446696 #>>44447236 #>>44447339 #>>44447678 #>>44447824 #>>44452199 #>>44452368 #>>44457573 #
2. runjake ◴[] No.44444692[source]
Didn't Satya or somebody state in recent months that it was a tactic to get rid of low performers? I believe Meta is doing something similar.

Edit: Allegedly not.

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-microsoft-c...

"Nadella addressed the recent layoffs, clarifying that the decision was not based on individual job performance. “This is a structural change, not a reflection of how people were performing,” Nadella explained. He emphasized that Microsoft is shifting its strategic focus, with a renewed emphasis on artificial intelligence (AI), which the company views as a key driver of its long-term vision and growth."

replies(4): >>44444757 #>>44444824 #>>44444978 #>>44445520 #
3. _DeadFred_ ◴[] No.44444744[source]
Love the modern lexicon, where people losing their livelihood is just part of a 'game'.
4. atomicnumber3 ◴[] No.44444757[source]
Also, if it were actually about "low performers", this wouldn't be in the news. They'd just be terminated during/before perf review.
replies(2): >>44445521 #>>44446853 #
5. geodel ◴[] No.44444872[source]
Talking about stock price is in fact indication of layoffs being working not other way round. I don't think people are arguing against "job is just a paycheck" in last 5 years. In the same vein for company "employee is just a cost".

Union may save job for few who have job but people who don't (and they are lot more and increasing) are not gonna get helped by any union.

replies(1): >>44445516 #
6. daxfohl ◴[] No.44444978[source]
Shifting focus is not narrowing focus. They should be able to shift employees accordingly too.
replies(2): >>44445125 #>>44445636 #
7. dragonwriter ◴[] No.44445125{3}[source]
There's an economic slowdown without relaxing the monetary tightening (because inflation, while relatively mild, is still above target.)

Further cutbacks from the level reached by the prior cutbacks due to monetary tightening when the economy was still in robust growth are to be expected, as are relatively transparent rationalizations that try to put an upbeat spin on them instead of the honest “the cost of money has gone up and the return of spending it on higher staffing levels has gone down.”

8. wing-_-nuts ◴[] No.44445141[source]
What nonsense. I've been in tech for ~ 20 years and it's literally taken me from living below the poverty line on ssi disability to fully financially independent. This is the one career where I could have accomplished that. It's basically 'disability proof'.
replies(2): >>44446150 #>>44449464 #
9. toomuchtodo ◴[] No.44445352[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_and_unions

I know, I know, "union bad." I guess people will say that until all that is left is a person to watch the Machine, and a dog to bite the person if they touch the Machine. Or all the jobs are offshored to the cheapest labor on the globe.

replies(3): >>44445538 #>>44445640 #>>44457676 #
10. hardwaresofton ◴[] No.44445516[source]
> Union may save job for few who have job but people who don't (and they are lot more and increasing) are not gonna get helped by any union.

Note that in some countries, unions extend to cover workers who are not even part of the union. Heard about this from some french friends:

> Collective bargaining agreements (conventions collectives) may be negotiated between employers and labour unions covering a company or group of companies (accords d’entreprise), or between employers’ associations and labour unions covering an industry as a whole; in the latter case, the government may decide that the collective agreement covers even those employers who are not members of the employers’ association and is therefore mandatory throughout the industry.

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication...

Not saying it's the right solution for $COUNTRY, but I was certainly surprised when I heard of this

replies(1): >>44445635 #
11. belter ◴[] No.44445520[source]
AI is the convenient scapegoat. Companies frame mass layoffs as a strategic shift toward AI to boost margins and excite investors, but in reality, it signals a deeper business crisis. Not one of these 9,000 jobs will be meaningfully replaced by AI anytime soon.
12. 0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.44445521{3}[source]
Eh, it can take a lot of political willpower to actually get rid of a low performer. We had an infamous case where it took two years to finally kick some deadweight to the curb. Wanted multiple years of underperforming performance reviews, I guess. Despite what some may claim about market efficiency, this is a public, wildly profitable company, not government.

Unfortunately, I have never seen a layoff only remove weak people. Plenty of good gets thrown out with the bad every single time. The only signal I take from someone being laid off is that they were unlucky and probably not a total sycophant.

replies(2): >>44446235 #>>44446831 #
13. sokoloff ◴[] No.44445538[source]
10 unions was evidently not enough to avoid this outcome. Perhaps if it went to 11, it would be “unions good”?
replies(1): >>44445627 #
14. daxfohl ◴[] No.44445600[source]
They're still hiring though. If layoffs are a prereq for hiring fresh blood, maybe it's worth the cost? Especially if hiring is weighted toward new grads and junior engineers, which are in the midst of a historically bad employment market right now. It's a stretch, but just a thought.
15. heathrow83829 ◴[] No.44445621[source]
the first responsibility of any company is profitability. they have no economic, moral or ethical obligation to keep employees (no matter how well they performed), if it doesn't help them be more profitable. this should not be news.

I think "low performance" is typically just a scapegoat. the real reason is they simply don't need that many empolyees to maximize profitability.

replies(4): >>44445697 #>>44445762 #>>44446971 #>>44450734 #
16. toomuchtodo ◴[] No.44445627{3}[source]
It took us decades to get to this outcome (since the Reagan era), I assume it'll take decades to get out of it. Mental models are rigid, progress occurs one funeral time (Max Planck), ~2M people 55+ in the US age out every year (~5k per day), so the opportunity is with young folks who will or already are in the workforce, etc. It ain't happening overnight.

Solutions such as "try harder," "be more lucky," or "just find another job" are...not very actionable when you consider that ~60% of Americans cannot afford a basic quality of life and the current labor macro.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-you-need-to-kn...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/12/majoritie...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/510281/unions-strengthening.asp...

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Labor-Unions-And-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta...

(i am once again asking you to think in systems)

replies(1): >>44445788 #
17. s1artibartfast ◴[] No.44445635{3}[source]
This is true on a workplace basis in the USA. Union contracts define terms for non-union workers.
18. darth_avocado ◴[] No.44445636{3}[source]
If you have a large sales team for products that are not selling, and you want to invest in building a brand new product, you are not going to be able to move the sales folks into R&D. If you end up building the new product, you may eventually need the sales team, but most businesses in the meantime would reduce the headcount in sales instead of retaining them. I’m not saying that not bad for employees, but shifting focus isn’t always about changing what employees work on.
replies(1): >>44445745 #
19. jxjnskkzxxhx ◴[] No.44445640[source]
> until all that is left is a person to watch the Machine, and a dog to bite the person if they touch the Machine

Hey that's actually a great line. It might be even better than the original, where the person is there to feed the dog.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/01/30/future-factory/

20. dsr_ ◴[] No.44445697[source]
Let me correct that for you:

corporations feel no moral or ethical obligation towards their employees.

Whether or not that should be the case -- and I think it should not be -- it is.

21. wonderwonder ◴[] No.44445705[source]
The issue is they are laying off US workers and then importing Indian workers to replace them via 3rd party contractors. I saw a post on X today which essentially said "Ai will not replace your job, an Indian with Ai will replace your job" - this was posted by an Indian and he was completely right. Microsoft is actively laying off people with 150k salaries and replacing them with offshore workers earning a 10th of the salary.

At the same time our politicians appear to be looking everywhere for a solution to increasing US jobs except for right where the issue is. Everyone else sees it but our politicians are willfully blind.

replies(3): >>44446004 #>>44446734 #>>44447005 #
22. heathrow83829 ◴[] No.44445722[source]
a company doesn't keep you because you performed well. they keep an employee because they need them to be more profitable, nothing more, nothing less.
replies(1): >>44445850 #
23. bitbasher ◴[] No.44445743[source]
I'm indifferent to layoffs. I dislike layoffs these days because it directly fuels the "AI is replacing our jobs" brainrot and then fuels the "AI is the future" hype train.

It's not impossible for this to be Microsoft's way to keep the AI flywheel spinning.

replies(1): >>44447000 #
24. daxfohl ◴[] No.44445745{4}[source]
True. I didn't get to the fact that it was sales due to pay wall.
25. pjmlp ◴[] No.44445758[source]
Well, it kind of tells why people shouldn't blindly side with their employers.

It is a service, one side gives work, the other pays the bills, nothing else.

Be a good teammate, that is all.

26. CommenterPerson ◴[] No.44445762[source]
This is Milton Freidman hype and brainwashing. A company profiting in a society has a responsibility towards that society. In Germany, they accomplish this by having one union representative on the board. Profit at any cost leads to a society where workers are paid just enough to prevent starvation so that there are workers.
replies(2): >>44445862 #>>44446929 #
27. sokoloff ◴[] No.44445788{4}[source]
If someone wants to work in a union shop, they can choose a job that is unionized or try to unionize their current/next workplace.

People who don’t want to work for a union shop should have the same amount of voice as people who do (1 vote per employee). I think unions have struggled to gain traction because it’s obvious that they cost money to run (which is fine and proper) but it’s not obvious that that expense pays off for the typical member. If a median tech worker pays $1300-2600/yr in dues (1-2% of median salary), I think it’s reasonable for them to expect more than that on a net-present-value basis.

Plenty of people are strong advocates; plenty are strong detractors; I suspect that a well-run union (efficient in its own ops and partnering effectively for the long-term health of the company and its union members) would be good on balance and also fairly “under the radar” making it hard to know how good it actually was.

replies(3): >>44445820 #>>44446439 #>>44457734 #
28. toomuchtodo ◴[] No.44445820{5}[source]
I agree on all of your points. If the majority supports unions (citations in my above comment), and everyone has the same vote (as you mention), it's just a matter of time of continuing organizing efforts while the folks who don't support it either exit the labor force [1] [2] or filter out of orgs attempting to organize who don't believe in it (younger workers with a longer labor participation time horizon). I fully admit there are lots of people who believe they're special, who have been or believe they will be lucky, ignore the data on the benefits of organizing, etc; you might never win them over. It's going to be a long slog, but wages and job security for the broad majority of people will not go up without it. Startup founders grind for delusions far more grandiose than this imho, so while I recognize being at the foot of a mountain on this topic in this specific socioeconomic system and point in time, I also don't think it's impossible.

And I really want to touch on your point about dues and unions. Workers should absolutely have high expectations for what their unions deliver, and should not tolerate any sort of drag, apathy, or lack of effort. With that said, it is another political process one must participate in, it isn't ordering an Uber. I have zero tolerance for union grift. Perhaps this calls for something like a non profit ratings agency, but for unions.

[1] https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2022/08/are-older-work... ("In 2000, only 17.6% of the 55 and older populace had a job. Now the percentage is 37.5%. A 20% increase in the percentage of 55+ who are employed in a 20-year span is unprecedented. If the percentage of employed 55+ had stayed the same, there would only be 17 million 55+ workers today. Instead, there are over 37 million.") [2022]

[2] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-closing-gender-... ("Gen Zers are the most supportive of unions, with a mean approval rating of 64.3 compared with 60.5 for Millennials, 57.8 for Gen Xers, and 57.2 for Baby Boomers." [death and retirement rate is progress rate in this regard by age cohort; the faster the older cohort(s) who don't support organizing exit the workforce, this should potentially reduced the lift required to organize forward looking])

(demographics + culture + advocacy + time is my mental model on this, and I have arrived at this model from first principles, as a macro and demographics scholar)

replies(2): >>44447682 #>>44447762 #
29. trod1234 ◴[] No.44445850[source]
In fairness they aren't a real company anymore, they are more like state apparatus/granted monopoly.

The profitability they embraced was derived from surveillance capitalism which comes from a money-printer seeing as the government is the one paying for it.

It was short-term up-front profit, followed by what inevitably comes after where they pay it back and more. They are laying people off because they wanted that short term profit more than they wanted to do business. There is a potential that they may chase this having the same dynamics as deflation, given that free money is largely no longer available suddenly (which pops the bubble).

The people making those decisions knew the laws and countries would catch up to them eventually but they still did it.

30. stego-tech ◴[] No.44445853[source]
> Thinking about the middle class in the previous generation, it was unions that effectively ensured a labor job meant a secure future. I wonder if that's the solution (again).

It is, and they are. It’s why Reagan fired ATC strikers and blackballed them. It’s why private enterprise stockpiled machine guns and chemical weapons against strikers back in the Gilded Age. It’s why companies will spend billions to block Unions rather than just give workers the few million or so more they need over a decade to just maintain a standard of living. It’s why they’ll close down stores, warehouses, offshore jobs and outsource to contractors to penalize Unions.

Unions are a direct response to the inequality of Capital allocation and distribution.

replies(2): >>44446002 #>>44446952 #
31. heathrow83829 ◴[] No.44445862{3}[source]
I agree that companies who are monopolies (especially government granted monopolies) have a responsibility towards society. But this does not apply to companies that need to compete to exist. For example, if a restaraunt or airlines (highly competitive industry), did anything to reduce their competitiveness they would instantly loose marketshare. that doesn't work.

which one is Microsoft?

replies(1): >>44446949 #
32. ◴[] No.44445888[source]
33. wingspar ◴[] No.44446002[source]
Wasn’t the PATCO ATC strike illegal?
replies(3): >>44446044 #>>44446879 #>>44447405 #
34. trod1234 ◴[] No.44446004[source]
That is one of the issues, yes.

The main issue though is one of demographics.

Like Japan, we have insufficient young people to do the jobs and produce what's needed to support the old.

Worse, the old have utilized money printing and their privileged position to enrich themselves, and in the process it is tearing the country apart, and through economic manipulation force conscripting the young at suppressed wages to pay their debts off (i.e. social security).

Thomas Paine would have a lot of similar things to say if he were alive today, specifically about dead men ruling.

The economics given such lopsided movement cause chaotic disruption and deflate and are unsustainable.

You are wrong insofar as they'll be earning a 10th of the salary. That may happen upfront, but in terms of purchasing power it will reach parity much more quickly given the macro monetary dynamics going on.

When reading history, I could never imagine how bad it would need to get to make a multi-generational citizen abandon their home country and immigrate elsewhere.

I have my answer today. They do so when there is no reasonable path to a survivable future.

There are times where a reasonable person can see and know everything will burn, because there is nothing that can stop it, and the only thing you can do is remove yourself and your family from the path of that burn.

replies(1): >>44446324 #
35. Group_B ◴[] No.44446044{3}[source]
Yes, federal workers are not allowed to strike
36. trod1234 ◴[] No.44446150{3}[source]
Past performance generally speaking does not indicate future prospects.

I agree with you, but that is only for right now.

7-10 years from now, I see no new tech jobs and the same work shouldered by a decreasing number of people until they vanish with no replacement.

Chaotic whipsaws from disruption or other things can break brittle systems. Resilient systems don't have these problems, but they are only resilient because of their decentralization and lack of single points of failure (SPOF).

Profit through money printing optimizes for SPOFs, and there are no existing incentives that can produce any other behavior. Its a terrible fate of societies which embrace money-printing.

37. butlike ◴[] No.44446235{4}[source]
Think of it more as a "controlled burn wildfire," you want to clear land to let new foliage grow. Same with companies; you clear out some space and see what ideas flourish with the new crop
replies(1): >>44448416 #
38. wonderwonder ◴[] No.44446324{3}[source]
While I agree with your overall point, I don't think the current issue with US jobs being outsourced is due to demographics. I think its simply one of cheaper wages. The fact that they are actively laying off US workers proves that there are existing US workers that can and have been doing the job. They are letting them go though so as to boost their bottom line to drive "shareholder value". This is an entirely self inflicted issue separate from the demographics issue that is affecting the west as a whole. We have more than enough qualified people willing to perform the tech jobs that the companies are outsourcing.
replies(1): >>44447575 #
39. Konnstann ◴[] No.44446439{5}[source]
When I first started my current job I was upset that I'd have to pay $20/paycheck to get some unknown level of benefits, which comes out to around $500/year but all I had to do to understand the benefit was compare my health insurance premium to someone working a non-union gig for the same employer and realize that they're paying a way higher percentage of the monthly premium than I was. Not to mention that the union provides guaranteed unemployment benefits if you get laid off and help finding jobs, transportation funds, childcare funds, and guaranteed me a salary increase this year when the employer has declared a freeze on raises for non-union positions. I agree there should be more advertising on the part of the union with regards to benefits but they are pretty obvious if you do any reading.

A lot of the benefits my union provides might not matter to the average HN user making $X00,000/yr though so who knows?

40. aeternum ◴[] No.44446540[source]
Not everyone wants to be "upleveled" which often actually means work on something completely different.

This idea that companies must be the social safety net is deeply flawed, you want companies to take risks on new business lines that may not pan out. That's how we get innovation. In order to have that, you must not heavily penalize taking those risks.

41. jimt1234 ◴[] No.44446696[source]
I was raised in a union-supported household. I've posted about it on HN before, but the tl;dr is that I'm still conflicted because:

- Pro: My father only graduated high school, yet was able to support a middle-class family - a house, two cars, 3 children, healthcare, etc., all with his union trucking job. That is almost unheard of today.

- Con: My father often talked about the corruption, like work being throttled to meet only the minimum output requirements in the union contract, and guys just sitting around, playing cards for half-a-day because it only took them a few hours to meet the requirements. (And new guys would get "talked to" in the parking lot if they tried to do too much work.)

replies(1): >>44448439 #
42. darth_avocado ◴[] No.44446734[source]
> Microsoft is actively laying off people with 150k salaries and replacing them with offshore workers earning a 10th of the salary.

I know the talking points on HN like to portray Indian developers as cheap, low quality labor, but contrary to popular belief, they aren’t getting workers for $15k. A Median senior developer earns almost $90k in India in Microsoft.

https://www.levels.fyi/companies/microsoft/salaries/software...

replies(2): >>44447674 #>>44450236 #
43. runjake ◴[] No.44446831{4}[source]
We had a case where it took 10 years to cut 3 FTE deadweights and it only happened because of the 2008 Crash and consequential tightening of money flow.
44. pjmlp ◴[] No.44446853{3}[source]
Somehow on places like HN, people aren't worthy of a job, it is the inverse of Peter Principle, keep firing the low performers until they land a job where they manage not to get fired.
replies(1): >>44448711 #
45. stego-tech ◴[] No.44446879{3}[source]
That didn’t make the strike or its messaging any less valid. Employers frequently strongarm politicians to make strikes and organized action illegal, at which point a dangerous precedence is set and violence is often the ultimate outcome.

If your job is so important that a strike should be illegal, then that job should also compensate you and your colleagues so well that a strike isn’t even a remote consideration. ATC was being treated like shit, weighed the pros and cons, and decided to strike.

And now in 2025, literally everything they struck against (outdated tech, short staffing, high burnout, low wages) is still here, and still causing harm.

46. cloverich ◴[] No.44446929{3}[source]
Its not brainwashing though, how to properly regular this is as old as Adam Smith right?

Union leader is one approach. But really if the US had a proper safety net, universal healthcare, and progressive taxes on capital accumulation, layoffs in OPs framing would not be nearly as bad.

The real issue here isnt the layoffs. Its that the top are pulling up profits, theres no quality healthcare for the unemployed (and getting worse), SFH are all levered up making the price unattainable for the average worker and high risk bc layoffs, etc.

The frustrating part is how dead simple the solution is. Universal healthcare. Progressive taxation that applies equally to capital gains. Block SFH investments (by investors and average joes alike). Maybe not emough, but light years ahead of where we are.

replies(1): >>44447362 #
47. riffraff ◴[] No.44446949{4}[source]
It does not apply if regulation allows it, but this does not need to be the case, and has been debated for decades

> [the New Deal architect, A. A. Berle] argued that corporations should "serve ... all society" through legally enforceable rules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berle%E2%80%93Dodd_debate

"profit is the only goal" is not a law of nature, it's the outcome of a specific system of laws.

replies(1): >>44447454 #
48. aydyn ◴[] No.44446952[source]
Unions are not effective when there's such a surplus of labor and people willing to break lines. It wont work in today's tech labor market.
replies(4): >>44447366 #>>44448020 #>>44449626 #>>44457592 #
49. triceratops ◴[] No.44446971[source]
> the first responsibility of any company is profitability

No that's what makes management the most money because they're paid in stock. So they want you to think it's legally required.

The first responsibility of a company is "act in the shareholders' best interests".

Is it in shareholders' best interests to have > 20% unemployment?

50. justin66 ◴[] No.44447000[source]
I think we can all agree that the real damage caused by layoffs is their effect on the publicity surrounding AI, not their effect on humans and their well being.
replies(1): >>44450620 #
51. triceratops ◴[] No.44447005[source]
How are they "importing" workers and still keeping them "offshore"?
replies(1): >>44447201 #
52. wonderwonder ◴[] No.44447201{3}[source]
The are doing both friend. I am currently the last US employee on my project with a fortune 250 company. Started off with 60 devs. Half onshore, half offshore. Now I am the last on shore dev. Still 60 devs total
replies(1): >>44447629 #
53. sydbarrett74 ◴[] No.44447236[source]
Unfortunately, none of this matters to Wall Street, which wants eternal profit growth.
54. Eggs-n-Jakey ◴[] No.44447339[source]
it's not even that man, it shows insecurity in their growth and future business, they're terrified they took the wrong bet on their massive investments into Ai, or the perception of those investments.

A layoff is a complete and utter failure in leadership top down.

Then applying for 6k visas that are going to be compensated well below industry levels is just a complete joke.

55. UncleMeat ◴[] No.44447362{4}[source]
Smith actually wrote against this very concept. The idea that a corporation's only responsibility is to its shareholders is relatively recent.
replies(1): >>44456951 #
56. pmyteh ◴[] No.44447366{3}[source]
The traditional response to that was violence against scabs, for better or for worse: it keeps people from breaking picket lines even when otherwise willing.

This photo in particular captures something of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Strikers_Riot

replies(1): >>44449500 #
57. xnyan ◴[] No.44447405{3}[source]
The American Revolution, wasn’t it illegal?
58. DrillShopper ◴[] No.44447454{5}[source]
Yes, and who owns the politicians that make those laws?

It certainly isn't the worker.

59. mathverse ◴[] No.44447575{4}[source]
It's not only about cheaper workers but an army of controllable drones.
60. triceratops ◴[] No.44447629{4}[source]
So they've only offshored. Not imported.
replies(1): >>44447648 #
61. wonderwonder ◴[] No.44447648{5}[source]
My company yes. Other companies do both
62. wonderwonder ◴[] No.44447674{3}[source]
To be clear, I never painted indian devs as low quality. Many of the ones I work with are very smart, skilled people
63. DebtDeflation ◴[] No.44447678[source]
>how do you have a layoff every couple of months for 3 years

It has absolutely nothing to do with managing out low performers or managing existential business risk. It has everything to do with managing annual EPS to Wall Street's expectations. There was an inflection point at the end of 2022 where Revenue growth slowed so to maintain Earnings growth, costs had to be cut continuously, and this process is still playing out.

64. aksss ◴[] No.44447682{6}[source]
Liking unions in the abstract is very different than wanting to be part of one.

Opinions about unions tend to “mature” and become more nuanced with age (after exposure to both as a member and as a manager of union staff), for worse and better.

Adjust expectations for human behavior accordingly.

replies(1): >>44447749 #
65. toomuchtodo ◴[] No.44447749{7}[source]
Demographics had to change and belief systems had to develop for Mamdani to win the NYC primary. Huge turn out, 12 point victory over Cuomo. Democratic socialist policy platform. This is the future as young people remain economically disadvantaged and old folks with their beliefs and wealth to protect age out. Young people aren't going to get more conservative because they don't have something to lose economically as older cohorts might have had.

If workers are not seeing improvements in life over time, why would their viewpoint change? I agree a minority of workers might change their mind when they luck into favorable economic and labor circumstances, but luck will not find the majority, and when it comes to voting, a majority matters.

How the US Is Destroying Young People’s Future | Scott Galloway | TED - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E

Part 2: Scott Galloway’s Viral TED Talk on How the Old Are Stealing from the Young - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjNV6JwlV2s

Millennials are shattering the oldest rule in politics: Western conservatives are at risk from generations of voters who are no longer moving to the right as they age - https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767... | https://archive.today/lQoLa

replies(1): >>44447782 #
66. sokoloff ◴[] No.44447762{6}[source]
It’ll interesting to see if GenZ support changes as they become GenX’s age.
replies(1): >>44457744 #
67. sokoloff ◴[] No.44447782{8}[source]
> Young people aren't going to get more conservative because

IOW, “this time is different!” Maybe that will be true this time, but it’s far from a given.

replies(2): >>44447812 #>>44457781 #
68. toomuchtodo ◴[] No.44447812{9}[source]
See the Financial Times citation with data backing my assertion. I agree the future is hard to predict, and humans are tricky.

https://d4pgq7fazddwpa.archive.ph/lQoLa/f1886c78af8eb03745a8...

https://careers.augsburg.edu/blog/2024/03/18/gen-z-does-not-...

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-...

69. RajT88 ◴[] No.44447824[source]
This was an interesting read which cropped up on LinkedIn for me today:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zoology-us-microsoft-old-time...

Layoffs have always been part of the game. There is reason to believe this latest set of layoffs are different (Scott Hanselmann himself said so on LinkedIn recently - "Laying off my staff is never easy, but this is the first time I've had to lay people off for someone else's business goals" whatever that means).

70. silisili ◴[] No.44448020{3}[source]
Sure it would. There are way more employed tech people than unemployed. Imagine if every single person at a company like MS up and went on strike tomorrow.

Could MS replace them all with scabs? Sure, with enough time and money. But it wouldn't happen overnight, and things would get very dire if not company ruining in the meantime.

replies(2): >>44449647 #>>44451103 #
71. const_cast ◴[] No.44448416{5}[source]
Or, more likely, leadership is sloppy and lazy. They make mistakes and color outside the lines, and they pay for it. The hope is that they don't hurt themselves too bad.

Luckily for leadership, opportunity cost is completely invisible. They can't travel to alternate realities so they can just pretend they made a good decision and go with that. This is what causes the fun phenomena of "failing upwards" we see in modern American corporate leadership.

72. antifa ◴[] No.44448439[source]
What's really the difference between union guys playing a little bit of cards on the boss's dime and the boss paying you poverty wages so he can upgrade to a bigger yacht? might as well pick the option that's going to have your back.
73. atomicnumber3 ◴[] No.44448711{4}[source]
That's literally how capitalism determines wages, yes. I too have critiques of capitalism. But I often refrain from enumerating them on every single comment that relates to labor because otherwise we never get to actually discuss labor in its current context.
replies(1): >>44451804 #
74. sitzkrieg ◴[] No.44449464{3}[source]
ive been in tech just as long. im a craftsman who cares about my work. i work for myself. no big tech company will ever prioritize the right stuff ever again, that is pretty clear everytime i make the mistake of updating any software ever.

i guess the real message is the boom is over if you want cushy or easy money

75. xienze ◴[] No.44449500{4}[source]
> The traditional response to that was violence against scabs

And how are you going to do that when the scabs are in India? Unions work in “physical” domains (like plumbing, factory work, etc.), not so much in “virtual” domains where all you need is a computer to do your work and there’s an entire world full of workers who would think they’ve died and gone to heaven if they could make half your salary.

replies(1): >>44450935 #
76. mancerayder ◴[] No.44449626{3}[source]
Exactly. What are unions going to do, prevent H1B workers from replacing them?
replies(1): >>44450037 #
77. idkwhattocallme ◴[] No.44449647{4}[source]
A digital strike by all employees for a week to get a collective bargaining agreement in place to show companies just how far AI has to go as a replacement would be powerful.
replies(1): >>44450027 #
78. ponector ◴[] No.44450027{5}[source]
I'd argue nothing happens if everyone go on strike. It's not an assembly line. No release? Great. Noone to attend meetings? Not a big deal! Cannot get a real person for support? Same as without strike!
replies(3): >>44450215 #>>44451043 #>>44451507 #
79. ponector ◴[] No.44450037{4}[source]
Why to bother with H1B workers if they are hiring directly in India?
80. WhyIsItAlwaysHN ◴[] No.44450215{6}[source]
Outages would not be picked up
81. WillPostForFood ◴[] No.44450236{3}[source]
You can see the Microsoft H1B Software Engineer salaries at the HQ in Redmond.

https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=microsoft&job=software+eng...

What do you think the salary would be for a US employee that those $101k H1B Software Engineers replaced? They obviously aren't saving 90%, but maybe 50% 33%?

replies(1): >>44451205 #
82. bitbasher ◴[] No.44450620{3}[source]
Correct, people can get new jobs. We are all forced to live through this AI hype for the next decade.
83. cosmicgadget ◴[] No.44450734[source]
General financial health is a better goal.
84. franktankbank ◴[] No.44450935{5}[source]
> when the scabs are in India

Lol good luck with that.

85. eviks ◴[] No.44451043{6}[source]
> No release? Great.

What is great about your mission critical bug not getting fixed for a few more weeks?

86. billy99k ◴[] No.44451103{4}[source]
With remote work? good luck. Unions only work where all the work is localized.

I'm in tech and I would never join a union. Why do I need collective bargaining to set my salary (and not give me raise until it's collectively raised) when I can bargain for my own raises?

In addition to this, unions don't bode well for innovation and technology. Look at the Taxicab unions. We could only get a cab in person or through the phone, because the unions had no incentive to innovate. It look a non-union startup to push them to actually make it convenient and better for the customer.

replies(2): >>44451531 #>>44457626 #
87. timtom123 ◴[] No.44451205{4}[source]
It isn't just the $ savings. It is indentured servitude. I have more than one friend that quit the day they got their green card.
88. ethbr1 ◴[] No.44451507{6}[source]
I think you underappreciate what SRE does on a daily basis.
89. ethbr1 ◴[] No.44451531{5}[source]
> Look at the Taxicab unions. We could only get a cab in person or through the phone, because the unions had no incentive to innovate. It look a non-union startup to push them to actually make it convenient and better for the customer.

OTOH, gig drivers are being paid below minimum wage, with no benefits, no retirement plan, and no stability of work.

As a customer, yay technology and UX! But as a human, it's objectively worse for society.

replies(1): >>44454215 #
90. pjmlp ◴[] No.44451804{5}[source]
Fortunately there are other ways to determine wages.

Not every society expects people to achieve maximal performace on quarterly OKR, while management foreman's play rythmic cadence drums and whip slashes.

replies(1): >>44459321 #
91. sershe ◴[] No.44452199[source]
Why do we need a solution to a non-existent problem? Middle class is doing just fine e.g. https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2025/05/07/the-middle-w...
92. pllbnk ◴[] No.44452368[source]
I think you are highlighting the truly important bit here - that megacorporations are economy's cancer. I am on the side that work is work, there should be no emotional connection, except for the personal relationships. It is fine that companies hire when they need resources and fire when they don't. However, a small company might lay off 10 people and they will quickly disperse in the available work pool. However, laying off 30k people at once does serious damage to the market and the prospects of those laid off people.
93. billy99k ◴[] No.44454215{6}[source]
"OTOH, gig drivers are being paid below minimum wage, with no benefits, no retirement plan, and no stability of work."

Gig work is not supposed to be stable, have benefits, or retirement. It's supposed to be there for someone to make extra money. I know lots of people that used it to make extra money and now can't make anything because of new regulations.

If you wanted to drive a Taxi in NYC, it was a million dollar investment for a medallion and the whole system was a monopoly that shutdown any new advancements.

How was this better for humans or customers?

replies(1): >>44457653 #
94. cloverich ◴[] No.44456951{5}[source]
I dont think you are wrong but i think thats leaving out a key, for me THE key take aways i got out of it. ie Smith didn’t imagine capitalism working without regulation. His whole model assumes a strong legal and institutional framework to keep markets fair and socially useful.
95. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44457573[source]
1. Over hiring isn't really a thing here. They knew what they were doing and knew they could just kick people out if things changed. I don't like that term to describe the situation.

2. That's how it is for most of these high profile layoffs. They are profitable but do layoffs so they can report record revenue later. It's not about "we can't afford workers", it's about blatant greed in 90% of cases this decade.

3. Yeah, talent retention is gone this decade. They don't care about growth or fostering future labor.

96. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44457592{3}[source]
>people willing to break lines.

It's even simpler than this. We call is "collective bargaining" for a reason. If we don't collect... We lose all the power.

But my country's been so individualistic and no one seems to trust anyone anymore. No wonder we're struggling. We can't even come together to say "hey we need better minumum wage" after the longest drought of not raising it.

97. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44457626{5}[source]
I work in games. Salary is honestly fine for the most part, even if lower than traditional tech.

I just want to not be laid off every 3 years becsuse some executive wants numbers to look 1% better for shareholders. I'd gladly join a union that ensures there's proper warning for layoffs and proper payout if it goes through.

>Look at the Taxicab unions.

So you're complaining about regulation because unregulated tech was convinent for you for a few years? That thinking is how we got here.

98. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44457653{7}[source]
>How was this better for humans or customers?

The workers got paid, couldn't be laid off easily, and can make a career.

But i guess I see this line of thinking and see exactly how we got to trumpism. The current system has flaws and bad actors, let's instead burn it down and replace it with even worse actors who make all the money. Don't bother using anti trust or regulating the new industry, the old boogeyman ruined it.

99. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44457676[source]
"union bad" people are why Microsoft can just do this. And do it again in 3 months. And in 6 months.

If people would rather lose all job stability their parents had as a career instead of coming together to work in their best interests, what can you really do?

100. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44457734{5}[source]
>If a median tech worker pays $1300-2600/yr in dues (1-2% of median salary), I think it’s reasonable for them to expect more than that on a net-present-value basis.

The "NPV" is thst you aren't part of the next wave of layoffs. Losing a month of salary every 6-12 months is great insurance compared to losing a month of salary a month after you get laid off.

Do people really not value stability anymore? Do they have no craft to build nor challenge into? Is everyone here just older workers who don't realize how utterly abused Gen Z has been by this workforce, if they can even get in? I'd pay 10% of my salary for some stability after these 2 years of fallout, and I still ended up on thr more fortunate side of these layoffs for my sub-generation of late millennial.

101. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44457744{7}[source]
I see it as sink or swim. They reform the job market that spited them, or they adjust and just tell the alphas and betas how they never had a steady job and why bother?
102. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44457781{9}[source]
To be fair, this time is literally different. So many social contracts that were built In for boomers and Gen X were never a thing in gen Z.

I don't know if it will be different in a good way, but I doubt in 30 years, Gen Z is going to be telling their kids and grandkids to walk into an office and give a good handshake to the hiring manager. Norms and etiquette have completely shifted.

103. atomicnumber3 ◴[] No.44459321{6}[source]
Ok sure, dude I am with you, I am a socialist. But this doesn't help us navigate the existing system we have to work in until we can finally establish a truly socialist society.
replies(1): >>44471534 #
104. pjmlp ◴[] No.44471534{7}[source]
It is a matter who we chose to vote on, the unions we empower, the fight for sensible work protection laws.

Then again, European socialism is already too left for US capitalism mindset.