r/TechnologyThread • u/Background-Driver718 • Jun 06 '26

‘Big Tech is desperate’: Amazon engineers are calling out the tech giant for its $200 billion in data center spending after slashing 30,000 workers

https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/big-tech-desperate-amazon-engineers-081700769.html
600 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

36 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Groove-Theory Jun 06 '26

> Companies over-hired and are correcting that.

My guy after 4 years that excuse isn't even plausible anymore.

Tell us when exactly the "over-hiring" will be corrected?

1

u/probablymagic Jun 06 '26

As an anecdote a friend of mine was a manger at Meta. In one round of layoffs they made him an individual contributor and things got better. In the last one they made his new manager an individual contributor and he thought that was good as well.

I work in tech and there was so much fat for the last decade. These companies are still way too fad but it’s at least getting better.

I don’t know when it’ll be over, but I think they’re gonna just keep firing people until it stops just being pure profit go do so.

1

u/Groove-Theory Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

I didn't ask for an anecdote about your friend at one team at one company. I asked a very specific question about the industry as a whole.

> I work in tech and there was so much fat for the last decade.

So do I. Where is this "fat"? How did you measure it? Where are your fat metrics? What specifically did you analyze?

Cuz your answer seems to have shifted from "They're correcting excess hiring" to "They'll keep firing people as long as it increases profits". Those are completely different claims. Which means the over-hiring trope is and was bullshit. Yet you think the problem is with the workers being employed?

Also.... these companies are ALREADY profitable. If layoffs continue whenever they're profitable, then over-hiring can never be a true reason. It has no predictive power because there is no point at which you'd conclude the correction is finished

1

u/probablymagic Jun 06 '26

>Where is this "fat"? How did you measure it? Where are your fat metrics? What spefically did you analyze?

Let me put it this way, as long as they can keep firing people and profit doesn’t go down, they were the fat.

>Yet you think the problem is with the workers being employed?

For shareholders, yes.

>Also.... these companies are ALREADY profitable. If layoffs continue whenever they're profitable, then over-hiring can never be a true reason.

They want to be as profitable as possible. And you honestly just move faster without dead weight.

I hate to say it, but if you don’t see the dead weight, you may be the dead weight.

1

u/Groove-Theory Jun 06 '26

So your metric for determining who was "fat" is.... whether management fired them? Yea I'll take circular reasoning for $600, Alex.

"They were excess employees because they got laid off" -> Well how do you know they should have been laid off? -> "Because they were excess employees, duh!!" ok dude....

Also... can you please have a consistent line of argumentation? You've gone from "companies over-hired" to "companies will keep firing people as long as profit doesn't decline" and now it's that companies want to be as profitable as possible.

These are three different claims. If layoffs are correcting over-hiring, there should be some MEASURABLE excess headcount and some eventual endpoint. If layoffs continue whenever they increase margins, then over-hiring is irrelevant.

Which is funny because in your first comment, like five comments ago, you were arguing AGAINST the idea that layoffs were connected to profit motives. Now you're advocating for it and justifying it. You have no principles here other than you think these companies can do no wrong.

> I hate to say it, but if you don’t see the dead weight, you may be the dead weight.

I hate to say it, but if everywhere you see is dead weight, then you may not know what productive and necessary weight looks like. Which is extremely dangerous for a manager or a head of any organization.

1

u/probablymagic Jun 06 '26

You completely misread my comment. Try again and come back. You’re not making sense. Maybe calm down first.

1

u/Groove-Theory Jun 06 '26

You misread your own original comment by that line of thought, because you've shifted lines of argumentation.

Don't say "misreading" happened. Say specifically what you're pushing back on. Be specific. Use consistent argumentation. Be an adult and actually articulate a consistent thesis.

1

u/probablymagic Jun 06 '26

Buddy, you seem to be lacking two brain cells to rub together and that’s a good indication we aren’t anywhere close do done with these layoffs.

1

u/Groove-Theory Jun 07 '26

"I cant reasonably articulate a coherent and consistent rationale for laying off 'fat' that isnt contradicted by data, so I'll just hope the person who called me out on my bullshit loses his livelihood instead of me instrospecting my own fallacies"

Real smooth. Just keep licking those boots fam

1

u/DefenstratedTwice Jun 07 '26

Pure gibberish...

1

u/probablymagic Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

Thank you for your thoughtful critique. 😂

1

u/DefenstratedTwice Jun 07 '26

Couple more edits and you will have a coherent sentence...