Makes me sad to read it as an ex-Elastic employee.
AI is used to justify the redundancies, and the company still expects to grow in this fiscal year. In the SEC filling the specifically mention more “head count” in “go-to-market” roles [1].
> a reduction of approximately 7% of our workforce
> Advances in AI, automation, and technology are reshaping how work gets done, and we're changing with them. (…) That's what this reorganization is for: a simpler structure, with fewer layers, less complexity, and less friction.
> The changes we announced today are a sign of confidence in the business, not a retreat from it. We continue to invest in key growth areas and expect total headcount to grow year-over-year this fiscal year [the SEC filling says “ The Company plans to continue hiring in key strategic areas and locations, including continuing to grow headcount in
customer-facing go-to-market functions, and expects total headcount to grow this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year, as it continues to invest in future
growth opportunities”]
Do not want to sound like as if I am taking their side but the reality is that all these decisions are mandated by some subset of investors in one way or another.
These executives are replaceable, and they would be replaced if they do not toe the line. In other words these executives happen to choose a easy and beneficial path rather than standing up for the long term right thing for the company.
The thing is, a profitable company that sees an obvious efficiency staring it in the face is still going to take that efficiency.
I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person.
We’d rather sit here and stew about companies “blaming AI for layoffs” but I imagine that is only sometimes the case.
A somewhat related tangent: I have had the thought that many parts of the Japanese system of hiring for life might actually be really appropriate for the AI age. That system seems to result in a lot of companies finding ways to reshuffle employees into making some kind of product that has market value rather than the Western reaction that that seems to favor downsizing and focusing the company on a smaller set of markets in the name of ruthless efficiency. This seems to result in many Japanese firms making a wide breadth of interesting products at very high quality levels.
If your company is profitable because AI is increasing efficiency (allegedly, of course), why layoff 7% of your employees when you could instead assign them to make something new or complementary to your current product line? Western companies seem to refuse to do that out of a sense of focus and efficiency, but maybe giving that strategy a go more frequently would result in unrealized opportunities.
That’s why I said “many parts” and not “all.” I wouldn’t want to pick up a good number of their practices, but I think a company seeing layoffs as an embarrassing last resort is a positive trait.
I also think that concepts like debt to GDP ratio are somewhat detached from corporate policies.
> but I think a company seeing layoffs as an embarrassing last resort is a positive trait.
Don’t most companies think of layoffs as a last resort? I don’t think one ought to be embarrassed about correcting course when you have made a mistake. It takes courage.
How many mistakes does it take to layoff 30% of your work force in a few months (Lucid)?
Embarrassment should always be warranted when you make mistake on a scale where you are laying off a percentage of your work force instead of a couple of people.
Corporations in the US don’t have any negative impact when laying people off. They have minimal to zero financial obligations to employees and essentially zero meaningful regulations on the matter.
From the employee perspective the admission of a “mistake” in this regard is not “courage,” it’s an admission of cold-heartedness.
To the company, you are nothing but a purchase order, and your livelihood is meaningless.
Maybe someone would say “of course, it’s a business, that’s logical.” Maybe you would even say “easy to fire, therefore, easy to hire, more innovation.”
I say, we don’t have to run society that way, and it’s not a pleasant way to live. It was a choice.
I say this as someone with personal experience getting laid off twice in a row within the last decade. One time the layoff was in the same month I was hired. That was not fun.
These aren’t “mistakes,” these are companies who treat people like disposable lab rats. My whole team was hired as an experiment and quickly let go when it didn’t work out. The company doesn’t just “make a mistake” and find out they suddenly can’t pay the people they hired that quickly. They knew they were playing us.
> I also think that concepts like debt to GDP ratio are somewhat detached from corporate policies.
Corporate policies ultimately decide growth. More growth leads to higher profits and higher tax collected by the Government which in turn means they don't have to borrow more.
Corporate policies can’t make people have babies, decide how much money to spend on public infrastructure, make foreign policy decisions, tell national banks how to lend, etc.
> I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person.
Growth companies respond to efficiency by asking "what can we do now that we can get more done."
Stagnant companies say "how can we cut costs."
The math is pretty simple. If you expect that doing more will have positive ROI, you do more; if you think your position is about as strong as it can ever be, and don't have ideas for growing the space or your spot in it, you assume that more spend on new things would be negative ROI.
And if you're stagnant and there are prevailing narratives giving you an excuse to cut costs without scaring investors into thinking you've lost optimism, you jump on it even if you haven't even verified if the productivity gains are real for your employees.
Essentially what I am suggesting is companies leaving growth phase or who are generally “stagnant” to not just cut employee headcount but instead redeploy them to seek out new opportunities. This is especially true if the company isn’t facing any pressing financial crisis or net loss.
You are thinking growth in product and opportunities. But that doesn't always require or translate to more engineering especially in the face of AI efficiency if that work to support that growth can come from AI (NOTE: I'm not saying it can; I believe some people believe and are acting like it can which is enough). For these people the new bottleneck to growth may be new market segments, adoption and integration which could mean more sales like staff - AI seems more of a boon to the non technical, AI hypers and sales pitchers IMO than it is to engineers. On a side note personally this makes the industry less desirable to work in - it devalues effort/intelligence/craftsmanship/product and values connections, marketing, status and "the hustle" a lot more.
As the supply curve of software becomes more vertical due to AI the argument that growth equals a proportional amount of engineering demand may be violated. We may see 2x growth in some companies even as the "people engineers" are cut. They could still be pursuing growth; it just that engineering costs are now lower or are less of a need to pursue that growth in general.
AI is the first technology that I've seen that has potentially hurt technology engineering demand rather than creating it; which is why the usual arguments don't always apply here.
> The thing is, a profitable company that sees an obvious efficiency staring it in the face is still going to take that efficiency.
Judging by this CEO’s vapid post stuffed with meaningless LLMisms, and the condition of this company, the efficiency savings don’t seem to be there and are at best illusory.
Good luck to any companies who think they’re improving operations by jamming generative AI (or worse unreliable ‘agents’ based on the purported intelligence of GAI) into all sorts of processes where they don’t belong.
We’ll see over the next few years whether the 10x efficiencies are real or a mirage.
That’s not how it works. Investors don’t mandate operational decisions. That’s for… operators. What they do ask for, in exchange for their investment, are things like revenue growth or certain margins.
You can crap on those investors. The answer then is to never take their money. But without money, the job probably wasn’t created in the first place. So the result is the same.
By the way, ever work alongside a really crappy non-executive and wonder how on earth they’re keeping their job? I sure have.
most investors want maximum short term profit. execs have to do what they say because of fiduciary duty and shareholder votes to fire them. the only way to prevent it is use debt financing exclusively or make every investor sign a contract that limits the companies duty to "dont do things that will actively lose money". thats hard when a lot of vcs strategy is extract as much as possible and let it fall.
this is a bit... general? there are companies with bullshit executives for sure, then there are companies who slay it.
i hate to list the details because people start picking on details, but in my mind MS under Satya made a 180 from crap to relevant. All the while i realize what kind of shit goes on inside and if you read Blind your eyes will bleed. Yet Satya took it from a pure 100% bullshit executive and made it relevant. So not all executives are equal.
Elastic isn't Open Source though, they abandoned Open Source. It seems to me like this is an example of non-Open Source whatever licensing causing job loss. Or just plain bad leadership.
Big tech didn't steal anything. Elastic used open source software as the foundation of their product (specifically, Apache Lucene), and released their product as open source. The license allowed Elastic to do so, and likewise, the license Elastic used allowed "big tech" to use Elastics product. If it wasn't for open source, Elastic wouldn't exist.
Then, Elastic whined about Amazon using Elastic under the open source license they used to build their product. They whined that Amazon wasn't contributing enough. So they switched the license to their product. So Amazon took over maintaining the open source software. Doing exactly what Elastic asked them to do.
Sorry, but everything about Elastic, and especially this most recent announcement of layoffs, scream "bad leadership".
Don’t be a shill for big tech over elastic in this fight. AWS was using elastic’s trademark and aggressive advertising to push their managed elasticsearch. They left elastic with no economically logical choice. MongoDB and countless others also made similar choices.
AWS was super greedy and honestly I’m glad elastic even survived their aggressive tactics.
For the longest time, elastic didn't even have a cloud offering.
And by the time they did it was far far too late.
In the early days AWS elastic offering was very weak. It had lots of foot guns and operational problems. We tried hard to use an more native elastic offering and would have preferred it, but it didn't exist.
The fact AWS crappy hosted ES gained any market share is more a testament to how bad ES sales practices were than anything else.
ES really missed the mark by not having a simple, self-serve sales model and instead going all in convoluted "contact a sales rep" enterprise model no one wanted to deal with.
ES Enterprise Sales for an on-prem license might have been the worst sales experience I ever was part of as a customer. We were already a very technically self-sufficient org just wanting to get under a support contract. They made it so impossible to give them money we simply gave up and went with the open source fork during all the Amazon kerfuffle.
Dozen of hours of useless phone calls, and just nonsensical numbers coming out weeks or months later. Only to go back to the well and try again with a new team of reps after the first team inevitably churned out before any real progress was made.
It’s been five years since they changed their license. Today’s layoffs cannot be blamed on AWS and GCP. It’s been years and they have differentiated products now.
The idea behind free software was the software was free, but you'd sell the support -- installation help (floppies even)
Elastic were on board with that, and it worked
Until a larger incumbent decided to do their own support (fine), but then sell their service.
Not even a price thing. Far easier for me to spend $50k a year with aws than $5k a year with elastic because we already have a relationship and framework with aws.
They've switched to AGPL, which is a great license, they were just too late, they're the poster child of why AGPL is so important (whether it's another or not is another question)
It does actually. I am pro-OSS as sharing knowledge and innovation, I am not sure at this stage I am happy sharing my work with people using LLMs for anything... OSS gonna change for sure.
What’s also sad is looking at the quotes you posted GAI was obviously used to churn it out - it’s a simulacrum of thought, signifying nothing. This is what the CEO is trying to claim will save the company, and unfortunately this is the sort of mediocrity relying on LLMs gives you.
Software engineers tend to put their heads in the sand, once a company/product reaches a certain maturity - it's the time for it to be milked. You need less product people - hence why most companies end up outsourcing to India etc, "A.I" is just outsourcing to "agents".
Now Salespeople - they can keep selling - and as long as they're willing buyers.
this is all part of the Product Maturity lifecycle.
One day the product stops being an attractive cash cow - then it gets sold to PE & finally dies or remains a zombie.
as an engineer - your job is to know where in the product lifecycle the company|product you're currently working on is.
This announcement spends remarkably few words talking about the what (7% of the company's workforce was laid off), and a great deal of words talking about how bright the future of the company is and how they're going to hire more people.
Well, sort of. That anthropomorphizes them and allows the sociopaths running the corporations to pawn the responsibility of their decisions to the corporation, which is actually a legal fiction that is incapable of independent thought or expression.
I c-suites were actually held responsible for the actions of the corporation I would agree, but I don't see that actually happening very wrong. It is so rare that when it does happen it will be in the news for months.
If you were realigning your SaaS company to ignore your technology short-comings and technical debt, and isntead focus on selling as much "AI-enabled <whatever>" while the rush still looks like gold, this would be a great strategy & announcement.
“Chasing tech debt” vs “more sales” is a false dichotomy. A dangerous one, too, if you simply expand “chasing tech debt” to “listening to engineering concerns”. That’s how you end up with a Boeing.
I’ve seen many products die sudden, violent deaths due to unmanaged technical debt. If you have customers who care about quality and reliability, you simply cannot set up a false dichotomy between selling product and managing technical debt.
That said, I would also concede that over the past decade or two the clean code movement has made a damn strong effort of poisoning the term by trying to characterize technically inconsequential aesthetic concerns as technical debt.
Layoff announcements are this kinda tricky class of corporate comms where you need to speak to at least 3 different constituents, with 3 different messages, which are often in conflict.
It's something like:
(A) To the public (e.g. prospects, customers, investors): "This is a good thing and we're going to be an even better bet!"
(B) To the remaining team: "This is tough and I feel your pain and will do better."
(C) To the laid off: "It's not you, it's me, thank you and good luck."
It's hard if not impossible to handle all three of these authentically, concisely, and in the same message. Which is why you can almost immediately find something not to like..
There's really only a conflict between A and the rest, and that's because A is a lie. It's not a good thing, if it were they wouldn't have to say B and C.
They can try to do better and be hopeful, but they also fucked up big time. It's not like the public actually believes the lie, so stop telling it.
I wonder if some of these CEOs are anticipating a big crash and trying to lay people off now, so that (1) they can raise/hoard cash while the money-go-round is spinning and (2) their eng organization is already lean and used to it if/when the money-go-round stops.
I think it's just the relative cost of money. Credit, debt, raises, revenue all rely on it. The tech industry got used to zero interest rate and then Covid-era stimulus. Now, suddenly, cashflow matters, but the companies are still run by the same people that only know perception management. Eventually they too will get cycled out.
Bingo - the combination of rising interest rates and tanking SaaS valuations has left a lot of these companies - specifically PE funded with mountains of debt - in a very weak position. Funny enough I think small SaaS companies are in a good position, both ownership & their potential use of AI, while larger SaaS companies, are in a lot of trouble. Why rent SaaS when you can build applications with AI? but then, who's going to maintain them?
They carry $575m in debt, which is around 80-100 devs a year if they are paying something like 4.5% on it, ignoring tax write-offs on either case as well as equity comp. There is some calculus to all that, carrying some debt, doing buybacks, whatever other strategies to manage perceptions sure.
As far as I understand companies will take out loans against their own stocks in good times as they expect their stocks to generally go up and to make more money than the payments on the interest of those loans. If their stocks go down they need to make up the shortfall elsewhere. The loans are generally used to keep business operations running smoothly irrespective of actual business cashflow (for example some businesses make most of their profits at certain times of the year). I'm not saying this for sure applies to Elastic but I believe its a pretty common pattern across major businesses.
dont know the laws well enough, but would be crazy indeed if companies could borrow against their own stock when they're issuing first new ones with sbc and then buy back on open market.
This just reaffirms my view is that big companies will lose headcount because of AI, but small and medium companies will (or at least have the potential to) leverage AI to do bigger and better things. This is because big companies could always spend big money on getting what they want made while small companies always have to tradeoff what they can realistically do with the resources they have.
Also big companies spend tons and tons of time and money on useless busy work.
I work in IT and when we needed something new we'd just implement or build it.
Now we have long certification processes for anything new, checking if it complies with hundreds of pages of policies. A lifecycle management program which we constantly have to keep updated. Governance teams that are constantly looking over our shoulders. All shit that has nothing to do with IT whatsoever.
As a result we spend 90% of time doing busywork jumping through hoops these guys set up for us. Only 5% is real technical work and a lot is outsourced or consulted out to a friend of the vice president who spends all day chatting in his office for 1000 bucks a day. Or a Deloitte guy who looks great in a suit and has no idea what he's talking about. Because companies hate employing people who have actual knowledge.
I really hate IT work now. Not sure about the rest of the industry but this change happened about 10 years ago. Until then we still were able to do actual useful work.
I can only imagine how awful a place to work it will become when they will use AI to dream up even more inhibiting policies to keep us down with.
Oh and meanwhile the CEO still goes around how innovative we are even though any innovation is absolutely killed by all this bureaucracy. Most of the time we come up with a great idea it doesn't move ahead because nobody wants to deal with years of pencil pushing to get it approved.
I can totally see how startups can do actual work with little money and we can't do anything.
This has been the case forever in corporate environments, even before AI. I worked for 3 years on an app that in startup land should have taken a couple months at best.
The interesting thing is how different outwardly similar businesses can be. I remember doing back to back contracts for two similar sized pharmaceutical companies. One of them had an IT group ten times the size of the other. You can guess which project overran.
In academic research I have seen this same trend, particularly intensely in IT and security. Lock it down, lock it up, and slow down research. A hierarchy of admins and techs taught to cover their asses.
The US Bureau of Labour Statistics identifies nine classes of businesses for employment dynamics, the largest being 1,000 employees: <https://www.bls.gov/bdm/bdmfirmsize.htm>.
I'm surprised by the latter as there are many companies with > 10k employees.
The list of 100 largest US companies by headcount ends with Meta at 78,865 employees. The top ten have 309,000 or more employees, two (Walmart and Amazon) over 1 million. The top 5 are all retail, delivery, or both (Amazon).
I recommended an elastic demo for a client that would be well served by Elasticsearch. The Elastic sales folks completely torpedoed the presentation by trying to focus on their AI “capabilities” and not on the recommended talking points. This was 2 years ago.
I've seen companies put a percentage of the team on a PIP as a "this is not a layoff but we do need to cut costs" situation. Hopefully Elastic is just being honest about it?
> Your best employees are the most likely to leave via attrition, because they have the most opportunity elsewhere.
But this remains true after a layoff and the layoff often acts a motivator for your best employees to start looking even if they weren't previously.
Usually they aren't thinking "well, glad I survived that layoff and now my job is safe forever", they are thinking "huh, is this a sinking ship? Maybe I should look around and see what else is out there..."
...speaking as someone that has been at several companies during layoffs...
yeah, it seems like it would have to be accompanied by a pay bump for the ones you really want to retain... which is challenging from an optics perspective.
Perhaps, but there are optics only when someone sees. It's not unusual to fund retention increases using some of the budget freed up by a layoff, but that won't be explicitly stated in a public announcement.
Before the 1980s layoffs were seen as a massive failure of the company and almost never happened to tenured employees unless the company was collapsing. Before we are all made to think this is normal and unavoidable behavior.
I wouldn't have nearly as many complaints about this mindset change if ones life (e.g. insurance) weren't still so deeply tied to who your current employer is.
I don't know what the best solution for the current healthcare clusterfuck in the US is, but I think disassociating health insurance from employer/employment is a great first step.
Improving coverage and acceptance by plans in the marketplace would be a good start. Multiple healthcare providers only accept plans from an employer or the state, not individual plans bought in the marketplace. Crazy that in a pro-business country, if you have your own business or you're self-employed, you can't have access to healthcare
The goal should be a single payer health care system.
I am not asking for like luxury spa five star treatment.
However, there definitely should be a
"free of cost at the point of service"
option that does not have any means testing
of any kind.
That should be the goal and once we have that,
it will not matter if you are self employed
or own a business.
We keep doing half measures
and pretend to be surprised when it doesn't work.
> I don't know how the social contract between employees/employers gets rebuilt.
The only social contract that is guaranteed is the one written into law. That's why we have government, but the problem is that the government is (for a while now) captive to / bought by large corporations, not responsive to employees/workers/voters.
Whatever principled social contract you may have thought large corporations upheld was smoke and mirrors. It just worked for enough of the right kind of person for a while.
I was thinking the justice system, but yes the entire concept of government and law is built upon the monopoly of violence. Bringing it into this discussion is reductio ad absurdum. Even property rights are protected by the same monopoly (and even more directly).
My point is that the so called "social contract" has never been upheld by large corporations - it may have seemed that way at times but it was mostly self serving marketing, not anything that would influence their treatment of employees vs their shareholders and executives.
Furthermore I'm arguing that we shouldn't rely on them to uphold it. If we have a belief in what is universally fair or just (i.e minimum wages, no child labor, no slavery), we should encode it in law, not hope corporations find their conscience to renew the social contract.
Yeah. There is no such thing, especially and in particular with publicly traded companies. The only meaningful way to change behavior is regulation.
Beyond that, "social contracts" benefit the powerful and have a tendency to turn a blind eye to the worst off. Does the "social contract" require me to be a white, college educated male to secure worker protections? If you need a clear example of this, consider the relationship between citizens and police in the United States, and how blind the majority has been to how fundamentally broken the "social contract" around policing has been for minorities. That's what a handshake-society looks like.
Granted having both might be nice, but relying on a social contract is like relying on a benevolent dictator. It's great until it's not.
Social contracts only work in high trust societies that are also ethnically and culturally homogenous so the only grumble citizens have is fighting over class and not race.
But if you have a very diverse society that operates on tribalism, then you need a strong rule of law with strong checks and bounds to weed out tribalism, but this doesn't come for free as policing and lawyering the behavior of all members of society to check if they aren't discriminating each other over immutable characteristics, is gonna costs the government and companies operating in this environment a lot of money, so you're gonna have higher operating costs. Which is why it's so much cheaper for US companies to hire in places like central europe where your payroll expense are mostly ICs and you don't need auxiliary armies of diversity consultants like in the US.
Are you seriously suggesting that the reason it is cheaper to shift factory labor from the United States to Mexico or Vietnam is because Mexican/Vietnamese factories don't need to hire diversity consultants? I have to have misunderstood what you're arguing, because that's transparently ridiculous.
Basic labor regulation around hiring/firing has nothing to do with diversity. It has everything to do with basic labor regulation around hiring/firing. Sure, regulation is expensive. There's no special reason the United States can't foot that bill and every other Western European economy can.
What on earth do diversity consultants have to do with prohibiting opportunistic layoffs to maximize short-term profits?
>Are you seriously suggesting that the reason it is cheaper to shift factory labor from the United States to Mexico or Vietnam is because Mexican/Vietnamese factories don't need to hire diversity consultants?
I was talking about white collar labor, not factory work, but yes, that also applies there as well.
>Basic labor regulation around hiring/firing has nothing to do with diversity.
It does when some poor performers you want to fire are part of a minority protected group and can sue you even if you're not firing them because they're minorities but because they're bad at their job, it's gonna cost you extra to avoid fake discriminatory lawsuits. Then hiring abroad becomes a better idea.
>every other Western European economy can.
Because in places like central europe you don't need them so you save money on payroll, as there's no bitching over "diversity", every worker is the same so there's no chance of "i've been discriminated because of my skin color, I'm gonna sue you for millions"
I don't think it's rational to rely on relationship with a business, especially and in particular a publicly traded business.
Change starts with regulation. That's how every other advanced economy handles it.
It's really not that complicated. It's the same situation as healthcare. You shouldn't rely on the free market to do anything other than maximize short term profits.
Employers will only do the right thing in two cases: they're afraid of stiff government penalties or they're afraid their workers are going to cut their heads off.
Personally, I'm in favor of regulations and stiff penalties for employers who break them.
You tax the everloving hell out of the rich, so they can't just buy whatever policy or judiciary outcome they want or build mega "just in case, i promise uwu" bunkers.
I know HN is mostly against regulation, but I'm very glad my country restricts mass firings, and particular stricter rules apply for companies that turn a profit.
If you're generating benefits, there should be very few reasons you need to let go people massively.
I have a cousin in Belgium who was laid off following some restructuring and her severance was 52 weeks. Not out of the goodness of the company's hearts, but mandated by law since they gave no notice and she had accrued seniority. US labor laws are a joke in comparison.
Economics is hardly a reproducible science, but an American company has basically instant access to 350 million consumers (and workers) with no language barrier and little inter-state red tape.
It's hard to imagine that this isn't a larger differentiator than the ability to fire hundreds at will.
AI is used to justify the redundancies, and the company still expects to grow in this fiscal year. In the SEC filling the specifically mention more “head count” in “go-to-market” roles [1].
> a reduction of approximately 7% of our workforce
> Advances in AI, automation, and technology are reshaping how work gets done, and we're changing with them. (…) That's what this reorganization is for: a simpler structure, with fewer layers, less complexity, and less friction.
> The changes we announced today are a sign of confidence in the business, not a retreat from it. We continue to invest in key growth areas and expect total headcount to grow year-over-year this fiscal year [the SEC filling says “ The Company plans to continue hiring in key strategic areas and locations, including continuing to grow headcount in customer-facing go-to-market functions, and expects total headcount to grow this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year, as it continues to invest in future growth opportunities”]
[1]: https://ir.elastic.co/financials/sec-filings/sec-filings-det...
These executives are replaceable, and they would be replaced if they do not toe the line. In other words these executives happen to choose a easy and beneficial path rather than standing up for the long term right thing for the company.
I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person.
We’d rather sit here and stew about companies “blaming AI for layoffs” but I imagine that is only sometimes the case.
A somewhat related tangent: I have had the thought that many parts of the Japanese system of hiring for life might actually be really appropriate for the AI age. That system seems to result in a lot of companies finding ways to reshuffle employees into making some kind of product that has market value rather than the Western reaction that that seems to favor downsizing and focusing the company on a smaller set of markets in the name of ruthless efficiency. This seems to result in many Japanese firms making a wide breadth of interesting products at very high quality levels.
If your company is profitable because AI is increasing efficiency (allegedly, of course), why layoff 7% of your employees when you could instead assign them to make something new or complementary to your current product line? Western companies seem to refuse to do that out of a sense of focus and efficiency, but maybe giving that strategy a go more frequently would result in unrealized opportunities.
Not that I would romanticize them as a whole, as a lot of aspects of Japanese corporate work culture are not to be envied.
This is a terrible strategy. It encourages inefficiency to metastasize throughout the company.
No wonder Japan is stuck in a rut since the 90s and its debt-to-GDP ratio is 205% which is one of the highest in the world.
Your romantic idea of Japan would get destroyed by just browsing www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/
Japan has one of the worst work culture and low productivity in the world.
I also think that concepts like debt to GDP ratio are somewhat detached from corporate policies.
Don’t most companies think of layoffs as a last resort? I don’t think one ought to be embarrassed about correcting course when you have made a mistake. It takes courage.
Embarrassment should always be warranted when you make mistake on a scale where you are laying off a percentage of your work force instead of a couple of people.
Corporations in the US don’t have any negative impact when laying people off. They have minimal to zero financial obligations to employees and essentially zero meaningful regulations on the matter.
From the employee perspective the admission of a “mistake” in this regard is not “courage,” it’s an admission of cold-heartedness.
To the company, you are nothing but a purchase order, and your livelihood is meaningless.
Maybe someone would say “of course, it’s a business, that’s logical.” Maybe you would even say “easy to fire, therefore, easy to hire, more innovation.”
I say, we don’t have to run society that way, and it’s not a pleasant way to live. It was a choice.
I say this as someone with personal experience getting laid off twice in a row within the last decade. One time the layoff was in the same month I was hired. That was not fun.
These aren’t “mistakes,” these are companies who treat people like disposable lab rats. My whole team was hired as an experiment and quickly let go when it didn’t work out. The company doesn’t just “make a mistake” and find out they suddenly can’t pay the people they hired that quickly. They knew they were playing us.
Corporate policies ultimately decide growth. More growth leads to higher profits and higher tax collected by the Government which in turn means they don't have to borrow more.
Growth companies respond to efficiency by asking "what can we do now that we can get more done."
Stagnant companies say "how can we cut costs."
The math is pretty simple. If you expect that doing more will have positive ROI, you do more; if you think your position is about as strong as it can ever be, and don't have ideas for growing the space or your spot in it, you assume that more spend on new things would be negative ROI.
And if you're stagnant and there are prevailing narratives giving you an excuse to cut costs without scaring investors into thinking you've lost optimism, you jump on it even if you haven't even verified if the productivity gains are real for your employees.
As the supply curve of software becomes more vertical due to AI the argument that growth equals a proportional amount of engineering demand may be violated. We may see 2x growth in some companies even as the "people engineers" are cut. They could still be pursuing growth; it just that engineering costs are now lower or are less of a need to pursue that growth in general.
AI is the first technology that I've seen that has potentially hurt technology engineering demand rather than creating it; which is why the usual arguments don't always apply here.
Judging by this CEO’s vapid post stuffed with meaningless LLMisms, and the condition of this company, the efficiency savings don’t seem to be there and are at best illusory.
Good luck to any companies who think they’re improving operations by jamming generative AI (or worse unreliable ‘agents’ based on the purported intelligence of GAI) into all sorts of processes where they don’t belong.
We’ll see over the next few years whether the 10x efficiencies are real or a mirage.
You can crap on those investors. The answer then is to never take their money. But without money, the job probably wasn’t created in the first place. So the result is the same.
By the way, ever work alongside a really crappy non-executive and wonder how on earth they’re keeping their job? I sure have.
AI hardware costs are nothing compared to executives’ stock options too…
i hate to list the details because people start picking on details, but in my mind MS under Satya made a 180 from crap to relevant. All the while i realize what kind of shit goes on inside and if you read Blind your eyes will bleed. Yet Satya took it from a pure 100% bullshit executive and made it relevant. So not all executives are equal.
Fair source > Open source.
Trillion dollar companies need to pay to play.
Open source removes your jobs, your exit equity, and transfers it to the hyperscalers. Sucks that it happened to you guys.
It was too late to stop it.
Then, Elastic whined about Amazon using Elastic under the open source license they used to build their product. They whined that Amazon wasn't contributing enough. So they switched the license to their product. So Amazon took over maintaining the open source software. Doing exactly what Elastic asked them to do.
Sorry, but everything about Elastic, and especially this most recent announcement of layoffs, scream "bad leadership".
AWS was super greedy and honestly I’m glad elastic even survived their aggressive tactics.
In the early days AWS elastic offering was very weak. It had lots of foot guns and operational problems. We tried hard to use an more native elastic offering and would have preferred it, but it didn't exist.
The fact AWS crappy hosted ES gained any market share is more a testament to how bad ES sales practices were than anything else.
ES really missed the mark by not having a simple, self-serve sales model and instead going all in convoluted "contact a sales rep" enterprise model no one wanted to deal with.
Dozen of hours of useless phone calls, and just nonsensical numbers coming out weeks or months later. Only to go back to the well and try again with a new team of reps after the first team inevitably churned out before any real progress was made.
- Was originally open source Apache license
- Switched to non-open source Elastic license in Jan 2021 [^1]
- Switched to open source AGPL license in Aug 2024 [^2]
Not to defend the license change(s).
[1] https://www.elastic.co/blog/licensing-change
[2] https://www.elastic.co/blog/elasticsearch-is-open-source-aga...
The idea behind free software was the software was free, but you'd sell the support -- installation help (floppies even)
Elastic were on board with that, and it worked
Until a larger incumbent decided to do their own support (fine), but then sell their service.
Not even a price thing. Far easier for me to spend $50k a year with aws than $5k a year with elastic because we already have a relationship and framework with aws.
They've switched to AGPL, which is a great license, they were just too late, they're the poster child of why AGPL is so important (whether it's another or not is another question)
Maybe I'm misreading it, but I didn't get the "we're forced to do this" vibe, which "saving" would imply.
To be this reads more like a strategic reduction in workforce as the product has stabilized.
Software engineers tend to put their heads in the sand, once a company/product reaches a certain maturity - it's the time for it to be milked. You need less product people - hence why most companies end up outsourcing to India etc, "A.I" is just outsourcing to "agents".
Now Salespeople - they can keep selling - and as long as they're willing buyers.
this is all part of the Product Maturity lifecycle.
One day the product stops being an attractive cash cow - then it gets sold to PE & finally dies or remains a zombie.
as an engineer - your job is to know where in the product lifecycle the company|product you're currently working on is.
The Corporation / 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(2003_film)
Free to watch on YT, IIRC
That said, I would also concede that over the past decade or two the clean code movement has made a damn strong effort of poisoning the term by trying to characterize technically inconsequential aesthetic concerns as technical debt.
It's something like:
(A) To the public (e.g. prospects, customers, investors): "This is a good thing and we're going to be an even better bet!"
(B) To the remaining team: "This is tough and I feel your pain and will do better."
(C) To the laid off: "It's not you, it's me, thank you and good luck."
It's hard if not impossible to handle all three of these authentically, concisely, and in the same message. Which is why you can almost immediately find something not to like..
They can try to do better and be hopeful, but they also fucked up big time. It's not like the public actually believes the lie, so stop telling it.
“Because of AI” indeed.
I work in IT and when we needed something new we'd just implement or build it.
Now we have long certification processes for anything new, checking if it complies with hundreds of pages of policies. A lifecycle management program which we constantly have to keep updated. Governance teams that are constantly looking over our shoulders. All shit that has nothing to do with IT whatsoever.
As a result we spend 90% of time doing busywork jumping through hoops these guys set up for us. Only 5% is real technical work and a lot is outsourced or consulted out to a friend of the vice president who spends all day chatting in his office for 1000 bucks a day. Or a Deloitte guy who looks great in a suit and has no idea what he's talking about. Because companies hate employing people who have actual knowledge.
I really hate IT work now. Not sure about the rest of the industry but this change happened about 10 years ago. Until then we still were able to do actual useful work.
I can only imagine how awful a place to work it will become when they will use AI to dream up even more inhibiting policies to keep us down with.
Oh and meanwhile the CEO still goes around how innovative we are even though any innovation is absolutely killed by all this bureaucracy. Most of the time we come up with a great idea it doesn't move ahead because nobody wants to deal with years of pencil pushing to get it approved.
I can totally see how startups can do actual work with little money and we can't do anything.
- Small: < 100 employees
- Mid-sized: 100 - 1,500/2,000 employees.
- Large: > 1,500/2,000 employees.
See: <https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/busi...> <https://learn.g2.com/business-size>.
The US Bureau of Labour Statistics identifies nine classes of businesses for employment dynamics, the largest being 1,000 employees: <https://www.bls.gov/bdm/bdmfirmsize.htm>.
I'm surprised by the latter as there are many companies with > 10k employees.
The list of 100 largest US companies by headcount ends with Meta at 78,865 employees. The top ten have 309,000 or more employees, two (Walmart and Amazon) over 1 million. The top 5 are all retail, delivery, or both (Amazon).
<https://stockanalysis.com/list/most-employees/>
Large companies model attrition in their financials, and those assumptions start to break when macro conditions around the job market shift like that.
In theory, a small layoff can target the least productive employees.
But this remains true after a layoff and the layoff often acts a motivator for your best employees to start looking even if they weren't previously.
Usually they aren't thinking "well, glad I survived that layoff and now my job is safe forever", they are thinking "huh, is this a sinking ship? Maybe I should look around and see what else is out there..."
...speaking as someone that has been at several companies during layoffs...
Granted, in that context, you'd be laying off 5% every two-ish years until industry trends changed direction.
I don't know what the best solution for the current healthcare clusterfuck in the US is, but I think disassociating health insurance from employer/employment is a great first step.
That should be the goal and once we have that, it will not matter if you are self employed or own a business. We keep doing half measures and pretend to be surprised when it doesn't work.
The only social contract that is guaranteed is the one written into law. That's why we have government, but the problem is that the government is (for a while now) captive to / bought by large corporations, not responsive to employees/workers/voters.
Whatever principled social contract you may have thought large corporations upheld was smoke and mirrors. It just worked for enough of the right kind of person for a while.
My point is that the so called "social contract" has never been upheld by large corporations - it may have seemed that way at times but it was mostly self serving marketing, not anything that would influence their treatment of employees vs their shareholders and executives.
Furthermore I'm arguing that we shouldn't rely on them to uphold it. If we have a belief in what is universally fair or just (i.e minimum wages, no child labor, no slavery), we should encode it in law, not hope corporations find their conscience to renew the social contract.
Beyond that, "social contracts" benefit the powerful and have a tendency to turn a blind eye to the worst off. Does the "social contract" require me to be a white, college educated male to secure worker protections? If you need a clear example of this, consider the relationship between citizens and police in the United States, and how blind the majority has been to how fundamentally broken the "social contract" around policing has been for minorities. That's what a handshake-society looks like.
Granted having both might be nice, but relying on a social contract is like relying on a benevolent dictator. It's great until it's not.
But if you have a very diverse society that operates on tribalism, then you need a strong rule of law with strong checks and bounds to weed out tribalism, but this doesn't come for free as policing and lawyering the behavior of all members of society to check if they aren't discriminating each other over immutable characteristics, is gonna costs the government and companies operating in this environment a lot of money, so you're gonna have higher operating costs. Which is why it's so much cheaper for US companies to hire in places like central europe where your payroll expense are mostly ICs and you don't need auxiliary armies of diversity consultants like in the US.
Basic labor regulation around hiring/firing has nothing to do with diversity. It has everything to do with basic labor regulation around hiring/firing. Sure, regulation is expensive. There's no special reason the United States can't foot that bill and every other Western European economy can.
What on earth do diversity consultants have to do with prohibiting opportunistic layoffs to maximize short-term profits?
I was talking about white collar labor, not factory work, but yes, that also applies there as well.
>Basic labor regulation around hiring/firing has nothing to do with diversity.
It does when some poor performers you want to fire are part of a minority protected group and can sue you even if you're not firing them because they're minorities but because they're bad at their job, it's gonna cost you extra to avoid fake discriminatory lawsuits. Then hiring abroad becomes a better idea.
>every other Western European economy can.
Because in places like central europe you don't need them so you save money on payroll, as there's no bitching over "diversity", every worker is the same so there's no chance of "i've been discriminated because of my skin color, I'm gonna sue you for millions"
Change starts with regulation. That's how every other advanced economy handles it.
It's really not that complicated. It's the same situation as healthcare. You shouldn't rely on the free market to do anything other than maximize short term profits.
Personally, I'm in favor of regulations and stiff penalties for employers who break them.
If you're generating benefits, there should be very few reasons you need to let go people massively.
It's hard to imagine that this isn't a larger differentiator than the ability to fire hundreds at will.