Amazon braces for another major round of layoffs, 14,000 jobs at risk
mynorthwest.comRight now, amazon is packed full of L6 and L7 software managers, making 450-900k a year, that:
1. dont understand ai
2. have had the same skill set for 10 years
3. are working on autopilot, not trying to get promoted, just collecting paychecks
4. taking zero risk, follow protocol, play politics
for the company to move forwards, they need a massive purge. 15k is childs play. too many employees that make too much money to just maintain status quo
Isn’t that the job? I’m not even sure what “understand AI” even means, from where I sit, it maybe means “add AI to everything” and that doesn’t seem that complicated.
I’m not here to defend the people in Amazon corporate, I’m just not convinced it’s okay for a big rich corporation to hire all these people and then fire them on a whim. It’s not like Amazon can’t afford it.
And, to be realistic, "add AI to everything" is a sure sign that the person does _not_ understand AI.
They might not understand ai, but they do understand how to keep their job and maybe get a promotion, while causing massive problems for everyone else to deal with.
Tell that to the people cashing big checks at Microsoft and Google. ;-)
> I’m just not convinced it’s okay for a big rich corporation to hire all these people and then fire them on a whim
Amazon doesn't owe anybody a job. Likewise, if you buy groceries from Safeway, you can switch to buying from Walmart anytime.
> It’s not like Amazon can’t afford it.
I'm sure there are a lot of things people don't buy even though they can afford it.
Amazon got where it was by ruthlessness. What may not be OK is in US you need a job to get healthcare. But other than that people earning that much can't expect job for life type situation like a firefighter or teacher. In US almost everyone is a defacto contractor by virtue of at will employment.
> I’m just not convinced it’s okay for a big rich corporation to hire all these people and then fire them on a whim.
isn't this the American dream?
become Bezos, then exploit every last cent out of your suppliers, employees and customers
no you dont understand, the whole career ladder at amazon is clogged with people at the company 10+ years, that have been in their role 5+ years. its a big game of dont get fired, and collect pay checks as long as possible
Yes that’s how jobs work; you go to work, do your job, try not to get fired, and get paid for the work you do.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
These are the people Amazon hired, with the qualifications for which Amazon was hiring. If Amazon has some nebulous “career ladder” problem, I believe the fault can be laid at the feet of Amazon’s hiring practices.
Deciding one day to simply fire them all, I guess for doing what they were hired to do, is not okay.
> Deciding one day to simply fire them all, I guess for doing what they were hired to do, is not okay.
Business conditions change constantly.
> its a big game of dont get fired, and collect pay checks as long as possible
That pretty much sums it up for 90% of the world's employment...
Corporations exist to support the lives of humans, not the other way around.
From the corporations' point of view, humans are computing substrate.
Relevant speech by SF author Charlie Stross, from the 34th Chaos Communication Congress in Leipzig, December 2017: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-yo...
Wow 34c3, what a blast from the past! I still don't fully understand what "tuwat" meant ha ha. The best I could come up with was "Do something. Don't ask for permission".
They exist to provide value to other entities. There is no requirement for supporting humans or even having employees.
They exist to do things that individuals could not do.
they should give some younger people a shot to move into these management positions.
Maybe those young people should form their own company
This is the correct answer in 2026.
Exactly. This is why it makes absolutely zero sense to join Amazon right now as they are the worst ones to join [0] (Unless you specialize in robotics or actual AI and not controlling 'Agents')
They are aiming to layoff 30k employees this year. They are one bad earnings away from a surprise mass layoff unfortunately.
The other big tech companies are at lesser risk.
1. they don't understand their own job, why they're even there, let alone AI.
2. yes, if you're talking about basic reading skills at best.
3. correct. except "autopilot" doesn't even mean solving the basic problems they're supposed to solve as part of the role.
4. which is exactly what Amazon asked them to do.
> for the company to move forwards, they need a massive purge.
Absolutely. Starting at the C-suite, VP, and director levels (L8 and above).
Source: I was there.
Culture flows from the top down
Let me ask this question. Why can Netflix make a decent tv app and Amazon cannot?
Amazon Prime Video isn't targeting the US market anymore - they made a hard pivot to India [0][1][2], and as such are primarily investing in MX Player.
[0] - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/apo...
[1] - https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/prime-video-india-growth-pa...
[2] - https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/prime-video-india-content-c...
Wait, when the fuck did the Android app I used to play on-device videos with become a streaming app, that then got acquired by Amazon?!
(I know the literal answer is on Wikipedia, but I’m flabbergasted.)
Back in 2018-19 because their founder Karan Bedi was smart and recognized he could leverage his past corporate experience in Big Media in India in order to make MX Player a streaming platform targeting India2 and India3, and thus build a scalable business.
2nd and 3rd tier cities?
Yep!
Lots of companies can make decent apps. And IMO the Prime Video TV/Mobile and Amazon mobile apps are "decent" from a "they do what they're trying to do" standpoint and don't fail all the time.
But they don't really think about things from a "consumer who wants to watch something tonight" vs "shopper who we want to get money from" perspective. So the Prime Video app has been painful to navigate and use. Things like concepts of how people want to interact with TV shows - one top level entry with seasons in it, vs top-level entries per season, which took them forever to change - reflect quick and dirty shoveling of concepts over from how they'd sell box sets or such vs thinking about it from a user-first POV. Or how search will return a match for just about anything because they will happily sell it to you vs having as a default "show any free results first because I'm not looking to spend more right now."
That's a product/vision failure (or just mismatch with what you and I want) not an engineering/engineering culture thing.
This is really easy to answer, with some perspective from the inside, but mostly from public information:
- Amazon has 3 main business lines ("orgs"): Ecommerce, AWS and devices.
- Ecommerce and AWS are (now) cash cows. Devices bleeds money. TV falls into the devices organization.
- Devices was a Bezos bet. Current Amazon couldn't care less honestly.
- The devices organization is (today, after layoffs and people leaving in droves) essentially full of incompetent people, where all the leftovers of the other two orgs end up.
- It's people that was hired to build structure with the sole purpose of some higher-up promotion. They never served any other purpose, neither they have any particularly sophisticated skill.
- That's the people that makes the TV app.
amazon has mediocre quality talent that they grind to the bone. which worked when the company just needed raw execution. amazon has an operations culture, which was important for:
1. scaling retail
2. keeping the servers running at AWS
all the low hanging fruit has been picked, they need a fundamentally different employee base
> all the low hanging fruit has been picked, they need a fundamentally different employee base
As anyone in software development can tell you, this does not compute. You cannot do things this way, and any experienced software engineer can tell you it doesn't work.
Besides, it's not how Amazon worked at all. Amazon is famous for having systematically verified ("mathematically proved") how it's core systems operated. Whereas, for example Google only did that in redesigns when the systems had already collapsed once or twice due to scale, not from early on. And even that is superior to how Microsoft or Oracle did it: they bought Google employees and had them design an iteration of what Google is running (yes, is running, not was running. Google redesigned it's core systems ... and then mostly didn't migrate. Borg was never replaced with Omega and the main large system that they migrated to is Spanner. Kubernetes isn't Borg. Kubernetes grew out of Borg's successor. Except Google never migrated away from Borg)
https://cacm.acm.org/practice/systems-correctness-practices-...
I'm sure Amazon had entire departments, much larger than core engineering, just like every other company, where it looked like everything was operationally focused. That doesn't mean core engineering doesn't exist, or does nothing.
Publishing a paper (in 2025) about formal verification is miles different than implementing it company wide. Anyone who has talked to an Amazonian SWE knows they’re not building their systems like this.
The Amazon way is to quickly grind something out, and build on as many layers of AWS abstractions as possible. They’re famous for the hustle and grind not the stellar engineering acumen of formal verification.
Agree. I'd say they may have build 1% systems like this. But impression is whole cloud is built with formal verification
Goes back quite a bit further: https://www.amazon.science/tag/formal-verification
TV is Netflix's core competency. It's a sideline at best for Amazon.
Fully agreed and those downvoting you are Amazon employees mad that they don’t get to bully and harass their subordinates anymore.
That is why software engineers also need unions.
(but the time to organize was back when we still had the upper hand)
> but the time to organize was back when we still had the upper hand
This is learned helplessness. It's not going to get better for software engineers anytime soon, I'm afraid.
The time to organize is like planting a tree: the best time is 20 years ago, and the second best time is now. Especially if you're an early-career SWE, you seem to have little to lose anyhow.
There's no unions for H1B workers. If there's any union stepping up for their interest, it would find mass enrollment tomorrow. Unfortunately, there isn't support by non-h1b engineers, let alone unions.
I am a non-h1b engineer and I declare it is in my best interest to advocate for h1-b engineers. Otherwise management would simply calculate why would they hire me and treat me well when they can hire a more desperate h1b holder and treat them like trash.
Have you looked at who brought in the most H1B workers recently?
Who?
Not everywhere is in America you know... And non-H1B workers are probably precisely the kinds of workers that should be the ones rocking the boat.
Rocking the boat so much as to get fired, fail to find another employer before the visa expires, and be sent back home? A terrifying perspective for many.
Just to clarify that the parent may have edited, but wrote "non-H1B" workers, so they would be speaking about domestic / citizen employees, not ones on visa.
Not sure about other countries, but there were a few trys in creating unions for software engineers in Brazil, where I live. They all failed for lack of interest from the engineers themselves.
Aside from that, you need to contribute with money for something that will not get you anything in the short term. Also the lack of transparency incentives corruption
Why does there have to be a lack of transparency?
I'm not saying it has to, I'm saying what happened in Brazil
Unions are only going to be effective in a domain where the job can’t be done just as well by someone on the other side of the planet. Think plumbers, electricians, etc. The fact that the work has to be done “here and now” is the leverage those workers have.
A software engineer’s union would just kick whatever offshoring is happening into overdrive.
Yep this. I think i've lost count of home many US and German companies keep moving their SW positions to my home country because US labor is too expensive and German workers rights and unions too annoying for business.
Where I live now in Austria, there's some union of IT workers, but it's small and toothless because they know their work can be offshored and have no leverage especially that the country is already not attractive to investors as-is due to high costs, high taxes and regulations. IT workers giving themselves even more benefits and protections through unions, like the rail workers have for example, would just mean non critical IT work leaves the country ASAP to neighboring Hungary or Slovakia or something.
In a globalized free market without trade and regulatory barriers, where the products and the "labor" travels freely over a wire with no borders or tariffs, the best value players win all, and everyone else is stuck in a race to the bottom trying to match that even if their operating costs are higher due to regulations, taxes, etc
Unions only worked in jobs where the workers could collectively use the leverage they had all along against their employer but were too afraid to use due to retaliation, but unions can't fix real world economic and trade facts that make your leverage zero to begin with. See the VFX industry for best example.
If offshoring were that easy, American and European companies would have been doing it already, as it's a great deal on paper, why wouldn't the companies jump at the opportunity to get engineers for 30% of the cost?
However, the experienced reality repeatedly doesn't live up to the promise.
Look, I'm not gonna argue on the pros and cons of offshoring, I'm just telling you the reality of what's happening where I live. Obviously, not everything can be outsourced 1:1 with massive savings and get same quality, but businesses don't care and more and more work is offshored now, whether you want it or not, especially in times of economic downturn when labor cost becomes more pressing and execs can show savings so they're taking their chances whether it pays off in the future or not we'll see.
Nobody would risk disrupting smooth running operations by introducing offshoring to save a few pennies, when free money was raining from the sky, but now that money is getting tighter and covid opened the doors to accepting more work done remotely and less work done in sync face to face, then offshoring is now a lot less risky and off-putting than in the past.
Plus, unlike the Indian offshoring scare of ~20 years ago, besides the remote work thing, offshore labor is a lot more skilled at IT task now. There isn't that massive gap anymore, where only Americans or Germans new how to write SW, and the eastern world only knew to make sneakers and do call support. Thanks to STEM universities, access to good education sources, FOSS and self learning, people outside the west can code just as good but at a lower cost when you keep the same hiring bar and don't just pay some offshore middleman consultancy for the cheapest labor.
And the proof is in the pudding as most big tech companies have large pools of workers in India at this point. You can say all you want, that offshoring isn't gonna work because of quality or culture or whatever, but it sure seems like it is working for them, and I don't think this genie is going back in the bottle.
They have been offshoring for decades. We go in cycles of execs asking “why the hell are we paying these entitled Americans so much when Indian will do just as good for peanuts?”, then offshoring, then realizing it doesn’t work that well. The next guy comes in and the cycle repeats.
However, the second an IT union gets established they’re just going to say the hell with it, India ain’t so bad.
>then realizing it doesn’t work that well
How isn't it working? Most big tech companies have large pools of workers in India/Asia/LatAm/CEE at this point. So something must be working if they keep growing there.
Australia:
https://www.professionalsaustralia.org.au/Professionals/Prof...
United Kingdom:
https://prospect.org.uk/tech-workers/
https://www.unitetheunion.org/what-we-do/unite-in-your-secto...
France: (Someone asking which of the many unions to join for SWE)
https://www.reddit.com/r/union/comments/1bcx6z6/which_union_...
Why so self-defecting? Even some of the job could be out-sourced, some positions just cannot. If those people can unionize, it might starts to grow from there.
It's like planting the seeds, it might not work from time to time and from places to places, but sometime the result might surprise you. But you'll never know if you don't give it a try.
It's like... (maybe an inappropriate example) how NRA brainlessly defending gun rights. They don't first spend 500 billions on gun safety research trying to prove gun is safe, no, they want guns, and then they come up reasons why guns are good.
In the recent years I'm started to think maybe this NRA-style method is actually how to set things in motion (if it's not the only effective way), as any added prerequisite or cations may eventually bog things down to a stop. You all read the CIA sabotage manual right? There's a chapter detailed how you can stop a plan by adding complexity (i.e. bigger committees etc).
Unions might be able to bargain against h1b because they can have an honest conversation with management about the "we just can't FIND anybody" lie.
> "Unions might be able to bargain against h1b..."
Remember, H1-Bs and immigrants, that a union would be not be on your side. They would have a large percentage of pro-nativists that affect their policies, regardless of what they say officially. There's a long, long history of unions in the United States opposing immigrant labor that is worth reading up on and, even on supposedly worldly and well educated HN, you will see that there isn't much pushback against posts with anti-H1-B sentiment.
But remember, the company can always decide to just not employ US-based employees (including H1B) at all. Your job can be done elsewhere for a fraction of the cost, remember?
When there's no solidarity amongst ALL workers, no wonder unions are a non starter.
In such an environment, H1B workers will actively fight union formation.
If there was a union in place, the massive over hiring that led to this wouldn't have happened and the competent developers would have made less money. So how exactly does everyone come out ahead there?
Despite the downvotes, this is at least partially correct. If unions were ubiquitous in the tech sector, companies would have been a lot more stingy with the hiring during ZIRP or boom eras. Or they would have been more creative with the hiring form - contractors, temporary staff, etc. None of these companies would risk locking in so many employees knowing that they'll be very expensive or impossible to fire.
I don't know about how a union would affect the standard salary being offered. I'd say that it could be higher for those essential enough to be "core staff", those that the company hires permanently knowing they'll be hard to get rid of and who drive the company forward because they're motivated with additional means.
So a union might drive the salaries and employment conditions up for the "core" team, while driving them down for the "temps". I've been through this as a unionized tech worker in both categories, and this is how it played out.
but unions are one of the many reasons why it is cheaper just to hire in India instead of the US
software engineers definitely don't need unions
said the devil himself
What will the union do?
This is a boom and bust industry by nature. Projects finish or cancel, and work winds down. You can always be laid off. Seven years of plenty, seven years of famine.
There's some stuff that, culturally, I don't think Amazon will ever do well. Amazon Games should be shuttered entirely. Their latest game was a really embarrassing flop; "King of Meat", which they expected to have 100,000 daily concurrent players, reached a max of 320 concurrents during a free weekend[0]. Have you heard of a single Amazon Prime Original Movie[1]? Likely only one -- 2025's War of the Worlds, which became a meme because it is legitimately one of the worst movies of all time.
Amazon is built on a culture of doing the most boring, data-driven, predictable thing possible and executing well. Which is awesome when you're dealing with databases and the logistics of delivering packages. But it's effectively the opposite of games, movies and other creative media where you have to trust a single person or small group of people with a vision. Otherwise you get what Amazon gives, which is unappetizing slop.
If I were Jassy I'd cut off these product lines entirely. It's just not a good fit for how Amazon operates.
[0] https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/king-of-meat-studio-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_Prime_Video_ori...
That list of movies is just the movies that Amazon Studios has been the distributor for via Prime Video. Amazon didn’t necessarily produce or fund all of the movies in that list. It’s a bunch of cheap movies that are likely meant to be loss leaders for Prime Video subscriptions, which is something that very much does fit the style of Amazon. Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV all have a similar list of D-tier garbage just to fill their catalogs.
On the contrary to your points, Amazon has put out some pretty solid and well received original series. The Boys, Gen V, Fallout, Reacher, Mr and Mrs Smith, Invincible, have all done really well if not been hits.
Games is pretty trash though. I think they’re also going for a loss leader strategy there, but the platform they’re trying to promote (Luna) just isn’t there.
"Amazon is built on a culture of doing the most boring, data-driven, predictable thing possible and executing well."
Quite.
I remember when they started off flogging books in the '90s. I completely agree with you that trying to do "creative" is a bloody daft idea for a bunch of very efficient box shifters.
Fallouts been pretty good. Not sure what they did right there
Nolan and Joy are in charge of that one, they likely had the power to negotiate keeping control rather than letting Amazon fuck it up with algorithms. That's my best guess about why it's good and everything else on Amazon is crap.
I found the first season OK enough, but the second season to be unwatchable.
Agreed, the characters now just abandon their established traits from one scene to the next in service of a contrived story
10% over a year, split into two waves isn't that extreme. It seems like 5%/year is sort of industry norm.
> It seems like 5%/year is sort of industry norm.
That's because the people running these companies learned the hard way not to write their collusion down, so now they just all totally coincidentally act in the same way that ends up driving wages down and keeping workers afraid and in line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
Why would you explain this with a conspiracy theory of collusion instead of Occam's razor -- that they were responding to similar changes in market conditions, with input from similar shareholders?
This is not a conspiracy theory, even though what I'm about to say will sound like it. If you can talk to someone from the exec class in confidence (which unfortunately may require a close personal relationship or high trust), they'll tell you there was a clear -- if somewhat tacit -- understanding that the job market had gotten too hot during Covid and something "had to be done" about it after ZIRP ended.
Elon's layoffs at Twitter were basically the signal for the rest of the industry that it's time to reverse the trend.
Responding to identical market conditions in similar ways based on input from overlapping shareholders does not require collusion between execs.
Right, but I'm contending there is a form of collusion. Here's a paraphrased conversation I had with someone who's in the exec class when I remarked on all the layoffs happening at the same time:
"Elon has signaled to the industry that you can layoff a 80% of your employees and things will still be OK, and the rest of the industry is following his lead."
When I pointed out that that wasn't true, things were actually getting rather bad amongst the employees and from a product quality / safety perspective, the response was, "It doesn't matter. They've all decided the status quo must change and decided that they want to do the same things."
This rhymes with what I heard from other senior people as well. And suspiciously the same anti-employee tactics have been happening across the industry at the same time -- layoffs, forced attrition, shifting jobs offshore, RTO, increased workloads with reducing headcount leading to record levels of burnout...
Even if we charitably assume it's group-think, that's still a form of collusion.
A "form of collusion" that requires no coordination between participants and no secrecy simply isn't collusion.
Even if we're being charitable and assuming it's group-think, it is still a form of collusion. The group of competitors collectively decides on specific outcomes that are beneficial to the group as a whole even if they know that the individual outcomes are sub-optimal.
Look at the evidence: Most of these companies had been highly and ever-increasingly profitable even before the layoffs, and they knew they were burning employee goodwill. Are you saying their actions haven't been coordinated and just accidentally happened to all follow the same practices at the same time? Including things like RTO, which their own internal data proves does not improve productivity and industry data actually shows increases attrition?
Sure, there's not been a written industry-wide memo laying out a playbook (that we know of), but everyone is following the same steps. And you would assume there is no secrecy, rather than (as sibling comments point out) "they have learned from the last time they got caught colluding"?
That's more charitable than I would be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Because he's not naive?
Please stop validating the language of the oppressors
Can you defend your point?
They literally got caught colluding to depress wages. You're a fool if you expect that their goals have changed.
occam isn’t a law of nature, it’s an expression or a sharp quip
I don’t see a conspiracy here other than sheep herd mentality of hire hire hire then too many
It's not some global conspiracy, it just aligns with the end of the ZIRP era. Companies could ignore headcount and hire endlessly just to singla growth to investors, while free money was raining from the sky.
Amazon made $17.4 billion profit in Q3 2025 alone. That is, they made so much money they couldn't find any way to spend over five BILLION per month even with this 'excess' headcount.
>Amazon made $17.4 billion profit in Q3 2025 alone.
I think investors would prefer if they made $20 billion profit next quarter. Hence the layoffs.
Are you saying they should be a charity?
Or is this like the old Soviet Union thing where people said they pretended to pay us and we pretended to work?
> Amazon has about 350,000 corporate employees and a total workforce of approximately 1.56 million.
Is it mentioned anywhere that the roles eliminated are all going to be software engineers, because that’s what all the threads so far are interpreting this as. This feels more like preparing for a recession without saying it out loud. People aren’t buying as much anymore and with focus on cost savings across tech, can easily understand AWS not covering for lower retail revenue anymore.
It's almost never only SWEs.
10% over a year on top of Amazon's 10% rank and yank. Thats a huge cut.
What makes you think this is on top of some other layoff process?
I’ll say that the parent comment is correct and explain why I think it’s correct.
Amazon has demonstrated a preference for “unregretted attrition” (URA). URA is the name for what happens when engineers exit the company and Amazon is happy that they do. The exit can either be due to a PIP failure (performance improvement plan) or just unhappiness with the company. If you believe URA works well, then URA is how Amazon gets rid of low-performing employees. If you are like me, then you believe that URA is mostly explained by the following factors:
- Failure of Amazon to successfully develop engineers. A good company will turn engineers into better engineers, and Amazon gets rid of them instead, which is inefficient. The attrition is only unregretted because Amazon was not competent enough to develop these engineers into better engineers.
- Consequences of poor culture, causing good engineers to mentally check out and eventually leave. The attrition is only unregretted because the good engineers will care less and therefore look like bad performers, when they’re good performers in a bad environment.
- A way for Amazon to avoid paying out stock grants at the 2-year mark (which is when you get most of your stock grants at Amazon). The attrition is only unregretted because somebody at Amazon cares more about the short-term bottom line.
- A way for managers to exercise control over employees they don’t like. The attrition is only unregretted because Amazon’s decisions about employee performance are based on bad data provided by managers.
I won’t share stories here but the targets are around 5% per year, maybe a little higher.
There is a good overview: https://beccaselah.substack.com/p/my-time-at-amazon-part-i
Meta also does something like 5% in unregretted attrition a year. I just don't know why you think AMZN wouldn't include those people in layoffs preferentially to higher performers.
During my time at Meta, they were teaching the engineers a lot, spent a lot of effort on proper onboarding, allowed changing teams at least once a year (more often with longer tenure), and otherwise seemed to make it easier for an engineer to find a better place in the Meta's structure instead of leaving.
Not sure of your familiarity with FAANG pre-2022, but this is absolutely not the norm.
Can you elaborate? I've been working in tech for 15 years and FAANG for 5. We've always had layoffs.
I've been in the tech industry for 45 years. Layoffs happen regularly. Well, not regularly, what it is is a chaotic system. There will be good times and bad times. The best way to deal with it is to immediately save, at a minimum, 6 months of runway. Preferably a year.
When you're in between jobs, work on:
1. improving your job skills
2. network
3. build your resume by contributing to open source
4. start your own business
I don't intend to be dismissive by sharing a bunch, I ate a bunch of downvotes so I should share something. But, there's no singular, like, Wikipedia article for "tech layoffs spiked significantly in 2022 and have stayed elevated" - so this is a mix of informal and formal and academic and business news that treats that knowledge as implicit while discussing it.
(I am deeply curious what valhalla you are at that skipped this so much that it was a foreign idea! N or A, it must be one of those two)
https://www.nerdwallet.com/finance/learn/tech-layoffs
https://www.reddit.com/r/Layoffs/comments/1ljvpr4/where_all_...
https://progresschamber.org/insights/tech-has-shed-nearly-20...
https://www.washington.edu/news/2025/05/14/tech-industry-lay...
Sure, it waxes and wanes. 2022-2023 were probably above average layoff years, while 2020-2021 before that were probably below average years. I think layoffs have fallen since 2023 rather than staying elevated, but I haven't attempted to quantify that.
You’re sort of airily dismissing it repeatedly. It wasn’t small or a wax and wane thing.
ZIRP was also not the norm. Times change though.
But these are profitable companies, now their cash on hand can actually earn interest.
>But these are profitable companies
Q: You know what investors and shareholders love more than having 1 billion dollars?
A: Having 2 billion dollars. And with all the money being burned on AI, having 2 billion is better than 1.
If mass layoffs causes the stock to go from 1 to 2, then guess what's gonna happen?
In the ZIRP era companies would hire needlessly to get the stock up because that signaled growth to investors. Now it's the opposite, you trim because that gets the stock up, not because they conspire together to lay off people.
Why is the highest and best use of a company's free cash paying the least productive employees, instead of returning cash to shareholders or investing it in something more productive?
Pre 2022 also did not have this many employees in FAANG.
Excellent, get ready for more large outages at AWS and a proliferation of bugs across the rest of Amazon’s empire.
For the last few months I still randomly get errors opening audible. You know, to buy more books.
Outsourcing is the main reason for the layoffs, but I’m sure no one is going to mention it.
> Under Prime Minister Modi's leadership, India has successfully built digital infrastructure that connects businesses to customers, small towns to global markets, and traditional enterprises to modern technology.
I smell corruption in this sentence
US tech postings -36% below pre-COVID. India? +47%.
source?
[redacted due to non-useful information]
You're making a common mistake. WARN is for the _previous_ layoff. The way they execute these, they bump out your effective last day such that there is no WARN notice till after it's already announced.
Where do you see that from the text of the letter to the ESD?
"While WARN requires only 60 days’ advance notice, Amazon is providing at least 90 days’ notice to all affected employees before their separations are scheduled to occur. Affected employees who accept internal transfer opportunities at Amazon prior to their separation date will not be separated as a result of this action."
These people were told they were being laid off in October but remain on payroll. What Amazon is "bracing" for is another one of these announcements, much larger, announcing people who will actually separate from the company 90 days later. They will find out on or around the same day the WARN notice is posted.
Oh, darn. You are right. Thanks for the clarification.
The date of the notice is October 28th. The separation dates given in the letter are 90 days out from the date of the notice (for some technical reasons, some employees had a separation dates a bit further out.)
Looks like a lot of recruiting and SW Eng I/II for Amazon (approximately a L3-4 at Google or Meta). Does Amazon do up-or-out?
The Meta layoff is 100% Reality Labs (they published team names, in addition to locations and roles).
Edit: parent comment removed the link, but it was https://esd.wa.gov/employer-requirements/layoffs-and-employe... .
> Does Amazon do up-or-out?
They do not. They have no qualms about eliminating more senior roles as necessary, and generally prefer to staff in a bottom-heavy way because, among other things, it's more frugal.
Found this section noteworthy:
> Employee separations resulting from this action are expected to be permanent. The affected employees are not represented by a union or any other collective bargaining representative.
It is presumably required by the state unemployment office. You'll find nearly identical language in the other letters on the ESD site.
This is the WARN notice for the _previous_ layoff in October. Presumably they'll file another one for the next wave this week.
The only AWS service I still use is SES, for sending emails from client applications. Surely that can be self hosted? Can anyone reccommend a competitor?
Postmark
Jassy's only lever for shareholder value. Sad.
They're fine expanding in India.
Turns out announcing a $100k fee to distract from the Trump Gold Card announcement during the same press conference [3] leads to a reverse brain drain [0] and a $35B commitment to invest in India [1].
For example, much of AWS SageMaker's team is out of AWS India, and unofficially Amazonians on work visas are being offered transfers to India [2] while paying L6/7 [4] roughly the same as they would in Germany [5].
I warned people on HN for years to not be greedy with remote work (1-2 day hybrid is not the end of the world) and not be pissy to Americans of non-European heritage and derogatorily calling us H1Bs.
Either way those of us who know how to take advantage of brutal raw capitalism win - especially as this administration is helping further enhance this offshoring [6] with technology transfers [7].
[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-23/us-loses-...
[1] - https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-35-bill...
[2] - https://www.reddit.com/r/amazonemployees/comments/1qfesvs/6_...
[3] - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-signs-proclamati...
[4] - https://www.levels.fyi/companies/amazon/salaries/software-en...
[5] - https://www.levels.fyi/companies/amazon/salaries/software-en...
[6] - https://youtube.com/watch?v=uDtm-k6JvI8
[7] - https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/04/the-india-us-tru...
This is real. I work at one of the big tech and have access to their internal head count breakdowns. The overall headcount is mostly stagnant but the US headcount is decreasing with a corresponding increase in Europe and mostly India based HC.
The company I just left is firing as many people in the US as possible and rehiring primarily in India, with Dublin and Toronto by exception.
FedRAMP requires US persons on US soil, and so as far as Americans are concerned, only senior management and people working on the federal business are safe.
> requires US persons on US soil
Is that true for everyone involved in the project? One of my friends works on a FedRamp project from Pune. Most engg and PMs are in Pune. Maybe the top mgmt and VPs need to be US-based?
No, just the people with privileged access to the system because of the way the data residency, personnel screening and other requirements interact.
You can have PMs or software engineers writing code from anywhere you like, but your engineers in Pune can’t go poking around your FedRAMP High prod environment.
Shocking. Expect software quality to take a nosedive.
Same at my company. No new hiring in the US.
A great indication that more layoffs in high cost of living environments such as the US are going to happen.
Same at Google (Poland and India are doing great)
> I warned people on HN for years to not be greedy with remote work (1-2 day hybrid is not the end of the world)
It's not the end of the world, but it's also not really remote work if you have to live within commuting distance of an office.
“ Turns out announcing a $100k fee to distract from the Gold Card leads to a reserve brain drain”
Seems a lot of the Trump policies go exactly the opposite of what was planned. The supply people at my company are telling me that there is a huge push to move manufacturing away from the US due to tariffs.
The United States has a labor pool of over 170 million people. If you can't find Amazon workers in a country of that size, it's due to one thing and one thing only: you're a bigot who hates Americans. We can dance around it and dress it up like we have for the past thirty years but it's time to call it for what it is: bigotry and hatred wearing a dress of openness. Just admit what you are instead of continuing this absurd dance that pretends 170 million people are all defective. Now mash that down vote button to feel good about your bigotry that you've written "VIRTUE" all over to hide the destructive force it truly is.
When you buy services, is your bar good enough, or do you look for best value for money? And are those who try to optimise bigots merely for not buying from their local provider?
But anyway, the decrease in hiring in the US will be mostly driven by foreigners that will still be hired, but now not relocate to the US. Why hire someone on a H1-B at an extra cost of 100k when you can hire the same person in some other office and not pay that cost? It's a self-own by the US.
That’s just another way of admitting that H1-B was always about lowering costs rather than lack of talent.
No, it's about being able to hire more people at the same hiring bar and comp for companies hiring at scale, like (pre-2022) big tech. If you limit yourself to only hiring Americans in your US office, then you are at a talent disadvantage unless/until you open another office in a more friendly jurisdiction. And if you open such a satellite office and hire there, then that's worse for the US than if you had hired them in the US, because the US misses out on the income tax.
Many other countries have the exact same sorts of visas, because it is good to attract talented, high-paid workers to your country.
It's comments like this that make those of us who are of immigrant origins or the children of immigrants indifferent to losses even if we are impacted as well.
Employers abusing the H1B process like WITCH is a known problem and everyone wants it resolved, but going back and implicitly implying that immigrants are subpar pisses people off.
If a cabinet member trashes a semiconductor launch [0] that would have made 9k jobs in GOP-leaning upstate NY, the CEO of that company (who also invented the entire field of flash memory) may as well hedge and shift abroad [1] helping other countries move up the HBM value chain [2]. And even the Trump admin is giving a helping hand [3][4].
If you can't respect our community, why shouldn't we geopolitically hedge as well?
[0] - https://www.syracuse.com/micron/2026/01/trump-cabinet-member...
[1] - https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20260123VL207/micron-commerc...
[2] - https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAICbxB0kT0
[3] - https://youtube.com/watch?v=uDtm-k6JvI8
[4] - https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/04/the-india-us-tru...
That was not my intent. H1-B visas were sold as helping talent shortage. There are many genuinely talented immigrants and always have been. Fantastic! A previous company hired an H1-B visa and he was truly a talent in robotics.
However that doesn't mean that the real political support for masses of H1-Bs was ever about talent. It was about lowering labor costs by semi-exploiting large numbers of immigrants willing to work insane hours knowing they'd loose their visa's otherwise.
There's also lots of talented American's here by immigration or born here who were affected by all developer salaries being suppressed by the big H1-B visa abusers.
Do you apply this philosophy to your electronics purchases?
An AI bubble pop is going to create depression if this sort of thinking continues. Fire bright people to spend money on questuonable quality AI. If others follow we are saying "all in" and shoving the poker chips on more model improvements.