2026 tech layoffs reach 45,000 in March
technode.globalThe framing of this makes it seem like this is a sharp change in trend, but this long-running layoff tracker shows no evidence of this.
2020 and 2023 both had serious layoff spikes, but the 2023 spike trailed off to an asymptote that we're still hovering around.
This is missing a lot of data. Companies that I know for a fact are doing mass tech layoffs are not listed here.
Then please do add your data through the submission form.
I'm sure some underreporting occurs, but what evidence is there that underreporting is worse this year than last year or the year before?
If you go into the larger field, the trend since 2021 is overall concerning, particularly if you factor in Trump's desire to just stop reporting: https://www.macrotrends.net/3208/us-layoffs-and-discharges
According to that chart 2021 was anomalously low and it has been linearly returning to normal for the past four years.
AFAICT, the general populace is anxious about AI. So, the news knows they can get clicks with “You are right to be afraid. AI bad.” Meanwhile, CEOs know they can get stock boosts by saying “We are so AI we don’t need expenses. Infinite ROI!”
Put together we’re getting a ton of scary reporting on what looks like a quite normal business cycle (at least as far as layoffs go). And, everyone being afraid to hire is the only thing actually making it self-fulfilling.
I wouldn’t call the massive levels of investment by both private equity and municipal/state governments “business as usual.” The sums being thrown down and/or promised are staggering. People/groups that lose are going to lose big.
And Meta has another round coming, soon the only thing left at the company will be data center staff.
Apparently 20% to be laid off soon.
https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/meta-planning...
Surprised it took this long. I feel bad for the employees, but I can’t remember the last success they had. Metaverse, VR, throwing absurd money at AI and for what?
Their last success was acquiring Instagram in 2012. Every new effort since then has been hemorrhaging money. They get away with it because they have two limitless money faucets in Facebook and Instagram, but their product strategy as a whole has been a disaster.
Meta ad spend increases 10% every year. Their products have had non stop continual successes for decades at this point. If fb and insta never changed and were solely relying on tailwind you could say they havent had any success, but this clearly is not true imo. Their family of apps have changed a lot, mostly for the worse imo, but it has led to massive increases in ad shows and spend per ad show.
They’ve gotten better at addiction-engineering. Like making super-cocaine, it’s not a good thing. Essentially they took a dubiously ethical business and ramped it into, “actively harmful to almost everyone”. Any reasonable country would ban half the ads that make it onto FB/Insta. FB themselves admit 10% of their ad traffic is literal scammers.
Sure, but youre just talking about semantics here. When Mark asks himself "have we been successful" your definition of success is irrelevant. If the lay offs were because of the company had no successes as the OP posits you have to reason from the decision makers definition of success.
Is your baromiter of success the acquisition of cash?
> Is your baromiter of success the acquisition of cash?
Who cares? In the context of layoffs, it's the definition the company uses that matters.
Your definition of success has no bearing on whether the company is going to do layoffs or not. The company's definition does.
there are plenty of amazingly lucrative businesses that do really well, like online casinos, tobacco companies, etc. that happily milk their users and don't bother with improving human condition. You can call that "successful product strategy" i guess, but to me that's still pretty repulsive. You can also call this hyperbole, but i really am very much repulsed at this: increasing addictiveness for the weak minds to extract more revenue.
We agree that the product is lucrative and the ethics are nonexistant.
> increasing addictiveness for the weak minds
This kind of statement is like saying only fools fall for spearphishing attacks. IME, there are lots of attacks on your attention, and it only takes one mistake.
If you have not been targeted yet, it's just a matter of time. For example, look around here at the Factorio users. "It's just a fun game." Ok, but how many hours a week are you spending on it? Looks like an addiction to me.
I know not everybody agrees with me, but when you are logging hundreds (thousands?) of hours on WoW, League, COD, ... it quacks like a duck.
> Their last success was acquiring Instagram in 2012.
WhatsApp can be dubbed a success as well, and Oculus wasn't a flop. And, what does that tell you about the company? They can only acquire and integrate products. Why? Because Leetcode (LC). Fk LC, Hard!!!
It would be incredible to think that Mark Zuckerberg genuinely thought their Metaverse/VR investment was going to be akin to Xerox's bayarea PARC campus (developer of modern networking / GUI &c). I guess both were ultimately profit-negative financial disasters.
Watching their demo video was the perfect encapsulation of "this was not made for users" I have ever seen. First of all the idea of hanging out in a digital world with Mark Zuckerberg is so bleak. I can't imagine a worse hang.
But other than that, it was all about working in a digital office, being advertised to, etc. They had this scene where one of Zuck's definitely-real friends is excited about "this new street art" on the digital wall that jumps off the wall and they interact with it. Imagine having popup ads that jump up at you when you're walking (gliding?) down the street!
In other words they haven't really pushed the vision forward since the Jaws 19 hologram in Back To The Future 2.
I guess they read William Gibson's 2007 novel Spook Country and tried to build that. It had virtual street art as a plot device.
It's easy to get caught up in your own hype when you're surrounded entirely by people who always tell you what you want to hear.
Maybe the sycophantic behavior of AI models comes from rich people having them build to behave the same as their personal yes-men. A person accustomed to never hearing "no" won't like a machine that tells them off.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately… For years this has been said, and for most of us isn’t something we’ve been able to experience until recently. Yet, now we can see how chatbots have made sane folks lose their minds, by simply being too agreeable. I think it’s a grim look at what it’s like to be hyper wealthy. The odds that they’ve completely disassociated from reality, IMHO, have increased exponentially after seeing the effects on “normal” people. The only difference is us plebs, don’t have the resources to then bring our distorted view of reality to life.
I guess he had nothing to lose by making those big bets really.
He’s got one of the biggest free cash flow machines in the world, so he’d rather swing and miss than not swing and be left behind, given that with $200B top line, there is essentially no financial penalty for a swing and a miss.
It does look goofy to have made such a big gamble on something as stupid as Metaverse in hindsight, though.
I do think he had a point. He should just have put it on the slow burner. Not throw billions at it against the steady stream of technological improvement.
I do think virtual interfaces will be a thing when the tech is ready. Not really ready player one style but more like what they have in the expanse for computer tech.
I am not huge fan of Meta but I wouldn't dismiss them quite so much. I think reels is probably doing pretty well, and despite being cringeworthy FB itself is still going very strong. There are a lot of behind the scenes AI work improving their ads.
There are absolutely a lot of high profile failures though, with the metaverse being #1 (along with the name change to boot!)
Mark Zuckerberg is no longer the kingmaker that he was during Facebook's peak, and he is desperately trying to create the next platform to be the one in power once again.
It would be sad if it wasn't so unbelievably destructive to everything it touches.
Curious to see how they can turn moltbook into a money maker. Do they sell ads to agents?
Wasn't it primarily acqui-hire? Meta's AI strategy is what exactly? The best time for them to release a Chat GPT clone was 2 years ago. The second best time is today.
They have a ChatGPT clone app already, but it's not very good.
I tried asking it some technical questions that Gemini can handle just fine, and it quickly started giving false information and contradictions.
My guess is data collection. Maybe the data can be used to improve or train agents.
Llama should be mentioned in the same conversations that ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek dominate. If only it wasn’t so inaccessible…
They have an app for it. I think it's as accessible as any of the other models you mentioned. It's just not as good.
Not so good right now but they haven't released one in a while. Llama 3.1 was pretty great when it came out.
Yeah strategy is weird. PyTorch and llama 1-3 were strong successes. Llama 4 was a dud but that happens sometimes. Google fumbles a few times before Gemini too. What I don’t get is why they didn’t prioritize those projects. They weren’t making money, but it was a solid start and a good way to get a foothold in the game. Instead they’ve gone balls deep in slop bullshit.
Its surveillance business seems to be growing.
There seems to be slightly less comment spam and pig butchering fake profiles on Facebook lately so maybe that counts as a minor success? It might not look impressive from the outside but it's technically challenging and helps to keep the advertising revenue rolling in.
I think their Meta Glasses are genuinely good, great form factor. I mainly use it to take photos or videos and not much their "Meta AI"
threads?
you don't often see screenshots of threads posts on other sites like you do twitter/bluesky.
Sure, but I’d argue that 140m dau, 400m mau is still success.
Considering the overall impact of Threads, those statistics are certainly ... interesting.
It is somewhat integrated to Instagram with billions of active users. Not saying a whole lot.
I do.
also just another clear ripoff. they copy, they acquire, but they cannot seem to innovate.
Meta seem fairly innovative. Their r&d labs seem to produce some really cool things.
The basic issue is none of it seems to be making any money when it ends up in products and services.
Main reason there seems to be that their walled garden approach is tolerated at best. They just aren't very good at it outside of a feed.
Some things that Meta shares or opensources is discrete but amazing. lz4 and zstd and Yann Collet's work. io_uring (don't know if Jens Axboe is still there). And the open timecard projects, and overall OCP work.
yeah, i'm referring to product innovations, but i should've made that explicit.
Their Libra cryptocurrency project is another example.
That's going to happen in all of big tech (already happening at Amazon and Microsoft). These companies have too many employees. It was never really justified and with AI even more so. I've been in big tech and directors often tell everyone to hire when they can rather when they need. For example, if they know a hiring freeze is coming, they will try to hire as many people as they can before it happens. It's rare to find people in big tech where their incentives align with the company. (and the blame is not always on the people themselves)
As for Meta, I give Mark credit for trying, even if he failed so far with all the VR stuff. The main disappointment is about Llama cause it's clearly an execution problem. With Meta's investments in AI throughout the years, not being able to compete with Anthropic and OpenAI is a big failure.
It’s a lobbying firm now isn’t it?
From my experience in some large tech firms, you could easily cut 20% of the workers and not see much impact. There is so much bloat, process-people, meetings-people, etc... Even if the cuts aren't from AI, execs will use AI as a reason to make these cuts.
Yep - IME the trick is that fixing a bloated company is 2 parts: laying off bloat, and fixing the bad processes / restructuring the company to not need so much bloat in the first place.
I’ve worked at a company that pulled the layoff lever a lot but never did the hard work of investing in fixing the broken stuff… the layoffs actually just made everything worse.
If you have a team whose job is to put duct tape on the widget when it leaks, and you lay off most of that team without fixing the widget, your leak gets worse because you have fewer people with duct tape.
What you need is find people who can fix the widget, then fire all the duct tape people.
The duct tape people are generally drowning under all the work they're doing, and they'd be fine to keep doing other productive stuff.
There's always going to be duct tape stuff around, and you don't want the people who can actually fix widgets to wind up running around with their hair on fire applying duct tape to keep it running without any time to fix widgets.
And when there's too much duct tape jobs going around the widget fixers may take a look at it all and decide they don't get want to get stuck with applying duct tape once all the duct tape appliers are fired, so they just skip to some other job.
You're always going to have some duct tape.
Every big company I’ve worked for has an immense about of bloat. Whole departments that exist just because someone wanted it to exist at some point in time.
The health of an organization is often linked in their ability to fire people.
The money tree is over. Companies now have to pick between gpus and employees. They picked gpus.
Lots of different companies argue with the AI for some time before they call me, but they always call me.
They'll never be able to explain what they want to the AI, and even if they could, it couldn't solve the problem anyway.
Nevertheless I'm not going to be contracting much longer, I'm writing software by hand to compete with the garbage shat out of Claude's VibeCloaca. I already have customers, I just need to ... tune a few things before I scale, so that I don't have any customer support problems at scale. :)
Your contracting business is done because of AI competition, because money is drying, or because you're finding permanent alternatives due to being sick of it? There's more than one way to interpret your message, and I'm curious.
Sick to death of it. The work is still there.
I can only work so many hours in a day on a contract, but with a product, I can work 3 hours and sell it 200 times, or license it and make money forever.
My customers have said to me point blank "I hate SaaS" and paid me anyway. They've said everything is "so easy with GPT and all now", and paid me anyway.
I think I have a chance.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong and my AI-using competitors will eat my lunch.
Or maybe, I'll drown them and Claude in complexity and attention-to-detail.
We'll see.
I'd like to learn more about your current contracting process.
It sounds like you could use an apprentice to help handle things as a backup plan.
They picked the enshittification generators over paying people to enshittify by hand.
Well, maybe they can spin up some fake users with all those GPUs to use their shitty site.
(Oh, heh. I just remembered that they actually did that: https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/10/meta-acquired-moltbook-the...)
Good choice
Cutting layers of bureaucracy not replacing with AI
Google's projected AI capex spend is $170-180 billion for this year. It's unreasonable to think AI would not be a reason for companies to consider layoffs.
There are two ways to interpret your comment:
1. Google is getting so much productivity out of their AI that they need fewer people.
2. Google is spending so much on AI they can’t afford to keep the people they need.
Or
3. Google is spending so much on AI that they can't afford to keep paying people, but they are ok with this because they are convinced the AI investment will replace the people at an eventual cost savings.
That seems to have been Dorsey's approach. The business has been stagnant, so cut the roster and bet big on some future returns from AI.
Google (and almost all other BigTech) is spending on scaling compute (data centers/securing power generation/chip contracts). My comment was not related to AI producivity and its impact on reduction of workforce. I believe a company spending nearly all its free cash flow on scaling compute (or borrowing money to do so) would have a different opinion on the economics of human capital.
I subscribe to the second point of view. Several companies fall in that bucket. Oracle comes to mind.
Does that include R&D? Google is an AI _provider_, which is a considerably different profile in terms of spend from companies who are consumers. I would expect Google to be investing considerable resources to keep up with Anthropic and OpenAI.
I don't think it includes all of the R&D. From what I've read that's the amount they will spend on infrastructure for AI.
I guess some of that infrastructure will get used for AI R&D, but there are other R&D costs such as salaries that wouldn't be included in the figure.
Some of this smells purely nihilistic. The market rewarded layoffs with higher stock prices, incentivizing more layoffs.
It sure didn't reward Atlassian. If anything it accelerated the long, downward slide.
Atlassian hasn't made money in 10 years. Of course they can't ride on the latest stock slop meme, that company is such an unmitigated disaster it beats even their terrible software. And now they keep spamming me with that Rovo garbage, god I hope they go down among all of this.
I dont think zuck cares especially much about the stock price. He's certainly not beholden to any shareholders. He's doing this because he genuinely thinks it will help the company to trim the fat.
AI as a real impact or more as an excuse?
It’s the business cycle, mostly. During the pandemic, low interest rates drove a boom in risk investing that flowed downhill into tech company balance sheets. Of course everyone used the money to hire lots of developers and engineers - probably more than were needed for the business opportunity they were exploiting.
I think AI is being used as an excuse for layoffs rather than the cause. Companies don’t have the cash and times got a bit too rich. This is the cyclical pull back that has been going on for decades.
There is never just one cause, but I do think AI is one of them.
Not in some AI "dey took er jerbs" kind of way, but because businesses are turning their investment focus towards AI-related ventures, like building data centres, and away from investments that require tech workers. Non-residential construction jobs, for example, have surged.
Well yes, Meta even said so explicitly about their upcoming layoffs. They're offsetting the capital expenditures into data centers, and "preparing for greater efficiency brought on by AI-assisted workers".
So who is getting that money then? Contractors building sites? Is it going off to the silicon manufacturers? Is Nvidia getting a large part of the pie?
> Not in some AI "dey took er jerbs" kind of way
FWIW, I read this as equating a particular regional accent with stupidity.
I imagine it wasn't intentional, but it's something to consider.
It's a South Park reference. It very much is equating the accent with stupidity and backwardness.
In their defense, they make fun of nearly everyone. But they definitely were mocking White Southerners there.
In the episode, it's not what I'd call a southern accent.
Nice of you to share a little about yourself. Pleased to meet you.
What do you think makes you feel unsure if you were intentional or not?
And for how many more years are we going to be calling this a post-Covid market correction?
In a very real sense these are still ripples from the death of Franz Ferdinand.
Not in a very useful sense, though.
If you can show that the death of Franz Ferdinand necessarily caused tech layoffs in 2026, I'll listen. I don't think you can, though.
I think you could absolutely draw a causal link, it wouldn't explain why 2026 instead of 2024 or 2028.
I would argue this is more a result of the defeat of Xerxes at Thermopylae.
Xerxes had a victory at Thermopylae
You say po-ta-to, I say po-tat-o!
Also, whether Covid is to blame or not, all these layoffs (not just the Meta one) contradict some of the most common rationalizations I've seen for how AI won't destroy the labor market but rather expand it.
If there really is all this latent untapped need to drive a Jevron's effect software explosion that will keep developers employable, why would so many profitable companies be laying off so many workers into the transition?
I have an explanation (or rationalization, if you wish) for this.
The AI caused the developer productivity to increase (similar to other two big SW engineering productivity jumps - compilers and open source), which gives them more leverage over employers (capital). Things that you needed a small team to build (and thus more capital) you can now do in a single person.
In the long run, this will mean more software being written, possibly by even larger number of people (shift on the demand curve - as price of SW goes down demand increases). But before that happens, companies have a knee-jerk reaction to this as they're trying to take back control over developers, while assuming total amount of software will stay constant. Hence layoffs. But I think it's shortsighted, the companies will hurt themselves in the long run, because they will lay off people who could build them more products in the future. (They misunderstood - developers are not getting cheaper, it's the code that will.)
> as price of SW goes down demand increases
I see this view very often being pulled into the debate but demand is not only driven through a (low) cost. Demand obviously cannot grow infinitely so the actual question IMO is when and how do we reach the market saturation point.
First hypothesis is that ~all SWEs will remain employed (demand will proportionally rise with the lower cost of development).
Second hypothesis is some % of SWEs will loose their jobs - over-subscription of SWE roles (lower cost of development will drive the demand but not such that the market will be able to keep all those ~30M SWEs employed).
Third hypothesis is that we will see number of SWEs growing beyond ~30M - under-subscription of SWE roles (demand will be so high and development cost so low that we will enter the era of hyperinflation in software production).
At this point, I am inclined to believe that the second hypothesis is the most likely one.
Many companies really got bloated during COVID. From what I can see online, Meta doubled their number of employees between 2019 and 2022. How long does it take to correct from that amount of hiring?
Some of these companies have increased headcount since their post-COVID cuts.
Some of this has nothing to do with COVID boom numbers. Some are bailing water as fast as they can (Atlassian, et al), some are treading water and betting on future returns from AI (Block), etc.
I mean hell we are still feeling the impacts of 2008 crash and monetary policy.
It takes time to correct 10 years of ZIRP, plus COVID overhiring that doubled the headcount of those 10 years in just 2-3.
The jig was up when social media like Reddit and tiktok during the pandemic was full of posts with big tech workers gloating about getting hired for six figure salaries to sleep in and play video games at home while putting in 2 hours of work a week, obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together that it was a too-good-to-be-true unsustainable bubble that's gonna pop and trigger a brutal reset on the job market.
Further reinforced with Elon firing 80% of Twitter and the website didn't stop working, reminding big tech CEOs that they can also start looking into trimming the overhiring fat in their back yard, with no operational loss.
Reinforce that with wall street rewarding mass layoff with share price going up, contrary to the pandemic rewards of shares going up with over hiring, and you have the perfect storm.
AI and the idea of it replacing jobs, has nothing to dow with this, it's just 10 years of ZIRP reawarding every unprofitable bullsit SaaS start-up, and 10 years of "just learn to code bro" where every shoeshine boy became a coder so now tech companies hiring are spoiled for choice.
Edit: Oh I forgot, add to that the increased of offshoring to places with cheaper labor thanks to the normalisation of remote work making it an even perfecter(is that a word?) storm on why an average programmer's labor has way less value.
> Further reinforced with Elon firing 80% of Twitter and the website didn't stop working, reminding big tech CEOs that they can also start looking into trimming the overhiring fat in their back yard, with no operational loss.
I would argue Twitter is in a worse state operationally, but either way it’s moot because one simply has to look at the company’s valuation since Musk took over to see things aren’t going well. Unless the goal is a very loud megaphone for conservative influencers and talking points, in which case things are going great.
That's not how successful CEOs think.
X doesn't seem to be in any worse state operationally. The site's uptime is fine, and they've launched a ton of new features that were well received by the userbase. So: 80% fewer people, site remains operational, new feature launches have if anything accelerated. That is a success by any companies measure.
The left is now trying to rewrite history and claim the fall in valuation is because Musk took it over, but it's not. Twitter's valuation was already falling rapidly before Musk entered the game at all. Like many tech firms its price had a COVID surge. The valuations of multiple tech companies were fell sharply right as he was in the middle of the acquisition. The timing was unlucky and he overpaid. That's why he tried to back out of the deal and, if you remember, why the Twitter board went to court to force him to acquire the company against his will.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62102821
> There are other potential reasons why Mr Musk might want to pull out of the deal. The stock market price for large tech companies has fallen steeply in the last few months - did Musk offer too much?
The subsequent advertiser boycott says nothing about whether you can cut a company like Twitter by 80% and still have it function. That was caused by Musk publicly rejecting leftist claims as false. CEOs don't care about that because they can cut employees whilst claiming to be increasing diversity and the left will leave them alone.
>I would argue Twitter is in a worse state operationally
Is it because they lack coding manpower, or because Elon chased away all advertisers? Correlation != causation.
Bear in mind I was talking about functionality of the product, not corporate operation/valuation.
>Unless the goal is a very loud megaphone for conservative influencers and talking points, in which case things are going great.
Funny, I never heard the left complain about Twitter being a woke/democrat megaphone during the Jack Dorsey era. Or complain about the social media censorship during the Biden administration. Where were they back then?
They don't hate the propaganda megaphone, they hate not being the ones in charge of it.
>Is it because they lack coding manpower, or because Elon chased away all advertisers? Correlation != causation.
Didn’t say that.
> Bear in mind I was talking about functionality of the product, not corporate operation/valuation.
Didn’t say otherwise. In fact I made it a point to separate out the discussion of how it is functioning operationally from its valuation.
> Funny, I never heard the left complain about Twitter being a woke/democrat megaphone during the Jack Dorsey era.
And the right isn’t complaining about the current state. You also don’t know what I said about Twitter back then. I’m not accountable for whatever general idea you have concocted “the left.”
I am simply saying that it clearly is a megaphone for the right now. If you think it is even somewhat neutral and balanced now feel free to say so, but I would be surprised to hear that.
Sorry I didn't mean to paint you as "the left", I was speaking in general sense.
And that's why I said "They don't hate the propaganda megaphone, they hate not being the ones in charge of it.", meaning I don't think it's a partisan issue, and both sides are equally guilty.
Maybe so but Musk’s whole promise was more neutrality and openness, which he has handedly failed to bring about. Twitter censors worse and more explicitly than ever. And don’t even get me started on Grok/Grokopedia. Like Trump it’s “accurate” if it reflects his worldview - same reason he puts his thumb on the scale with Twitter.
I am progressive. I understand Twitter leaned left. But it leans way further right now as exerted from the top than it did the other direction.
It's probably a mix of AI productivity boost and market cycle. There is some substance to AI job loss, but I believe jevons paradox will eventually catch up to transformer-based LLM capabilities.
I'm the last remaining frontend developer after multiple rounds of layoffs. With claude code I'm able to do 2x-3x the work I was able to do before it existed. It's hard for me to rationally argue we need more frontend developers.
> It's hard for me to rationally argue we need more frontend developers.
What about when you need a day off, or when you quit unexpected?
Either? Both? The question is too zoomed-out. It's going to be different for each company and maybe different for each round of layoffs.
Both. AI can help you be more productive with fewer people, but a growing company still needs many people commanding AI to expand into a market.
The "real impact" of AI being gargantuan spending, or something else?
The public reason given for a layoff is always a self-serving excuse.
Unemployed people, what are you doing?
I was laid off from Atlassian this/last week. Since then I've been playing Satisfactory for 12 hours a day.
Crazy thing is, I delivered optimizations that saved 1m USD over the last 12 months, with another optimization in-flight that would save another 1m USD. I thought that was enough to protect me from layoffs/PIPs - I guess no one was counting.
AI is just an excuse for layoffs which IMO CEOs are trying to use to recover share prices from the SaaS-pocalypse. Looks like layoffs aren't hitting the same for stock prices as they once were.
It's a fools errand to ever believe in job security. Even if you're absolutely right on your importance, management can always remain stupid longer than you can remain employed.
It truly feels like a farce. I've survived a few rounds of layoffs and I've seen both shitty engineers and our best engineers let go. I assume our good ones are too expensive? It seems like HR just does some spreadsheet magic to grab people without any regard for performance or title.
Your problem was that you tried doing work. What you want to do as an employee is make it so they can’t fire you not that you are actually useful.
How would you advise making it so they can't fire you?
Not OP, and nothing makes it impossible, but from my experience in big companies, being visible is way more useful than being productive.
I got further faster by just answering emails right away than by churning out code. I got constant kudos, which got me promoted, and invited to more meetings, which led to less actual work. All because I just started replying to emails sent to our group. In retrospect it feels pretty perverse.
In lean companies and startups...perhaps not so much.
Having worked in a very large company for the past two decades now, one of the best career advices I ever got is about how you measure if you are a „good employee“.
It is very simple: you are a good employee if your boss(es) think you are.
That’s it. Nothing else matters in terms of career advancement or retainment.
Being ghosted, hazed, and otherwise abused. No one is hiring at restaurants, etc either. A recession has probably started.
Interviewing 4 times just to get ghosted.
Trying to build my own thing.
impact of A.I - reality vs hype
reality - companies are choosing to spend money on CAPEX (i.e infrastructure things hoping that they can ride an uncertain wave into the future) and not spend on OPEX (humans)
reality - AI agents are not doing human jobs.
reality - money | debt is now more expensive. hence if you were spending more of it on OPEX stuff you would rather reduce that
reality - more coasting jobs in tech. demand for stuff that still needs to get done is super high - workers just need to get more distributed and not hoarded at the big paying firms
There's little to no evidence that companies are actually doing layoffs to focus on "AI-enabled" work.
All there is are layoffs because of interest rates and concerns about the economic outlook. Companies using "AI" as a fig leaf justification and people are apparently falling for it.
Take with a spoonful of salt. Those trading firms that make these claims have skin in the game.
META rumoured to be purging by Tuesday.
Calls locked in.
Is that the only reason they announced it early?
Not sure how you empathize with people that built their robot replacements.
I think the age of SaaS and Software companies is over. Given by all the overhyped TikTok videos there are lots of roles which are not needed.
Mangers and executives have better tools now to track a tech workers output/performance, they will cut the useless/low performers/in over their head people who were hired during preceding years. A small tech team with proficient intelligent devs augmented with AI can replace 100's of duds.
My experience has been that a good small team, even full of people who’d stand no chance in a FAANG interview (fwiw) can outperform at least 5x as many devs in your median bigco, while maintaining a relaxed pace.
The reason for this has nothing to do with how productive the devs are per se and everything to do with bloated decision making processes and extremely high communication overhead. “AI” does nothing for that (in fact, I’m seeing integrated suggestions in ticket tracking tools making things spammier and reducing quality of tickets, so if anything, it’s making it worse)
No what happens from using those metrics is that you filter out all the people that care more about doing their job well than gaming metrics. Fraudsters tend to do really well in those situations.
It's baffling that with current iteration of hype mania all of the lessons about metrics were thrown out of the window. Goodhart's law anyone?
All of a sudden all of the terrible, horrifying methods of measuring lines of code, commits, tasks etc. resurfaced, like world was hit with an amnesia meteor.
You sweet, innocent child.
Managers understand that metrics are meaningless. The idea is to have something to point at to scare engineers into jumping higher.
Exactly. All these internal “AI Leaderboards” are a proxy for “who is working.”