Tech layoffs highest since dot-com crash(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Tech layoffs highest since dot-com crash
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/15/laid-off-techies-struggle-to-find-jobs-with-cuts-at-highest-since-2001.html
15 comments
IMO what Elon did at Twitter showed that some tech companies can shed a ton of staff and still operate. That put pressure on boards of other tech companies to figure out if they were overstaffed.
Simultaneously, Twitter dumping a bunch of employees put downward pressure on wages (for certain roles), which made the math even more compelling for companies that were on the fence. It became clear that you could probably lay off people now and then fill new roles (in strategic departments) with lower comp.
Once it was apparent that tons of companies were doing RIFs, the reputational hit of doing a RIF was greatly diminished.
Boards felt pressure from shareholders, and one domino fell after another.
Simultaneously, Twitter dumping a bunch of employees put downward pressure on wages (for certain roles), which made the math even more compelling for companies that were on the fence. It became clear that you could probably lay off people now and then fill new roles (in strategic departments) with lower comp.
Once it was apparent that tons of companies were doing RIFs, the reputational hit of doing a RIF was greatly diminished.
Boards felt pressure from shareholders, and one domino fell after another.
I'm not sure that twitter can really be held up as a success story here. Tesla is the worst performing stock in the S&P500, but that's only because twitter isn't public. If they hadn't sold, and hadn't had the layoffs, and simply stayed on course they likely would be fairly healthy right now instead of beelining toward insolvency.
Tesla has a PE ratio of 37.52. Microsoft has a PE of 37.6.
Tesla isnt "performing" bad, and its price has roughly nil to do with how the company is doing. It's share price got insanely overvalued, and it corrected.
Tesla is up 767% in the last 5 years, almost 10x the SP500.
Tesla isnt "performing" bad, and its price has roughly nil to do with how the company is doing. It's share price got insanely overvalued, and it corrected.
Tesla is up 767% in the last 5 years, almost 10x the SP500.
Down 34% YTD though.
And Twitter has been written down over 70% since the acquisition. My point is just that the layoffs arguably did nothing to help, and may have hurt their ability to execute and thus cost them some big opportunities. "They didn't completely implode" isn't "success," any more than becoming blind and paraplegic by choice is "success" because you're still alive.
And Twitter has been written down over 70% since the acquisition. My point is just that the layoffs arguably did nothing to help, and may have hurt their ability to execute and thus cost them some big opportunities. "They didn't completely implode" isn't "success," any more than becoming blind and paraplegic by choice is "success" because you're still alive.
Elon buying twitter obviously a failure. The layoffs seem to be a success though
Twitter is complicated. I think much of its challenges are due to Elon's personality and other choices. If that stuff hadn't happened then they would have had much less of a problem with advertisers (and therefore, revenue). But regardless of whether it was ultimately/financially a success, there's no doubt that they cut a ton of salary expense, and the platform is still running. That was what other tech companies/board members/shareholders saw.
In 2010, major players in the Valley were found guilty of colluding to keep salaries lower. It took a few years but salaries in Tech spiked enormously.
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-s...
See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-s...
Is the cabal only comprised of so-called "tech" companies. Is 237 the number of so-called "tech" companies in the Fortune 500.
How many of the Fortune 500 have had "tech layoffs". 237 or some other number.
How many of the Fortune 500 have had "tech layoffs". 237 or some other number.
How many "tech layoffs" really are what would have been considered "tech" pre-2010?
Most of these layoffs seem to be dominated by "tech adjacent" roles ... that bloated "engineering" when there was lots of easy money.
Most of these layoffs seem to be dominated by "tech adjacent" roles ... that bloated "engineering" when there was lots of easy money.
I totally believe there is a Signal or equivalent chat room for the cabal. Look at the near synchronization of messaging regarding RTO starting first from the city politicians and then thr corporate overlords.
> Tech historically has a chronic staffing shortage, which has been why it has paid so well.
Companies really don't want more staff at these salaries if they are seen as a cost center in the billions each year, Twitter, Meta, Snap, Coinbase, Robinhood, etc are great examples that showed this in the past.
They really are screaming for a staff shortage of people who want to accept their very low-ball offers.
A decade ago, the amount of VC capital contributed to such inflated salaries as the standard to lure people working at banks, wall st, hedge funds or older established tech companies.
As soon as those places started to lose staff to startups, they decided to raise their salaries and comp packages to discourage them from leaving, and those companines can afford to do such raises or bonuses. Startups? Not so much, unless they are immensely profitable.
> Hey folks, staffing is getting expensive. Competing for staff is hurting us all. What do you say we all coordinate and put our projects on ice for a while, do major layoffs for 18 months or so, and push wages back down to 2014 levels?
...and off shore the laid off staff and hire developers in cheaper countries as a skeleton crew to keep costs down and beat Wall St. expectations.
Companies really don't want more staff at these salaries if they are seen as a cost center in the billions each year, Twitter, Meta, Snap, Coinbase, Robinhood, etc are great examples that showed this in the past.
They really are screaming for a staff shortage of people who want to accept their very low-ball offers.
A decade ago, the amount of VC capital contributed to such inflated salaries as the standard to lure people working at banks, wall st, hedge funds or older established tech companies.
As soon as those places started to lose staff to startups, they decided to raise their salaries and comp packages to discourage them from leaving, and those companines can afford to do such raises or bonuses. Startups? Not so much, unless they are immensely profitable.
> Hey folks, staffing is getting expensive. Competing for staff is hurting us all. What do you say we all coordinate and put our projects on ice for a while, do major layoffs for 18 months or so, and push wages back down to 2014 levels?
...and off shore the laid off staff and hire developers in cheaper countries as a skeleton crew to keep costs down and beat Wall St. expectations.
A wild theory, worthy of the worst conspiracy theorists. Until you find out companies have engaged in behaviors that are very close to what is described, with no real consequences...
"Apple, Google, others settle antipoaching lawsuit for $415 million" - https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
"Apple, Google, others settle antipoaching lawsuit for $415 million" - https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
We're noticing a slowdown here in Norway as well.
We're a small B2B company and have been struggling hard to hire new developers for years, running a deficit of 2-3 devs for last 5+ years. Within last few months we've suddenly gotten multiple candidates and now find we have to pick and choose.
Really didn't expect it to affect us that much and so suddenly here in Norway.
We're a small B2B company and have been struggling hard to hire new developers for years, running a deficit of 2-3 devs for last 5+ years. Within last few months we've suddenly gotten multiple candidates and now find we have to pick and choose.
Really didn't expect it to affect us that much and so suddenly here in Norway.
The anecdote doesn’t sound too bad:
> During five weeks of job hunting, Croisant said she applied to 48 openings and landed two interviews. She finally opted to accept a lower-level data analyst role and a roughly $3,000 reduction in her base pay to take a contract role starting next month at a financial technology company.
> “This was an absolutely terrifying experience for me, and I’m not sure if I’ll ever truly feel secure in a job again,” Croisant said. “But I’m still one of the lucky ones in the end. I have friends who’ve been looking for months and still haven’t found anything.”
> During five weeks of job hunting, Croisant said she applied to 48 openings and landed two interviews. She finally opted to accept a lower-level data analyst role and a roughly $3,000 reduction in her base pay to take a contract role starting next month at a financial technology company.
> “This was an absolutely terrifying experience for me, and I’m not sure if I’ll ever truly feel secure in a job again,” Croisant said. “But I’m still one of the lucky ones in the end. I have friends who’ve been looking for months and still haven’t found anything.”
She thinks that was terrifying?
I’ve been applying for 2 years and landed maybe 5 interviews, none of which offered me a job. Two friends recommended me for jobs and I couldn't even get phone calls screenings.
Note: I am a white male.
I’ve been applying for 2 years and landed maybe 5 interviews, none of which offered me a job. Two friends recommended me for jobs and I couldn't even get phone calls screenings.
Note: I am a white male.
Why did you post your race and gender instead of your experience and projects worked on?
I’ve been on hiring committees at Mozilla where being a white male hurts the candidate.
The committee wants a racial minority, LQBTQIA+, etc. The best white males can do is claim to be neurodivergent. That one lets them get passed the filters. But I’ve been part of discussions where the committee explicitly said they were disappointed the best candidate didn’t help with diversity and thus we passed.
The committee wants a racial minority, LQBTQIA+, etc. The best white males can do is claim to be neurodivergent. That one lets them get passed the filters. But I’ve been part of discussions where the committee explicitly said they were disappointed the best candidate didn’t help with diversity and thus we passed.
That would be really illegal. But unfortunately, discrimination one way or the other often goes unpunished even if there are laws against it.
It was really illegal. But what are you going to do? You can report your employer but once your culture has gotten to the point Mozilla’s has - where you can openly say these things, your problem isn’t one person. And your employer has a ton of ways to retaliate, then you have to prove that.
Principles come at the expense of your salary sometimes, and sticking to your principles isn’t pragmatic if you can’t effect greater change.
We also have MRGs - Mozillian Resource Groups - where you can only join if you’re black, or gay, or <insert group>. That’s pretty blatantly illegal, too. Doesn’t stop it from happening.
Principles come at the expense of your salary sometimes, and sticking to your principles isn’t pragmatic if you can’t effect greater change.
We also have MRGs - Mozillian Resource Groups - where you can only join if you’re black, or gay, or <insert group>. That’s pretty blatantly illegal, too. Doesn’t stop it from happening.
Your entire account exist to disparage Mozilla. If your stories are true you seem to exist at the company to take a pay check and don't actually have any moral qualms about what they do as long as they pay you. If you actually do work there and want change then why don't you try to make change instead of anonymously posting?
Did you read my post that you’re replying to?
> Principles come at the expense of your salary sometimes, and sticking to your principles isn’t pragmatic if you can’t effect greater change.
It’s not about having moral qualms or not. The company doesn’t want to change, at least not on its own. So if the ship is sinking, yeah I’ll keep my few hundred K + benies on its way down.
If anything the most change I can make is to keep working here and exposing all of the BS. Maybe enough of an uproar from the users will force them to change. Maybe if enough people who use FF see this and stop using it, they’ll be forced to change? It’s funny, we have an internal slack channel (#cccc to prove I work here) for dealing with external comms. Those in charge know a lot of our users are on HN, but they refer to people on this site as morons and it’s part of the playbook to avoid HN. Some are trying to change the opinion of HN internally.
I can’t tell you what will come of my posting here but in the meantime I’m going to keep rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
> Principles come at the expense of your salary sometimes, and sticking to your principles isn’t pragmatic if you can’t effect greater change.
It’s not about having moral qualms or not. The company doesn’t want to change, at least not on its own. So if the ship is sinking, yeah I’ll keep my few hundred K + benies on its way down.
If anything the most change I can make is to keep working here and exposing all of the BS. Maybe enough of an uproar from the users will force them to change. Maybe if enough people who use FF see this and stop using it, they’ll be forced to change? It’s funny, we have an internal slack channel (#cccc to prove I work here) for dealing with external comms. Those in charge know a lot of our users are on HN, but they refer to people on this site as morons and it’s part of the playbook to avoid HN. Some are trying to change the opinion of HN internally.
I can’t tell you what will come of my posting here but in the meantime I’m going to keep rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
Don't get me started talking about #cccc
Goals to increase diversity are not illegal. And if an HR person were to hire a non-diverse person, it would be actively going against the company goals. So why would they ever do that?
But how do you avoid hiring a non-diverse person? What if the hiring manager likes them? Simple, just don’t even give them a screening at all. “Not a culture fit”
But how do you avoid hiring a non-diverse person? What if the hiring manager likes them? Simple, just don’t even give them a screening at all. “Not a culture fit”
No that’s definitely illegal. They can’t discriminate on race/gender period. So what they do instead is just not hire anyone when the best candidate is not diverse enough, but this is also illegal as well, but super hard to prove.
Choosing not to hire someone based on the color of their skin is 100% illegal, as well as morally fucked up.
7 years experience in both customer and product organizations. Running major programs, working with enterprise brands, etc.
Maybe you don't get interviews or offers if your contributions are generic "programs" and "etc" sums them up sufficiently as opposed to your race and gender?
To iterate , Your resume should be calling out what the projects were and its impact. It’s not enough to say “I can do Java”. No shit. What did you create/mantain/mutate with Java? What were novel problems that you had to deal with? What did this project aim to solve and if it did, how much did it benefit the company?
The reality is, it wasn't sustainable in the first place and had to crash to wipe out all the copycats and the ones who could not generate profits for years.
A decade ago many startups could get away with it for years, now VCs are demanding to cut back staff and tighten up the purse.
A reminder that the cheap money era is over.
A decade ago many startups could get away with it for years, now VCs are demanding to cut back staff and tighten up the purse.
A reminder that the cheap money era is over.
There is an alternate viewpoint which says much of the current tech layoff wave is a market correction resulting from accelerated hiring during the Covid tech boom which turned out to be a bubble vs the 'new normal'. I've seen data indicating many tech companies who've done layoffs are still at slightly higher staffing than they were when Covid began (~Q1 2020).
I haven't looked deeply into the data myself but it seems worth keeping in mind as context.
I haven't looked deeply into the data myself but it seems worth keeping in mind as context.
I don’t understand the comparison. Fewer people were employed in Tech 25 yrs ago.
I'd like to see more comparative data within articles like this in general. For example, what number of people worked in tech during the dot-com bubble era versus today, and in which areas were layoffs more frequent during each time? And what were the percentage of layoffs in each area then compared to now?
People should look on the bright side.
The dot-com crash was brutal. Brighter days followed.
The dot-com crash was brutal. Brighter days followed.
Does that pay mortgages and daycare?
Daycare costs tend to drop when you don't have a job.
You would think so, but I've also known people that have kept their spots for when they find new work.
i've heard of common people registering for day care before the baby is even born
That is necessary these days if you need daycare during infancy.
Sometimes that doesn't guarantee you a spot in time.
Good luck finding daycare quickly if you find a job.
The market for child care seems to have tilted in favor of families ever since CA started mandating pre-k in the public schools. This has had the effect of gutting local preschools at the higher grades.
I also wonder if the recent layoffs have affected the market for childcare. I definitely know some tech folks who are at home with their kids now.
I also wonder if the recent layoffs have affected the market for childcare. I definitely know some tech folks who are at home with their kids now.
Most daycares have waitlists well over a year and cost more than rent and mortgage payments.
“Most”? Perhaps in NYC or something, but not in general. We never paid close to rent in daycare costs.
Perhaps that’s because we live in SV, where housing is expensive, but I’d again assert that “most” daycares do not cost more than the rent/mortgage payments of the families that go there.
Perhaps that’s because we live in SV, where housing is expensive, but I’d again assert that “most” daycares do not cost more than the rent/mortgage payments of the families that go there.
Daycare in my area hovers around $3,000/month.
Wow! For $3k/mo you could hire a nanny or babysitter pretty much full-time (which is more expensive than daycare/preschool, since it's 1-to-1).
Our base rate (in Menlo Park) was around $1,500/mo, but if you added extra hours (past 1 or 2p) then it was more. Presumably someone who is laid off and wants to hold their spot would stick to the minimum hours both for cost reasons and so they could spend more time with their baby/kid.
Out of curiosity, what do mortgages cost for families who attend these daycares?
Our base rate (in Menlo Park) was around $1,500/mo, but if you added extra hours (past 1 or 2p) then it was more. Presumably someone who is laid off and wants to hold their spot would stick to the minimum hours both for cost reasons and so they could spend more time with their baby/kid.
Out of curiosity, what do mortgages cost for families who attend these daycares?
No, but the large salaries and stock compensation that tech workers have been paid over the past decade certainly should, along with the generous severance packages that are pervasive in the tech industry. You have been living within your means and saving, haven’t you?
Never saw anything like the numbers that people post here and also never got any stock myself.
Most of my startup options turned out to be worthless. The little that wasn't? It wasn't even worth the pay cut I took for it. You really have to be in the right place at the right time.
I do, however, always live below my means, save, and invest. I have never saved less than 30% of my salary. You have to do this long term, meaning 15 to 20 years+. Many people don't have the temperament to do this.
I do, however, always live below my means, save, and invest. I have never saved less than 30% of my salary. You have to do this long term, meaning 15 to 20 years+. Many people don't have the temperament to do this.
A few years ago one of those "the most common job in each state" maps was posted. Truck driver and school teacher were all over on the map but a few states had software developer was the most common job and I suspect it was in the top five in most other states. The vast majority of software developers work for non-tech companies at middle income wages. FAANG and SV salaries are the exception, most software developers aren't getting rich. It's a nice middle income job for most and that doesn't create an abundance of excess to sock away, even if it pays above the median wage for fulltime workers.
Shout out to Planet Morty, they can be great
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-...
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-...
BTW the most common job in DC in 1996 was JANITORS!
I have to wonder if that survey was taken during the government shutdown when even was furloughed??
I have to wonder if that survey was taken during the government shutdown when even was furloughed??
Did you read the article? It’s basically sourced from layoffs.fyi (a well-known website amongst people not in tech) and reports about layoffs at non-tech companies such as Google, eBay, Facebook, Cisco, and Microsoft.
Why are you bringing up non-tech companies in this thread?
Why are you bringing up non-tech companies in this thread?
When a significant portion of your compensation is an asset, it kind of disincentivizes this.
The stock market is at or near all time highs.
It usually is.
A good time to sell and make actual money.
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results." Unlike the dot com bust, there's not much, if any, low hanging fruit left that could drive growth in employment of developers.
That's what a lot of people thought before mobile and social media. I'm not saying it will happen. But something new could come along.
Past performance has been fantastic and there is no indication that it will change.
BUT, performance goes through boom and bust cycles. It is not unique to the tech industry. Hence the ant saves during times of plenty.
New things will pop up and current things will pick up as well. It is cyclic.
The dotcom crash, 9/11, 2008, covid, and that's just since 2000. So when I read that now it is really over I can't help but chuckle a little bit.
BUT, performance goes through boom and bust cycles. It is not unique to the tech industry. Hence the ant saves during times of plenty.
New things will pop up and current things will pick up as well. It is cyclic.
The dotcom crash, 9/11, 2008, covid, and that's just since 2000. So when I read that now it is really over I can't help but chuckle a little bit.
Except for a brief spike as the Fed tried to coral the housing bubble, we’ve had CRAZY low rates for 20 years.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
A big part of that was inflation was bottled up by basically outsourcing manufacturing to low labor cost China, but that effect is declining for a variety of reasons.
Inflation has been stubborn and even with higher rates the economy is roaring, so higher rates may persist and be a drag on tech employment.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
A big part of that was inflation was bottled up by basically outsourcing manufacturing to low labor cost China, but that effect is declining for a variety of reasons.
Inflation has been stubborn and even with higher rates the economy is roaring, so higher rates may persist and be a drag on tech employment.
I think that the claim that interest rates are dragging tech employment down is overblown.
Rates were the same or higher during the dotcom boom. I don't think they impact VC that much and companies are still getting massive funding rounds.
Rates were the same or higher during the dotcom boom. I don't think they impact VC that much and companies are still getting massive funding rounds.
But dotcom was a bubble.
Try building a few applications which use LLMs. The complexity is high. There is going to be a lot of jobs.
It will take a lot of trial, error, correction, and brains to glue together the future AI landscape. It isn’t going to glue itself, and novel, interesting uses for new technologies are unlikely to discover themselves. I think it’ll take time, but these jobs will appear, they’ll be interesting and challenging, and there will be a lot of them.
So much glue required. Complicated glue that only sticks half the time. So many jobs.
AGI is the fear-meme distracting from the sophisticated shadow programmer union that is going to guarantee full employment until the heat death of the universe by virtue of controlled growth in complexity that must be managed.
this
I tried making my own version of Devin (super rudimentary) when GPT 3.5 was new and holy shit, that was a lot of glue. I’m not a genius but I don’t think there’s a way around it. It’s also not as cheap as people imagine. You need a lot of prompts for so many scenarios, and prompts to verify the outputs of those, like loose abstracted decision trees to create the scaffolding of “thinking” about how to do the job and the workflows themselves.
You end up needing to make calls to the AI a tremendous amount compared to when you query it yourself and do work in between responses.
If single shot results improve dramatically then some glue and scaffolding might be able to be removed. I think that’s one thing we won’t see particularly fast improvements on in spaces like software engineering, though.
Of course despite leaning on compute more than people think, it’s probably still orders of magnitude cheaper than a developer. But what’s the quality like? Devin still only succeeds less than 15% of the time. Reaching even 25% without significantly increasing compute and complexity is probably still quite far off, even with the steady advances we’ve been seeing.
You end up needing to make calls to the AI a tremendous amount compared to when you query it yourself and do work in between responses.
If single shot results improve dramatically then some glue and scaffolding might be able to be removed. I think that’s one thing we won’t see particularly fast improvements on in spaces like software engineering, though.
Of course despite leaning on compute more than people think, it’s probably still orders of magnitude cheaper than a developer. But what’s the quality like? Devin still only succeeds less than 15% of the time. Reaching even 25% without significantly increasing compute and complexity is probably still quite far off, even with the steady advances we’ve been seeing.
With all the layoffs, the big Tech still keep on filing for more H1Bs.
How about Congress bans new H1Bs for tech companies for a few years until the market settles?
How about Congress bans new H1Bs for tech companies for a few years until the market settles?
I'm considering doing a career switch from one tech area to another but I hate how hard it is to see job trends. Supposedly there are job openings in "AI" whatever that is. Does anyone know somewhere to find real job trends over time broken down by skills?
And here we are saying AI won’t take jobs.
It’s different than industrialization.
The definition of AGI is - do what humans do, but better.
This will only exacerbate over time.
It’s different than industrialization.
The definition of AGI is - do what humans do, but better.
This will only exacerbate over time.
But the second derivative has stabilized?
[deleted]
It’s always so easy to start relationship when two people are in love, so I met my partner and
we were both In love with each other or so I thought until I realized something wasn’t right,
he was just so good to be true, so I searched online on how to spy on my husband’s phone
without touching it then I saw Spyrecovery36 I contacted him via spyrecovery36 at gm ail c om and
he did a very good job, I was able to find out my partner was two timing, I felt so betrayed by him
I would not be surprised if we later learn there's been a Signal chatroom with a cabal of Fortune 500[1] board members with a conversation that's going like this:
> Hey folks, staffing is getting expensive. Competing for staff is hurting us all. What do you say we all coordinate and put our projects on ice for a while, do major layoffs for 18 months or so, and push wages back down to 2014 levels?
(+237 thumbs up reactions)
[1] https://theyrule.net/