The Layoffs
-
Agreed. You're just asking to lose your valuable staff while keeping the ones who are less likely to be marketable.
Back in the late 80's I was working for a software firm called Cincom. They were noted for cyclical disruptions, and a few months after I started, they announced intermittent layoffs. Everyone in the company would be laid off for four weeks in two-week shifts over a period of months. It would have been better and less disruptive to just cut the dead wood, of which there was lots.
-
@George-K said in The Layoffs:
At Intel, rather than layoffs, pay cuts:
Intel, under pressure from shareholders and the market recession (whether you acknowledge that reality or not) have decided to cut pay by 5% or more corporate wide. Corporate employees from every side of the business have confirmed that the company is making drastic cuts, which are affecting its employees’ compensation and benefits. Quarterly pay bonuses, annual bonuses, a halving of 401k match from 5% to 2.5%, suspension of raises, and a cut to base salaries are all official according to internal communication. The cuts are all over, widely affecting engineering departments, with leadership seeing 10% to 15% cuts while CEO Pat Gelsinger sees losses of 25%.
These fiscal measures are causing concern among employees who just a couple of years ago must have felt like untouchables living in a gilded age but the cuts just keep cutting deeper with rampant inflation. While the company claims that these cuts are necessary to reduce its burn rate, the fact that the company’s dividend remains intact raises questions about its priorities. This decision to prioritize the dividend over employee retention is not only a cause for concern for employees but also for the long-term future of the company. The loss of bonuses, combined with base pay cuts, may cause a drop in morale. However, these pay cuts, while practically unheard of in this space, are in stark contrast to more severe measures at Microsoft and Google.
Not getting a bonus isn't really a pay cut. We don't get a bonus if we don't make any money either. That's how bonuses are supposed to work - it's why companies prefer them to permanent salary increases.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Layoffs:
@George-K said in The Layoffs:
At Intel, rather than layoffs, pay cuts:
Intel, under pressure from shareholders and the market recession (whether you acknowledge that reality or not) have decided to cut pay by 5% or more corporate wide. Corporate employees from every side of the business have confirmed that the company is making drastic cuts, which are affecting its employees’ compensation and benefits. Quarterly pay bonuses, annual bonuses, a halving of 401k match from 5% to 2.5%, suspension of raises, and a cut to base salaries are all official according to internal communication. The cuts are all over, widely affecting engineering departments, with leadership seeing 10% to 15% cuts while CEO Pat Gelsinger sees losses of 25%.
These fiscal measures are causing concern among employees who just a couple of years ago must have felt like untouchables living in a gilded age but the cuts just keep cutting deeper with rampant inflation. While the company claims that these cuts are necessary to reduce its burn rate, the fact that the company’s dividend remains intact raises questions about its priorities. This decision to prioritize the dividend over employee retention is not only a cause for concern for employees but also for the long-term future of the company. The loss of bonuses, combined with base pay cuts, may cause a drop in morale. However, these pay cuts, while practically unheard of in this space, are in stark contrast to more severe measures at Microsoft and Google.
Not getting a bonus isn't really a pay cut.
It’s the same philosophy towards SS “cuts”. Moving the benefit ages back two years starting in 2045 is hardly what I would call “cuts” but we’re going to hear that Republicans want to cut social security because they made that suggestion… -
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Layoffs:
@George-K said in The Layoffs:
At Intel, rather than layoffs, pay cuts:
Intel, under pressure from shareholders and the market recession (whether you acknowledge that reality or not) have decided to cut pay by 5% or more corporate wide. Corporate employees from every side of the business have confirmed that the company is making drastic cuts, which are affecting its employees’ compensation and benefits. Quarterly pay bonuses, annual bonuses, a halving of 401k match from 5% to 2.5%, suspension of raises, and a cut to base salaries are all official according to internal communication. The cuts are all over, widely affecting engineering departments, with leadership seeing 10% to 15% cuts while CEO Pat Gelsinger sees losses of 25%.
These fiscal measures are causing concern among employees who just a couple of years ago must have felt like untouchables living in a gilded age but the cuts just keep cutting deeper with rampant inflation. While the company claims that these cuts are necessary to reduce its burn rate, the fact that the company’s dividend remains intact raises questions about its priorities. This decision to prioritize the dividend over employee retention is not only a cause for concern for employees but also for the long-term future of the company. The loss of bonuses, combined with base pay cuts, may cause a drop in morale. However, these pay cuts, while practically unheard of in this space, are in stark contrast to more severe measures at Microsoft and Google.
Not getting a bonus isn't really a pay cut.
It’s the same philosophy towards SS “cuts”. Moving the benefit ages back two years starting in 2045 is hardly what I would call “cuts” but we’re going to hear that Republicans want to cut social security because they made that suggestion…@LuFins-Dad said in The Layoffs:
It’s the same philosophy towards SS “cuts”. Moving the benefit ages back two years starting in 2045 is hardly what I would call “cuts” but we’re going to hear that Republicans want to cut social security because they made that sugge
If I want to be pedantic (what, me???), Social Security isn't a benefit. It's my money.
-
We're all still operating under the assumption that there will be plenty of jobs out there to anyone who actually wants to work, and the market can provide for anyone unemployed.
In the midst of the biggest technological revolution in human history. That will be adopted immediately, with little to no transition time, while creating consequences no one understands.
-
We're all still operating under the assumption that there will be plenty of jobs out there to anyone who actually wants to work, and the market can provide for anyone unemployed.
In the midst of the biggest technological revolution in human history. That will be adopted immediately, with little to no transition time, while creating consequences no one understands.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Layoffs:
We're all still operating under the assumption that there will be plenty of jobs out there to anyone who actually wants to work, and the market can provide for anyone unemployed.
In the midst of the biggest technological revolution in human history. That will be adopted immediately, with little to no transition time, while creating consequences no one understands.
You sound a lot like the 1970's.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Layoffs:
We're all still operating under the assumption that there will be plenty of jobs out there to anyone who actually wants to work, and the market can provide for anyone unemployed.
In the midst of the biggest technological revolution in human history. That will be adopted immediately, with little to no transition time, while creating consequences no one understands.
You sound a lot like the 1970's.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Layoffs:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Layoffs:
We're all still operating under the assumption that there will be plenty of jobs out there to anyone who actually wants to work, and the market can provide for anyone unemployed.
In the midst of the biggest technological revolution in human history. That will be adopted immediately, with little to no transition time, while creating consequences no one understands.
You sound a lot like the 1970's.
It's not the 70s. It's also not the industrial revolution. Those transitions involved getting acquainted with new tools that humans had to use, and widespread adoption took awhile.
AI's a tool, for now. It'll soon be able to do things autonomously.
But even as a tool, we have the internet. It's not the 70s because you don't have to get "trained up" on how to use AI. You can use it right now, today, with absolutely no training, and it does a half-decent job. By the end of the year it'll be able to do an excellent job.
Tell me how these things are the same.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Layoffs:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Layoffs:
We're all still operating under the assumption that there will be plenty of jobs out there to anyone who actually wants to work, and the market can provide for anyone unemployed.
In the midst of the biggest technological revolution in human history. That will be adopted immediately, with little to no transition time, while creating consequences no one understands.
You sound a lot like the 1970's.
It's not the 70s. It's also not the industrial revolution. Those transitions involved getting acquainted with new tools that humans had to use, and widespread adoption took awhile.
AI's a tool, for now. It'll soon be able to do things autonomously.
But even as a tool, we have the internet. It's not the 70s because you don't have to get "trained up" on how to use AI. You can use it right now, today, with absolutely no training, and it does a half-decent job. By the end of the year it'll be able to do an excellent job.
Tell me how these things are the same.
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Layoffs:
Tell me how these things are the same.
They're different, but it's still a new thing, just like then. And to be honest I don't think anybody knows how it's going to play out.
A cynic might say that writers didn't worry as much in the 1970's as it wasn't writers being replaced.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Layoffs:
Tell me how these things are the same.
They're different, but it's still a new thing, just like then. And to be honest I don't think anybody knows how it's going to play out.
A cynic might say that writers didn't worry as much in the 1970's as it wasn't writers being replaced.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Layoffs:
A cynic might say that writers didn't worry as much in the 1970's as it wasn't writers being replaced.
How is that cynical? That's just the truth. The only two types of companies who give a good golly damn about website accessibility are ones who fear getting sued, and ones who have disabled executives. If it's not personal to them in some way it's completely ignored. That's just how people are.
As for writers, though, it could go either way. On the one hand, my professional skills will be in no way threatened by this technology until it's self-aware. (At which point the problem will extend far beyond my small industry.) Words aren't really what I do for a living—that's just the stuff people see. The other stuff, AI can't do unless it can think for itself.
On the other hand, no one actually understands this or cares. People in my line of work are treated as a necessary evil by just about everyone, so if there's enough public perception that we can be done away with, that's the ballgame. Like the news, everything else written out there will start to really suck ass, everyone will complain about it, and everyone like me will stay unemployed because they can still crank out 10x more for free that way. That could easily happen, too.
I'm not really talking about me, though. Writers are a drop in the bucket. My worry is, how many people will have entire professions that no longer exist? That's a much bigger problem than job loss, and there's a finite number of those kinds of people we can bear at any one time. I think we could easily surpass that number because no one's planning anything.
-
Do you think my career as a beauty influencer is at risk?
-
Do you think my career as a beauty influencer is at risk?
@LuFins-Dad said in The Layoffs:
Do you think my career as a beauty influencer is at risk?
Are you on Truth social? You should be fine.
-
Facebook announces $40 Billion stock buyback:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/01/facebook-parent-meta-announces-40-billion-stock-buyback.html
-
L LuFins Dad referenced this topic on
