this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
211 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

84687 readers
4921 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 39 minutes ago
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 36 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Meta is doing the exact same thing:

Mark Zuckerberg's social media giant will reportedly hand out roughly 8,000 pink slips on Wednesday, May 20, eliminating about 10% of its global workforce. Notably, though, these cuts will arrive on the heels of one of the most lucrative quarters in the company's history: $56.31 billion in revenue and $26.8 billion in net income for the first three months of 2026...

https://moneywise.com/news/top-stories/meta-layoffs-8000-workers-zuckerberg-ai-spending

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 24 points 2 hours ago (6 children)

Slashing 10% of your workforce annually is something Jack Welch thought of when he was CEO of General Electric; essentially it shifts that 10% of staff overhead cost straight to profits per year.

The justification they give for the figure is that it's the lowest performing 10% according to internal key performance indicator (KPI) metrics. What this effectively does is two fold:

  1. Anyone who's focusing on delivering stuff the company needs long term isn't always or sometimes never will produce nice neat KPIs that can be measured along with the rest of the company. This means these people are under constant pressure and can often get swept up in the firings.

  2. It makes KPIs, a measuring tool, the target which as any statistician will tell you that when you make the measurement a target it ceases to be a good measuring tool. Because everyone is automatically incentivised to deliver KPIs NOT the actual company deliverables that generate the added value and therefore the profit.

This means after 5 to 10 years of this cycle all that's left of the company's institutional knowledge is how to deliver for KPIs and the sycophants who best adapt to this reality. You get a hollowing out of the company.

If this AI fuelled trend keeps up then companies like Cisco and Meta will eventually implode at some point.

[–] Brummbaer@pawb.social 11 points 1 hour ago

I think we are already seeing that with Microsoft. Another 2-3 rounds of AI and they forget how to build windows.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

I actually think a few % a year is healthy (1% feels right to me). I work at a company where we never lay anyone off and it’s led to a bunch of deadweight in the company that make work harder for everyone else. You gotta have some mechanism to let low performers go.

10% is way too high though

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 2 points 4 minutes ago

The justification they give for the figure is that it’s the lowest performing 10% according to internal key performance indicator (KPI) metrics

The thing is, that's not what layoffs are supposed to be. That's effectively firing someone for cause. Maybe in America the difference doesn't matter, but in the civilised world, at least in theory, it does. But in reality they can somehow get away with this and call it "layoffs".

If a company does layoffs, they should not be allowed to hire any staff in the same or similar roles for 12 months.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 27 minutes ago* (last edited 26 minutes ago)

It also fosters a culture of non-cooperation with colleagues (because they are now your competition), where workers and teams try to sabotage each other, or at least not help, and throw each other under the bus. So there's mutual mistrust too. And no one wants to take a risk and innovate, leading to further stagnation.

[–] pelya@lemmy.world 1 points 35 minutes ago

With Meta it very much looks like overhiring. What are those 8000 workers even doing, designing CSS for each individual ad on Facebook?

[–] Blooper@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

God willing

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 2 hours ago
[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 10 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

In some countries, this is illegal.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 1 points 37 minutes ago (1 children)

What countries? This is capitalism baby, only way to stop it is to have a union strong enough to fuck Up that record profit if the CEO even jokes a out layoffs.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 14 minutes ago* (last edited 12 minutes ago)

Japan. Layoffs are extremely difficult to pull off there. You have to show poor performance by the individual involved, and the standards for that are very rigorous. The government knows that unemployed people immediately become their problem, so they just demand that if a corporation wants to employ someone, they have to be willing to enter into that in an open ended arrangement. So unions aren’t the only way.

[–] Schal330@lemmy.world 17 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Can't be expecting the peasants to share in the success of their hard work! Better to fire them and rehire them for cheaper when they are desperate.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 18 minutes ago

It’s an interesting case for leftists because there is no means of production to be seized. Nothing needed to create websites or apps is hard to get or proprietary. If anything, the means of production is capital itself, because only by paying people can you direct a lot of them to spend time on any particular thing. I wonder if communism has already addressed this case somewhere. I’m hardly educated on the topic.

[–] Switorik@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I know someone who worked a weekend event to show case a product and they did extremely well going nearly 15k in sales. They made $50 for the few hours it took to generate that. The amount of effort to prepare for this, drive there, waste weekend hours working is not worth $50. Especially with how much gas is. I don't understand why people don't just say no.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 15 minutes ago* (last edited 14 minutes ago)

$50 sounds like a ridiculous commission under any circumstances. There are more numbers that we need before we can really judge the situation though. It’s not like $50 went to your friend and $14,950 went to their boss’s pocket. Surely there’s a cost to manufacture whatever it is being sold. Still, there’s no way that 0.3% is a reasonable sales commission.

[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Line go up!!!

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

“Correlation.”

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 0 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

Revenue is not profit. I'm not defending them, but relating revenue to layoffs is apples and oranges.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 5 minutes ago

Are people backwards here or something? You're explicitly stating that you're not defending them, and you're completely right in what you're saying. A company can have record revenues and record losses (negative profit) in the same period. That doesn't mean meta and zucky are anything short of horrible, it means the headline is crap. An informative headline would be " reports profits and announces layoffs". Saying they have record revenues tells us exactly nothing about whether layoffs are justified or not.

Case in point: My buddy's startup had record revenues this year, more than doubled since last year, if they keep going at this pace they'll be bankrupt by this time next year, since their income is smaller than their wage expenses.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Almost 27 billion is net profit

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 5 points 1 hour ago

Fuck em then.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

More like comparing orange peels to oranges. One is a component of the other.

[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I suppose the implied question is, “why are they firing people when making record revenue?”

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 5 points 1 hour ago

Revenue is income before expenses. Profit is what's left over after expenses. Revenue can increase, but if expenses increase even more, profit declines.

That's why relating revenue to layoffs is apples and oranges.