Tech Layoffs Are All But a Thing of the Past (techcrunch.com) 83
Alex Wilhelm writes via TechCrunch: Layoffs in the technology industry have slowed sharply in recent months, bringing the number of jobs lost to tech's efficiency push to a near stop. According to several services that track layoffs in the tech industry, after reaching a local maximum in January, the number of people laid off had declined by more than 90% by September. What's more, some tech companies are hiring again to refill some of the roles that they had eliminated mere months ago.
Such a quick shift from mass personnel cuts to more stable employee rolls and even hiring efforts may seem surprising, but it's been a long time in the making. Data from popular tech industry layoff tracker Layoffs.fyi shows that job cuts have slowed for seven consecutive months this year, plateauing around 10,000 per month from June through August and declining to just over 3,000 so far in September. TrueUp, a jobs board focused on the tech industry, also marked that tech industry layoffs peaked in January and declined sharply thereafter. However, TrueUp's layoff count shows a slightly lumpier trend in the total number of staff cuts. Regardless of the source, though, the trend is clear that job cuts are on the decline.
Such a quick shift from mass personnel cuts to more stable employee rolls and even hiring efforts may seem surprising, but it's been a long time in the making. Data from popular tech industry layoff tracker Layoffs.fyi shows that job cuts have slowed for seven consecutive months this year, plateauing around 10,000 per month from June through August and declining to just over 3,000 so far in September. TrueUp, a jobs board focused on the tech industry, also marked that tech industry layoffs peaked in January and declined sharply thereafter. However, TrueUp's layoff count shows a slightly lumpier trend in the total number of staff cuts. Regardless of the source, though, the trend is clear that job cuts are on the decline.
2024 is coming (Score:5, Informative)
We probably should not start the celebrations yet. I know my employer plans to do almost no hiring and based on their RTO policy, intends to let steady attrition continue. Other companies, run by mercurial tech bros likely still have troubles ahead.
Re:2024 is coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, they hired because everyone else was hiring, and did layoffs because everyone else was doing layoffs. If these stories keep coming, then they will think it's time to do hiring again.
I don't know what year you think it is (Score:5, Interesting)
The class you need to be concerned with isn't managers it's the owners. People who don't work for a living but just own things for a living. You have more in common with even the pointiest hair to pointy-haired bosses then you do with somebody who never worked a day in their life and makes every single penny from what they own. If you go all the way up to the c-suites you'll find something closer to what you're calling a manager but those guys are members of the same class as the owners and their money comes from owning shit to not work. Compensation they get as CEOs is way less than they get from their stock and those golden parachutes are just a nice bonus because the owner class takes care of its own.
The point is you need to be careful where you focus your anger because there are people out there spending a whole lot of money to make sure it's focused in the wrong direction.
Re:I don't know what year you think it is (Score:5, Interesting)
This is as opposed to "managers" who are just trying to build something, and who can be really great.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So it's basically the same kind of locusts that investment companies are, just on a lower level and killing off the locusts.
Kinda like a parasite's parasite.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask yourself this (Score:1)
If the answer is "own shit" and you're in the other group, that's your enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
I do own shit, thanks...
I own a house that I let to a very capable person who knows how to fix things. We have an agreement, he knows how to fix things, he keeps everything in the house in good repair, I pay for the materials, he does the work and he lives in it and he pays a very low rent to stay there. We're both happy. He has a house that he keeps in good repair for just doing the work and me paying the mats, I have a house that is kept in a kick-ass state for just the materials and I get a moderate inco
Re: (Score:1)
You're part of the reason why he could "never afford" that house.
Again, not really (Score:2)
It's the same trick they used with Fast Food managers since the 80s. Take somebody doing line work, "promote" them, maybe bump their salary 1% (or maybe not at all) and you get somebody to do the paper pushing you want/need while also doing double duty as a worker. Basically 2 employees for the price of 1.
But ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We're currently hiring. Like mad. When our CEO learned that the big companies are firing people, his reaction was basically "now's the time to get talent easily".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. 60% on site "if you can make it, we'd like it if you do but if that's not an option, hey, that's ok..."
We're talking security here. Companies are effin' desperate to attract security personnel. Remote work? NO problem! We don't care where you are, as long as you at least pretend to work for us!
Re: (Score:2)
We're currently hiring. Like mad. When our CEO learned that the big companies are firing people, his reaction was basically "now's the time to get talent easily".
Yup, and this was what I and hundreds of other people said when the first rumors of my current employer considering layoffs happened. Unfortunately, the c-suite people didn't listen, and they laid off a lot of people, most of whom we'll never get back, many of whom resulted in huge gaps in institutional knowledge that we've had to build back at enormous expense that far exceeded the superficial cost savings.
There are two types of management: the ones who have a long vision and the ones who are so focused o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We probably should not start the celebrations yet. I know my employer plans to do almost no hiring and based on their RTO policy, intends to let steady attrition continue. Other companies, run by mercurial tech bros likely still have troubles ahead.
That whole headline is just asking for trouble, daring the gods of fate to hoist the writers on their own petard. We should bookmark this post for the future.
Didn't Google just lay off 2,500 people recently? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But that was just HR, not productive workers.
Move to the Midwest (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Move to the Midwest (Score:3)
Most people in the Midwest are honest, hardworking, and kind.
Re:Move to the Midwest (Score:5, Funny)
They fear the influence of people different than themselves and never leave their hometown.
Good thing people from the big coastal cities don't have that sort of prejudice.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And to be be fair, McConnell will likely be relected should he run.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
> The people who remain like my relatives are angry, bitter, Fox News obsessed, and think a vacation is a barbecue in the park.
As opposed to you, who's angry, bitter, Fox News obsessed (albeit, obsessed as in thinking it's somehow worse than your MSNBC addiction), and you think a vacation is staying home because your Coastal City rent is so high you don't have any disposable income.
Who's actually having the worse life I wonder ? Sign me up for some of that park BBQ, sounds awesome.
Re: (Score:1)
If I say the russians invaded ukraine, I'm not obsessed with russia, invasions are ukraine.
He's merely stating a fact-- and you likely *know* it.
Plus you are using "obsessed" incorrectly-- and you likely *know* that too.
This is "obsessed"
obsessed
adjective
1 Having or showing excessive or compulsive concern; -- used with with.
2 Influenced or controlled by a powerful force such as a strong emotion.
3 Intensely preoccupied with or by a given topic or emotion; driven by a specified obsession.
He would have to have
Re: (Score:2)
> 1 Having or showing excessive or compulsive concern; -- used with with.
Like when people shout "FOX NEWS!" ignoring the same drivel is spouted by CNN, MSNBC and others.
Thank you for proving my point.
Why move? (Score:2)
Remote!
Re: (Score:2)
Why again would I work remotely from SF or LA, living in a tiny box that I pay a fortune off if I can just move to a mansion that costs me a fraction of that shoe box and live there, too?
And it's neither LA nor SF, too!
Re: (Score:2)
No layoffs doesn't mean the economy is shit. Right now, if you look at LinkedIn and Indeed, there are 250 to 1000 applications for even that shit contract job in Nowheresville for three months. You don't have anything at all posted unless it is at the SRE tier, and even that, people are extremely choosy. Even after filtering, there are 100+ people who worked at FAANG for any useful job postings.
Plus, people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul want to keep the government shut down until January 20, 2025, when Trump gets in office.
Unpossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those applications you see on LinkedIn and Indeed jobs are just morons that autospam everything they can find. Only a handful would be seriously considered. And hiring good people is still hard as ever.
Re: (Score:1)
Most people want us to back Ukraine, only the GOPutin wing and a few isolationists are against helping degrade the Russian military. And unlike Bush's pointless adventure it's not based on some asshole wanting to be a "war preznent". Context matters to those tho actually think.
Re: (Score:2)
Got a link that isn't to a Der Sturmer level propaganda outlet owned and operated by the same government that helped found ISIS?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd start with the nearly two dozen links in the references section of "Brandon Mayfield" on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
And the first few of those are: the ISIS version of Der Sturmer, a local radicalist outlet in the PNW, the same people who won a pulitzer prize for genocide denial propaganda, and jeff bezos' personal propaganda outlet.
There's such serious problems with the PATRIOT act, you'd think you could find better things to use than relying on such garbage sources.
Re: (Score:1)
Not me. The war in Ukraine is a big waste of life and money. There's enough dubious circumstances that I can honestly say I don't have enough information AND YOU don't have enough information either. It's been so obfuscated nobody knows what's going on. I have watched Ukraine on Fire from Oliver Stone, and a bunch of other documentaries on the subject as well. It's pretty damning that the US had a part to play in Ukraine's current situation... Like, a huge part, back in 2014 and earlier. Most people ar
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, I don't even dare to click on a job offer and check out what the competition is doing because I just know within an hour I'll have a mail from a headhunter begging me to at least consider talking to them.
If this is the big, scary layoff season, I am not impressed.
Title and summary don't match. (Score:4, Insightful)
Title : "Layoffs are a thing of the past!"
Summary : "Ok, we're still seeing layoffs right now, but it's slowing down!".
This whole post sounds like massive cope.
Until they are once again a thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a definitive chance of a maybe, and this is final!
Say, did anyone get laid off here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because I tend to hear a lot about this or that company firing people, but I don't exactly see a lot of that happening. What I do see instead is headhunters desperately trying to get my attention because apparently there's so many companies that can't fill their positions.
Why do I get the feeling that a nontrivial amount of this is just FUD to whip the uppity peons back in line?
Re: (Score:2)
Because I tend to hear a lot about this or that company firing people, but I don't exactly see a lot of that happening. What I do see instead is headhunters desperately trying to get my attention because apparently there's so many companies that can't fill their positions.
Why do I get the feeling that a nontrivial amount of this is just FUD to whip the uppity peons back in line?
I was laid off multiple times during the pandemic (2020-2023). The pandemic changed the market for one company, so sales dropped by 50% year over year. You can imagine the size of that layoff. Another company grew too quickly, but during the pandemic had supply chain issues and had to readjust the size of its workforce. I was laid off from another company because they had to change focus during the pandemic and needed skills I had not yet acquired.
I personally know about 200 people in the tech industry laid
Re: (Score:2)
I meant more in the past 3 months or so, you know, the time since suddenly the sky is falling and EVERYONE is firing EVERYONE.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I get the feeling that a nontrivial amount of this is just FUD to whip the uppity peons back in line?
You're a poet, sir!
It's not all rosy out there... (Score:5, Interesting)
This [licdn.com] chart from Peter Walker, Head of Insights at Carta, paints a very different picture. According to his post earlier today:
- About half of the startups that closed shop did so without raising any VC rounds. The other half had at least one priced round in their history.
- Within the cohort that had raised from VCs, 90% of the shutdown were either Seed or Series A startups.
- 34 startups that raised a Series B or later have shut down so far this year - that's higher than the 25 in 2022.
- 87 startups that raised at least $10 million have shut down this year. That's nearly 2x the total from last year.
Any way you slice it, this is the most difficult year for startups in at least a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
VCs don't throw money around anymore because they don't believe that startups have a viable business model going and there is a very low chance that any of the big players hoover them up. What else is new? That has little effect on jobs for "normal" people, that's more a matter for investors and people wanting to start a business.
All five elements (Score:1)
[Gary Oldman]
"Fire one million."
"Layoffs" (Score:2)
I was laid off, but was told I couldn't use the term "laid off". The company altered performance reviews so that even the time I was employee of the month the review appears I was lacking. Now repeat that for 100 employees across all divisions. Investors and Wall Street didn't see a lay off event, so stock price wasn't affected. Most of us live in work at will states meaning neither employee nor employer needs to give a reason for severing the contract. When a company answers to investors or Wall Street, th
Still happeing (Score:4, Funny)
Surprise! They are getting lots of F! U's!
Just waiting for the "Closed" sign to go on the door now.
Re: (Score:2)
You tell them "Sure, $250 / hour with a $25,000 retainer" and send over a contract for them to sign.
Taking it personally is silly if it takes money out of your wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
There are things that can't be bought with money.
You can't put a price to watching a stupid CEO crash and burn.
Re: (Score:2)
My previous employer eliminated about half of the jobs after being acquired by an American company. For the rest they made the climate at work so unpleasant that most people left voluntarily. All these jobs went to India, with the same result as you describe. Matter of fact, my previous employer now pays my current employer for my time.
Epic Games... (Score:1)
Layoffs are over (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For exactly the reason that has been explained time and time again: If you let people quit on their own, the ones that DO work will quit because they can easily find new jobs, since they usually have something to show for, have degrees, have certificates and a github account filled to the brim with private projects to show off.
What you retain is the duds that can't just jump ship and have to grin and bear it because they can't get hired anywhere else.
Also on Slashdot: (Score:2)