[lcw]

In general layoffs especially when they are proactive, which in this case they seem to be, show investors that the company is being fiscally responsible. This isn't an indication that Amazon is going to increase profitability it's a sign to investors that they are taking in recession indicators and adapting accordingly. It doesn't seem malicious it seems perfectly reasonable and sane. Of course it's Amazon so there is another layer of context, but this is a rational and normal investor response.

[asdff]

I don't understand how its rational unless you assume staff have negative value. They don't, they have positive value, nothing gets done without staff. More staff means you output more work and make more money. Staff should be the last thing to cut.

[gwright]

That isn't the way a business works. There is no intrinsic value to "staff", positive or negative. The value comes from the way staff (or any other resources) is utilized. Building twice as many widgets by building and staffing a second factory could have a huge negative value if there is no demand for twice as many widgets in the market, for example.

[haimez]

Staff does have a negative intrinsic value- they are paid salaries. If (and only if) the business can deliver on some arbitrary stated goals, it’s more valuable if it can do so with fewer people on staff.

[gwright]

I was obviously referring to the net change in business value. Additional employees can be result in a net negative or a net positive return on investment depending on how they are utilized. That was what I was trying to communicate.

[asdff]

So then the solution is to not fire people, but manage them better on something more profitable. What makes you more money in this pet example you've set up: having 1 widget factory, or two factories producing different widgets that are both in demand? The latter, obviously, or else amazon would still be entirely in the business of selling books today.

[gwright]

> but manage them better on something more profitable.

Well, yeah. I mean the entire endeavor of operating a for-profit business is to find the combination of resources/effort/ideas that creates value. The problem space is enormous though and more often leads to failure than success. If you see a successful combination though, stop posting here and start your own business!

[sokoloff]

A $10 bill has positive value as well. Nevertheless, buying them in bulk for $15 each is a bad idea. (Merely having positive value is not enough to make something a good purchase.)

[lcw]

Staff has negative value when demand growth doesn't meet a companies forecasts. You are right there should always be positive output from staff, but it doesn't mean that there is a demand for said output.

I think when you say value you aren't speaking fiscally. If that's the case then I would say I'm not trying to minimize the output of workers being laid off. I'm just saying that the value of their output isn't marketable to consumers, so from a capitalist perspective a company should rationally make adjustments.

[asdff]

If the value of their output isn't marketable, put them on a project that is. Having the workers suffer from their manager's decision makings for these divisions is cold and cruel.

[WalterBright]

If staff produces less value than they cost, then they get cut.

[asdff]

Why not come up with better projects for said staff that help the company? Why should they suffer from being mismanaged?

[WalterBright]

> Why not come up with better projects for said staff that help the company?

If you can think of better projects, you can become their competitor and hire their staff away.

[quickthrower2]

Also a stock can go up because it reveals information that is not as bad as previously thought.