[lawlessone]

How does reducing the amount of work they are capable of help this though? especially now when they are going to be dealing with the fallout of this chip oxidation issue?

I don't understand the logic of it.

When someone is sick they need more support , not less.

[itsoktocry]

>I don't understand the logic of it

Intel is floundering. Do you presume all of these people were adding value at the front lines of chip manufacturing? They have to lean out and figure it out.

[jncfhnb]

A lot of people provide negative value. Not net negative, in their work is less valuable than their salary, but actually negative value in that they just slow things down, waste resources, or prevent innovation for their own job security

[lawlessone]

>heir work is less valuable than their salary, but actually negative value in that they just slow things down

i don't buy it. . if those 15k people were truly a problem before why weren't they already removed?

[jncfhnb]

Change is hard, firing people isn’t fun, and incentives don’t always align

[Tempest1981]

I would guess that's < 5%, whereas "a lot" sounds like 30 or 50%

[apantel]

It depends on whether or not those employees were producing more than they cost. It could be that Intel is shuttering unprofitable projects the way Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple. He killed almost everything Apple was doing and got the company to focus on a handful of products, one of which was the iPod.

[onepointsixC]

Intel has more employees than AMD, TSMC, and NVIDIA combined. When AMD leapfrogged them they had less employees than the number just laid off. They need capital to build out new fabs and that has to come from somewhere.

[cortesoft]

Because some people cost more than they produce? Seems pretty straightforward