[deweywsu]

I know a lot of level-headed engineers here may not side with me, but I say let the companies who abandoned their people at the drop of a hat, with CEOs who waved their flag around on social media, proudly declaring how they'd now run their companies with 75% fewer employees wither and die. If I had been let go, there's no way I'd go back to a company like that, and there should be a black list of CEOs who acted this way established and kept public. These CEOs are not holistic thinkers, and are too susceptible to mass hysteria and too irresponsible to real people and their lives to be trusted with the vision for any company ever again.

[oreally]

Someone should keep track of a public database of CEOs who cut workforce while making huge profits. Name, context, situation and all.

[deadmutex]

Unfortunately, maintaining an opposite list would probably be easier.

[CamperBob2]

That's basically what you'll see if you open a newspaper to the stock page. That's the idea behind business. It's why you have what you have.

[knollimar]

Depends on if it's shortsighted by giving up your intellectual capital for short term profit.

[SamuelAdams]

GM just did this in the last 30 days [1], and their sales are likely going to be just fine. In fact the auto industry has repeatedly automated jobs over the last 100 years, and they still make decent sales numbers.

If you decided to boycott every company that replaced staff with automation, you would be forced to exit the economy. Every company does this to some degree and the customers who vote with their wallet do not seem to care about a reduction in force.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/06/gm-installs-robots-at-fla...

[MadxX79]

Robots that replace auto industry factory workers exist; the CEO of GM didn't imagine them as part of some sort of business media induced psychotic episode.

The same is not true for the software industry execs.

[pragmatic]

GM is running 0% interest, no payments until n deals right now.

That’s usually a sign that sales are not “just fine”.

[coryrc]

They always are.

[smahs]

The above comment, to which you responded, wrote about CEOs who responded to mass hysteria, not those who automated anything.

[deweywsu]

This is true, and I'm sure AI cuts will continue, but it's obvious that the ones who went "all in" at AI's mass introduction were drinking a special kind of Kool-Aid reserved for the truly sycophantic Wall Street lap dogs, not the CEOs who think about risk and are cautious about betting the farm on a relatively new and mostly untested technology. GM is over 100 years old, and no doubt released improvements that were well-tested and predictable, because you don't take massive chances with a company that well established. It was a couple years into the mass AI deployment that studies on the minimal overall productivity gains of AI even started to come out(!) This was "get on the bandwagon" thinking at a massive scale, which shows you how many CEOs are not independent thinkers at all, but are really just followers. Yes, use AI, but do it responsibly, never forgetting that your investors aren't your only stakeholders - so are your people.

[johnvanommen]

> GM just did this in the last 30 days [1], and their sales are likely going to be just fine. In fact the auto industry has repeatedly automated jobs over the last 100 years, and they still make decent sales numbers.

I worked at Verizon during their layoffs last year. Biggest layoffs in the USA.

As someone who’s been laid off before, I knew that it generally boosts the stock price.

I bought VZ because of that. It’s up 15% since the layoffs.

Microsoft, an AI stock, is down 30% in the same timeframe.

[caconym_]

I'll believe it when I see it, but I would love to see it.