Do not want to sound like as if I am taking their side but the reality is that all these decisions are mandated by some subset of investors in one way or another.
These executives are replaceable, and they would be replaced if they do not toe the line. In other words these executives happen to choose a easy and beneficial path rather than standing up for the long term right thing for the company.
The thing is, a profitable company that sees an obvious efficiency staring it in the face is still going to take that efficiency.
I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person.
We’d rather sit here and stew about companies “blaming AI for layoffs” but I imagine that is only sometimes the case.
A somewhat related tangent: I have had the thought that many parts of the Japanese system of hiring for life might actually be really appropriate for the AI age. That system seems to result in a lot of companies finding ways to reshuffle employees into making some kind of product that has market value rather than the Western reaction that that seems to favor downsizing and focusing the company on a smaller set of markets in the name of ruthless efficiency. This seems to result in many Japanese firms making a wide breadth of interesting products at very high quality levels.
If your company is profitable because AI is increasing efficiency (allegedly, of course), why layoff 7% of your employees when you could instead assign them to make something new or complementary to your current product line? Western companies seem to refuse to do that out of a sense of focus and efficiency, but maybe giving that strategy a go more frequently would result in unrealized opportunities.
> I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person.
Growth companies respond to efficiency by asking "what can we do now that we can get more done."
Stagnant companies say "how can we cut costs."
The math is pretty simple. If you expect that doing more will have positive ROI, you do more; if you think your position is about as strong as it can ever be, and don't have ideas for growing the space or your spot in it, you assume that more spend on new things would be negative ROI.
And if you're stagnant and there are prevailing narratives giving you an excuse to cut costs without scaring investors into thinking you've lost optimism, you jump on it even if you haven't even verified if the productivity gains are real for your employees.
Essentially what I am suggesting is companies leaving growth phase or who are generally “stagnant” to not just cut employee headcount but instead redeploy them to seek out new opportunities. This is especially true if the company isn’t facing any pressing financial crisis or net loss.
That’s why I said “many parts” and not “all.” I wouldn’t want to pick up a good number of their practices, but I think a company seeing layoffs as an embarrassing last resort is a positive trait.
I also think that concepts like debt to GDP ratio are somewhat detached from corporate policies.
> I also think that concepts like debt to GDP ratio are somewhat detached from corporate policies.
Corporate policies ultimately decide growth. More growth leads to higher profits and higher tax collected by the Government which in turn means they don't have to borrow more.
> but I think a company seeing layoffs as an embarrassing last resort is a positive trait.
Don’t most companies think of layoffs as a last resort? I don’t think one ought to be embarrassed about correcting course when you have made a mistake. It takes courage.
How many mistakes does it take to layoff 30% of your work force in a few months (Lucid)?
Embarrassment should always be warranted when you make mistake on a scale where you are laying off a percentage of your work force instead of a couple of people.
That’s not how it works. Investors don’t mandate operational decisions. That’s for… operators. What they do ask for, in exchange for their investment, are things like revenue growth or certain margins.
You can crap on those investors. The answer then is to never take their money. But without money, the job probably wasn’t created in the first place. So the result is the same.
By the way, ever work alongside a really crappy non-executive and wonder how on earth they’re keeping their job? I sure have.
These executives are replaceable, and they would be replaced if they do not toe the line. In other words these executives happen to choose a easy and beneficial path rather than standing up for the long term right thing for the company.