• SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      7 days ago

      That and executive ass covering, a way to avoid admitting to shareholders that they wasted their money on useless commercial real estate.

      It’s also shooting themselves in the foot. The first people to leave aren’t going to be the clock punchers, it will be the best and brightest who can easily find other jobs.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        That’s a feature, not a bug.

        The best and brightest will challenge leadership. The shitty barely competent value engineer will say yes until they fuck up so bad they get promoted.

      • AAA@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        The first people to leave aren’t going to be the clock punchers, it will be the best and brightest who can easily find other jobs.

        Yes. But some of them are also the most expensive ones, so when they leave costs go down. And we all know “numbers must go up” (=cost must go down).

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          So you’re left with departments full of clock punchers who don’t have vision or leadership. If you want to kill your Golden Goose, that’s a good way to do it. The remaining departments full of drone followers aren’t going to be making you the exciting groundbreaking products that make you money.

          Of course then again I personally see value in employees, maybe business leadership does not or thinks they are all generic replaceable.

          • AAA@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            In my experience: the higher up the management chain, the higher the chance that they are just in for the bonuses - not for the company / industry. And those bonuses are always bound to these numbers which need to go up. When the numbers go down, these people are long gone.

            • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              You nailed it. look at their more recent announcements about execs not taking bonuses— they’re giving up bonuses for the coming year. I expect most of them to ‘pursue other interests’ but they’ll keep their bonuses, whatever team gets brought in to right the ship will then get screwed.

              Might also be ass covering- with a pre-emptive promise of no bonuses it may be harder to replace them…

      • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Idk about the whole talk of having an excuse to shareholders, I don’t think shareholders look into hey these offices are sitting unused I demand an explanation I think they care how much profit the company making and what are future predictions of profit.

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          No, but it will bring into question the process by which they were acquired to begin with. Somebody will ask, why did you spend x billion on real estate when it was obvious that remote work was the future? Or if they are locked into a long-term lease, eventually the question will come up why are we spending all this money for office space we aren’t using? Shouldn’t we have thought of this earlier? Not having workers in the office makes it obvious that real estate was a bad investment, and many of these companies are pretty heavily invested in real estate. Easier to screw the workers with what can be explained away as a management strategy than admit a wasted a whole bunch of money buying and building and renovating space you don’t need.

  • EndOfLine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 days ago

    I hope a significant number of them get new jobs and quiet quit to get that double paycheck for as long as they can.

    • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      I hope so too. Although the IT job market isn’t great right now, so I doubt the departures will reach a critical mass.

  • itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Google, Microsoft, hell even Netflix and Capital One, will be bending over backwards for this tech talent.
    Look at that Amazon east coast HQ in Virginia, just down the road from Capital One’s HQ. One of AWS’s biggest customers will bendfit from this.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Stupid, stupid Amazon. How did they not see this coming? It’s been a trend lately.

      • grepe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        yup. how is that not obvious to anyone is beyond me… some of those workers have contracts that would require amazon paying severance in case they would just fire them like so many other companies do. better make them leave on their own.

  • omarfw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    311
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 days ago

    Now they can replace them without paying unemployment and pay the new workers a lower wage. This is what they wanted to happen. Mega corporations are a problem we need to solve as a society.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      128
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      Quality programmers are a finite resource. Amazon chewed through the entire unskilled labor market with their warehouses and then struggled to find employees to meet their labor needs. If they try the same stunt with skilled labor they’re in for a very rude awakening. They’ll be able to find people, but only for well above market rates. They’re highly likely to find in the long run it would have been much cheaper to hang onto the people they already had.

      • omarfw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        97
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        The whole problem with companies like Amazon is that hardly anyone in charge of them seems to care about long term sustainability. They all just invest enough effort to squeeze out some short term profits, earn their bonuses and then leave for another company to do it all again. Nobody is interested in sustainability because there is no incentive to. They’re playing hot potato with the collapse of the company.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Now expand that to the entire planetary economy. Unsustainable short term gains is the entire industrial revolution.

          We’re only 300 years in and most life and ecosystems on Earth have been destroyed and homogenized to service humanity. We’re essentially a parasite. It’s not surprising that the most successful corporations are the most successful parasites. It’s just parasites, doing parasitic things, because they’re parasites… from the top down.

          • Wanderer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            There has been efficiency gains throughout. Capitalism is amazing for that, far better than other systems.

            The problem is too many people. If standard of living is to increase then the resource requirement is due to massive unsustainable population growth.

            That and the fact the public hate externalities and don’t want them used at all never mind aggressively.

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 days ago

              The problem is too many people. If standard of living is to increase then the resource requirement is due to massive unsustainable population growth.

              They’re both important. And crucially, people in developed countries use a lot more resources than those in undeveloped countries. Just look at the resource utilization of our richest people. We have billionaires operating private rocket companies! If somehow, say due to really really good automation, orbital rockets could be made cheap enough for the average person to afford, we would have average middle class people regularly launching rockets into space and taking private trips to the Moon. Just staggering levels of resource use. If we could build and maintain homes very cheaply due to advanced robotics, the average person would live in a private skyscraper if they could afford it. Imagine the average suburban lot, except with a tower built on it 100 stories tall. If it was cheap enough to build and maintain that sort of thing, that absolutely would become the norm.

              • Wanderer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                The only billionaire I know of that is launching rockets is Elon Musk.

                That’s just evidence that capitalism is efficient. Because SpaceX has revolutionised space travel making the only reusable rocket doing something all the government agencies said was impossible. NASAs new unbuilt rocket is using tech from the 1970 that they are going to throe away into the ocean on every launch.

                The rest you say is meaningless. How you expect this robotic skyscrapers to be built? Some MIT masters project or some capitalist experiment?

                • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Bezos also has a rocket company. Plus there’s Richard Branson. And others.. And then you have private jet travel, massive mega yachts, and countless other extravagances. For a certain class of billionaire, having a private rocket company is a vanity project. These rocket companies are vanity projects by rich sci fi nerds. Yes, they’ve done some really good technical work, but they’re only possible because their founders were willing to sink billions into them even without any proof they’ll make a profit.

                  What you are missing is that as people’s wealth increases, their resource use just keeps going up and up and up. To the point where when people are wealthy enough, they’re using orders of magnitude more energy and resources than the average citizen of even developed countries. Billionaires have enough wealth that they can fly rockets just because they think they’re cool, even if they have no real path to profitability.

                  And no, the hypothetical of the robot skyscrapers is not “meaningless.” You just have a poor imagination. To have that type of world we only need one thing - a robot that can build a copy of itself from raw materials, or a series of robots that can collectively reproduce themselves from raw materials gathered in the environment. Once you have self-replicating robots, it becomes very easy to scale up to that kind of consumption on a broad scale. If you have self-replicating robots, the only real limit to the total number you can have on the planet is the total amount of sunlight available to power all of them.

                  The real point isn’t the specific examples I gave. The point, which you are missing entirely, is that total resource use is a function