>

If they can cut thousands of jobs without seriously affecting operations then they probably were too big
“Goldman Sachs is going to sack people this week” >

"Goldman Sacks Thousands" >

Well if they can’t even wait for the weekend, this must be serious. >

Best practices for both the employees being cut and the employees spared is to not fire or layoff anyone on Fridays. M-W preferred. It gives those laid off time when there are resources available to help them and doesn't have survivors worrying all weekend, unable to ask questions wondering if there's going to be more people missing when they return on Monday. 
Best practices for lede on bad news stories is to do shit on Fridays >

Huh...everywhere Ive been has fired/laid off on Fridays because if someone flips out it gives them a couple of days to calm down where nobody is in the office. >

My last company called a meeting with all of the most precarious employees and their managers on it for a Friday afternoon, with no meeting subject. Then they canceled the meeting so everyone suspected they were being laid off but no one would answer what was going on. Then actually laid off on Monday morning.
So, if anyone is wondering the method for the highest likelihood for sabotage/workplace violence, it is making people understand they're getting fired, ruin their whole weekend, then fire them on Monday morning.
(I resigned shortly after that.) >


The Wall Street giant typically trims about 1% to 5% of employees each year. These new cuts will come on top of the earlier layoffs.
The job cuts come ahead of the bank's annual bonus payments which are usually delivered later in January and are expected to fall about 40%.

Your "free market", ladies and gentleman >

I don't understand what point you are making... they are making layoffs AND bonuses are lowering by 40%...which makes sense to me >

Potentially laying off people that are eligible for a bonus before they receive said bonus, i.e. "cost cutting" >

You don't lose your bonus to being layed off.. Sigh.
Most cases, you're still eligible to collect. Any lawyer who is capable of putting their pants on could get it for them. Though Goldman will likely pay them bonuses without that being necessary. >

Typically they pay out the bonus, get a severance package, and remaining vacation time paid out. Also I think there might be a law if they didn’t give them notice they have to pay them do a few weeks. But maybe it’s only certain states. >

The werid thing about these cut is one side they need to cut back staff and next 2 quarters will report a profit >

Didn't these big ass corporations just get a trillion dollar tax cut a few years ago? I thought that was so these job creators could get to job creating. At least that's what the Republicans claimed would happen. Color me shocked that didn't happen. >

Of course it didn't work. Those tax cuts were pre China virus. Plus, then Biden came in and managed to ruin the economy in no time.
There are people out there who legit think like this. Fucking ugh. >

I don’t think you understand how the fed works. Biden did not raise interest rates. And if you’re sad that they’ve gone up from historic lows, when an economy is booming, then I’m sad for how you have no idea how cycles work. >

The first half of my comment is a joke. There are many people who think like that, I am not actually one of them though. >

Phew. If only a president could have such an effect on an economy. Huge tax cuts, or raises of course, will have some effect. ( like the previous idiot who risked overheating an economy that definitely didn’t need huge tax cuts ) >

So there is typically a cycle to these thing but the idea is to minimize the peaks and valleys so its a more stable journey unfortunately the previous president wanted to look good so he did things to keep the peak going and going up which in turn makes a bigger valley when it hits. So many peoples 401ks took a huge ass dive and for those retiring they got the crappier end of the stick. Having most peoples retirement tied to the market in a 401k is scary. Being we are having more and more disrupters it seems, housing crashes, pandemics. >

"Nobody wants to work anymore"
"We have a net worth of $117 BILLION and we just cant afford these workers anymore." >

Looks like the Feds interest rate hikes are starting to have the effect they wanted.
With employers now starting to lay people off looks like that recession is on its way. >

This is the first layoff I’ve seen that I haven’t been able to see the reasoning for (e.g., companies over hired during the pandemic). 
Can anyone provide the likely reason? >

Everyone else is laying people off, which gets people speculating about an impending recession. Goldman has no reason to keep extra employees in a downtrending market. >

may be start with a couple dozen Managing Directors and VP's if they want to save a few billion. >

It's more that the war in Ukraine has resulted in a lot less work for the staff. >

"It's really a Putin Layoff!" >

Global banks, including Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and Citigroup Inc (C.N), have reduced their workforces in recent months as a dealmaking boom on Wall Street fizzled out due to high interest rates, tensions between the United States and China, the war between Russia and Ukraine, and soaring inflation.
Global investment banking fees nearly halved in 2022, with $77 billion earned by the banks, down from $132.3 billion one year earlier, Dealogic data showed. >

lol Too big to fail but not too big to lay off thousands.