>

Just the worst when you cut jobs right before or after the holidays when people need it the most.
At the same time I would rather these huge corporations cut out unnecessary high paying jobs and pay the people who do real work more.  To name a few DoorDash who pays drivers $2.50 to diver food and Instacart who pays shoppers $7 to shop for and deliver to 3 homes at the same time.
“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. >

If they can cut thousands of jobs without seriously affecting operations then they probably were too big >

The vast amount of job losses in the last few months have been white collar workers especially in the tech sector. The tech sector overbuilt because they didn't expect the retail rebound that took place once people stopped caring about COVID in the U.S. 
The losses in the stock market recently are also highly concentrated in tech stocks. Investment banks which rode high on tech's COVID expansion are now belt tightening too. 
The recent economic problems are interesting because low skilled workers aren't the ones taking the brunt of it like before. >

Tech sector built up because everyone pushed everything into the cloud over the pandemic. Meetings, document storage, hosting, etc. Storage companies like NetApp, Pure, and Nimble, couldn't ship hardware fast enough to meet customer demand. 
But now that it's all up there, firms don't need IT departments to manage/maintain it - the cloud vendor takes care of almost everything. >

The applications still need to be maintained, you can't do one last deploy and call it a year. At the very least, dependencies need to be updated with security patches here and there, but if you're not improving your product you'll become obsolete.
But yeah, you might be able to downsize quite a bit if you're not fighting fires every day. >

We are a number on a spreadsheet >

As someone on an Accounting/Finance team, employees are totally just a number. For the majority of companies, wages are by far the biggest expense. When you want to cut spending you’re gonna first notice the huge Salaries&Wages section taking up 60% of your yearly expenses graph. A lot of budget calculations factor in # of employees or Full-time Equivalents. Wages, benefits, bonuses, 401k contributions, happy hours, company events, travel expenses all cost the company money depending on how many people we have. Hell, my company needs to spend ~$200 per person per year to have an employee card in our accounting software. People cost companies a lot of fucking money to be employed  and they absolutely hate it. >

They actually stopped providing coffee for employees.
Really? Goldman Sachs can't afford plain old drip coffee? Smh. >

More like Goldman Sacks… zing >

So will they have to pay back the taxes they saved as being “job creators” as there’s not as many to trickle down to?🙄🙄🙄🙄 >

Guess Santos got a new job just in time. >

Is that why they keep spamming internship ads? >

When you see all these big lay offs happening you have to wonder what positions are being layed off.  
No doubt the lowest people are getting dumped, those close to aging out and retiring, but is it also the middle management because they're not as needed to babysit office workers? Is it IT staff because of automation streamlining? Is it sales? Marketing? Facilities? Logistics/inventory/shipping? What types of jobs are being cut loose is really important to understand where these companies are reducing workforce so that the rest of us can see what jobs to avoid pursuing or training for.
Also are these jobs being done away with or are they hiring cheaper overseas help, contracted work, or other methods of skirting full time employment benefits and other predatory hiring and management practices?
It's gotta be pretty worrisome for these newly unemployed people when more companies keep dumping their staff which floods the job market based on what positions are being cut. >

In my company it was most of the HR and DEI teams :( >

HR I can understand (and support, fuck HR), but what is DEI? >

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion >

Oh yeah no that can go as well. These fluff positions are why administrative costs are so high and worker wages have less flexibility. >

Here we go, Uber, Lyft, Grubhub and friends are gonna get extra saturated >

A more cynical explanation for this is that there is still very much a tight market for white collar talent and there is inflation putting pressure on salaries.  This is a good way to trim some fat and make everyone else nervous enough not to ask for a raise. >

Corporate america sees the writing on the wall.  Republicans in the house are going to do everything in their power to smash thee economy and all these big corps are trying to get ahead of it. >

I just have one word for these people. Bastards. >

Nothing new here. They've always been bastards, since the beginning of time >

I guess the executive board didn't earn enough to their liking during this recession. >

did you read the article >

Aren't they making good profits? Maybe there's some internal problems we don't see. Should people short their stock? >

This way they can make better profits. >

Just the worst when you cut jobs right before or after the holidays when people need it the most.
At the same time I would rather these huge corporations cut out unnecessary high paying jobs and pay the people who do real work more.  To name a few DoorDash who pays drivers $2.50 to diver food and Instacart who pays shoppers $7 to shop for and deliver to 3 homes at the same time. >

Ahhh....the old "only menial labor is REAL work" opinion.  God forbid we go one post without someone tossing that stupidity out there. >

You say that, but the number of people
I know that make >$250k a year and yet could be easily replaced by a well mannered dog would make your blood boil.  Like I’m talking people who literally do nothing, these are directors and Vice Presidents that solely attend meetings, and then have their executive assistants just regurgitate what the meeting was about. 
Like their assistants could just take over their job since they’re the ones already doing all the work.  And the only reason they even have the job in the first place is because of who their friends or family are, who they golf with, literally just straight nepotism.
Companies could easily lay them off, but they argue that “it wouldn’t save a noticeable amount of money”. And corporate heirarchy basically dictates that they need to exist, cause you know, they have 5-10 directors emailing them monthly reports, which their assistant then consolidates into a report that’s sent to their SVP.
I always find it hilarious because theirs always staff reductions of 5-10% but never executive reductions, even though you could easily get rid of 50% of the leadership in most companies and nobody would notice. >


You say that, but the number of people I know that make >$250k a year and yet could be easily replaced by a well mannered dog would make your blood boil.

I am a teacher. Many people say the same thing about my job. 
Even if my job is easier than shoveling coal, I still have a ton of responsibilities and had to do a ton of things to even be qualified for it. I had to go through years of education and I don't get to do a lot of things that I want to do because I am a public worker. People don't see that side of my career though.
My point? Every career has its own system of meritocracy. The people who you think just got their position through nepotism probably had to put up with other stuff and do more than you think but they just don't talk about it. And even if their position was given to the through "who they know", networking is still a skill in and of itself. I am involved in several professional networks on my off time. I could be watching T.V. at home but I instead go to professional events and do off hours work. There is probably a lot more going on at your job than you realize. >

People who say that about teachers are just idiots.  Because even if you’re one of the dumbasses that thinks teachers are “glorified babysitters” even a babysitter is actually doing something and providing a service.  And that ignores the actual teaching part, which is hard, I wouldn’t want to be a teacher.
But to clarify, I’m not just talking about people that do high level stuff like overall business strategy, budget approvals, policy, vendor relations, or any of the other niche stuff that executives do. My partner is a Senior VP of a multibillion dollar company, I know how busy and stressful those jobs can be, hell most times when she’s working late she will be working on the couch beside me while I’m doing something else because she bounces ideas of me and asks me for advice or opinions on things.  Hell I could probably make 100k a year if I billed her, lmao.
But those aren’t the people I’m talking about, I’m talking about the people who get to the office, go for coffee, go to their morning meeting, go to their afternoon meeting, leave for drinks.  And during those meetings they don’t contribute or anything, they just get their assistant to make notes and email it out to their teams.  The most work they do in a year is approving year end bonuses.   Even my partner complains about them, because she could just eliminate their position and have the directors report directly to her.  Because 99% of the time when she reaches out to them, they just pass it off to their directors.
So many of these positions are simply a hold over of a time before email, when they were actually needed to relay information between the executives and management.  Now they essentially serve no purpose other than a stop for accountability. (Like actually “please” from how I met your mother.)
So while technology has made it so workers can get more and more done, all it’s done is made these peoples jobs easier and easier. And unlike the rest of us, they haven’t taken on any additional workload.  And I wish I could say it’s just a handful of people, but at nearly every company I’ve worked with, at least half of their executive staff did maybe 100 hours of what the average office worker would consider work in a year. >

Honestly, hopefully all such people are replaced with AI real soon. The grifters in financial services are for the most part, dinosaurs.
Remember folks, the age of jobs is coming to a close. If artists are obsolete, we can certainly afford to lose financial services bloat, and lawyers, & all the others that build systems to force us to use them and enrich themselves well above average people & their essential jobs. >

I used to work for a large 3letter company that specializes in office automation.
You sir, ain't kidding....  Legal, compliance, inventory, supply-chain management, billing, accounts-whatever, development of new app; it's automate-able as well as all the meta-analysis of same to make it better over time.  Anything we can do, can write down in discreet steps, anything, can be transferred to a computer/bot and automated.
Humans Need Not Apply >

My first tech job back in 99 was as an intern for my county IT department. They called it ISDOA. Information Services Division, Office Automation. >

That's what a computer is: an automaton.  It's also a bot, etc; it's all the same 'thing': it does what you tell it to do.  And if we can tell any fleshy-idiot to do a thing, we can certainly tell a machine to.
The funny enough thing about all this is guys like Larry Niven, Asimov, and other types all saw the end of this, all of what we are seeing now was something they knew was to be, but they were limited by the technology of their time.
Once we learned to automate computation, we stepped on a moving sidewalk.  Eventually it will be one computer, i mean it almost-already is, but one, and we'll eventually automate it to do anything and everything we want it to.
I mean, it's ALWAYS Landru.  Leave the apes alone and they ALWAYS get Landru... >

Exactly the story I was thinking of.  :D >

I think Gibson got it closer then Asimov unfortunately :(. >

Let the sociopaths feel it for a change >

Recession is here boys >

The excuse of recession is here boys. Just like the excuse of inflation, to up pricing and have record profits posted. >

It’s funny these businesses and MNCs all made record profits and yet here we are. >

"telephone sanitizers, hairdressers, jingle writers, accountants, etc" - Douglas Adams. >

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.) >

“Goldman Sachs is going to sack people this week” >

"Goldman Sacks Thousands" >


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. >

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. >

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. >

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

If they can cut thousands of jobs without seriously affecting operations then they probably were too big >

The vast amount of job losses in the last few months have been white collar workers especially in the tech sector. The tech sector overbuilt because they didn't expect the retail rebound that took place once people stopped caring about COVID in the U.S. 
The losses in the stock market recently are also highly concentrated in tech stocks. Investment banks which rode high on tech's COVID expansion are now belt tightening too. 
The recent economic problems are interesting because low skilled workers aren't the ones taking the brunt of it like before. >

Tech sector built up because everyone pushed everything into the cloud over the pandemic. Meetings, document storage, hosting, etc. Storage companies like NetApp, Pure, and Nimble, couldn't ship hardware fast enough to meet customer demand. 
But now that it's all up there, firms don't need IT departments to manage/maintain it - the cloud vendor takes care of almost everything. >

The applications still need to be maintained, you can't do one last deploy and call it a year. At the very least, dependencies need to be updated with security patches here and there, but if you're not improving your product you'll become obsolete.
But yeah, you might be able to downsize quite a bit if you're not fighting fires every day. >

We are a number on a spreadsheet >

As someone on an Accounting/Finance team, employees are totally just a number. For the majority of companies, wages are by far the biggest expense. When you want to cut spending you’re gonna first notice the huge Salaries&Wages section taking up 60% of your yearly expenses graph. A lot of budget calculations factor in # of employees or Full-time Equivalents. Wages, benefits, bonuses, 401k contributions, happy hours, company events, travel expenses all cost the company money depending on how many people we have. Hell, my company needs to spend ~$200 per person per year to have an employee card in our accounting software. People cost companies a lot of fucking money to be employed  and they absolutely hate it. >

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

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. >

More like Goldman Sacks… zing >

They actually stopped providing coffee for employees.
Really? Goldman Sachs can't afford plain old drip coffee? Smh. >

Coffee is for closers. >

Guess Santos got a new job just in time. >

Is that why they keep spamming internship ads? >

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

When you see all these big lay offs happening you have to wonder what positions are being layed off.  
No doubt the lowest people are getting dumped, those close to aging out and retiring, but is it also the middle management because they're not as needed to babysit office workers? Is it IT staff because of automation streamlining? Is it sales? Marketing? Facilities? Logistics/inventory/shipping? What types of jobs are being cut loose is really important to understand where these companies are reducing workforce so that the rest of us can see what jobs to avoid pursuing or training for.
Also are these jobs being done away with or are they hiring cheaper overseas help, contracted work, or other methods of skirting full time employment benefits and other predatory hiring and management practices?
It's gotta be pretty worrisome for these newly unemployed people when more companies keep dumping their staff which floods the job market based on what positions are being cut. >

In my company it was most of the HR and DEI teams :( >

HR I can understand (and support, fuck HR), but what is DEI? >

Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion >

A more cynical explanation for this is that there is still very much a tight market for white collar talent and there is inflation putting pressure on salaries.  This is a good way to trim some fat and make everyone else nervous enough not to ask for a raise. >

Here we go, Uber, Lyft, Grubhub and friends are gonna get extra saturated >

David Solomon is the one who should be sacked! >

I just have one word for these people. Bastards. >

Nothing new here. They've always been bastards, since the beginning of time >

I guess the executive board didn't earn enough to their liking during this recession. >

did you read the article >

Recession is here boys >

The excuse of recession is here boys. Just like the excuse of inflation, to up pricing and have record profits posted. >

So will they have to pay back the taxes they saved as being “job creators” as there’s not as many to trickle down to?🙄🙄🙄🙄 >

Corporate america sees the writing on the wall.  Republicans in the house are going to do everything in their power to smash thee economy and all these big corps are trying to get ahead of it. >

Aren't they making good profits? Maybe there's some internal problems we don't see. Should people short their stock? >

This way they can make better profits. >

Just the worst when you cut jobs right before or after the holidays when people need it the most.
At the same time I would rather these huge corporations cut out unnecessary high paying jobs and pay the people who do real work more.  To name a few DoorDash who pays drivers $2.50 to diver food and Instacart who pays shoppers $7 to shop for and deliver to 3 homes at the same time. >

Ahhh....the old "only menial labor is REAL work" opinion.  God forbid we go one post without someone tossing that stupidity out there. >

You say that, but the number of people
I know that make >$250k a year and yet could be easily replaced by a well mannered dog would make your blood boil.  Like I’m talking people who literally do nothing, these are directors and Vice Presidents that solely attend meetings, and then have their executive assistants just regurgitate what the meeting was about. 
Like their assistants could just take over their job since they’re the ones already doing all the work.  And the only reason they even have the job in the first place is because of who their friends or family are, who they golf with, literally just straight nepotism.
Companies could easily lay them off, but they argue that “it wouldn’t save a noticeable amount of money”. And corporate heirarchy basically dictates that they need to exist, cause you know, they have 5-10 directors emailing them monthly reports, which their assistant then consolidates into a report that’s sent to their SVP.
I always find it hilarious because theirs always staff reductions of 5-10% but never executive reductions, even though you could easily get rid of 50% of the leadership in most companies and nobody would notice. >


You say that, but the number of people I know that make >$250k a year and yet could be easily replaced by a well mannered dog would make your blood boil.

I am a teacher. Many people say the same thing about my job. 
Even if my job is easier than shoveling coal, I still have a ton of responsibilities and had to do a ton of things to even be qualified for it. I had to go through years of education and I don't get to do a lot of things that I want to do because I am a public worker. People don't see that side of my career though.
My point? Every career has its own system of meritocracy. The people who you think just got their position through nepotism probably had to put up with other stuff and do more than you think but they just don't talk about it. And even if their position was given to the through "who they know", networking is still a skill in and of itself. I am involved in several professional networks on my off time. I could be watching T.V. at home but I instead go to professional events and do off hours work. There is probably a lot more going on at your job than you realize. >


oil.  Like I’m talking people who literally do nothing, these are directors and Vice Presidents that solely attend meetings, and then have their executive assistants just regurgitate what the meeting was about.  
Like their assistants could just take over their job since they’re the o

Some of this is true. But in my own experience the more  i make the less I have actually worked. Sometimes its a lot of work to get to the top pretty chill after. >

Let the sociopaths feel it for a change >

It’s funny these businesses and MNCs all made record profits and yet here we are. >

Honestly, hopefully all such people are replaced with AI real soon. The grifters in financial services are for the most part, dinosaurs.
Remember folks, the age of jobs is coming to a close. If artists are obsolete, we can certainly afford to lose financial services bloat, and lawyers, & all the others that build systems to force us to use them and enrich themselves well above average people & their essential jobs. >

I used to work for a large 3letter company that specializes in office automation.
You sir, ain't kidding....  Legal, compliance, inventory, supply-chain management, billing, accounts-whatever, development of new app; it's automate-able as well as all the meta-analysis of same to make it better over time.  Anything we can do, can write down in discreet steps, anything, can be transferred to a computer/bot and automated.
Humans Need Not Apply >

My first tech job back in 99 was as an intern for my county IT department. They called it ISDOA. Information Services Division, Office Automation. >

That's what a computer is: an automaton.  It's also a bot, etc; it's all the same 'thing': it does what you tell it to do.  And if we can tell any fleshy-idiot to do a thing, we can certainly tell a machine to.
The funny enough thing about all this is guys like Larry Niven, Asimov, and other types all saw the end of this, all of what we are seeing now was something they knew was to be, but they were limited by the technology of their time.
Once we learned to automate computation, we stepped on a moving sidewalk.  Eventually it will be one computer, i mean it almost-already is, but one, and we'll eventually automate it to do anything and everything we want it to.
I mean, it's ALWAYS Landru.  Leave the apes alone and they ALWAYS get Landru... >

Exactly the story I was thinking of.  :D >

I think Gibson got it closer then Asimov unfortunately :(. >

"telephone sanitizers, hairdressers, jingle writers, accountants, etc" - Douglas Adams. >

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.) >

“Goldman Sachs is going to sack people this week” >

"Goldman Sacks Thousands" >


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. >

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. >

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. >

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

If they can cut thousands of jobs without seriously affecting operations then they probably were too big >

The vast amount of job losses in the last few months have been white collar workers especially in the tech sector. The tech sector overbuilt because they didn't expect the retail rebound that took place once people stopped caring about COVID in the U.S. 
The losses in the stock market recently are also highly concentrated in tech stocks. Investment banks which rode high on tech's COVID expansion are now belt tightening too. 
The recent economic problems are interesting because low skilled workers aren't the ones taking the brunt of it like before. >

Tech sector built up because everyone pushed everything into the cloud over the pandemic. Meetings, document storage, hosting, etc. Storage companies like NetApp, Pure, and Nimble, couldn't ship hardware fast enough to meet customer demand. 
But now that it's all up there, firms don't need IT departments to manage/maintain it - the cloud vendor takes care of almost everything. >

The applications still need to be maintained, you can't do one last deploy and call it a year. At the very least, dependencies need to be updated with security patches here and there, but if you're not improving your product you'll become obsolete.
But yeah, you might be able to downsize quite a bit if you're not fighting fires every day. >

We are a number on a spreadsheet >

As someone on an Accounting/Finance team, employees are totally just a number. For the majority of companies, wages are by far the biggest expense. When you want to cut spending you’re gonna first notice the huge Salaries&Wages section taking up 60% of your yearly expenses graph. A lot of budget calculations factor in # of employees or Full-time Equivalents. Wages, benefits, bonuses, 401k contributions, happy hours, company events, travel expenses all cost the company money depending on how many people we have. Hell, my company needs to spend ~$200 per person per year to have an employee card in our accounting software. People cost companies a lot of fucking money to be employed  and they absolutely hate it. >

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

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. >

More like Goldman Sacks… zing >

They actually stopped providing coffee for employees.
Really? Goldman Sachs can't afford plain old drip coffee? Smh. >

Coffee is for closers. >

Guess Santos got a new job just in time. >

Is that why they keep spamming internship ads? >

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

When you see all these big lay offs happening you have to wonder what positions are being layed off.  
No doubt the lowest people are getting dumped, those close to aging out and retiring, but is it also the middle management because they're not as needed to babysit office workers? Is it IT staff because of automation streamlining? Is it sales? Marketing? Facilities? Logistics/inventory/shipping? What types of jobs are being cut loose is really important to understand where these companies are reducing workforce so that the rest of us can see what jobs to avoid pursuing or training for.
Also are these jobs being done away with or are they hiring cheaper overseas help, contracted work, or other methods of skirting full time employment benefits and other predatory hiring and management practices?
It's gotta be pretty worrisome for these newly unemployed people when more companies keep dumping their staff which floods the job market based on what positions are being cut. >

In my company it was most of the HR and DEI teams :( >

HR I can understand (and support, fuck HR), but what is DEI? >

Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion >

A more cynical explanation for this is that there is still very much a tight market for white collar talent and there is inflation putting pressure on salaries.  This is a good way to trim some fat and make everyone else nervous enough not to ask for a raise. >

Here we go, Uber, Lyft, Grubhub and friends are gonna get extra saturated >

David Solomon is the one who should be sacked! >

I just have one word for these people. Bastards. >

Nothing new here. They've always been bastards, since the beginning of time >

I guess the executive board didn't earn enough to their liking during this recession. >

did you read the article >

Recession is here boys >

The excuse of recession is here boys. Just like the excuse of inflation, to up pricing and have record profits posted. >

So will they have to pay back the taxes they saved as being “job creators” as there’s not as many to trickle down to?🙄🙄🙄🙄 >

Corporate america sees the writing on the wall.  Republicans in the house are going to do everything in their power to smash thee economy and all these big corps are trying to get ahead of it. >

Aren't they making good profits? Maybe there's some internal problems we don't see. Should people short their stock? >

This way they can make better profits. >

Just the worst when you cut jobs right before or after the holidays when people need it the most.
At the same time I would rather these huge corporations cut out unnecessary high paying jobs and pay the people who do real work more.  To name a few DoorDash who pays drivers $2.50 to diver food and Instacart who pays shoppers $7 to shop for and deliver to 3 homes at the same time. >

Ahhh....the old "only menial labor is REAL work" opinion.  God forbid we go one post without someone tossing that stupidity out there. >

You say that, but the number of people
I know that make >$250k a year and yet could be easily replaced by a well mannered dog would make your blood boil.  Like I’m talking people who literally do nothing, these are directors and Vice Presidents that solely attend meetings, and then have their executive assistants just regurgitate what the meeting was about. 
Like their assistants could just take over their job since they’re the ones already doing all the work.  And the only reason they even have the job in the first place is because of who their friends or family are, who they golf with, literally just straight nepotism.
Companies could easily lay them off, but they argue that “it wouldn’t save a noticeable amount of money”. And corporate heirarchy basically dictates that they need to exist, cause you know, they have 5-10 directors emailing them monthly reports, which their assistant then consolidates into a report that’s sent to their SVP.
I always find it hilarious because theirs always staff reductions of 5-10% but never executive reductions, even though you could easily get rid of 50% of the leadership in most companies and nobody would notice. >


You say that, but the number of people I know that make >$250k a year and yet could be easily replaced by a well mannered dog would make your blood boil.

I am a teacher. Many people say the same thing about my job. 
Even if my job is easier than shoveling coal, I still have a ton of responsibilities and had to do a ton of things to even be qualified for it. I had to go through years of education and I don't get to do a lot of things that I want to do because I am a public worker. People don't see that side of my career though.
My point? Every career has its own system of meritocracy. The people who you think just got their position through nepotism probably had to put up with other stuff and do more than you think but they just don't talk about it. And even if their position was given to the through "who they know", networking is still a skill in and of itself. I am involved in several professional networks on my off time. I could be watching T.V. at home but I instead go to professional events and do off hours work. There is probably a lot more going on at your job than you realize. >


oil.  Like I’m talking people who literally do nothing, these are directors and Vice Presidents that solely attend meetings, and then have their executive assistants just regurgitate what the meeting was about.  
Like their assistants could just take over their job since they’re the o

Some of this is true. But in my own experience the more  i make the less I have actually worked. Sometimes its a lot of work to get to the top pretty chill after. >

Let the sociopaths feel it for a change >

It’s funny these businesses and MNCs all made record profits and yet here we are. >

Honestly, hopefully all such people are replaced with AI real soon. The grifters in financial services are for the most part, dinosaurs.
Remember folks, the age of jobs is coming to a close. If artists are obsolete, we can certainly afford to lose financial services bloat, and lawyers, & all the others that build systems to force us to use them and enrich themselves well above average people & their essential jobs. >

I used to work for a large 3letter company that specializes in office automation.
You sir, ain't kidding....  Legal, compliance, inventory, supply-chain management, billing, accounts-whatever, development of new app; it's automate-able as well as all the meta-analysis of same to make it better over time.  Anything we can do, can write down in discreet steps, anything, can be transferred to a computer/bot and automated.
Humans Need Not Apply >

My first tech job back in 99 was as an intern for my county IT department. They called it ISDOA. Information Services Division, Office Automation. >

That's what a computer is: an automaton.  It's also a bot, etc; it's all the same 'thing': it does what you tell it to do.  And if we can tell any fleshy-idiot to do a thing, we can certainly tell a machine to.
The funny enough thing about all this is guys like Larry Niven, Asimov, and other types all saw the end of this, all of what we are seeing now was something they knew was to be, but they were limited by the technology of their time.
Once we learned to automate computation, we stepped on a moving sidewalk.  Eventually it will be one computer, i mean it almost-already is, but one, and we'll eventually automate it to do anything and everything we want it to.
I mean, it's ALWAYS Landru.  Leave the apes alone and they ALWAYS get Landru... >

Exactly the story I was thinking of.  :D >

I think Gibson got it closer then Asimov unfortunately :(. >

"telephone sanitizers, hairdressers, jingle writers, accountants, etc" - Douglas Adams. >

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.) >

“Goldman Sachs is going to sack people this week” >

"Goldman Sacks Thousands" >


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. >

You would think so, but we're talking Goldman Sachs here. >

It's standard operating procedure in investment banking. They run a certain amount of lay offs every year, we know how they go. >

They just stopped providing drip coffee...
No more free coffee and layoff warnings—Goldman Sachs workers experience a rude awakening
It wouldn't surprise me if they yanked the bonus's anyway. >

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. >

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. >

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

If they can cut thousands of jobs without seriously affecting operations then they probably were too big >

The vast amount of job losses in the last few months have been white collar workers especially in the tech sector. The tech sector overbuilt because they didn't expect the retail rebound that took place once people stopped caring about COVID in the U.S. 
The losses in the stock market recently are also highly concentrated in tech stocks. Investment banks which rode high on tech's COVID expansion are now belt tightening too. 
The recent economic problems are interesting because low skilled workers aren't the ones taking the brunt of it like before. >

Tech sector built up because everyone pushed everything into the cloud over the pandemic. Meetings, document storage, hosting, etc. Storage companies like NetApp, Pure, and Nimble, couldn't ship hardware fast enough to meet customer demand. 
But now that it's all up there, firms don't need IT departments to manage/maintain it - the cloud vendor takes care of almost everything. >

The applications still need to be maintained, you can't do one last deploy and call it a year. At the very least, dependencies need to be updated with security patches here and there, but if you're not improving your product you'll become obsolete.
But yeah, you might be able to downsize quite a bit if you're not fighting fires every day. >

We are a number on a spreadsheet >

As someone on an Accounting/Finance team, employees are totally just a number. For the majority of companies, wages are by far the biggest expense. When you want to cut spending you’re gonna first notice the huge Salaries&Wages section taking up 60% of your yearly expenses graph. A lot of budget calculations factor in # of employees or Full-time Equivalents. Wages, benefits, bonuses, 401k contributions, happy hours, company events, travel expenses all cost the company money depending on how many people we have. Hell, my company needs to spend ~$200 per person per year to have an employee card in our accounting software. People cost companies a lot of fucking money to be employed  and they absolutely hate it. >

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

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. >

More like Goldman Sacks… zing >

They actually stopped providing coffee for employees.
Really? Goldman Sachs can't afford plain old drip coffee? Smh. >

Coffee is for closers. >

Guess Santos got a new job just in time. >

Is that why they keep spamming internship ads? >

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

When you see all these big lay offs happening you have to wonder what positions are being layed off.  
No doubt the lowest people are getting dumped, those close to aging out and retiring, but is it also the middle management because they're not as needed to babysit office workers? Is it IT staff because of automation streamlining? Is it sales? Marketing? Facilities? Logistics/inventory/shipping? What types of jobs are being cut loose is really important to understand where these companies are reducing workforce so that the rest of us can see what jobs to avoid pursuing or training for.
Also are these jobs being done away with or are they hiring cheaper overseas help, contracted work, or other methods of skirting full time employment benefits and other predatory hiring and management practices?
It's gotta be pretty worrisome for these newly unemployed people when more companies keep dumping their staff which floods the job market based on what positions are being cut. >

In my company it was most of the HR and DEI teams :( >

HR I can understand (and support, fuck HR), but what is DEI? >

Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion >

A more cynical explanation for this is that there is still very much a tight market for white collar talent and there is inflation putting pressure on salaries.  This is a good way to trim some fat and make everyone else nervous enough not to ask for a raise. >

Here we go, Uber, Lyft, Grubhub and friends are gonna get extra saturated >

David Solomon is the one who should be sacked! >

I just have one word for these people. Bastards. >

Nothing new here. They've always been bastards, since the beginning of time >

I guess the executive board didn't earn enough to their liking during this recession. >

did you read the article >

Recession is here boys >

The excuse of recession is here boys. Just like the excuse of inflation, to up pricing and have record profits posted. >

So will they have to pay back the taxes they saved as being “job creators” as there’s not as many to trickle down to?🙄🙄🙄🙄 >

Corporate america sees the writing on the wall.  Republicans in the house are going to do everything in their power to smash thee economy and all these big corps are trying to get ahead of it. >

Aren't they making good profits? Maybe there's some internal problems we don't see. Should people short their stock? >

This way they can make better profits.