Exactly. If they just lay people off, that's just cost cutting, and potentially seen as a bad sign. If they're saying they're laying people off because they're replacing them with AI, then they're innovative!
The question is how does the product outlook appear? Most large companies do layoffs constantly to appease investors and nobody blinks twice, why would they care if you made the P&L even better if it doesn't degrade the product in their eyes?
I really think layoffs and stock buybacks within 12 months of each other should be prohibited, if not downright make stock buybacks illegal. Have extra capital? Then pay a dividend.
They aren't replacing people directly though, like an AI can't fill a seat that a person used to. The claim seems to be that individuals are more productive now so less people are needed.
Measuring productivity has been attempted by every big tech co. and has never really had amazing results. So to claim they can lay off 1,000 people because of "AI" means they must have measured some % increase in individual productivity and know they can function with less people.
Or it's just a big excuse to cut low performers and compensate for overhiring.
Exactly. If they just lay people off, that's just cost cutting, and potentially seen as a bad sign. If they're saying they're laying people off because they're replacing them with AI, then they're innovative!
The question is how does the product outlook appear? Most large companies do layoffs constantly to appease investors and nobody blinks twice, why would they care if you made the P&L even better if it doesn't degrade the product in their eyes?
I really think layoffs and stock buybacks within 12 months of each other should be prohibited, if not downright make stock buybacks illegal. Have extra capital? Then pay a dividend.
Would they be allowed to pay a dividend within 12 months of a layoff?
[dead]
They aren't replacing people directly though, like an AI can't fill a seat that a person used to. The claim seems to be that individuals are more productive now so less people are needed.
Measuring productivity has been attempted by every big tech co. and has never really had amazing results. So to claim they can lay off 1,000 people because of "AI" means they must have measured some % increase in individual productivity and know they can function with less people.
Or it's just a big excuse to cut low performers and compensate for overhiring.