Amazon cuts 16k jobs
(reuters.com)702 points by DGAP 4 days ago
702 points by DGAP 4 days ago
Amazon stock is flat over the past year. The rest of the "magnificent seven":
- Google: +70%
- Nvidia: +49% - Apple: +7%
- Meta: Flat
- SHOP (closest comp): +19.41%
- Mercado Libre (international comp): +20.73%
So basically, the "tech world" is dividing itself, in the eyes of investors, into two camps: companies that will benefit from AI tailwinds and companies that will not. And all the money is going to the companies that will.
Amazon is more and more considered to be part of the latter group.
This is especially concerning of Amazon because it seems like AWS--the cash cow--has somehow missed becoming the cloud provider for AI compute needs.
As such, Amazon needs to give investors some reason to hold amazon stock. If you're not part of a rising tide, the only reason left is "we are very profitable."
So yeah, Amazon will have to cut costs to show more profitability and become further investable.
So yes, the layoffs have to do with AI...but not the way they are spinning it.
I am beginning to dislike AI more and more.
Though, I think the title is a bit of a misnomer here. In part the axing of jobs was done to reduce costs; now AI also may relate here or be even a main driver, but I think the title oversimplifies it a bit.
Funny enough, I have an acquaintance who has been job hunting for almost a year. They are expecting an offer from Amazon Corporate later this week or early next week. They are early in their career and will cost less to hire, so it still makes sense I guess.
Some of these are obviously related to the closing of some of the retail businesses. And some might simply be middle management bloat that happens often at tech companies.
But imagine you're one of the people who remain (e.g., not impacted by the eliminated companies or products) and now there are fewer people to do the same amount of work? I've seen that movie and it usually has an economic impact 6-9 months later when people burn out.
It's almost like you can write the script:
Month 0–3: Survivors are relieved, grateful, and over-perform. Leadership reads this as “proof the cuts worked.”
Month 3–6: Context loss shows up. Decision latency increases. Domain knowledge walked out the door.
Month 6–9: Burnout, attrition, and quality failures begin. The “hidden layoffs” start as top performers quietly leave.
Month 9–12: Rehiring or contracting resumes (usually at higher cost)
The key misunderstanding here is assuming AI substitutes for organizational slack and human coordination. It doesn’t.
And sometimes middle management "bloat" is misdiagnosed. Remove them without redesigning decision rights and workflows, and the load doesn’t disappear it redistributes to the IC's.
Watch for Amazon "strategic investments" in early Q4 2026 (this will be a cover for the rehiring).
I haven't detected overproduction after layoff I have seen. It was other way round, people who remained were sad, depressed and demotivated. What happened was general slow down of remaining people + organizational chaos as people did not figured out yet who should fill for missing positions and how.
That is not an answer to the "who is responsible for X now" question. Laid off Bill is not responsible for X now.
Also, it is not useful answer at all, it is an uncooperative answer. Whoever is asking about the responsible person is trying to work. They have legitimate question about who they should contact about X, sending them to someone who does not work there is less then useless.
I have always been saying: don't be optimistic about AI. Software people prepared their end with this optimism without knowing how the economy works. "AI will make our jobs easier, I will have more time with my family," blah blah. Now we will see more news like that in the coming years. I am okay with supporting AI for curing cancer, but I am against supporting AI for disrupting the white-collar economy without a proper government plan.
They called it project dawn which is telling what they have in mind with these layoffs.
But Amazon says there shortage of skilled labor and is the highest user of H1B visas
https://h1bgrader.com/h1b-sponsors/amazon-dot-com-services-l...
My data is a bit incomplete for amazon but here is some analysis on where they seem to be focusing based on job postings:
My hot take is that AI is shaping up to be a tax on big tech.
Yet another round of layoffs being blamed on AI. As with last time, this is not due to productivity gains from AI, rather it's due to wanting to reallocate budget towards investing in AI. (and maybe an excuse for something they already wanted to do)
I think some productivity gains from AI are real, and I've experienced some firsthand, but reductions in force being ENABLED by AI are not, and I don't think we will see much of that for a good while still.
AI is attracting a lot of investment dollars because it's seen as disruptive; the capabilities it potentially unlocks for people are enormous. The problem is that general intelligence is still far away (fundamentally cannot be reached with the current approaches to AI, in my opinion), and the level of investment required is so high that the only way folks are getting that money back is if it does enable a level of layoffs that would be crippling to the economy.
Additionally, there is not a huge difference between the top models, and thanks to the massive investments the models are incrementally improving. It seems obvious from the outside that AI models are going to be a commodity, and good free models put downward pressure on prices, which they are already losing money on. So I think it's going to be a race to the bottom, and is very unlikely to be a winner-takes-all situation.
I think this means that the reward for big tech companies pouring insane amounts of money into AI will be maintaining their current position, or maybe stealing a bit of business from each other. That's why I think AI is more of a tax on big tech than a real investment opportunity.
Looks like they laid off a bunch of bean counters. Raw skills are still in demand
"AGI" at Amazon has been achieved internally and as predicted. [0]
The problem is that Amazon cuts a lot of jobs all the time, then re-hire. This could just be just regular, routine amazon evil, and they are leveraging this to make Wall Street happy
It does have the feel of a tactical crouch and hold position by Amazon. AI / LLM for the masses is still just a bet, and perhaps an overly invested bet
Denial everyone. Amazon will have the same profits running on AI and robots with minimal expenses. All the other companies will follow. Wake up to reality.
They're not outsourcing they're "buying a service from Amazon India"
Another article about this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ywzxlxnlo
> In-office work is now mandatory five-days a week, making Amazon one of the only major tech companies to require its employees to be in the office full-time.
With this kind of employee hostile policies and threat of job cut, how does it manage to be the A of FANG (or as they call it, MANGA)? But apparently people still want to get a job there? The pay is a little less than other companies in the same league. So pay can't be the reason. Or is it? Honestly want to know what it is that make IT people get a job there?
The one phrase I've come to despise is "entrepreneurial risk", especially when it's used to justify exorbitant salaries of the higher ranks. Because, really, that "risk" for the most part is trickled down to the peasants who get laid off at a heartbeat whenever business is bad. They're not people with families and liabilities and lives, they're commodities.
I'd say your risk of losing your livelihood is higher as a simple employee than as a CEO when we're talking about post-startup companies.
This is great news! Hopefully so many people have stopped buying crap from Amazon, that a tipping point is near, and there entire business will fold.
I personally haven't bought anything from Amazon or Ebay in 4 years, and will never again. I only buy local, or I don't buy. Starving the beast one purchase at a time.
From the article it seems like this is mostly corporate side - fulfillment appears to be OK as long as consumers continue consuming... or until Amazon pushes robotics side of fulfillment to its logical conclusion - getting rid of those pesky humans that require toilet breaks and dare to talk about unionization.
Looping water through a closed heat exchanger doesn't consume the water, but using water to evaporatively cool a condenser in an industrial chiller does.
We’ve had crazy covid years where every new grad was making 250k+, and now every 3-6 months we have layoffs which has not surprisingly been paired with blaming it on offshoring, H1b etc. Clearly the current system can’t withstand much of a shock, what’s going to happen if we get a full 2007 style recession, will the blame game go even higher on steroids, some times it feels like it’s quite bad already. I don’t look forward to that.
I think and I know HN commentators are going to hate this, but Thiel was right when he wrote that the current system only works with fast continuous growth. Ideally multiple growing sectors, contributing to the economy. Anything else, and everyone immediately starts fighting for scraps joining their tribal identity or whatnot. The only way out, would be more rapid growth in multiple sectors, not just AI, or a complete breakdown of the existing system which does not leave me hopeful for anything better. I in fact like the existing system quite a bit, but maybe that’s just me.
"Earlier this month, top executives at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting said while jobs would disappear, new ones would spring up, with two of them telling Reuters that AI would be used as an excuse by companies planning to cut jobs anyway."
Why pay people when you can steal from foss projects and use both forms of ai (Actually indians and Artificially Inflated)
amazon is really doing it's things now, i say to stay cautious
you always hear about a stream of layoffs but It doesn't give the full picture. what i'm more interested in is what is their total employee count over time. that represents the net hiring net lay offs, is what counts at the end of the day
Another case of “Corporate Autoscaling”! Don’t need so many worker instances right now? Just return some to the pool.
They’d scale to zero if they could!
Again, I feel like the general comments are missing the forest for the trees by relying on witty quips about AI or retreading (legitimate) outsourcing grievances, instead of actually addressing the root problem on display:
Companies, be they highly profitable global conglomerates like Amazon or smaller Mom and Pop shops, have zero incentive whatsoever to retain staff. None. In fact, they have every incentive to axe as many workers as possible, as often as possible, profit be damned. So long as governments and shareholders reward job cuts with stock price or compensation bumps, this trend will continue.
To simplify: we have built a global society where 99% of people must work to survive but have zero mandates that employers provide jobs with livable wages and benefits. That is, and will remain, the crux of the issue at hand.
I don’t think it’s a controversial idea to impose broad and lenient regulations on companies to prevent this sort of activity. Made a profit last year? No layoffs allowed without a year’s worth of severance and benefits is such an immense deterrent that most employers will find ways to repurpose staff internally rather than fire them for a quick share bump - though with the consequence of slower hiring, as companies don’t want to be burdened with too much unnecessary talent. There are literally hundreds of policy ideas out there that nobody wants to pull because it’d inconvenience Capital, but we’re at a crossroads where we either mandate Capital behave with the barest of minimums of decency and respect for the workforce they mandate exist through Capitalist markets, or we break their arm outright and tax the absolute shit out of them to provide a high quality of life for every worker regardless of present employment.
Right now, they get to keep all the money while outsourcing risks to the workforce, and all that’s done is create shit like this: thousands let go not out of business need, but of business greed.
> Companies, be they highly profitable global conglomerates like Amazon or smaller Mom and Pop shops, have zero incentive whatsoever to retain staff. None. In fact, they have every incentive to axe as many workers as possible, as often as possible, profit be damned.
Every single individual on Earth does not like spending more money than they have to. Just because I hire a crew of landscapers for my house doesn’t mean I will retain them if I think a better offer comes around and can do the same job for half the price.
> I don’t think it’s a controversial idea to impose broad and lenient regulations on companies to prevent this sort of activity.
This is extremely inefficient and opens avenues for corruption, as well as increases costs for policing the corruption.
The far better solution is governments collecting the appropriate taxes and providing the appropriate benefits it deems are necessary for a minimum quality of life. Let businesses do business however they want, let governments provide the public services.
In fact, the US does have that in some form via unemployment insurance payroll taxes and unemployment benefits, but obviously they need to be better and consistent.
I love that you basically retread everything I said, but from a neoliberal or outright libertarian perspective of perpetuating the status quo because of “BuT tHe BuSiNeSs EfFiCiEnCy”.
And by love, I mean “am sick and tired of the same old CorpoSlop Bootlicking”.
Let me show you what I mean. You proudly kneel down and lick the boots of Capital by saying:
> Just because I hire a crew of landscapers for my house doesn’t mean I will retain them if I think a better offer comes around and can do the same job for half the price.
You are deliberately conflating business operations with consumer transactions. I see this happen in exactly two different arguments: someone deliberately trying to mislead the reader into conflating the two in an effort to confuse them into supporting Capital (because the two are not the same thing, and the speaker knows it), or by someone who doesn’t understand market transactions are fundamentally different from business operations. I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’ve not done your reading and therefore are just making a misinformed argument until your very next line:
> This is extremely inefficient and opens avenues for corruption, as well as increases costs for policing the corruption.
Ahh, the old “inefficiency” chestnut, as if the sole goal in life for any organism should be optimal efficiency of capital distribution and business operations as opposed to, I dunno, a higher quality of life for the organism? Then you throw on scare tactics like “corruption” and “policing”, and I can see you’ve already started digesting the first bites of those thick laissez-faire Capitalist wellies with a bit of Randian dressing:
Proving you’re not an idiot, but just a manipulative shyster, is the next paragraph:
> The far better solution is governments collecting the appropriate taxes and providing the appropriate benefits it deems are necessary for a minimum quality of life.
Gee whiz, now where have I heard that before? Oh, right, I literally just wrote it:
> …or we break their arm outright and tax the absolute shit out of them to provide a high quality of life for every worker regardless of present employment.
This is what really grinds my gears about you lot: you storm into the comments, insult others with flowery Randian arguments about the infallibility of business and Capital as if they’re gods, and then parrot back watered-down forms of the arguments of your opponents in an effort to seem smart and/or reasonable. Forgive me if I do not tolerate your naked bullshit in the current era anymore.
> Let businesses do business however they want, let governments provide the public services.
For what it’s worth, this is where you ultimately footgunned your entire argument. You cannot simultaneously “let businesses do business however they want” while also trusting governments to provide public services, and you have centuries of evidence proving this. Letting business operate freely means they will destroy government, while handing total power to governments will destroy business. It has always been a delicate balancing act, and the modest proposals of people like myself is that, y’know, the scale seems so heavily weighted towards business right now that it risks toppling the government. Your entire counter-argument is some form of “this is fine, actually”, which it might be for you at the moment but won’t be forever, and certainly isn’t fine for the majority of your countrymen or working classes.
I am sick and tired of allowing misguided or actively manipulative chuds shout over calls for reasonableness and decency in life and defend themselves with this naive fantasy that if we just let people do what they want, everything will be sunshine and roses.
If you’re that naive, grow up and join reality. If instead you’re that manipulative, fuck off into the sea.
I refuse to entertain otherwise anymore, because the evidence is insurmountably opposed to such a perspective.
What a shithole of a company, why does anyone work there, is it just all H1B slaves there now?
How's the $100K H1B fee that was announced to distract from the Trump Gold Card announcement [0] going? The HN hive mind said it would bring back the jerbs and those of us who warned [1][2] it would incentivize mass layoffs and offshoring were hounded.
Before the layoffs were announced Amazon also committed to expanding hiring and infra expansion in India [3], and depending on the org, affected employees on work visas were offered transfers to India in lieu of being laid off [4].
The Trump admin won't do anything about offshoring either - in fact technology transfers to India are being encouraged by the admin as part of Pax Sillica [5] and GOP leaders in Purple Ag states like Iowa [6] and Montana [7] are lobbying for India after China pivoted away from American soybeans [8] and India began leveraging the China playbook [9].
When forced to choose between swing state farmers and GOP leaning SWEs, it's going to be the farmers who win.
[0] - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-signs-proclamati...
[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-09-25/a-100-...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-r...
[3] - https://www.aboutamazon.in/news/economic-impact/amazon-econo...
[4] - https://www.reddit.com/r/amazonemployees/comments/1qfesvs/6_...
[5] - https://x.com/USAmbIndia/status/2010718052992618815
[6] - https://governor.iowa.gov/press-release/2025-09-07/gov-reyno...
[7] - https://www.daines.senate.gov/2026/01/20/daines-travels-to-i...
[8] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-favour-brazilian-s...
[9] - https://www.cramer.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cramer-dai...
A large portion of employees on immigration visas were offered the ability to keep their job if they transferred to Amazon's India offices assuming a team was co-located there as well.
The Indian government has been encouraging [0] the H1B rule change as well as it helps kick off a reverse brain drain [1] right as India was launching it's own version of the Thousand Talents [2] program.
[0] - https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/us-loss-will-be-indi...
[1] - https://vrfbharat.org/how-will-the-h1-b-visa-restriction-ena...
[2] - https://theprint.in/india/education/reversing-brain-drain-mo...
Does the H1B fee only apply to people not yet in the country? I have a student on a student visa who claims I can do the h1b sponsor without the 100k fee because they are already there with their student visa.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46805081 in re 6 and 7
I thought Bezos paid enough in bribes for it to not affect AWS/Amazon?
Sorry, donated.
> How's the $100K H1B fee that was announced to distract from the Trump Gold Card announcement [0] going? The HN hive mind said it would bring back the jobs and those of us who warned [1][2] it would incentivize offshoring were hounded.
Yep, offshoring needs to be heavily penalized as well.
In regards to fairness, many times these cuts are based what group you are in, rather than performance. You wonder, hypothetically, would the L5s and above all agree to accepting a 20% pay cut in exchange for not having layoffs. It strange that one person keeps the job paying $500K, while the other unlucky one will have trouble getting a new $150K job due to the terrible job market.
I feel like this is the most natural layoff I've seen in twenty years (that is not the same as saying I feel good about it). Truly, most software companies need to cut their entire roster and re-draft quite frankly. You will need less people and have entirely new goals. This is beyond "economic" reality, AI has made it intuitive to restructure and reorient. Not doing so will just mean you will be blind-sided by any company that leaned down and re-envisioned their entire product.
So many products turned into feature mill factories. If things can get more concentrated and directed, then I think this will be better for all in terms of finding their true purpose in life.
> I think this will be better for all in terms of finding their true purpose in life.
I'm sure people losing their good paying jobs and being forced into shitty ones, or not finding replacement employment at all, will be just what they need to find their true purposes in life
This is the way I see it. A lot of people can already be replaced or should be doing entirely different work to boost productivity. It is going to be a battle between people fighting for inertia and those that are looking to be ahead of the curve.
If it wasn't for an ageing society we would probably be seeing things move along faster but people have children to raise and mortgages to pay so we will see more inertia for now.
I'm currently hiring engineering roles in SF for my startup. I am in the middle of closing my $1.5M pre-seed this week so I don't have job descriptions posted yet. But, here's a short pitch:
AI agents are about to orchestrate trillions in commerce, but today they shop on thin data: product specs, studio photos, and text reviews. Agents need evidence, not marketing. Today, the most influential product evidence lives on TikTok and Reels, outside the surfaces brands control and agents can use. Vidably puts verified buyer video directly onto e-commerce product pages through a lightweight widget. We capture that video post-purchase and link it to real purchasing outcomes. Every video is SKU-linked and structured so shopping agents can reason over it. The widget is the wedge, the dataset is the moat.
We're already live with brands and are seeing pull from both brands and creators and I would love for anyone interested to DM me!
Edit: I'm an idiot, HN doesn’t have DMs. Email me at hn at vidably dot com.
Alexa, insert David and Victoria Beckham "be honest" meme