. . . “Unlike traditional layoffs, this one was done in secret,” the insider said. “My manager told me that they were required to sign an NDA not to talk about the specifics.” . . .
IBM’s first-quarter 2024 earnings report said that the mainframe goliath took a $400 million “workforce rebalancing” charge to cover the cost of planned layoffs. That’s after a $300 million “workforce rebalancing” charge in 2023. At the beginning of 2023, IBM announced plans to cut 3,900 jobs. . . .
The huge layoff round that Cisco Systems announced in August is slamming a few Bay Area offices . . .
When the San Jose tech giant first shared news of the cuts, alongside its $10.3 billion yearly profit, the company said it’d be slashing 7% of its huge workforce. Per the Sept. 13 WARN filings, which are generally required in the event of mass layoffs, more than 840 of the layoffs are planned for the Bay Area. . . .
One way of looking at things is that,
whether it is rent control, or wealth redistribution or (in this case) attempts to create tech jobs, in the end supply-and-demand win out and equilibrium returns,
It appears that:
No matter how many $200b spending bills Congress passes,
no matter how much money Washington decides to throw at political donors in the tech industry,
at current education levels were are just not gonna get more than 17-18% of the labor force working in the tech sector.
Should it be more? Would that be a good thing?
Hmm yeah. probably. But our current approach does not seem to be working.
Should all miners (and truckers, and construction workers etc) be taxed to create more tech jobs?
Evidence shows when the gov’t pours tax-payer dollars into a mature industry the “new jobs” won’t last anyway.
