These aren't "job losses", these are "firings". They aren't unfortunate accidents of external origin that happened to them, they are conscious internal decisions to let people go.
While both terms mean someone no longer has a job, they differ in cause and implication.
Firing is when employer terminates someone for cause, i.e. employee did something wrong or didn't meet expectations. Job loss is a broader term, simply means the person no longer has a job, for any reason, but typically layoffs, downsizing, restructuring, plant closure, or being fired.
So I'm not really upset about saying job losses in this case rather than firing, because the employees who lost their jobs didn't do anything wrong and I think it is useful to be able to distinguish.
The phrase that DOES irk me is "let go" vs. "fire". Now that is a weasel phrasing.
I was just thinking the same, this is quite the weasel wording. Not only the “losses” but the passive voice. As if Amazon is a person who walked to work one day and realise it has a hole in its pocket from which thousands of jobs fell off. “Oh well, these things happen, not my fault and nothing I can do about it”, Amazon says as it shrugs its shoulders and whistles down the factory floor with a skip in its step.
> These aren't "job losses", these are "firings". They aren't unfortunate accidents of external origin that happened to them, they are conscious internal decisions to let people go.
This. They also make it their point to send the message this particlar firing round is completely arbitrary and based on a vague hope that they somehow can automate their way out of the expected productivity hit, and that they enforce this cut in spite of stronger sales.
"Letting go" belongs in the same HR phrasebook. They didn't ask permission to quit and the company were so generous to let them, the initiative was from the other side.
There is so much stupidity to unpack here. They say they need to use the opportunity provided by AI. However, what kind of opportunity is that requiring them to fire people in order to use it? Is AI making them more efficient or less efficient? If it's making more efficient, why they need to lay off all these people who are getting more efficient? So that other companies will pick up the workers they spend so much time to train on their systems, and replicate the same technologies elsewhere?
I think these companies have lost all their brains and there is a stupid AI system making bad decisions for them. I also fully expect these companies to lose their shirt to smarter companies in the next few years and decades.
Companies have no incentive to employ as many people as possible. Really it’s the opposite, make as much money as possible, while paying as few employees as possible.
Al won’t just effect change at Amazon, Jassy said. AI "will change how we all work and live," including "billions" of AI agents “across every company and in every imaginable field." However, much of this remains speculative.
"Many of these agents have yet to be built, but make no mistake, they’re coming, and coming fast," Jassy said.
To be clear, it’s worse. Read the press release carefully:
1. 14k was the net change in “corporate headcount” which is PR puffery speak saying they’re firing a lot more but when you net out folks let go slotting into open roles elsewhere the net change today would be a 14k reduction
2. It also says that “looking ahead” “we expect to… find additional places we can remove layers, increase ownership, and realize efficiency gains.” That’s PR puffery speak for “there will be more layoffs coming soon.”
Amazon has really struggled under Andy Jassy’s tenure as CEO. Innovation has slowed, and there were huge misses on areas like AI.
What’s happening today also isn’t the result of “pandemic overhiring” or “AI efficiencies” but the cleanup of big messes that developed on the watch of present leadership. Andy Jassy preaches about company culture and efficiency but the culture went to crap and the company became bloated on his watch so…
Amazon likely needs new leadership to get it past the Andy Jassy chapter and move to a new phase of innovation and growth. It basically needs to replace its present Balmer with a Satya.
Second, Amazon had a problem before Andy took over. Way too many managers and incompetent people in very senior levels. The fact that he's doing something about it is a good thing for Amazon. You don't become a CEO of a behemoth such as Amazon and expect to show impact within 6 months. It takes years.
In terms of AI, they did invest in Anthropic early on and are a significant stakeholder. That's critical since Anthropic is a trillion dollar company in the making and they trump everyone in enterprise AI. They are much more likely to succeed with smart partnerships than doing their own thing.
>What’s happening today also isn’t the result of “pandemic overhiring” or “AI efficiencies” but the cleanup of big messes that developed on the watch of present leadership.
It's the result of economic headwinds and companies switching to maintenance mode. Except whever they can sell "AI" in their initiative. And of course, add in a healthy dose of outsourcing under the hood.
Once a company moves on to recurring, large-scale layoffs justified by vague corporate Mumbo-Jumbo, I think it is safe to assume it is a "day 2" company.
The original shareholder letter said the company wouldn’t pander to Wall Street or focus on short term improvements. It’s now slashing jobs a few days before earnings to try and placate Wall Street since it can’t grow via innovation. That’s all the proof you need to see that Amazon is now in full “Day 2” mode.
> we want to operate like the world’s largest startup
This is a phrase I hear repeated by leadership a lot, and it's usually code for "why doesn't everyone else just make the business grow faster?" It is almost always, as in this case, followed by statements that suggest they don't understand what is actually different about the way a start up functions and why they stopped operating that way at some point in the first place.
Sounds like some marketer got tasked into trying to convince a group of people that the company is looking at aggressive growth and unrealized markets for as long as they are willing to entertain that delusion.
I worked at AOL back when they did quarterly "staff reductions". They would go and hire lots of them right back; it was an accounting trick. Never mind the fact that families were affected and employees were constantly stressed near the end of every quarter. Those things don't matter, quarterly numbers do when growth has stalled.
From the article, Amazon has 1.5 million employees across offices and warehouses. With about 350,000 corporate employees in executive, managerial and sales.
So that’s about 4% of the non-warehouse staff. What’s their normal staff turnover rate per year?
I wonder if it’s another staff reduction (cos we over hired and want to remove people who didn’t impress) under the cover of improving business productivity using AI
Hat tip to raziel2p who was going down the same in thier comment
> The company has more than 1.5 million employees across its warehouses and offices worldwide.
> This includes around 350,000 corporate workers, which include those in executive, managerial and sales roles, according to figures that Amazon submitted to the US government last year.
So roughly 4% of jobs in Amazon's corporate division disappeared. Not to downplay that the world/economy is in a bad state, but I don't think this is very catastrophic.
Numbers are all in the black and up year over year and compared to previous quarter.
Double digit revenue growth in both retail and AWS.
Often I wonder whether corporate leaders took any kind of logic class in college or if they just have a fetish for harming people for no reason. Either that or whatever business school they went to believes that poor customer service and bad products increase revenue.
The unemployment rate in the US is climbing. If you look at a 5-year curve, it looks like nothing. But if you look at a 3-year window it's devastating. Seeing the highs of 2003 and 2009 it seems likely that it will continue to climb.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
Apparently they let go some (or all?) of the AGS (amazon game studios) and putting New World (mmorpg game) on maintenance mode. This game currently has around 30-40k concurrent players on steam and probably as much or more on consoles. I feel bad for people got fired and gamers (myself included). I really like that game
[+] [-] phoe-krk|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] andsoitis|4 months ago|reply
While both terms mean someone no longer has a job, they differ in cause and implication.
Firing is when employer terminates someone for cause, i.e. employee did something wrong or didn't meet expectations. Job loss is a broader term, simply means the person no longer has a job, for any reason, but typically layoffs, downsizing, restructuring, plant closure, or being fired.
So I'm not really upset about saying job losses in this case rather than firing, because the employees who lost their jobs didn't do anything wrong and I think it is useful to be able to distinguish.
The phrase that DOES irk me is "let go" vs. "fire". Now that is a weasel phrasing.
[+] [-] latexr|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymous_sorry|4 months ago|reply
Jobs are "created" by a company or an industry.
But they never seem to be "destroyed", instead they are "lost".
If the company starts hiring again, they're "creating" new jobs, not "finding" the ones they were careless enough to lose.
[+] [-] chadash|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] motorest|4 months ago|reply
This. They also make it their point to send the message this particlar firing round is completely arbitrary and based on a vague hope that they somehow can automate their way out of the expected productivity hit, and that they enforce this cut in spite of stronger sales.
[+] [-] lexszero_|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] coliveira|4 months ago|reply
I think these companies have lost all their brains and there is a stupid AI system making bad decisions for them. I also fully expect these companies to lose their shirt to smarter companies in the next few years and decades.
[+] [-] otikik|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] reassess_blind|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] maxehmookau|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] heresie-dabord|4 months ago|reply
---
Al won’t just effect change at Amazon, Jassy said. AI "will change how we all work and live," including "billions" of AI agents “across every company and in every imaginable field." However, much of this remains speculative.
"Many of these agents have yet to be built, but make no mistake, they’re coming, and coming fast," Jassy said.
---
[1] _ https://lite.cnn.com/2025/10/28/business/amazon-layoffs
[+] [-] gniv|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] jalapenos|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] seydor|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|4 months ago|reply
Or, as you said, firings.
[+] [-] JCM9|4 months ago|reply
1. 14k was the net change in “corporate headcount” which is PR puffery speak saying they’re firing a lot more but when you net out folks let go slotting into open roles elsewhere the net change today would be a 14k reduction
2. It also says that “looking ahead” “we expect to… find additional places we can remove layers, increase ownership, and realize efficiency gains.” That’s PR puffery speak for “there will be more layoffs coming soon.”
Amazon has really struggled under Andy Jassy’s tenure as CEO. Innovation has slowed, and there were huge misses on areas like AI.
What’s happening today also isn’t the result of “pandemic overhiring” or “AI efficiencies” but the cleanup of big messes that developed on the watch of present leadership. Andy Jassy preaches about company culture and efficiency but the culture went to crap and the company became bloated on his watch so…
Amazon likely needs new leadership to get it past the Andy Jassy chapter and move to a new phase of innovation and growth. It basically needs to replace its present Balmer with a Satya.
[+] [-] blenderob|4 months ago|reply
Honest question. What could they have possibly gained from AI? What did they miss out on by not getting into AI?
[+] [-] strict9|4 months ago|reply
You had me all the wya until this line.
[+] [-] tinyhouse|4 months ago|reply
Second, Amazon had a problem before Andy took over. Way too many managers and incompetent people in very senior levels. The fact that he's doing something about it is a good thing for Amazon. You don't become a CEO of a behemoth such as Amazon and expect to show impact within 6 months. It takes years.
In terms of AI, they did invest in Anthropic early on and are a significant stakeholder. That's critical since Anthropic is a trillion dollar company in the making and they trump everyone in enterprise AI. They are much more likely to succeed with smart partnerships than doing their own thing.
[+] [-] johnnyanmac|4 months ago|reply
It's the result of economic headwinds and companies switching to maintenance mode. Except whever they can sell "AI" in their initiative. And of course, add in a healthy dose of outsourcing under the hood.
[+] [-] willsmith72|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] marcusb|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] JCM9|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] cheschire|4 months ago|reply
For others: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/jeff-bezos-day-1-versus-2-com...
[+] [-] VBprogrammer|4 months ago|reply
If people are surviving that then who are are the people being ejected? Unprofitable areas or new products which didn't pan out?
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] onlyrealcuzzo|4 months ago|reply
People mistook ZIRP for genius for 25 years.
[+] [-] EasyMark|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnyanmac|4 months ago|reply
If you're not working in nursing the flux of retired Baby boomers you're either already rich or on unsteady ground.
[+] [-] TallGuyShort|4 months ago|reply
> we want to operate like the world’s largest startup
This is a phrase I hear repeated by leadership a lot, and it's usually code for "why doesn't everyone else just make the business grow faster?" It is almost always, as in this case, followed by statements that suggest they don't understand what is actually different about the way a start up functions and why they stopped operating that way at some point in the first place.
[+] [-] mwt|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] LFchv|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] baggachipz|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] redwood|4 months ago|reply
This means companies see an opportunity to bring compensation down.
I wish employees would instead have an opportunity to sign up for lower salary. For whatever reason you just don't see that happening anywhere
[+] [-] stoneman24|4 months ago|reply
So that’s about 4% of the non-warehouse staff. What’s their normal staff turnover rate per year?
I wonder if it’s another staff reduction (cos we over hired and want to remove people who didn’t impress) under the cover of improving business productivity using AI
Hat tip to raziel2p who was going down the same in thier comment
[+] [-] raziel2p|4 months ago|reply
> This includes around 350,000 corporate workers, which include those in executive, managerial and sales roles, according to figures that Amazon submitted to the US government last year.
So roughly 4% of jobs in Amazon's corporate division disappeared. Not to downplay that the world/economy is in a bad state, but I don't think this is very catastrophic.
[+] [-] code4life|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] lapcat|4 months ago|reply
By the way, could Amazon not even bother to proofread a mass layoff announcement? "We’re convicted that we need to be organized more leanly"
At least we know this was written by a human, because an LLM probably wouldn't make that mistake. Maybe they fired the proofreaders already.
[+] [-] deaux|4 months ago|reply
To be fair, an Amazon model might, so if they're using those.. /s
[+] [-] elric|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] evertedsphere|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] dangus|4 months ago|reply
Numbers are all in the black and up year over year and compared to previous quarter.
Double digit revenue growth in both retail and AWS.
Often I wonder whether corporate leaders took any kind of logic class in college or if they just have a fetish for harming people for no reason. Either that or whatever business school they went to believes that poor customer service and bad products increase revenue.
[+] [-] jerojero|4 months ago|reply
I guess this has just become kind of a feature of our times.
[+] [-] AznHisoka|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] josefritzishere|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] sysashi|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] torginus|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] axus|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] geff82|4 months ago|reply