Layoffs.fyi
layoffs.fyi
layoffs.fyi
Also I did some analysis on this dataset a few months ago, and it seems like layoffs tend to happen near the beginning of the month, but I'm not sure why that would be.
Also, as an aside, this doesn't cover all places and I'd guess smaller startups would be less likely to show up. My last place went from about 45 to 10 employees over the last year (layoffs, RTO bs, terminations for "performance," etc.) and isn't on this list, for example.
Typically if you are laid off, your health insurance coverage will run at least through the end of the current month as of your last day before COBRA would kick in. This isn’t a hard and fast rule necessarily, and some layoffs extend healthcare coverage longer anyways, but I know for a fact multiple layoffs I’ve been involved in over the years have timed for the first of the month for this reason.
Do people remember how these companies were talking a year ago? Because I do.
Meanwhile, I just searched Google News for "[company] quarterly results" for the three companies with the highest layoff rounds and here were the headlines for the top result for each:
>Alphabet reports better-than-expected quarterly results driven by growth in cloud
>Amazon reports blowout profit, beats on sales and issues optimistic guidance
>Meta reports better-than-expected results and issues optimistic guidance for third quarter
It is almost like the "difficult economic environment" that was "forcing their hands" might not have been as real as they were claiming. I don't know if this was another example of active collusion among big tech companies, but it certainly seems like these layoffs were at least partially motivated by power starting to shift too much into the hands of labor for the liking of some of these companies.
A lot of the companies with layoffs had a "bad" quarter or so, but hiring continued during that bad quarter. So they correct for the past with layoffs, then resume hiring.
It makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.
In fact a lot of business strategy seems to be making 5 year plans from last quarters data and assuming last quarter will repeat for five years. Look at all the aggressive hiring. Look at all the aggressive layoffs.
I was truly shocked by how some companies behaved during and after the pandemic. I can understand why companies that struggled (like restaurants) had to lay employees off, but companies that received what was obviously going to be a temporary boost in revenue behaved as if this were the new normal, over-invested in growth, and then freaked out when customer demand returned to normal pre-pandemic levels.
I know that interest rate changes also played a big role here, but the interest rate changes were also extremely predictable. Interest rates were obviously going to be lowered during the pandemic to keep the economy chugging, and then they were obviously going to be raised later to compensate. This is how modern economies are managed. It's nothing new.
All the investment and VC capital floating around during the pandemic was obviously going to dry up, so why did all these companies decide it was a good idea to become reliant on it?
It's very suspicious that this "time of cost cutting" just so happened to coincide with increased office spending.
For at least a few big companies, it's both big and scummy.
Possibly that's a short time help to the unemployed, but it is a factor that could successfully lower the going wage.
The downtick in layoffs is perhaps that many experienced tech workers even if jobless can apply at much lower rates or just sit it out so its hard for management to understand which positions will cost them a pound of flesh to fill again even as they stare at the holes they already have.
Would these people immediately seek a new job, or would there be a lag between being laid off and seeking a new job, especially if you got a 6-12 month package. Wouldn't you want to take a few months off?
The flip side is impact to “zoom towns” that were booming with remote workers and whether a bunch of new listings from RTO workers will drag certain housing markets lower
n=1. If you're taking a remote role, have it codified in your offer letter. Retain that as an artifact in the event you need to engage legally. Always be prepared for your job to end at any time due to the state of US employment, but also set yourself up for success whenever possible. The party with the best position of power and the least to lose typically is the one who wins. Always be preparing a paper trail if you feel like the actions your employer is taking might infringe on your labor rights. You've then done all the hard work to then hand it over to an attorney and/or government regulator for actioning.
And if you're not organizing and unionizing to secure remote work as a right at your org, you should consider it. Very favorable environment at the moment to do so.
(not an attorney, not your attorney)
Is it? I would think that during hiring booms would be a far more favorable environment for workers to drive demands.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421903
Also, structural labor shortages for the next decade.
I spend more than that on annual auto insurance, for comparison, and the odds are much higher I need protection from an employer vs another driver. We may have different opinions on value, and that’s okay.
"We're hiring remote, being in NYC or London or Peru is totally fine, geographic diversity of talent is a strength! Own your schedule!"
ACT 2
"Sorry folks, we just had a downround, can't control the market.
BTW in totally unrelated news, RTO next week. Folks in NYC & London & Peru, you can keep your job, just move to SF HQ. We will not pay for movers, higher SF compensation, etc. Also, it's starting on Monday, no excuses: We can't wait for your kids to finish the school year, your wife to get a new medical specialist, nor help you find a preschool for your youngest. I know it's annoying, it took me a year to get through a waitlist for ours, haha SF. Totally not a layoff... though HR does tell us to expect 10-20% attrition..."
If you have a contract saying they'll never move your job to a new city, you can take a civil action against them to enforce that. But I've never seen such things in my employment history.
This is almost certainly down to contract law, but IANAL too
The office had burned down.
Everyone failed to go to work.
If the company changes the terms of employment and you don't accept the new terms, that's not on you. The company is the one deciding to fire you, plain and simple.
I’ve been lucky to be fully remote for over a decade. I avoided talking beyond a couple screens with Amazon during Covid because the hiring managers were wishy washy about if “hired remote” meant that would be a permanent thing. Despite the hullabaloo I think most Amazon management knew fully remote had an end date.
Let's say your company has an idea that they are pretty sure can make a 2% return each year. If they can borrow money at 1% interest, it makes sense to borrow money to fund that project. When rates go up and loans now have 6% interest, borrowing money to fund that project no longer makes sense. On top of that, if they can park money in something like bonds and get a guaranteed 4% return, it actually makes more sense to just shut that project down and put the money in the bank since that's a higher return with lower risk.
The company in the scenario will actually make even more with less people since parking money in the bank doesn't require employees to get a return.
That's a super simplified version of what has happened. When the safe assets give small returns it makes sense to take risks because the alternatives pay so little. When safe assets give big returns appetite for risk goes down and money flows to safe investments.
To put this another way, if you put one million dollars in the bank for 10 years at 1% interest, you'll have a little over 1.1 million dollars at the end of ten years. That same million dollars at 6% interest will be worth just under $1.8 million after ten years. To justify taking that money out of the bank you've gone from needing a 10% return to an 80% return.
The amount of details contained in these spreadsheets (previous job title, YoE, location, work preferences, contact info, etc.) are pretty clearly meant to match with potential employers
Like if someone scraped images of their friends from Facebook and posted it to a different site with some commentary
And how do you know these people didn't consent to having their info aggregated on that site? It's an additional way of outreach to employers who are most likely to be sensible if they are looking at that site. The vast majority of layoffs over this past year and half have nothing to do with employees' personal performance. It's not that embarrassing to share.
>Like if someone scraped images of their friends from Facebook and posted it to a different site with some commentary
This already happens and has happened for as long as FB's existence as a major website. In fact, a major web page indexing platform whose brand name starts with a G and ends with an E "scrapes" pictures from FB all the time. Why don't you take the issue to them?
Anything new here?