The Dismal Reality Behind MAANG Layoffs: A Reflection
Written on
My father dedicated his life to a single organization. While his earnings were modest, they were sufficient to provide for our family and maintain a decent standard of living. He spent years in the same chair, growing old with the company. Fortunately, he never faced the instability of working in the West.
I'm uncertain whether this is a blessing or a burden, but one thing is clear: my father nearly forgot the meaning of "layoffs" and held onto Google’s ethos and culture, despite never having experienced it firsthand.
For a long time, Google seemed like a paradise for tech enthusiasts—offering playful workspaces, a relaxed dress code, and innovative facilities. Yet, as the saying goes:
“It is during the worst times of your life that you will see the true colors of the people who say they care for you.”
MAANG Layoffs: The Google Scenario
On January 20th, Google employees received a sobering email from CEO Sundar Pichai. The message announced a significant workforce reduction of around 12,000 positions.
The email included the following:
“Dear Googlers,
I have some difficult news to share. We’ve decided to reduce our workforce by approximately 12,000 roles. Affected employees in the U.S. have already been informed, while those in other regions will receive updates in accordance with local laws.
This means bidding farewell to some exceptionally talented individuals we valued and cherished. I deeply regret this decision, and I take full responsibility for the choices that led us here.
In the last two years, we experienced significant growth, prompting us to hire for an economic reality that no longer exists.
I remain optimistic about the opportunities ahead, supported by our mission, product value, and early AI investments. To fully seize these opportunities, tough choices must be made, leading to the elimination of roles across various functions and regions.
To those departing: Thank you for your hard work and invaluable contributions.
While this transition is challenging, we’re committed to supporting employees as they seek new opportunities.
In the U.S.:
- Full pay during the notification period (minimum 60 days).
- Severance packages starting at 16 weeks' salary, plus two weeks for each additional year at Google, along with accelerated GSU vesting.
- Payment of 2022 bonuses and remaining vacation time, along with six months of healthcare and job placement services.
As a nearly 25-year-old company, we must navigate difficult economic cycles. These moments prompt us to reassess our focus and allocate resources to our highest priorities.
While tightening our belts in some areas allows us to invest significantly in others, our early shift to an AI-first approach has led to remarkable advancements across our industries.
We are preparing to introduce new experiences for users, developers, and businesses, capitalizing on our substantial AI potential.
This ongoing work embodies the “healthy disregard for the impossible” that has been integral to our culture. I remain hopeful about fulfilling our mission, even on our toughest days, such as today.
I know you may have questions about our next steps. We’ll host a town hall on Monday for further discussion. Until then, please take care of yourselves, and if you’re just starting your day, feel free to work from home.
Sundar,”
This wave of layoffs was not unique to Google; it swept through several tech giants. Meta ignited the trend, leading to widespread cuts across the MAANG companies:
- Amazon: 18,000
- Microsoft: 10,000
- Google: 12,000
- Meta: 11,000
In total, over 50,000 jobs were lost, surpassing Goldman Sachs’s global workforce. However, Google’s approach stood out as particularly severe, making other companies seem less aggressive in their cuts. This incident marked a grim moment for the perception of “people” in capitalist economies.
Why Did This Happen?
To rationalize these layoffs, executives assert they were necessary. The current macroeconomic environment is challenging, and overhead costs are too high to sustain.
There are several factors at play:
- Debt: The tech sector is significantly dependent on debt. While many large tech firms have substantial cash reserves, they often leverage debt to generate returns for shareholders. However, increased borrowing leads to rising living costs, prompting central banks to raise interest rates, making debt expensive and limiting cash flow for growth.
- Overhiring: Sundar noted, “Over the past two years we’ve seen periods of dramatic growth. To match and fuel that growth, we hired for a different economic reality than the one we face today.” In essence, the message was: “We thought we needed you, but it turns out we don’t.”
The pandemic era was challenging for many but also saw a surge in tech demand, leading to significant hiring sprees as companies competed for talent. The fallout has been harsh, epitomized by the sentiment:
“2021 was sweet. Now we’re at the dentist.” — Redditor
The stock market plummeted, wiping nearly $1 trillion from MAANG valuations, resulting in mass layoffs.
- Earnings Reports: MAANG companies reported earnings below analysts’ expectations, with the exception of Apple. These earnings are crucial and reflect a wall of expectations built on overly optimistic assumptions stemming from the pandemic. However, as life returned to normal, tech companies struggled to meet these inflated expectations, leading to defaults on target earnings and subsequent layoffs.
While it's essential to examine both sides of the story, I want to share my perspective on this situation.
People Are Dispensable in the West
The reasons cited for these layoffs are misleading. If overhiring was truly the issue, why were seasoned employees with years of experience let go? These individuals remained loyal through both prosperous and challenging times.
Budget constraints? If that were the case, why did Microsoft invest $10 billion in ChatGPT? Basic calculations suggest that this amount could have covered the salaries of 10,000 employees, effectively eliminating the need for layoffs.
It's crucial to reflect on these facts.
The most significant truth remains: colleagues are like family.
Spending full-time at a company means you often spend more time with coworkers than with your own family. Consequently, the workplace becomes a second home, and coworkers transform into a second family. Would you abandon your spouse or children?
While publicly traded companies are obligated to prioritize shareholder interests over employee welfare, this does not justify treating employees like commodities.
What happened to the leadership principles they espouse? Layoffs should be a last resort, not the primary solution.
Numerous alternatives exist to prevent downsizing, including:
- Salary reductions
- Mandatory unpaid leave
- Hiring freezes
- Redirecting idle teams to focus on priority projects, such as AI
Moreover, notifying employees of their termination through automated emails or text messages is hardly a compassionate approach.
Interestingly, investors celebrated the layoffs, with stock prices rising following the announcements. This scenario starkly illustrates the disconnect between capitalism and the well-being of individuals in Western economies, contrasting with the East, where such drastic measures are less common due to more stable economic conditions.
Conclusion
The phrase “The American Dream” is one I frequently hear, yet it often remains ambiguous—an enigma of whether it represents a utopia or a nightmare. Layoffs are undoubtedly no dream, but they reveal capitalism's stark reality:
People are disposable.
I hope this perception is not accurate, as I believe people are invaluable resources. Great outcomes emerge when individuals feel supported. Ultimately, money does not create people; rather, people generate wealth.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the opinions of any current or former employers.
If you appreciate the content, consider supporting the author through Medium’s tipping option or by subscribing via the referral link provided.