Before the 1980s layoffs were seen as a massive failure of the company and almost never happened to tenured employees unless the company was collapsing. Before we are all made to think this is normal and unavoidable behavior.
I wouldn't have nearly as many complaints about this mindset change if ones life (e.g. insurance) weren't still so deeply tied to who your current employer is.
I don't know what the best solution for the current healthcare clusterfuck in the US is, but I think disassociating health insurance from employer/employment is a great first step.
I know HN is mostly against regulation, but I'm very glad my country restricts mass firings, and particular stricter rules apply for companies that turn a profit.
If you're generating benefits, there should be very few reasons you need to let go people massively.
I have a cousin in Belgium who was laid off following some restructuring and her severance was 52 weeks. Not out of the goodness of the company's hearts, but mandated by law since they gave no notice and she had accrued seniority. US labor laws are a joke in comparison.
Economics is hardly a reproducible science, but an American company has basically instant access to 350 million consumers (and workers) with no language barrier and little inter-state red tape.
It's hard to imagine that this isn't a larger differentiator than the ability to fire hundreds at will.
Perhaps, but one does have to wonder why the US favors making life easier for founders and venture capitalists over making life more livable for people who aren’t already rich.
Like, a while back my employer had 10% layoffs, and their most profitable year ever, in the same year. There’s a real reason why that happened, ans the reason is that the C suite seriously fucked up on managing the company’s finances. In a sane world they should be the first to bear the consequences. Instead they got fat bonuses while hundreds of people who had no part in creating the problem lost their jobs. And the moral justification for a society that allows this is somehow, “But isn’t it great that it’s easier for privileged people to play fast and loose like that?” That is, at best, circular reasoning.
the business people took over tech and somehow convinced us Jack Welch’s management philosophy (targeted attrition, layoffs for financial engineering) was a best practice even though he and his proteges drove numerous old guard tech companies into the ground
> I don't know how the social contract between employees/employers gets rebuilt.
The only social contract that is guaranteed is the one written into law. That's why we have government, but the problem is that the government is now (and for a while now) captive to / bought by large corporations, not responsive to employees/workers/voters.
Whatever principled social contract you may have thought large corporations upheld was smoke and mirrors. It just worked for enough of the right kind of person for a while.
I was thinking the justice system, but yes the entire concept of government and law is predicated on the monopoly of violence, not just this example, so bringing that into this is reductio and absurdum.
My point is that the so called "social contract" has never been upheld by large corporations - it may have seemed that way at times but it was mostly self serving marketing, not anything that would influence their treatment of employees vs their shareholders and executives.
Furthermore I'm arguing that we shouldn't rely on them to uphold it. If we have a belief in what is universally fair or just (i.e minimum wages, no child labor, no slavery), we should encode it in law, not hope corporations grow a conscience.
Yeah. There is no such thing, especially and in particular with publicly traded companies. The only meaningful way to change behavior is regulation.
Beyond that, "social contracts" benefit the powerful and have a tendency to turn a blind eye to the worst off. Does the "social contract" require me to be a white, college educated male to secure worker protections? If you need a clear example of this, consider the relationship between citizens and police in the United States, and how blind the majority has been to how fundamentally broken the "social contract" around policing has been for minorities. That's what a handshake-society looks like.
Granted having both might be nice, but relying on a social contract is like relying on a benevolent dictator. It's great until it's not.
I don't think it's rational to rely on relationship with a business, especially and in particular a publicly traded business.
Change starts with regulation. That's how every other advanced economy handles it.
It's really not that complicated. It's the same situation as healthcare. You shouldn't rely on the free market to do anything other than maximize short term profits.
When Elon fired 80% of the company, I remember a lot of celebration on HN. Some of it was the perceived political bias within the employees and some of it was “The app works fine what were all those employees doing? They probably deserved it.”
At the time I remember talking about this becoming a norm as CEOs follow the lead and getting downvoted heavily. Its unfortunate that we are here, but also not surprising, given how limited empathy people have for each other at times here on HN. Unless we stand for each other, this won’t change.
That's not from what I remember. I'm sure there was some skepticism about some of the roles that were there. But I do remember Ian Brown just completely dunking on that triobyte on Twitter Spaces. (Ian Brown is an ex-Twitter performance engineer, he pushed Musk on "what is non-performant, and you explicitly define it".. suffice to say gehot and Musk got a little embarassed and kicked him off the stream).
Makes me sad to read it as an ex-Elastic employee.
AI is used to justify the redundancies, and the company still expects to grow in this fiscal year. In the SEC filling the specifically mention more “head count” in “go-to-market” roles [1].
> a reduction of approximately 7% of our workforce
> Advances in AI, automation, and technology are reshaping how work gets done, and we're changing with them. (…) That's what this reorganization is for: a simpler structure, with fewer layers, less complexity, and less friction.
> The changes we announced today are a sign of confidence in the business, not a retreat from it. We continue to invest in key growth areas and expect total headcount to grow year-over-year this fiscal year [the SEC filling says “ The Company plans to continue hiring in key strategic areas and locations, including continuing to grow headcount in
customer-facing go-to-market functions, and expects total headcount to grow this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year, as it continues to invest in future
growth opportunities”]
Do not want to sound like as if I am taking their side but the reality is that all these decisions are mandated by some subset of investors in one way or another.
These executives are replaceable, and they would be replaced if they do not toe the line. In other words these executives happen to choose a easy and beneficial path rather than standing up for the long term right thing for the company.
The thing is, a profitable company that sees an obvious efficiency staring it in the face is still going to take that efficiency.
I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person.
We’d rather sit here and stew about companies “blaming AI for layoffs” but I imagine that is only sometimes the case.
A somewhat related tangent: I have had the thought that many parts of the Japanese system of hiring for life might actually be really appropriate for the AI age. That system seems to result in a lot of companies finding ways to reshuffle employees into making some kind of product that has market value rather than the Western reaction that that seems to favor downsizing and focusing the company on a smaller set of markets in the name of ruthless efficiency. This seems to result in many Japanese firms making a wide breadth of interesting products at very high quality levels.
If your company is profitable because AI is increasing efficiency (allegedly, of course), why layoff 7% of your employees when you could instead assign them to make something new or complementary to your current product line? Western companies seem to refuse to do that out of a sense of focus and efficiency, but maybe giving that strategy a go more frequently would result in unrealized opportunities.
That’s not how it works. Investors don’t mandate operational decisions. That’s for… operators. What they do ask for, in exchange for their investment, are things like revenue growth or certain margins.
You can crap on those investors. The answer then is to never take their money. But without money, the job probably wasn’t created in the first place. So the result is the same.
By the way, ever work alongside a really crappy non-executive and wonder how on earth they’re keeping their job? I sure have.
I have much worse news for you than “executives never mean what they say publicly”. Consider for a moment a possibility that they mean _exactly_ what they say.
What is so sad about riding the 0.0001% of humanity?
Did you really think your privileged position would last forever, and that your caste is truly special?
edit: downvotes are incoming. Not sure why you need to downvote if your so-called education/company is in a position of strength? I'd assume a strong market would laugh in my face.
Billions of people around the world don't have 6 digit salaries. I'm struggling to understand why my comments are 'nasty'?
It's a genuine fact. No caste has ever maintained an infinite money cheat. What goes up, has historically always come down.
Enlighten me: what is actually "nasty" about my arguments? Is it the premise that Mr university man can't get what he's been promised, or what? You're enlightened; enligthen me.
It's interesting to contrast this announcement with a similar post from the CEO in 2022 [1]: those past layoffs had much more of a victim-of-circumstances tone as ZIRP was beginning to dry up, but apparently those "bad times" versus "good times" during AI mania just accounts for a delta of +6% additional layoffs.
Another commenter questioned what size bucket Elastic falls into these days; in April 2025 their SEC filing [2] cited about 3,500 employees. So not a startup any more but definitely not fully-fledged FAANG-sized.
(not sure whether it even applies here; but full disclosure, I left Elastic in 2022.)
This announcement spends remarkably few words talking about the what (7% of the company's workforce was laid off), and a great deal of words talking about how bright the future of the company is and how they're going to hire more people.
If you were realigning your SaaS company to ignore your technology short-comings and technical debt, and isntead focus on selling as much "AI-enabled <whatever>" while the rush still looks like gold, this would be a great strategy & announcement.
Layoff announcements are this kinda tricky class of corporate comms where you need to speak to at least 3 different constituents, with 3 different messages, which are often in conflict.
It's something like:
(A) To the public (e.g. prospects, customers, investors): "This is a good thing and we're going to be an even better bet!"
(B) To the remaining team: "This is tough and I feel your pain and will do better."
(C) To the laid off: "It's not you, it's me, thank you and good luck."
It's hard if not impossible to handle all three of these authentically, concisely, and in the same message. Which is why you can almost immediately find something not to like..
Well, sort of. That anthropomorphizes them and allows the sociopaths running the corporations to pawn the responsibility of their decisions to the corporation, which is actually a legal fiction that is incapable of independent thought or expression.
This just reaffirms my view is that big companies will lose headcount because of AI, but small and medium companies will (or at least have the potential to) leverage AI to do bigger and better things. This is because big companies could always spend big money on getting what they want made while small companies always have to tradeoff what they can realistically do with the resources they have.
Also big companies spend tons and tons of time and money on useless busy work.
I work in IT and when we needed something new we'd just implement or build it.
Now we have long certification processes for anything new, checking if it complies with hundreds of pages of policies. A lifecycle management program which we constantly have to keep updated. Governance teams that are constantly looking over our shoulders. All shit that has nothing to do with IT whatsoever.
As a result we spend 90% of time doing busywork jumping through hoops these guys set up for us. Only 5% is real technical work and a lot is outsourced or consulted out to a friend of the vice president who spends all day chatting in his office for 1000 bucks a day. Or a Deloitte guy who looks great in a suit and has no idea what he's talking about. Because companies hate employing people who have actual knowledge.
I really hate IT work now. Not sure about the rest of the industry but this change happened about 10 years ago. Until then we still were able to do actual useful work.
I can only imagine how awful a place to work it will become when they will use AI to dream up even more inhibiting policies to keep us down with.
Oh and meanwhile the CEO still goes around how innovative we are even though any innovation is absolutely killed by all this bureaucracy. Most of the time we come up with a great idea it doesn't move ahead because nobody wants to deal with years of pencil pushing to get it approved.
I can totally see how startups can do actual work with little money and we can't do anything.
In academic research I have seen this same trend, particularly intensely in IT and security. Lock it down, lock it up, and slow down research. A hierarchy of admins and techs taught to cover their asses.
This has been the case forever in corporate environments, even before AI. I worked for 3 years on an app that in startup land should have taken a couple months at best.
I wonder if some of these CEOs are anticipating a big crash and trying to lay people off now, so that (1) they can raise/hoard cash while the money-go-round is spinning and (2) their eng organization is already lean and used to it if/when the money-go-round stops.
I think it's just the relative cost of money. Credit, debt, raises, revenue all rely on it. The tech industry got used to zero interest rate and then Covid-era stimulus. Now, suddenly, cashflow matters, but the companies are still run by the same people that only know perception management. Eventually they too will get cycled out.
Bingo - the combination of rising interest rates and tanking SaaS valuations has left a lot of these companies - specifically PE funded with mountains of debt - in a very weak position. Funny enough I think small SaaS companies are in a good position, both ownership & their potential use of AI, while larger SaaS companies, are in a lot of trouble. Why rent SaaS when you can build applications with AI? but then, who's going to maintain them?
As far as I understand companies will take out loans against their own stocks in good times as they expect their stocks to generally go up and to make more money than the payments on the interest of those loans. If their stocks go down they need to make up the shortfall elsewhere. The loans are generally used to keep business operations running smoothly irrespective of actual business cashflow (for example some businesses make most of their profits at certain times of the year). I'm not saying this for sure applies to Elastic but I believe its a pretty common pattern across major businesses.
They carry $575m in debt, which is around 80-100 devs a year if they are paying something like 4.5% on it, ignoring tax write-offs on either case as well as equity comp. There is some calculus to all that, carrying some debt, doing buybacks, whatever other strategies to manage perceptions sure.
I recommended an elastic demo for a client that would be well served by Elasticsearch. The Elastic sales folks completely torpedoed the presentation by trying to focus on their AI “capabilities” and not on the recommended talking points. This was 2 years ago.
I've seen companies put a percentage of the team on a PIP as a "this is not a layoff but we do need to cut costs" situation. Hopefully Elastic is just being honest about it?
> Your best employees are the most likely to leave via attrition, because they have the most opportunity elsewhere.
But this remains true after a layoff and the layoff often acts a motivator for your best employees to start looking even if they weren't previously.
Usually they aren't thinking "well, glad I survived that layoff and now my job is safe forever", they are thinking "huh, is this a sinking ship? Maybe I should look around and see what else is out there..."
...speaking as someone that has been at several companies during layoffs...
yeah, it seems like it would have to be accompanied by a pay bump for the ones you really want to retain... which is challenging from an optics perspective.
Perhaps, but there are optics only when someone sees. It's not unusual to fund retention increases using some of the budget freed up by a layoff, but that won't be explicitly stated in a public announcement.
I wonder how much of the layoffs were caused by their license change in 2021.
They lost a lot of goodwill back then. Some of their potential customers migrated to OpenSearch and never looked back, even after they backed down and went open-source again under AGPL.
I'm sure now that they've right-sized the org, the leftover engineers + AI are really gonna grind out the best features. We should be seeing 10x any day now.
We're in an outstanding position and well-equipped for the future. I'm excited about the opportunities ahead and focused on making sure Elastic is positioned to lead in this next phase of innovation. - Ash Kulkarni"
If they are in an outstanding position why did he make 7% of the employees lives miserable with a stroke of a pen.
> this requires us to move faster and operate leaner than we have before
:laughing:
> To do it, we're shifting our pace of innovation, simplifying how we operate, and investing in new skills. That's what this reorganization is for: a simpler structure, with fewer layers, less complexity, and less friction.
Translation: We're going to run the remaining people ragged.
> That means fewer layers, broader ownership, clearer accountability, and a sharper focus on the skills we believe matter most for what's ahead.
Yeah the people remaining are cooked.
It's never "we're going to hire more people to build lots of cool stuff" it's always giving fewer people quadruple the responsibility expectation.
Before the 1980s layoffs were seen as a massive failure of the company and almost never happened to tenured employees unless the company was collapsing. Before we are all made to think this is normal and unavoidable behavior.
I wouldn't have nearly as many complaints about this mindset change if ones life (e.g. insurance) weren't still so deeply tied to who your current employer is.
I'm aware that HN frowns on "THIS", but...THIS!!!
I don't know what the best solution for the current healthcare clusterfuck in the US is, but I think disassociating health insurance from employer/employment is a great first step.
Obama gave you Obamacare and said you can keep your doctor. LOL
And the Republicans wrecked it by getting rid of the mandate and then not funding the subsidy.
yeah, and no public option
I know HN is mostly against regulation, but I'm very glad my country restricts mass firings, and particular stricter rules apply for companies that turn a profit.
If you're generating benefits, there should be very few reasons you need to let go people massively.
I have a cousin in Belgium who was laid off following some restructuring and her severance was 52 weeks. Not out of the goodness of the company's hearts, but mandated by law since they gave no notice and she had accrued seniority. US labor laws are a joke in comparison.
Now compare your cousin’s yearly salary in Belgium with the average salary of a US employee doing the same job.
I'm sure that level of overhead has nothing to do with the reason Belgian incomes, standards of living, and business outcomes are worse.
[delayed]
How do you want to measure standards of living here?
This also a reason why starting a business in USA is usually better.
Economics is hardly a reproducible science, but an American company has basically instant access to 350 million consumers (and workers) with no language barrier and little inter-state red tape.
It's hard to imagine that this isn't a larger differentiator than the ability to fire hundreds at will.
Perhaps, but one does have to wonder why the US favors making life easier for founders and venture capitalists over making life more livable for people who aren’t already rich.
Like, a while back my employer had 10% layoffs, and their most profitable year ever, in the same year. There’s a real reason why that happened, ans the reason is that the C suite seriously fucked up on managing the company’s finances. In a sane world they should be the first to bear the consequences. Instead they got fat bonuses while hundreds of people who had no part in creating the problem lost their jobs. And the moral justification for a society that allows this is somehow, “But isn’t it great that it’s easier for privileged people to play fast and loose like that?” That is, at best, circular reasoning.
And people wonder why there are zero companies in europe competing with american ones in the tech sector...
The Nordic countries provide income replacement and retraining instead. Labor market inflexibility locks out younger unproven workers.
HN is very much pro regulations of all types.
the business people took over tech and somehow convinced us Jack Welch’s management philosophy (targeted attrition, layoffs for financial engineering) was a best practice even though he and his proteges drove numerous old guard tech companies into the ground
I don't know how the social contract between employees/employers gets rebuilt..feels like it needs to though
> I don't know how the social contract between employees/employers gets rebuilt.
The only social contract that is guaranteed is the one written into law. That's why we have government, but the problem is that the government is now (and for a while now) captive to / bought by large corporations, not responsive to employees/workers/voters.
Whatever principled social contract you may have thought large corporations upheld was smoke and mirrors. It just worked for enough of the right kind of person for a while.
What’s written into law is just “contract”, not “social contract”. Your argument is basically “if it’s not illegal it’s not wrong”.
No, he's arguing that if it's not legal, it's not enforceable by men with nightsticks.
I was thinking the justice system, but yes the entire concept of government and law is predicated on the monopoly of violence, not just this example, so bringing that into this is reductio and absurdum.
My point is that the so called "social contract" has never been upheld by large corporations - it may have seemed that way at times but it was mostly self serving marketing, not anything that would influence their treatment of employees vs their shareholders and executives.
Furthermore I'm arguing that we shouldn't rely on them to uphold it. If we have a belief in what is universally fair or just (i.e minimum wages, no child labor, no slavery), we should encode it in law, not hope corporations grow a conscience.
Yeah. There is no such thing, especially and in particular with publicly traded companies. The only meaningful way to change behavior is regulation.
Beyond that, "social contracts" benefit the powerful and have a tendency to turn a blind eye to the worst off. Does the "social contract" require me to be a white, college educated male to secure worker protections? If you need a clear example of this, consider the relationship between citizens and police in the United States, and how blind the majority has been to how fundamentally broken the "social contract" around policing has been for minorities. That's what a handshake-society looks like.
Granted having both might be nice, but relying on a social contract is like relying on a benevolent dictator. It's great until it's not.
When you are making $250k or above you should not think the job someone gave you is some kind of God-given right.
I don't think it's rational to rely on relationship with a business, especially and in particular a publicly traded business.
Change starts with regulation. That's how every other advanced economy handles it.
It's really not that complicated. It's the same situation as healthcare. You shouldn't rely on the free market to do anything other than maximize short term profits.
When Elon fired 80% of the company, I remember a lot of celebration on HN. Some of it was the perceived political bias within the employees and some of it was “The app works fine what were all those employees doing? They probably deserved it.”
At the time I remember talking about this becoming a norm as CEOs follow the lead and getting downvoted heavily. Its unfortunate that we are here, but also not surprising, given how limited empathy people have for each other at times here on HN. Unless we stand for each other, this won’t change.
That's not from what I remember. I'm sure there was some skepticism about some of the roles that were there. But I do remember Ian Brown just completely dunking on that triobyte on Twitter Spaces. (Ian Brown is an ex-Twitter performance engineer, he pushed Musk on "what is non-performant, and you explicitly define it".. suffice to say gehot and Musk got a little embarassed and kicked him off the stream).
The worst part about the current situation is that the company is then just turning around and hiring people.
It is almost like the company really is just doing it to arbitrage or get rid of expensive (aka old) employees.
Makes me sad to read it as an ex-Elastic employee.
AI is used to justify the redundancies, and the company still expects to grow in this fiscal year. In the SEC filling the specifically mention more “head count” in “go-to-market” roles [1].
> a reduction of approximately 7% of our workforce
> Advances in AI, automation, and technology are reshaping how work gets done, and we're changing with them. (…) That's what this reorganization is for: a simpler structure, with fewer layers, less complexity, and less friction.
> The changes we announced today are a sign of confidence in the business, not a retreat from it. We continue to invest in key growth areas and expect total headcount to grow year-over-year this fiscal year [the SEC filling says “ The Company plans to continue hiring in key strategic areas and locations, including continuing to grow headcount in customer-facing go-to-market functions, and expects total headcount to grow this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year, as it continues to invest in future growth opportunities”]
[1]: https://ir.elastic.co/financials/sec-filings/sec-filings-det...
ex-Elastic here, too. It was a great place to work pre-IPO. It seems the culture has shifted a lot since the IPO, though.
I've grown to hate executives. This is obviously an AI-generated nothing burger. They never mean what they say publicly.
Do not want to sound like as if I am taking their side but the reality is that all these decisions are mandated by some subset of investors in one way or another.
These executives are replaceable, and they would be replaced if they do not toe the line. In other words these executives happen to choose a easy and beneficial path rather than standing up for the long term right thing for the company.
The thing is, a profitable company that sees an obvious efficiency staring it in the face is still going to take that efficiency.
I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person.
We’d rather sit here and stew about companies “blaming AI for layoffs” but I imagine that is only sometimes the case.
A somewhat related tangent: I have had the thought that many parts of the Japanese system of hiring for life might actually be really appropriate for the AI age. That system seems to result in a lot of companies finding ways to reshuffle employees into making some kind of product that has market value rather than the Western reaction that that seems to favor downsizing and focusing the company on a smaller set of markets in the name of ruthless efficiency. This seems to result in many Japanese firms making a wide breadth of interesting products at very high quality levels.
If your company is profitable because AI is increasing efficiency (allegedly, of course), why layoff 7% of your employees when you could instead assign them to make something new or complementary to your current product line? Western companies seem to refuse to do that out of a sense of focus and efficiency, but maybe giving that strategy a go more frequently would result in unrealized opportunities.
Ok so get rid of the investors then.
That's what the pollution is for.
That’s not how it works. Investors don’t mandate operational decisions. That’s for… operators. What they do ask for, in exchange for their investment, are things like revenue growth or certain margins.
You can crap on those investors. The answer then is to never take their money. But without money, the job probably wasn’t created in the first place. So the result is the same.
By the way, ever work alongside a really crappy non-executive and wonder how on earth they’re keeping their job? I sure have.
I have much worse news for you than “executives never mean what they say publicly”. Consider for a moment a possibility that they mean _exactly_ what they say.
An AI can also regurgitate others decisions, based on a much wider knowledge base than these executives.
AI hardware costs are nothing compared to executives’ stock options too…
What is so sad about riding the 0.0001% of humanity?
Did you really think your privileged position would last forever, and that your caste is truly special?
edit: downvotes are incoming. Not sure why you need to downvote if your so-called education/company is in a position of strength? I'd assume a strong market would laugh in my face.
Please write nicer comments.
Everyone has their own problems and their own feelings. Their socioeconomic conditions do not invalidate them.
Billions of people around the world don't have 6 digit salaries. I'm struggling to understand why my comments are 'nasty'?
It's a genuine fact. No caste has ever maintained an infinite money cheat. What goes up, has historically always come down.
Enlighten me: what is actually "nasty" about my arguments? Is it the premise that Mr university man can't get what he's been promised, or what? You're enlightened; enligthen me.
It's interesting to contrast this announcement with a similar post from the CEO in 2022 [1]: those past layoffs had much more of a victim-of-circumstances tone as ZIRP was beginning to dry up, but apparently those "bad times" versus "good times" during AI mania just accounts for a delta of +6% additional layoffs.
Another commenter questioned what size bucket Elastic falls into these days; in April 2025 their SEC filing [2] cited about 3,500 employees. So not a startup any more but definitely not fully-fledged FAANG-sized.
(not sure whether it even applies here; but full disclosure, I left Elastic in 2022.)
[1]: https://www.elastic.co/blog/ceo-ash-kulkarni-email-to-elasti... [2]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1707753/000170775325...
This announcement spends remarkably few words talking about the what (7% of the company's workforce was laid off), and a great deal of words talking about how bright the future of the company is and how they're going to hire more people.
If you were realigning your SaaS company to ignore your technology short-comings and technical debt, and isntead focus on selling as much "AI-enabled <whatever>" while the rush still looks like gold, this would be a great strategy & announcement.
Layoff announcements are this kinda tricky class of corporate comms where you need to speak to at least 3 different constituents, with 3 different messages, which are often in conflict.
It's something like:
(A) To the public (e.g. prospects, customers, investors): "This is a good thing and we're going to be an even better bet!"
(B) To the remaining team: "This is tough and I feel your pain and will do better."
(C) To the laid off: "It's not you, it's me, thank you and good luck."
It's hard if not impossible to handle all three of these authentically, concisely, and in the same message. Which is why you can almost immediately find something not to like..
which is why most corporations should be classified as sociopaths, at a minimum.
The corporation actually gave them a job.
Well, sort of. That anthropomorphizes them and allows the sociopaths running the corporations to pawn the responsibility of their decisions to the corporation, which is actually a legal fiction that is incapable of independent thought or expression.
They have already done that when giving companies right as people which then takes responsibility off the CEO.
This just reaffirms my view is that big companies will lose headcount because of AI, but small and medium companies will (or at least have the potential to) leverage AI to do bigger and better things. This is because big companies could always spend big money on getting what they want made while small companies always have to tradeoff what they can realistically do with the resources they have.
Is elastic a big company? I’d put them somewhere between small and medium…
4,000 employees (pre layoff). That’s quite large.
Also big companies spend tons and tons of time and money on useless busy work.
I work in IT and when we needed something new we'd just implement or build it.
Now we have long certification processes for anything new, checking if it complies with hundreds of pages of policies. A lifecycle management program which we constantly have to keep updated. Governance teams that are constantly looking over our shoulders. All shit that has nothing to do with IT whatsoever.
As a result we spend 90% of time doing busywork jumping through hoops these guys set up for us. Only 5% is real technical work and a lot is outsourced or consulted out to a friend of the vice president who spends all day chatting in his office for 1000 bucks a day. Or a Deloitte guy who looks great in a suit and has no idea what he's talking about. Because companies hate employing people who have actual knowledge.
I really hate IT work now. Not sure about the rest of the industry but this change happened about 10 years ago. Until then we still were able to do actual useful work.
I can only imagine how awful a place to work it will become when they will use AI to dream up even more inhibiting policies to keep us down with.
Oh and meanwhile the CEO still goes around how innovative we are even though any innovation is absolutely killed by all this bureaucracy. Most of the time we come up with a great idea it doesn't move ahead because nobody wants to deal with years of pencil pushing to get it approved.
I can totally see how startups can do actual work with little money and we can't do anything.
In academic research I have seen this same trend, particularly intensely in IT and security. Lock it down, lock it up, and slow down research. A hierarchy of admins and techs taught to cover their asses.
This has been the case forever in corporate environments, even before AI. I worked for 3 years on an app that in startup land should have taken a couple months at best.
Funny, so many words used but my brain only hears, “I am currently mismanaging this company,” every time one of these layoffs occurs.
You had three kids. When they are about 20, you have to let them go.
Did you mismanage your family?
I wonder if some of these CEOs are anticipating a big crash and trying to lay people off now, so that (1) they can raise/hoard cash while the money-go-round is spinning and (2) their eng organization is already lean and used to it if/when the money-go-round stops.
“Because of AI” indeed.
Nah they are just following the herd. When everyone was hiring they hired, when everyone was firing they fired. Go along to get along.
I think it's just the relative cost of money. Credit, debt, raises, revenue all rely on it. The tech industry got used to zero interest rate and then Covid-era stimulus. Now, suddenly, cashflow matters, but the companies are still run by the same people that only know perception management. Eventually they too will get cycled out.
not to mention SaaS stocks are down making the cost of borrowing against their stock more expensive
Bingo - the combination of rising interest rates and tanking SaaS valuations has left a lot of these companies - specifically PE funded with mountains of debt - in a very weak position. Funny enough I think small SaaS companies are in a good position, both ownership & their potential use of AI, while larger SaaS companies, are in a lot of trouble. Why rent SaaS when you can build applications with AI? but then, who's going to maintain them?
but none of this applies to elastic. it's cash flow positive, and has such a cash hoard it's doing stock buybacks.
As far as I understand companies will take out loans against their own stocks in good times as they expect their stocks to generally go up and to make more money than the payments on the interest of those loans. If their stocks go down they need to make up the shortfall elsewhere. The loans are generally used to keep business operations running smoothly irrespective of actual business cashflow (for example some businesses make most of their profits at certain times of the year). I'm not saying this for sure applies to Elastic but I believe its a pretty common pattern across major businesses.
They carry $575m in debt, which is around 80-100 devs a year if they are paying something like 4.5% on it, ignoring tax write-offs on either case as well as equity comp. There is some calculus to all that, carrying some debt, doing buybacks, whatever other strategies to manage perceptions sure.
For the good of the company we are reducing force by 7% even though those people we fired were instrumental in helping us grow. Insensitive PR tripe.
Saying 7% in this scenario is the wrong choice. It diminishes the absolute number of ~281 people who just had their lives shaken up by this.
I recommended an elastic demo for a client that would be well served by Elasticsearch. The Elastic sales folks completely torpedoed the presentation by trying to focus on their AI “capabilities” and not on the recommended talking points. This was 2 years ago.
Why even bother with such a small layoff? Is there a reason to not just dial up your attrition for a while?
In human terms, this is not a small layoff. Around 281 people's lives are being shaken up by this.
I've seen companies put a percentage of the team on a PIP as a "this is not a layoff but we do need to cut costs" situation. Hopefully Elastic is just being honest about it?
Your best employees are the most likely to leave via attrition, because they have the most opportunity elsewhere.
In theory, a small layoff can target the least productive employees.
> Your best employees are the most likely to leave via attrition, because they have the most opportunity elsewhere.
But this remains true after a layoff and the layoff often acts a motivator for your best employees to start looking even if they weren't previously.
Usually they aren't thinking "well, glad I survived that layoff and now my job is safe forever", they are thinking "huh, is this a sinking ship? Maybe I should look around and see what else is out there..."
...speaking as someone that has been at several companies during layoffs...
yeah, it seems like it would have to be accompanied by a pay bump for the ones you really want to retain... which is challenging from an optics perspective.
Perhaps, but there are optics only when someone sees. It's not unusual to fund retention increases using some of the budget freed up by a layoff, but that won't be explicitly stated in a public announcement.
i dont understand this either. just dont hire for half a year or so, a generic globocorp gets to that 7% easily.
That doesn't boost the stock after the announcements, why would they do it?
i dont think this announcement will boost the stock either, for the same reason we are wondering here why 7% is noteworthy for a globocorp.
No way to prevent this says workers of only country where this regularly happens.
Unionize, brothers and sisters!
I wonder how much of the layoffs were caused by their license change in 2021.
They lost a lot of goodwill back then. Some of their potential customers migrated to OpenSearch and never looked back, even after they backed down and went open-source again under AGPL.
> Customer expectations are increasing and evolving faster than ever before
Wouldn't that suggest you need those workers more?
Looks like Elastic has a lazy CEO
https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/nvidias-jensen-hu...
I'm sure now that they've right-sized the org, the leftover engineers + AI are really gonna grind out the best features. We should be seeing 10x any day now.
I'm sure these workers signed up to the "free market principles".
Too bad, so bad?
So how many people? I can't find this info anywhere.
There were around 4000 employees before this announcement, so around 280 people affected.
this should we do this or no this is not right
We're in an outstanding position and well-equipped for the future. I'm excited about the opportunities ahead and focused on making sure Elastic is positioned to lead in this next phase of innovation. - Ash Kulkarni"
If they are in an outstanding position why did he make 7% of the employees lives miserable with a stroke of a pen.
Just look at his name, you think he cares about Americans?
> this requires us to move faster and operate leaner than we have before
:laughing:
> To do it, we're shifting our pace of innovation, simplifying how we operate, and investing in new skills. That's what this reorganization is for: a simpler structure, with fewer layers, less complexity, and less friction.
Translation: We're going to run the remaining people ragged.
> That means fewer layers, broader ownership, clearer accountability, and a sharper focus on the skills we believe matter most for what's ahead.
Yeah the people remaining are cooked.
It's never "we're going to hire more people to build lots of cool stuff" it's always giving fewer people quadruple the responsibility expectation.