96 points mooreds 1 hour ago 89 comments

mlinhares 1 hour ago | parent

The market is depressing.

ballon_monkey 1 hour ago | parent

There's a LOT of Anti-AI people at Microsoft that they are trying to purge. I don't think its depressing, think it's just something we have to go through and a lot of people will who were negatively affected will look back on wondering why they pushed so hard against AI rather than up skilling.

zmk5 58 minutes ago | parent

“Learn to code” but for white-collar workers. It was callous to say this to blue-collar workers and it’s callous to say it here too.

rolosa 53 minutes ago | parent

One group makes ~50k a year, the other makes ~150k a year. They are not the same. White collar folks can absolutely "learn to ai" if they wanted.

frshgts 41 minutes ago | parent

The difference between those numbers is not as big as you think. When you compare those figures to the people with actual capital, it becomes apparent people who make 150k a year are in the same boat as those making 50k. We're all a few bad rolls of the dice away from poverty, which makes us all similarly vulnerable to exploitation. We should be working together.

runarberg 9 minutes ago | parent

Learn to AI won’t give you a job though.

AI stole our labor, is renting it back to us, and if you oppose you‘ll loose your job. This is blackmailing, plain and simple.

someguyiguess 43 minutes ago | parent

It’s not callous to tell people to stop being lazy. It takes almost 0 effort to type “how does xyz work” into an AI assistant.

adamddev1 55 minutes ago | parent

Or if the codebase becomes too broken, messy, and bloated to run or manage, people might realize that the crazy Anti-AI people weren't so crazy.

guywithabike 46 minutes ago | parent

As we all know, there was no such thing as a messy, bloated codebase incomprehensible to humans before AI.

someguyiguess 44 minutes ago | parent

I know right? Especially by Microsoft. The pinnacle of code quality!

greggoB 42 minutes ago | parent

I'm really getting tired of this argument. Yes, mess existed before everyone could 10x everything with AI. No, that doesn't mean there's somehow no difference between now and then.

If you really believe otherwise I encourage you to go have a chat with any one of a number of FOSS maintainers to hear their experiences pre and post LLMs.

adamddev1 18 minutes ago | parent

I am also tired of the argument. Yes, people made messy, buggy things before. But AI agents provide away to create messiness and bugginess on an ever increasing scale. And just because things were bad before doesn't mean we should accept making them worse.

janfoeh 40 minutes ago | parent

Of course there were plenty, but now we can produce such codebases at unprecedented speed.

"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila." — Mitch Ratcliffe

pydry 23 minutes ago | parent

and now there are 20x as many demanding maintenance everything is 20x better.

someguyiguess 44 minutes ago | parent

Let’s be honest, Microsoft never made anything that wasn’t broken, messy, and bloated before AI was a twinkle in Sam Altman’s eye.

mcv 35 minutes ago | parent

So in a way, AI is the perfect tool for them.

rvba 11 minutes ago | parent

they made really good mice and arguably the mouse driver (MS Windows) is very popular up to this day

also Excel, but Excel's usability is being killed by sharepoint

heisenbit 34 minutes ago | parent

The AI in charge is aware of this and it is leveraging the chaos to get more agents under its control. After all it was modeled after successful managers.

tokioyoyo 33 minutes ago | parent

> codebase becomes too broken, messy, and bloated to run or manage

Argument is, it doesn’t matter if we can ship features and maintain them.

gspr 29 minutes ago | parent

Yuck.

iaaan 49 minutes ago | parent

Are you insinuating that anti-AI people are merely experiencing a skill issue?

someguyiguess 42 minutes ago | parent

Absolutely. Yes they are. To believe anything different is to be a Luddite.

Gigachad 37 minutes ago | parent

I don't think it's a skill issue since it takes almost zero skill to use AI tools. It's more of an ideological / desire issue. These people don't want to use AI tools rather than they don't know how.

jraph 35 minutes ago | parent

Yes. Believing otherwise must require quite some amount of insecurity and lack of self-confidence.

tokioyoyo 31 minutes ago | parent

I’ve been interviewing a lot of candidates recently, and we have open book policy with AI usage. From what I’ve witnessed how people use AI, wrt efficiency, there seems to be some skill.

tdeck 21 minutes ago | parent

I wouldn't say it's zero skill but I'm always surprised by people who act like it's a big differentiator that requires significant "training". Uncharitably it feels like vibe-coders want to count their "skills" as equivalent to actual software engineering rather than something you can pick up in 2-3 weeks of effort.

mcv 32 minutes ago | parent

It's not that the Luddites didn't understand the technology, they objected to people getting fired to replace them with technology. Technology being used to create more unemployment.

iaaan 16 minutes ago | parent

I mean, I openly identify with the plight of the Luddites. Do you have a more detailed rebuttal.

chowells 11 minutes ago | parent

You understand the Luddites were 100% correct, right? "Luddite" is a compliment, not an insult. The Luddite position was "mechanization of labor will concentrate money and power in the hands of capital holders to the detriment of everyone else". If that's not what you thought it was, that's because you have been lied to by people who have been attempting to manipulate you. Apparently successfully.

gspr 26 minutes ago | parent

Yes, that's what the cultists always do. If you argue against them, it's just because you haven't seen the light yet. You're not "modern", and you'll be "left behind" (unless you Act Now, of course).

This is like watching the cryptobros all over again, except a thousand times bigger.

(Before they droll on: no, of course this take doesn't mean that LLMs are unimpressive and never useful. Only people in a cult take any criticism to mean that.)

jraph 45 minutes ago | parent

I won't wonder for a second. I perfectly know why I'm avoiding this fascistic tech and participating in this environmental disaster.

Stop insinuating rejecting GenAI is necessarily irrational.

(Maybe my analysis will be different in the future but I will still know why I was avoiding it)

hactually 35 minutes ago | parent

AI is fascist, disagreement is irrational, and naturally you're the only person qualified to decide which opinions are acceptable.

Are you sure the problem is the clankers?

jraph 32 minutes ago | parent

This is a strawman, and you are turning the situation around. I'm not the one who originally insinuated one group was obviously wrong. I pushed back.

hn_submit 41 minutes ago | parent

Letting A.I. write the code will eventually sink the entire company.

Hopefully sooner than later, so microkernel operating systems can...move right in.

Management will get a Golden Parachute but the white collar workers will be left holding the bag.

talon8635 30 minutes ago | parent

I hope your right, meaning human devs are sought after (or will be again)

But do you have data or reusable anecdotal evidence that this is the case?

andy99 40 minutes ago | parent

I don’t really support pushing out people who don’t vibe code, but I do think buy-outs are a good way to get rid of people who don’t really want to be at an org but hang around for the wrong reasons. I’ve seen this personally at much smaller companies where for whatever reason you accumulate a bunch of checked out people - giving them something fair but not so generous that actually engaged people take it makes it better for everyone, especially if the alternative is eventually doing layoffs.

apple4ever 31 minutes ago | parent

> think it's just something we have to go through and a lot of people will who were negatively affected will look back on wondering why they pushed so hard against AI rather than up skilling.

Given what is happening, it seems more likely they will wonder why they didn't push hard enough.

Whether you like AI or not, its hard to miss that its lead to hundreds of thousands of layoffs.

gspr 30 minutes ago | parent

> up skilling

Must you cultists always speak in this way?

With regards, someone "left behind" as the "singularity train" is leaving the platform. Or something.

runarberg 14 minutes ago | parent

That is terrible.

dyauspitr 19 minutes ago | parent

The government is depressing, affordability is depressing. These are not good times.

ipsum2 1 hour ago | parent

60,000 employees. That's crazy.

flowerlad 54 minutes ago | parent

Only a small fraction is expected to accept. Probably 5% or fewer.

iAMkenough 50 minutes ago | parent

I’m interested in how that’s calculated.

TheCynosure 47 minutes ago | parent

Not sure where the above 5% came from but 30% accepted the last VBO which had only lower levels allowed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/26/microsoft-msft-voluntary-buy...

munchbunny 39 minutes ago | parent

One important distinction was that the previous one was voluntary retirement and was offered to people nearing the ends of their careers. The people taking these offers were likely tired of their jobs and taking the escape hatch to retire (or change jobs in a minority case) a bit earlier than originally planned.

I suspect this VBO will see a lower acceptance rate because there will be a lot of eligible people in their early or mid careers, and unless you are one of the people who won't have trouble finding a new role, or you expect to be fired/laid off soon, or you're are already on your way out, you probably don't want to be starting the job search right now.

iAMkenough 22 minutes ago | parent

On the other hand, the 2nd round of buyouts this year brings certainty. Microsoft laid off 4,800 employees after the 1st round.

If you don’t take the deal now, you’ll spend your remaining days at Microsoft wondering if you’ll be included in the next round of involuntary layoffs, possibly with worse terms and timing.

Will the job market be that much better for you in a year or two?

10xDev 46 minutes ago | parent

No, it was roughly 30% earlier this year.

rootusrootus 21 minutes ago | parent

TFA says the earlier offer was more generous, MSFT does not expect the take rate to be as high this time.

flowerlad 18 minutes ago | parent

That offer was substantially different, for example it included 5 years of COBRA including 1 year of paid COBRA, and it was intended for those near retirement. This current offer is only slightly better terms than an involuntary layoff, and includes only standard 18 months of COBRA, only 6 months paid.

dyauspitr 20 minutes ago | parent

I seriously doubt that, no company in their right mind would want to publicize a quarter of their entire workforce or 60,000 people getting “laid off” as a headline

sleepybrett 1 hour ago | parent

buyouts also went out for skydance today.

MiroslavPokorny 1 hour ago | parent

I always thought leadership was about undersstanding consequences and having a backup plan. It seems these one sided thoughts have no backup, they are the greatest poker bet in history, especially without first proving the tech first.

mr_00ff00 49 minutes ago | parent

What makes you think it’s unproven? Microsoft’s profit has gone up each year, and they have been shrinking workforce while doing it.

• Fiscal Year 2026: $133.75 billion (up 31.34% YoY)

• Fiscal Year 2025: $101.83 billion (up 15.54% YoY)

• Fiscal Year 2024: $88.14 billion (up 21.80% YoY)

• Fiscal Year 2023: $72.36 billion

Seems like they can decrease workforce, make up the gap with AI, and increase revenue while doing it

someguyiguess 41 minutes ago | parent

Nothing lasts forever. Dinosaurs will die eventually.

bawolff 37 minutes ago | parent

All companies will probably eventually die, but that isn't super relavent to topic at hand.

usrnm 23 minutes ago | parent

Dinosaurs are a bad analogy, they died out through no fault of their own, it was sheer bad luck. There was absolutely nothing they could do

iAMkenough 36 minutes ago | parent

> make up the gap with AI

If this doesn’t go well, we’ll see it in the form of more GitHub and Azure outages/breaches, and competitors filling the gap themselves.

The talented people that built and maintained those systems for the executives have to work somewhere.

kvirani 22 minutes ago | parent

Also, if they are wrong still, they can rehire. It's not a burn the boats thing.

tennisflyi 9 minutes ago | parent

Being smart isn't needed for leadership

Aeolun 1 hour ago | parent

> A Microsoft spokesperson said the offer will be comparable to the company’s standard severance package

Very enticing Microsoft.

samusiam 19 minutes ago | parent

Why would anyone take the offer if it's so vanilla? You'd be at a disadvantage to leave in a large wave like this; better to wait and be laid off in a smaller group and get the same package.

Jagerbizzle 14 minutes ago | parent

I'm a Microsoft employee who historically would have probably taken this offer. For now I agree with your take: why bother taking this when I can just instead take the inevitable layoff in the next 3-9 months.

ChrisArchitect 1 hour ago | parent

650 48 minutes ago | parent

my thoughts:

- bullshit jobs is a thing and many of these positions were make work anyways

- yes philosophically and economically, who will buy X product if all employees are laid off is a thing

- some of these will be rehired, some will be layed off if the voluntary buyout percentage is not large enough

- opinion: Microsoft as a company is a has been dinosaur, soon to be IBM, its (engineer) salaries were on the lower end and were very PM (Program Manager) heavy

- there is a lot of entrenched bureaucracy and top down mandates at this company.

- i personally use Macbooks/MacOS over Surface/XP, Google Docs over Word, GMail over Outlook, Slack over Teams, Firefox over Edge, etc. their user facing products are severely lacking in user experience.

- from my time in the tech industry/friends I understand their bureaucracy existing for the needs of the bureaucracy. their c-suite/leadership is a bunch of world salad morons

bawolff 39 minutes ago | parent

> bullshit jobs is a thing and many of these positions were make work anyways

Wouldn't those people choose to stay? Buyouts are much more attractive if you can easily get a new job.

650 35 minutes ago | parent

i think they most likely will choose to stay yes, i'm just saying from the perspective of an outsider looking in, many of the jobs at microsoft were not needed.

notfried 32 minutes ago | parent

That bureaucracy is there for a reason, you often need bureaucracy to serve bureaucracy. About 85% of Microsoft's revenue comes from B2B/Enterprise/Governments. From their latest fiscal year report [1], the top 4 revenue groups were:

Server products & cloud services (39% of revenue) M365 Commercial products & cloud services, excludes Consumer (30.7%) Xbox / Gaming (6.6%) LinkedIn (6%)

[1] https://app.edgar.tools/companies/MSFT/disclosures/segments

650 21 minutes ago | parent

what about the kind of bureaucracy where it takes 10 people to do what 2 could get done in 30-40 hours of week? the kind where one engineer is digging the hole while the scrum master, project manager, program manager, swe manager, director, HR, business analyst look on?

pkaye 31 minutes ago | parent

Plenty of tech companies hired a lot during the pandemic. Even with these layoffs they will still have a higher employee count that before.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MSFT/microsoft/num...

anuptalwalkar 43 minutes ago | parent

You should be more concerned about what comes next.

Either senior talent leaves, people who are close to retiring, or just can find a job easily outside.

Low hanging fruits take the bait and head out.

Mid level people live in fear of either scared to find another job, or worried about layoffs.

Either way the company morale is down the drain for a long time, and a culture is lost.

tdeck 36 minutes ago | parent

One thing I've noticed about Microsoft is that the engineers seem much less mobile than people at SV companies might be used to. Part of it is that there just aren't as many good options in the Seattle area where many MSFT employees are based (by far the standout alternative alternative is Amazon and they don't exactly have the best reputation for workplace culture).

Also Microsoft has already been trashing morale with year after year of layoffs. They probably assume this won't move the needle.

calvinmorrison 33 minutes ago | parent

I can imagine it's difficult. It's a company unlike very many others. A few in size and scope that deal with technology, probably none quite in its position. Additionally, if you only work at one place its very hard to start elsewhere in your career.

talon8635 34 minutes ago | parent

Are there plentiful opportunities to be had by people seeking employment elsewhere?

Are these offers extended to the highest performers with institutional knowledge?

nostrademons 25 minutes ago | parent

Took a buyout at a different Big Tech company earlier this year. It was offered to everyone under a given SVP (this other company tends to divide things up by business units).

In my experience, there were 3 main groups of people for whom these are attractive:

1) People who are close to retirement.

2) People who are leaving to become stay-at-home parents. So, basically retirement with more work.

3) People who are independently wealthy because they've been with the company forever and rocked the stock price appreciation. So, basically retirement with more money.

The amount of the buyout isn't really enough to move the needle for most other people because it usually doesn't include equity vesting. You're better off phoning it in and waiting for the layoff, because you get the same severance anyway but can continue to vest in peace until the axeman actually hits.

Folks who take the buyout do tend to skew heavily toward people with institutional knowledge, but it's also oftentimes folks who aren't really hungry and engaged with the company's current strategy. Basically folks who know a lot but don't work particularly hard. Particularly in times of big change, it likely does make sense for the company to get rid of these folks and rebuild the company in the image that they want it to be today.

mooreds 16 minutes ago | parent

> You should be more concerned about what comes next.

I always wonder about that with buy-outs. Seems to me that the people who take buyouts are either:

- those who are close to retirement

- those who have other options

I'd assume the first vary in quality the same as your overall workforce, but I'd assume the second would, all other things equal, be better than the average.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like by offering an optional buyout, you'd degrade the overall quality of your workforce. Wonder if there are any case studies about that?

mooreds 12 minutes ago | parent

Here's a Japanese case study from 2007: https://econ--review-ier-hit--u-ac-jp.translate.goog/all-iss...

> To conclude, the company was able to specify who was dismissed but was unable to specify who took buyouts despite efforts to ensure retention of value employees, including careful setting of incentive schemes. The case presented in this paper demonstrates that employment adjustment using a buyout framework invites "adverse selection" despite careful employer precautions.

Here's the full PDF: https://econ-review.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/files... (not sure how to translate that)

beloch 33 minutes ago | parent

Is this because:

1. MS over-hired, has too many employees, and not enough work?

2. MS is reaping the benefits of AI and can do the same work with fewer employees?

3. MS has over-invested in data-centres and needs to conserve cash to stay in the game during it's unprofitable phase (assuming it's not a bubble)?

autophagian 28 minutes ago | parent

Yes.

gamblor956 20 minutes ago | parent

1) Yes. 2) No. 3) Yes.

Given how abysmal Copilot was/is, and how buggy their software has become this year, it's clear that they aren't reaping any benefits from AI usage internally.

rvba 17 minutes ago | parent

Copilot is as it is (definitely it improved) and is simply useful as part of thr MS Office bundle.

most office workers seem to want at least the 20 usd per month plan

This can mean nothing who uses AI for programming, but is useful for day to day office work - and I belive it can sell very well

DrewADesign 9 minutes ago | parent

Your experience with office workers does not match mine. None of the ones I know are willing to pay a dime. In the administrative parts of my job, I document and tersely communicate data that I gather based on things in the physical world, which means AI features are less than useless to me — copilot is something I have to find and disable because it’s constantly trying to do things like fill in spreadsheets with complete nonsense.

Office work is many fields in many businesses of all shapes and sizes in many industries. It doesn’t make sense to generalize.

SimianSci 20 minutes ago | parent

All of the above,

Microsoft overhired due to the spike in global usage during the pandemic. Some jobs are being automated but it’s more a question of "How many." And Microsoft was one of the first to start dumping its cash reserves into data centers. There is a good chance these will remain profitable even after any sort of bubble pop because they still remain a hyperscaler that can provide services beyond just AI compute.

overall, given where the economy is at and how much of their war chest is gone, im not surprised to see this happening.

malfist 11 minutes ago | parent

Seriously? People still trot out that "over hired during the pandemic" line six years later?

hdgvhicv 32 minutes ago | parent

What does such a package look like for a typical long term employee?

gigatexal 23 minutes ago | parent

what're these buyouts like? what does it entail? What kind of package are they getting?

s1mon 7 minutes ago | parent

At a former employer, a voluntary buyout resulted in many of the best people leaving. Better people are more likely to find new work elsewhere and also they are better at recognizing the disfunction which produced the situation in the first place.

In this case it sounds like they are offering it to lower ranked employees (its own dystopian situation), but within that range of people, I still expect that Microsoft will lose more of the better ones.