9 comments

  • anuptalwalkar 11 minutes ago
    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.

    • talon8635 1 minute ago
      Are there plentiful opportunities to be had by people seeking employment elsewhere?

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

    • tdeck 3 minutes ago
      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 1 minute ago
        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.
  • beloch 0 minutes ago
    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 its not a bubble)?

  • Aeolun 31 minutes ago
    > A Microsoft spokesperson said the offer will be comparable to the company’s standard severance package

    Very enticing Microsoft.

  • ipsum2 35 minutes ago
    60,000 employees. That's crazy.
    • flowerlad 21 minutes ago
      Only a small fraction is expected to accept. Probably 5% or fewer.
      • 10xDev 13 minutes ago
        No, it was roughly 30% earlier this year.
      • iAMkenough 18 minutes ago
        I’m interested in how that’s calculated.
        • TheCynosure 15 minutes ago
          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 7 minutes ago
            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.

  • mlinhares 37 minutes ago
    The market is depressing.
    • ballon_monkey 32 minutes ago
      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.
      • andy99 8 minutes ago
        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.
      • adamddev1 22 minutes ago
        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.
        • tokioyoyo 0 minutes ago
          > 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.

        • someguyiguess 12 minutes ago
          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 3 minutes ago
            So in a way, AI is the perfect tool for them.
        • heisenbit 2 minutes ago
          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.
        • guywithabike 14 minutes ago
          As we all know, there was no such thing as a messy, bloated codebase incomprehensible to humans before AI.
          • someguyiguess 11 minutes ago
            I know right? Especially by Microsoft. The pinnacle of code quality!
          • janfoeh 8 minutes ago
            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

          • greggoB 10 minutes ago
            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.

      • iaaan 17 minutes ago
        Are you insinuating that anti-AI people are merely experiencing a skill issue?
        • someguyiguess 10 minutes ago
          Absolutely. Yes they are. To believe anything different is to be a Luddite.
          • mcv 0 minutes ago
            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.
          • Gigachad 5 minutes ago
            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 3 minutes ago
              Yes. Believing otherwise must require quite some amount of insecurity and lack of confidence.
      • zmk5 25 minutes ago
        “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 20 minutes ago
          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 9 minutes ago
            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.
        • someguyiguess 11 minutes ago
          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.
      • hn_submit 9 minutes ago
        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.

      • jraph 13 minutes ago
        I won't wonder for a second. I perfectly know why I'm avoiding this fascistic tech and 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 3 minutes ago
          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?

  • MiroslavPokorny 32 minutes ago
    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 17 minutes ago
      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

      • piskov 6 minutes ago
        Now remove the datacenter business from these numbers.
      • someguyiguess 8 minutes ago
        Nothing lasts forever. Dinosaurs will die eventually.
        • bawolff 5 minutes ago
          All companies will probably eventually die, but that isn't super relavent to topic at hand.
      • iAMkenough 4 minutes ago
        > 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 have to work somewhere.

  • 650 16 minutes ago
    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 7 minutes ago
      > 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 3 minutes ago
        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.
  • ChrisArchitect 30 minutes ago
  • sleepybrett 34 minutes ago
    buyouts also went out for skydance today.