all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 72 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Who tf quits their job voluntarily in this economy? And then in a shithole country like the US at that, where social security safety nets basically don't exist

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago

    An unemployed programmer here who quit their job 6 months ago. Also have a baby on the way.

    To answer your question - people who are totally burnt out. Some of us have been in the trenches for a long time and when you start to spiral, the world gets pretty dark. I’m not rich, I was just broken.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    people who built up millions as a tech worker,they can afford it, in the last 10 years if you been working you would likely have that much by now. if you are just starting maybe not, or a newborn on the way. alot of them are holding onto theier jobs for dear life though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • in the last 10 years if you been working you would likely have that much by now

    This might be more likely for big tech workers, but it's less realistic the further you get from the Silicon Valley archetype. Saving millions over 10 years would mean averaging $200k+ per year after taxes and expenses, which I can't imagine will happen in my career unless I start a successful business or get lucky gambling on stocks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Just twiddling my thumbs waiting on severance. These motherfuckers will have to pay me to fuck off.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    These aren't the people who "need" the money. One example ran a large marketing department, the other probably got paid half a mil a year in base pay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 3 days ago* (5 children)

    While there’s no evidence linking AI to mass layoff

    the last 3 years of layoffs due to ai says otherwise.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Plenty of those layoffs used "AI" as a cover for the real reason. It looks better for the management board saying they are firing people because of increased efficiency (even if it's imaginary) than to say they overreached and underdelivered, and now the company has too many employees for what it can achieve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    You can sell expensive non-physical non-essential items of fashion positioning them as something everyone needs for only so long.

    I mean, it's also even a bit of AI, but mostly that IT as important and in demand as it was is not compatible with being divided between a few gigantic monopolists with no good will whatsoever.

    Less meaningful social activity happens in that suppressed environment, meaning less business.

    And what happens, is being optimized, yes, because when thousands of well-paid developers are doing roughly the same things again and again, that can be optimized.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    Well actually no. Outside of the US you can't just fire people, you have to find some sort of justification and AI provides one that no one can really question.

    AI is a technology that does exist, and it definitely is causing some disruption, while there is a question mark over how much disruption is really attributed to AI efficiency gains, you cannot demonstrably prove that any particular redundancy wasn't because of AI. So it would be very difficult to win a case of unfair dismissal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago*

    Well where I work is currently on a hiring freeze reportedly because of AI, but I just found that a bit suspicious because we've been on a freeze for three years I'm sure that AI of 3 years ago wasn't good enough to justify the hiring freeze. It can't have anything to do with the fact that we keep losing major clients to our competitors due to corporate mismanagement. No it's definitely AI that's the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 days ago

    How many? “Journalists” should be held liable for using this shit ambiguous language to push propaganda.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    To simplify that, managers usually don't admit errors and of course they don't admit mistakes. The environment in which a manager works makes this absolutely impossible for them.

    And every "magical blackbox innovation like something from Civilization games, finally reached" compels managers to try to do what they shouldn't.

    It's them seeing a thing that is good for those who follow it and bad for those who don't, and they are trying to do something to not miss the train, not realizing that such things don't happen through managers, they spread through professionals. If an "innovation" doesn't spread through professionals, it's not that. It's like grassgroots politics versus being told who's the savior of the nation.

    A manager wouldn't accept what I wrote, they'd talk about professionals stuck in old rigid ways of thinking and all other loads of crap, because they are not qualified to say what's old and new and what's promising and what's not, and those "stuck" professionals are.

    This would be a perfectly fine new kind of services and applications if only not for managerial hype train. With people themselves starting to use tools how and when they themselves need. On a case-to-case basis.

    That's the problem, managers are people who manage timetables, tasks, negotiations and finances. Managers are in principle not the kind of people who can think about "innovations" and "revolutions". They are just not qualified for that, like a janitor is not qualified to fix wiring.

    They can be, but their main activity has nothing to do with even understanding such things.

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/workreform@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 39 points 3 days ago

    Her employer “compelled” the team to incorporate generative AI, then “in the same conversation, warned about the legal dangers”, she said. The result was constant stress.

    The state of the rat race in a nutshell. Everyone I work with is barely holding on mentally, but productivity is high, so it looks good from 30k ft. It is weird how so many staff engineers are quitting, though.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 days ago

    Yes, I've also considered changing to something completely different. Not so much because of AI itself, because I don't really use it, but because every service that we need to use is getting sloppified to the point where they're unusable.

    Take banking for instance. I've spend a lot of time making a fully automated integration of all our banking. Then the bank decided to make a new UI, and at first I don't care because I don't use the UI for my stuff. The change in the UI is minimal, like they changed a font or some shit, but somehow they also removed the option to get the files that I need. Their support can only offer me help in how I can do these things manually in the new "better" UI, but even then, their files don't match their own visual statements and such any longer. It's simply broken, because some CEO didn't like the font.

    I might as well go back to pen and paper.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

    I’m so tired of these trash papers using language to make seem shit like there is some sort of movement. Find 3 opinions and call it a movement.

    Seriously ban these trashy rage bait propaganda headlines. How many people are leaving their jobs? I want one absolute number. Just fucking 1 .

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments