Amazon Says It Didn't Cut People Because of Money. but Because of 'culture'
Key topics
Amazon's CEO Andy Jassy attributes recent layoffs to 'culture' issues rather than financial reasons, sparking controversy and criticism among commentators who question the company's true motives and treatment of employees.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
9m
Peak period
114
0-6h
Avg / period
20.3
Based on 122 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 31, 2025 at 12:40 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 31, 2025 at 12:49 PM EDT
9m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
114 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 4, 2025 at 3:09 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
uv pip install culture
Too many horror stories.
I left Amazon for the third and last time a couple months ago and have no regrets.
If you're still there and reading this, Amazon still has a lot going for it as a place to work. But it's not the electric place I recall from 20 years ago. I'm not sure if there is any company that can match both the startup-like freedom of action with massive scale of early 2000s Amazon.
[1] In case it isn't obvious: this is a desirable condition because it means you get to learn something.
The H1B program is broken and ripe for abuse.
> The H1B program is broken and ripe for abuse.
Offshoring is a much bigger problem. These abusive companies can "save" way more money by exporting the job than importing a worker to fill it, and pandemic-era changes have accelerated that.
Thus, I rent an apartment, and I anticipate being a lifelong renter as long as I’m in the Bay Area. I also don’t anticipate being able to retire in the Bay Area, though that’s not for another 30 years. My long-term plan is to save a down payment for a vacation home somewhere affordable that I’ll use as my retirement home when the time comes.
Except you are offshoring for less than the "Best and Brightest" that can be done in the US, especially at Amazon.
In fact, the most unqualified of the bottom of the barrel are being sought out because it is cheap. Not for actual skills and 'talent'.
> Because house prices are unaffordable. Should a simple house really be $2 million ?
Given that everyone believes that their house will keep going up leads me to think that thanks to AI, we are certainly going to have a 1929 style flash crash in house prices with less jobs when AI companies start declaring "AGI".
Do you really think it would be better for the rest of America to become like Detroit? Too few have jobs, so housing craters?
The solution to housing affordability is to build more housing (or relocate jobs to where housing is more affordable), it's not to make the common people poor.
That's a funny way to describe deliberately wasting thousands of work hours screening, interviewing and hiring people they didn't need. It seems like those making these staffing decisions should be the first to go, yet that never seems to be the case.
First, the people who made the hiring decision back then were wrong, since they seemingly hired a lot of people for unneeded roles.
Second, the people in charge now lack the vision or ideas on how to put 14,000 already-trained employees to good use on new projects, new products, etc.
"If all the signals in the world suggest you will be able to support more initiatives...
... then you spend millions hiring and onboarding tens of thousands of people over many months, only to fire those people within a number of years.
THIS is why management is paid the big bucks.
I learned a long time ago that behaving like a startup is not a good thing, and I've specifically oriented my career towards working at companies that don't even want to pretend to imitate startup culture. I'm very happy in enterprise-land.
It’s 2025 and I still see “unlimited PTO” in many places.
If you don't have leverage, you won't get those things regardless of enterprise or small business.
Sane working hours and vacation time should be taken as a given in the modern economy. Unusually long work hours should be reserved for unusually highly paid professions like investment banking and surgeons.
Also, in startups these things still happen more often, the culture normalizes unpaid overtime, unused PTO, etc. E.g.:
> While overtime is a reality in both startups and large corporations, the difference lies in the motivation behind it. In startups, work goes beyond traditional hours, not out of obligation, but from a genuine passion and commitment to achieving shared goals.
source: https://www.sdsolutions.tech/post/what-is-a-startup-culture
Not in the US. Most enterprise software engineers are salaried and do not receive overtime pay.
You set the expectation that you can deliver at the pace of a lean startup, but every step of the way you are slowed down by a process or internal dependency that is operating like a fortune 100 company.
Large companies should just fund startups and acquire them when the product has shipped than try to create a culture where teams are expected to operate a speedboat that is towed by an oceanliner.
I mean, that's basically what big tech has been doing for the left 15 years., not then people get upset that "Foo Corp doesn't innovate, it only acquires".
They don't mean empowering their workforce. "We want to act more like a startup" is code for we want less accountability for bad decisions.
I want to (artificially perhaps) peg my projects to a smaller cohort of employees if it means the stress to them is worth it if they have the autonomy to ship stuff on their own accord, for a general feeling of having a successful and useful career.
Full disclosure: I do not have an MBA.
Finding out that one of the world's largest economic forces aspires to burn out their workforce and spend more time shooting from the hip is depressing.
I tell people that the best size of company to work at is one that's just barely big enough to have an HR department.
Even most here on HN who are in the business of replacing humans with AI would agree that Amazon knows they are lying.
Must be close to a rats den working at Amazon's offices with over 200K+ employees in corporate to then look at them and then lay them off and say it's for "culture".
There's no reason for them to tell the truth, given its immensively profitable to keep lying with no costs at all.
If you decide to join Amazon after this, make sure you get a brain scan first.
Amazon spent a ton of money on AI.
It hasn't paid off, yet
And Amazon needs to stay profitable over some time-bound interval.
So, layoff expensive human resources ... continue investing in AI, fingers crossed that it pays off, and the market is happy.
Profit.
- most leadership, including technical, is now filled with compete imposters who have very little understanding of tech or market.
- product and strategy decisions are not based on data anymore. Any 'data' is now extremely cherry-picked
- it's standard practice to just completely hide/exclude any negative indicators/metrics.
- promotions are no longer merit-based. They are based exclusively on your ability to social engineer your managers/leadership, and your ability to manufacture metrics that sound good (to imposters who can't rationally inspect/critique them)
- there is zero real innovation happening at Amazon now
- good engineers are leaving in droves and being replaced by 3rd party external consultants
>It’s created artifacts that we’d like to change (e.g., pre-meetings for the pre-meetings for the decision meetings, a longer line of managers feeling like they need to review a topic before it moves forward, owners of initiatives feeling less like they should make recommendations because the decision will be made elsewhere, etc.) [...] So, we’re asking each s-team organization to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025. Having fewer managers will remove layers and flatten organizations more than they are today.
Amazon is a meatgrinder on its workforce, but I will give credit where it's due - I think thinning out management is a noble goal and endeavor. If it's true that these layoffs don't impact as many IC roles, it's probably worth calling that out.
(It's just awful convenient that the timing of this is also when everyone is staring down a rough economy)
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/ceo-andy-jassy...
Their filings show that it is still mostly ICs. If you’re doing a cut of 15% of the company (or whatever the number is), that has to include a large number of ICs.
In response, Amazon appears to be increasingly turning to H-1B workers - especially from countries where the company’s reputation hasn't soured as much.
Example: https://h1bgrader.com/h1b-sponsors/amazon-dot-com-services-l...
While these engineers may be less experienced, they're often more willing to accept lower compensation, due in part to discrepancies in wage data reported by the Department of Labor. For example, the BLS wage data, which sets a $115k cap for certain wage codes, has led to a misalignment in what’s considered a "fair wage" enabling companies like Amazon to pay these workers below actual market rates.
This reliance on overseas talent seems to be more than just a cost-saving measure; it also reflects Amazon's ongoing struggle with high turnover among its U.S. engineering staff. The company’s well-documented high attrition rates, as highlighted in reports like this one from Forbes - https://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsegal/2022/10/24/amazon-r... - shed light on the challenges Amazon faces in retaining domestic engineers.
The LinkedIn data also supports this trend.
Candidly, it seems that Amazon has burned too many bridges with U.S.-based engineers, forcing the company to increasingly rely on a less experienced labor pool from abroad in order to maintain its operations, despite being an American based, publicly traded company.
But I can tell you with fair certainty that Amazon's high turnover rate is NOT happening in their engineering departments, though. It's happening in their retail or business departments.
I'm kind of horrified by the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric in engineering circles online and how normalized it's becoming. (Especially troubling how much Indians in particular are drawing ire). Is it really that much different if Amazon brings in a foreign worker to Seattle vs someone from Mississippi? Immigration restrictions are arbitrary and unfair, and in my mind any carveouts for them are a good thing.
in what way do you mean different? i would say it is wildly different
America has free and open trade within its borders. Nobody seems to mind that there are no visa restrictions on someone from Mississippi taking a job in California.
The distinction we make between a foreigner coming to take a job and a domestic worker taking a job is (with some particular exceptions) is largely a mental construct.
If people immigrate to America, the arrangement should be mutually beneficial.
We are not, and should not be, the self-appointed saviors of the world.
This is definitely true. You are getting cheap educated labor, boosting your country's economy and crippling competition. Self interest, not savior behavior.
Now, that's irrelevant to the argument you are replying, that shows the holes in the wage depression argument.
hiring a foreign worker does not immediately reduce social burden on the country with the job
The links you have shared are relating to the Engadget leaks - which is specifically about turnover among warehouse workers.
Amazon is not using H1B workers to fill these positions.
If you look again you'll find another link to the H-1B data, And there are many types of engineering titles listed there.
Given how many CS grads in US colleges are struggling to find a job these days, I disagree.
If there is demand beyond what local supply can provide, sure. That may have been the case 10 years ago, but it's not the case today.
Agree, and it came on pretty suddenly as well, which is particularly horrifying. To me it shows how fragile civility and safety is. I see this type of sentiment showing up in the comment sections of YouTube videos on tech or financial topics recently. I think the reality is when people feel their own way of life and chance at becoming rich is at risk, they will search for whatever external risk they can eliminate. And increased competition (from foreign talent) is one such risk.
If it were just that, it would be one thing. But alongside the protectionism, I am seeing a lot of outright racist comments accompanying this backlash against immigrant labor. Like comments that play up stereotypes or worse. As a mild example, I see people saying things like “They can’t fix their own country so they’re coming to ruin ours” or “We don’t need more call center scammers”.
Maybe you mean there hasn't been any change in their turnover recently, but the numbers (not to mention, the horror stories) I heard more than a decade ago from then-current and ex-AMZN folks were already pretty bad.
As an illustrative example, IIRC the average tenure is 21 months, which is just 3 months short of their first big RSU chunk (15%?) vesting. That is, people could not bear to stay another 3 months to get a big chunk of equity that they'd worked for the past 21 months.
If people recall that NY Times article about Amazon culture, I had already heard examples of everything in that article and more from people who had left.
What significant changes to section 174 were made in the big beautiful bill?
Key Changes The bill created a new Section 174A that restores immediate deductibility for domestic research and experimental (R&E) expenditures, largely reversing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act requirement that had forced companies to capitalize and amortize all R&E expenses starting in 2022.
Domestic vs. Foreign Treatment:
Starting with tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, businesses may immediately deduct domestic R&E expenditures in the year they are paid or incurred
Foreign R&E expenditures must continue to be capitalized and amortized over 15 years under the original Section 174
Retroactive Relief Options:
The new rules permit taxpayers to deduct previously capitalized and unamortized domestic R&E expenditures over a one- or two-year period, and small businesses may opt to apply new Section 174A going back to 2022 and file amended returns. Eligible small business taxpayers (generally those with average annual gross receipts during the preceding three years not exceeding $31 million) can retroactively expense R&E expenditures for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, by filing amended returns.
Alternative Treatment: Taxpayers may still elect to capitalize and amortize domestic R&E expenditures over a period of not less than 60 months, or elect to amortize them over a 10-year period.
This represents a major win for businesses conducting research and development, as the 2022-2024 capitalization requirement had created significant tax burdens and compliance complexity.
Reminds me of Marc Benioff in a lot of ways.
So they're saying Amazon has culture of being assholes to others? I guess at least they're honest about it, and their admission comports with other accounts about how they do business.
The culture was abysmal. Not because of layers, Andy, but because you decided to do all your announcements in secret on A to Z.
Cowardice.
Nah, it's to instill fear.
Otherwise, why would you layoff people that are high performers due to 'culture'? That's just idiotic.
The average tech CEO today is a much greater villian daily than the nationally reviled 'corporate raiders' of that time were a couple of times a year. I don't know WTF happened to this country.