Amazon says it didn't cut people because of money. But because of 'culture'
119 comments
·October 31, 2025honestduane
keeda
It's not even H1Bs and not just Amazon. Amazon and most Big Tech companies have been shifting jobs overseas (via hiring freezes in the US and open headcount in India) for almost 4 years now.
legitster
The link you posted is broken.
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.
keeda
> But I can tell you with fair certainty that Amazon's high turnover rate is NOT happening in their engineering departments, though.
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.
greenie_beans
> Is it really that much different if Amazon brings in a foreign worker to Seattle vs someone from Mississippi?
in what way do you mean different? i would say it is wildly different
legitster
If you're worried about from poorer areas coming in and taking our jobs, how much distinction is there really whether they come from a poorer state or a poorer country?
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.
honestduane
The links I have added above all show that Engineers are in fact impacted by this.
legitster
???
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.
insane_dreamer
> Immigration restrictions are arbitrary and unfair, and in my mind any carveouts for them are a good thing.
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.
SilverElfin
> I'm kind of horrified by the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric in engineering circles online and how normalized it's becoming
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”.
honestduane
Link updated.
legitster
From Jassy's blog post in September:
>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)
whatshisface
If the problem is that lower-downs are carrying out extensive planning for meetings where higher-ups are present, the culture issue might not be with the people who are adapting...
SilverElfin
> 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.
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.
busymom0
Original link to Jassy's blog post in September:
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/ceo-andy-jassy...
Fomite
Using "culture fit" to justify mass layoffs is, in fairness, probably a sign of a company's culture. Just not in the way they intended.
sleight42
Indeed. It seems like splitting hairs. It says that their upper level management made a lot of bad calls about headcount growth. And, as always, it's the people below the decision makers who pay the price.
jihadjihad
> Jassy explained that as Amazon added headcount, locations and lines of business in recent years, “you end up with a lot more people than what you had before, and you end up with a lot more layers … sometimes without realizing it, you can weaken the ownership of the people that you have who are doing the actual work.”
"And here's something else, Bob. I have eight different bosses right now."
"I beg your pardon?"
"Eight bosses."
"Eight?"
"Eight, Bob."standardUser
> you end up with a lot more people
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.
warkdarrior
Correct. CEO's layoff explanation indicates two things.
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.
episteme
You can do the right thing and still need to reverse the decision. If all the signals in the world suggest you will be able to support more initiatives in future then you should hire. If in the near future the economy changes dramatically and you can't support those hires, you need to let them go.
Pwntastic
Yes, the current executive culture of mass layoffs.
ceejayoz
The culture is "I want another yacht".
technothrasher
To be fair, I would like another yacht too. Especially considering my first yacht is really better described as a kayak.
quantummagic
I would like another kayak too. Especially considering my first kayak is better described as a shower cap.
actsasbuffoon
AKA the culture of “Why is AWS down again?”
toephu2
To be fair, there is no public information indicating that Andy Jassy has his own yacht.
cosmicgadget
Maybe he is a private train or airship guy. I can respect that.
ben_w
It still was when these people were hired. What has changed isn't the greed, but what is done to service it.
podgietaru
I was at Amazon during the last period of Layoffs.
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.
palmotea
> Amazon says it didn’t cut 14,000 people because of money. It cut them because of ‘culture’
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.
amyjess
> “We are committed to operating like the world’s largest startup, and … that means removing layers.”
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.
mingus88
At that scale, it’s the worst of both worlds.
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.
B-Con
> Large companies should just fund startups and acquire them when the product has shipped
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".
legitster
Kinda. The sweet spot is working at a "mid-cap" company. The company is growing and you have resources and freedom to do things, but not so big that you are in a bureaucratic nightmare.
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.
supportengineer
It's hard to beat the authority and responsibility one personally has at a startup.
uvaursi
Do we have any write ups or post mortems from WhatsApp employees prior to the acquisition and the massive buy out?
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.
ryandvm
Lol. You'll have exactly 1/1,500,000 the authority and responsibility.
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.
cosmicgadget
It is especially not a good thing when you need to provide reliable services, coordinate across multiple business units, retain talent not chasing an equity payday, and protect your moat.
Full disclosure: I do not have an MBA.
ryandvm
100%
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.
whazor
I joined an actual startup and am also very happy. We are just focused on making the product work. Not on promo docs or headcount fighting.
somanyphotons
What are the aspects that you're looking for from enterprise-land
thih9
Sane workload, work hours and vacation days for a start.
It’s 2025 and I still see “unlimited PTO” in many places.
lotsofpulp
That comes with high profit margin and moat (for your specific labor, not just the business's moat).
If you don't have leverage, you won't get those things regardless of enterprise or small business.
catlover76
[dead]
josefritzishere
I have worked at both and... well they're just very different. It's mostly trade offs. What specifically for y'all?
650REDHAIR
Culture of importing cheaper labor that they can manipulate.
The H1B program is broken and ripe for abuse.
palmotea
> Culture of importing cheaper labor that they can manipulate.
> 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.
supportengineer
I'm starting to think offshoring is better for America. Because house prices are unaffordable. Should a simple house really be $2 million ?
palmotea
> I'm starting to think offshoring is better for America. Because house prices are unaffordable. Should a simple house really be $2 million ?
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.
linguae
Be careful what you wish for. We could end up in a situation where we have unremarkable homes for $2 million and no local jobs capable of making the mortgage payments.
rvz
> I'm starting to think offshoring is better for America.
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".
lotsofpulp
Depends on its location and how many dual earner high income households want to buy it. There is no reason a specific lot should not be worth an arbitrary $x.
agentultra
This seems like more smoke and mirrors. I’ve heard some speculation that this is about cutting capex in salaries so they can afford a big purchase from Nvidia. I guess we’ll see in the coming months.
renewiltord
Salaries are operating expenses not capital expenses.
neilv
Hello, highly experienced engineer prospective hire. Tell me about a time when some memorized interview behavioral question, in STAR format. Now do this coding screening despite all your experience. Now tell me you want to be an engineer in a startup, and not in huge company of metrics-gaming and routine stack ranking cullings.
There's been a lot of debate around Amazon's hiring practices, particularly given the conflicting data and statements from the company. A core issue seems to be that Amazon has alienated a significant portion of its domestic engineering talent pool. Many experienced engineers have left, and others seem unwilling to return, even when offered higher-level roles. I personally was an L7 engineer and turned down a boomerang offer.
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.