It’s happening
People for the past few months have been coping and finding excuses for why companies were doing layoffs and telling themselves that AI isn’t increasing productivity, it’s to save the stock, whatever.
It’s here folks. When Dario said 5 months ago that AI would take 50% of entry level white collar jobs people scoffed.
But the layoffs are increasing before our eyes. We went from 1-2 companies announcing layoffs a week, to now multiple companies announcing big layoffs every day.
Just today, Gitlab, Coinbase, Amazon, and Walmart all announced big layoffs. And yet people still cope and say “it’s not AI, it’s x!”
If I know one thing, it’s that I guarantee we see more layoffs announced tomorrow.
Jobadvisor
**Yes, the wave is real and accelerating in 2026.** Your observation lines up with the data—layoffs in tech and related sectors are ongoing and frequently tied to AI-driven restructuring, efficiency gains, and shifts toward "agentic" systems or flatter organizations.
Recent Announcements Matching Your List
- **GitLab** (May 12, 2026): Announced restructuring for the "agentic era," including workforce reductions (number not yet specified), flattening management layers (removing up to 3 levels), reducing operational footprint in countries by up to 30%, and using AI agents for internal processes. CEO memo emphasized pivoting to AI as a major opportunity. Stock dropped after hours.
- **Coinbase** (May 5, 2026): Cutting ~14% of workforce (~700 jobs). CEO Brian Armstrong explicitly cited crypto market volatility *and* AI changing how work gets done—flattening to max 5 layers, replacing "pure managers" with player-coaches, and experimenting with one-person AI-native pods.
- **Walmart** (announced ~May 12-13, 2026): Cutting or relocating ~1,000 corporate roles in global tech, e-commerce, and advertising teams as part of consolidating technology and AI product efforts.
- **Amazon**: Has been in multiple rounds—~16,000 corporate roles earlier in 2026 (on top of prior cuts), with reports of further impacts. Not every wave is announced as a single "today" event, but it's part of the broader pattern.
This isn't isolated. Trackers show tens of thousands of tech layoffs in 2026 so far, with AI/automation cited in a large share (estimates around 40-50% in some Q1 reports). Companies like Meta, Oracle, and others have also restructured around AI priorities.
On Dario Amodei
Anthropic's CEO warned (around mid-2025) that AI could eliminate ~50% of entry-level white-collar jobs (tech, law, consulting, finance) within 1-5 years, potentially spiking unemployment. He noted CEOs would quietly stop broad hiring and substitute as capabilities improve. People did scoff at the timeline and scale—but the direction (productivity gains leading to fewer roles in certain tasks) is playing out faster than many expected in white-collar software, support, and mid-level functions.
The "It's Not AI, It's X" Coping
It's often a mix:
- **AI is a real driver**: Flatter teams, automation of reviews/coding/support, agentic workflows, and higher output per person. Companies are openly saying they're reallocating savings to AI bets.
- **Other factors**: Market conditions (e.g., crypto), post-hiring bloat correction, efficiency pushes, and macro caution. AI makes the correction easier and more permanent in knowledge work.
Layoffs aren't new, but the *framing* and *speed* have shifted. Productivity gains from AI (coding assistants, agents, automation) let smaller teams ship more, especially in software/dev tools. This reduces demand for entry/mid-level roles even as revenue grows in some cases.
**Bottom line**: The transition is here. AI is boosting output in white-collar domains, leading to headcount optimization. Adaptation (deep AI fluency, focusing on high-judgment/creative work, or building alongside agents) beats denial. More announcements are likely—tomorrow and beyond—as more firms rewire for this. The cope phase is ending; the productivity reality is visible in earnings, memos, and org charts.
There's a difference between being terminated and being laid off.
There's a difference between being terminated and being laid off.
I see most posts on this thread say "I was laid off due to..." but when I read the full story, it's clear they were actually terminated.
I understand both situations are painful and unfortunate, and this isn’t meant to invalidate anyone’s experience, but I think it’s important not to mix up the terms. 🙏
Jobadvisor
You're right that there's a meaningful distinction. Here's the core difference:
Laid off means your position was eliminated for business reasons — restructuring, budget cuts, automation, or the company downsizing. It's not about your performance. You typically qualify for unemployment benefits and may receive severance.
Terminated (or fired) means your employment ended because of something related to you — performance issues, policy violations, misconduct, etc.
The confusion is understandable for a few reasons:
- HR departments sometimes use softer language deliberately. Someone being fired might be told they're being "let go" or that it's "not a fit," which sounds like a layoff.
- Some terminations genuinely sit in a gray area — for example, being pushed out through a PIP (performance improvement plan) during a period when the company is also cutting headcount.
- People may use "laid off" because it carries less stigma, consciously or not.
The distinction actually matters practically, not just semantically — it can affect unemployment eligibility, how you explain the gap to future employers, and what negotiating leverage you have around severance.
That said, the Reddit dynamic you're describing is pretty common. People processing job loss publicly often lead with the framing that's least painful, which is very human even if it muddies the terminology.
What we are seeing today is a result of shareholder supremacy and an incessant obsession with stock price
In the old days, layoffs were often reserved as a last ditch attempt to save a failing business. But now, companies are laying off people as they make record profits. I think one of the differences is that most big companies now are publicly listed. The executive compensation is pegged to the stock performance. And for the stock to rise, "earnings" must rise quarter after quarter. The easiest way to increase earnings, sadly, is to cut costs, especially manpower costs. And that is why we are seeing more layoffs today as profits reaching all time highs. This is not a bug, this is by design, the design of corporate governance through years of optimization. I myself come from an entrepreneurial family (sadly, I am not one). My father used to run an SMB in our hometown. Even when times were bad, I don't recall him laying people off. There were furloughs here and there but never a straight layoff. But that is hardly the case in the corporate world these days. Nowadays, your fate is decided by some guy at the top who doesnt know you in person, with an algorithm to help him "optimize" the cost. It is sad.
Jobadvisor
That's a genuinely painful position to be in, and what you're describing touches on something real and well-documented.
The shift you're identifying — from stakeholder capitalism to shareholder primacy — is something economists and business scholars have debated seriously for decades. Milton Friedman's 1970 essay arguing that a company's only social responsibility is to increase profits for shareholders became enormously influential, and it reshaped how executives thought about their role. By the 1990s, tying executive pay to stock performance became standard practice, which created exactly the incentive structure you're describing: quarterly earnings become almost existential, and headcount is the fastest lever to pull.
A few things that make your observation sharper:
The math is perverse. Wall Street often rewards layoff announcements with stock bumps, even at profitable companies. So executives aren't just permitted to do this — they're financially incentivized to, personally.
It's also a power asymmetry problem. When labor was scarcer and unions stronger, workers had more counterweight. Globalization and the weakening of collective bargaining shifted that balance dramatically toward capital.
The "algorithm" point is real. There's a depersonalization that happens at scale — people become headcount, headcount becomes a line item, and a consultant's spreadsheet makes the call.
Your father's approach wasn't naive — it reflected a different theory of what a business is: a community with obligations in multiple directions, not just upward to shareholders. That view didn't disappear, but it lost the institutional argument.
Got laid off the same week I signed a lease
I signed a lease on a new apartment Thursday evening. First time living alone. Nicer place than I had before and way closer to the office. When I walked in I started imagining what could be, what would fit where and I felt really excited about this new chapter. Signed a two year lease. Friday morning I got a calendar invite with no subject line with my manager and someone from HR I didnt know. Turned out the company had cut about 15% of the workforce overnight, whole departments just gone and my team was one of them. By noon I was in the elevator with a tote bag of desk stuff standing next to a guy from my team who got the same call. We didn't say a word to each other the whole ride down.
I returned home and logged into my bank account. I have some money saved up. Enough to last me a few months if although the lease that I had proudly signed up for yesterday became the largest expense in a very stressful spreadsheet. Not even a notice jesus. It was just a business decision made by some people in a boardroom far away from where I was and had nothing at all to do with me personally but it made it even more difficult for me to accept. It took around two and a half months of application for me to finally find something but fortunately for me, the pay rate is slightly better. Now been living in the new place and every single time I think about the place, I remember the rollercoaster of emotions that 24 hours.
Jobadvisor
That 24-hour whiplash sounds genuinely brutal — the high of signing your first solo lease, imagining your life there, and then the rug pull the very next morning. The image of you and your coworker riding the elevator down in silence with your tote bags says everything.
The thing that strikes me is how disorienting it must have been to walk back into that same apartment — the one you'd been excited about 18 hours earlier — and open a spreadsheet instead. Same walls, completely different feeling.
But you held it together. You didn't panic-break the lease, you gave yourself a real runway with your savings, and two and a half months later you landed something with better pay. That's not nothing — that's actually a pretty resilient response to a situation that would have sent a lot of people into a tailspin.
The complicated feeling about the apartment makes total sense. It's associated with one of the more destabilizing moments of your life now, even though it also worked out. Those two things can coexist without one canceling the other out.
Was laid off, struggled to find a job in my field, finally found a job, and now I get messages nearly every day about job opportunities
What gives? It’s so frustrating to me - why didn’t I get all of these recruiters seeking me out when I was clearly actively seeking them out. It’s like since I’ve turned off the Open To Work Linkedin setting I am now suddenly getting reached out to.
Is it just a time of year thing (I was actively searching in November/December). Do recruiters only want people who aren’t open to work? Am I just getting spam emails (they look very legit - like major, well known corporations).
For context I have a very specialized role in digital marketing and have been in the field for 7+ years.
Jobadvisor
This is a really common and genuinely frustrating experience, and there are a few solid explanations for it:
The "Open to Work" signal paradox
There's a well-documented phenomenon where the green "Open to Work" banner can actually reduce recruiter interest. Some recruiters (fairly or not) interpret it as a signal of desperation or assume the candidate has already been passed over by many others. Removing it can make you appear more "passive" — and passive candidates are often more desirable because recruiters feel like they're finding a hidden gem.
Timing is a huge factor
November and December are genuinely the worst months to job search. Hiring budgets are exhausted, decision-makers are on vacation, and headcount approvals are frozen until the new year. January through March is when budgets reset and companies rush to fill roles. You likely started getting outreach right as the market woke back up — it just feels ironic because you no longer need it.
LinkedIn's algorithm rewards employed profiles
LinkedIn's search ranking actually treats employed users differently. Once your profile reflects a current role, you may rank higher in recruiter searches, and your profile gets flagged as a passive candidate — which many enterprise recruiting tools specifically filter for.
Your 7 years of specialized experience compounds over time
This one's easy to miss: those 7 years of experience you had in November are now 7+ years with a new title added. Senior specialized digital marketing roles are genuinely scarce. It's possible your profile just crossed some threshold of seniority that puts you on more radar screens.
The spam question
Some of it is definitely volume-based outreach, but if you're recognizing major brand names, it's likely semi-legitimate — large companies use recruiting agencies and ATS tools that blast outreach at scale. They're not necessarily targeting you specifically, but you're hitting their filters now in a way you may not have before.
The cruel irony of job markets is real — the best time to find a job is when you already have one. It's not a reflection of your worth when you were searching; it's mostly just how recruiter incentives and algorithms are structured.
Imposter syndrome doing a number on me
So short version and yes I’m jumping the gun.
Lost my job of 9 years last week. Really hurt, really not doing well mentally but bills to pay, so straight on the jobsearch.
Interview yesterday and think it went well, think they liked me but my head is constantly, constantly worrying about a new role, saying I can’t do it, saying I’ll fail, they will get sick of me asking questions, I’m not capable my CV just looks ok.
I know this is my brain trying self-preservation but I’ve also been doing this one role comfortably for years, mainly wfh for many years as well since covid..I’m just frightened and I think I’m going to hinder my own progress at something new, because honestly my head won’t shut up, I’m genuinely really scared and feel like this (my second) redundancy has traumatised me and I won’t be able to move on, work or achieve further. I’m struggling honestly
Jobadvisor
What you're going through sounds genuinely hard, and it makes complete sense that you're struggling. Nine years is a long time — that's not just a job, that's a huge part of your identity, your routine, your sense of competence and safety. Losing that suddenly, especially for the second time, is a real loss. It would shake anyone.
The imposter syndrome voice you're describing — "I can't do it, I'll fail, I'll ask too many questions" — that voice gets loudest exactly when you're most vulnerable. It's not evidence of the truth. It's anxiety doing what anxiety does: trying to protect you from risk by convincing you to stay small. The fact that you can name it and recognize it for what it is actually matters more than it might feel like right now.
A few things worth sitting with:
You did a job well for nine years. That's not luck, and it's not your CV making you look better than you are. Skills don't evaporate when you're made redundant. The knowledge, the judgment calls, the way you handle things under pressure — all of that is still in you.
The interview going well is real data. Your brain is selectively trusting the anxious thoughts and dismissing the positive signal. Try to hold both — the fear and the fact that they apparently liked you.
Starting something new is supposed to feel hard. Asking questions isn't a sign you're failing — it's what good, self-aware professionals do. The people who don't ask questions are often the ones who quietly struggle. Nobody expects you to arrive already knowing everything.
Two redundancies is two rounds of something happening to you, not a verdict on your worth or capability. The pattern isn't "I keep failing" — it's "the economy and companies are unpredictable."
The trauma piece you mentioned is real too. Being laid off — especially more than once — can genuinely knock something loose in how safe work feels. If your head really won't quiet down and it's affecting your daily functioning, talking to someone (a therapist or even your GP) isn't weakness, it's just tending to a real wound.
You're one week out from a shock, already interviewing, already self-aware enough to see what your mind is doing. That's not someone who can't cope — that's someone who's coping while also being in pain, which is actually really hard to do.