I think we’re reaching the limits of what “more” can achieve esp. at Amazon’s scale. At some point, we will run out of people to sell things to. Then you look for low hanging “fruits” like this (cutting costs) instead of innovating and creating newer things (selling more).

Also with less need for hiring and fewer people to manage - there’s an opportunity for companies to make their HR leaner.

> Reuters said the job cuts would affect Amazon's HR and devices teams.

> I think we’re reaching the limits of what “more” can achieve esp. at Amazon’s scale. At some point, we will run out of people to sell things to.

See, that's the problem with tying all these amazing advances in automation and labor-saving to a system beholden to capital: it only considers what can make it more profit, not what can make the world better.

I guarantee you there are many, many more things we can do with "more", at any scale, if you take the profit motive out of the equation (or even just put it second or third on the list).

Never forget that profit in eonomy is indistinguishable from friction loss in a physics.

I'm sure for some roles this works out. Software development has been doing it for decades: developers get better tools that make them more productive, this lowers costs, and at the lower price point there is a lot more demand for more and better software. Classic induced demand. But how much elastic demand is there for accounting or logistics?