Same playbook, different reason.
"An estimated 7% of Microsoft’s 125,000-person U.S. workforce, or about 8,750 employees, would be eligible... Microsoft itself laid off more than 15,000 employees last year and began requiring workers in the Seattle region to return to the office three days a week."
-- https://www.geekwire.com/2026/microsoft-will-offer-voluntary-retirement-to-thousands-of-employees-in-a-first-for-tech-giant/
"I was their when SAS started. ... because the pool is full of old people."
Uhhhh ... hate to break it to you.
I was their when SAS started. There a good people still at SAS. I no longer go they're because the pool is full of old people.
"Yeah, your a je-k."
Ha ha ... good one.
@qn Yeah, your a je-k.
@qn Get over yourself
@ky These issues are negotiable. If a person is denied a package, and would have qualified if they had not announced their retirement date, that's a potential lawsuit. Companies will pay a reasonable amount to make such issues go away.
In that situation, it's definitely worth asking HR, to see if they can give you all of the package, or at least part of one. If you're leaving anyway, it can't hurt to ask.
"Well, I guess I am lucky that their won't be a package to make me sad then!"
Okay, but please tell me that you do know the difference between "their" and "there" in the context you used it, and it was simply a typo.
Well, I guess I am lucky that their won't be a package to make me sad then!
@jy If you have already put in a retirement notice and have a final day it is unlikely you would end up with a package should one happen to emerge at the same time.
Hurry up with the package SAS! My last day is in May and I want to take me some package goodness instead of the $100 / year going away present!
Back to the topic of this thread, from another article:
The one-time retirement program, announced in a memo on Thursday, will be available to U.S. workers at the senior director level and below whose years of employment and age add up to 70 or higher.
Can we get some of that?
@fz With all this foresight you guys possess you’ll make an absolute fortune shorting these companies.
You are doing that right? Putting your money where your mouth is.
@ee "Take AI, and American made electric cars. Both are extremely profitable and neither will collapse under the weight of their own debt."
Yes, as long as everyone believes. One day, they won't, and these companies will collapse.
It's a good argument for staying at SAS and not moving to the next hot AI startup.
@ed “ But remember that profitability was enabled by your colleagues getting laid off.”
Obviously. It’s the world of business. You are guaranteed nothing unless you put some skin in the game and own something.
No entitlement. Especially for all the slackers out there. LOTS of them at SAS and no they aren’t all management.
Nah. Math is politics, just like science and now religion. Everything is politics. Take AI, and American made electric cars. Both are extremely profitable and neither will collapse under the weight of their own debt.
Of course, it's true that inflation is an economic issue. It's equally true that businesses must react to economic issues.
For example, the price of jet fuel recently doubled. United Airlines reacted by reducing their flights by 5%.
SAS's expenses rose with inflation ~20% over the last decade. SAS reacted by reducing their headcount ~20%.
Businesses react to economic issues to maintain profitability.
If you are pleased by SAS's profitability, go thou and be happy. But remember that profitability was enabled by your colleagues getting laid off.
@ch “ If revenues don't keep pace with inflation, then they don't keep pace with expenses.”
Math is indeed just math. And for math to math you need to not make assumptions. Like the fact that revenue and expenses are growing/shrinking at the exact same pace. They aren’t.
Your inflationary commentary is a macro-economic issue. Not a business efficiency issue.
“math is just math”
Sorry, no.
There's two ways of calculating percentages. If you have a $600 dr-g and you reduce it to $10, that's a 600% reduction.
@c7 I'm surprised there is any disagreement on this issue. The math is simple.
If revenues don't keep pace with inflation, then they don't keep pace with expenses.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But math is just math.
@c1 oh god here we go with inflation again.
You said revenues have shrunk against expenses.
Inflation is a very real but different thing that both of those. It certainly impact the percentage but no income has not shrunk against expenses. Look at the ebidta % shared in the webcast compared to our profitability a year ago.
Show me a line on a P&L for inflation. It isn’t there. Why not? Because it is something outside the control of the business and not an indication of how well or poorly the company is doing.
@c0 Revenues have been flat for >10 years.
Therefore, revenues have declined >20% against inflation.
Therefore, they have declined against expenses, which rise with inflation.
If this were not true, SAS would not be laying off.
@b4 revenues are not declining against expenses. They discussed the high level numbers in the webcast.
@b4 Thanks! I see your point now.
In SAS's case, revenues are declining against expenses, so the goal is to cut costs to maintain a profit margin.
In Microsoft's case, revenues are increasing. The goal is to fund their massive investment in AI.
For the same reason, Amazon, Google, and Meta are all doing layoffs. Google has also offered a buyout.
Different reason? The goal appears to be to reduce headcount. Same as with SAS.