As anxiety ripples through the American workforce, we’re seeing a steady drumbeat of layoff announcements from some of the nation’s biggest employers. To make sense of these complex dynamics—from the rise of AI to intense market pressures—we’ve brought in Priya Jaiswal, a leading authority on business and finance. Today, she’ll help us unpack the real stories behind the headlines, exploring how macroeconomic forces and strategic corporate pivots are reshaping the job market and what it all means for the average worker.
Companies like Amazon and HP are simultaneously reducing their workforces and increasing spending on AI, often under the banner of “restructuring.” What is the real relationship between these trends, and what are the first roles to become vulnerable when this justification is used by management?
The relationship is incredibly direct, though often veiled in corporate jargon like “streamlining operations.” What we’re witnessing is a fundamental reallocation of capital. Companies see AI not just as a tool, but as a long-term investment in efficiency. When you see Amazon cutting 16,000 corporate roles to “remove bureaucracy,” as their CEO Andy Jassy noted, it’s happening in parallel with a massive ramp-up in AI spending. The same pattern is visible at HP, which is cutting up to 6,000 jobs by 2028 while explicitly adopting AI to boost productivity. The first roles to become vulnerable are almost always in the corporate and administrative spheres—positions focused on data management, middle management, and operational coordination that can be automated or consolidated through new technologies.
We’re seeing a convergence of rising operational costs, stubborn inflation, and shifting consumer spending. How are these macroeconomic pressures forcing companies like Nestlé and Procter & Gamble to make significant job cuts, and what are the first departments typically impacted in this environment?
For global consumer goods giants, these macroeconomic pressures create a perfect storm. Their entire business model is based on managing massive, complex supply chains and appealing to consumers whose wallets are being squeezed. When you have rising commodity costs, stubborn inflation, and tariffs all hitting at once, margins get crushed. Nestlé’s decision to cut 16,000 jobs and Procter & Gamble’s move to eliminate 7,000 positions are direct responses to this reality. It’s a painful but necessary step for them to revive financial performance. In this environment, the first departments on the chopping block are typically those tied to operations, logistics, and non-essential marketing, along with any administrative roles that can be consolidated as the company reorganizes to protect its core profit centers.
UPS is cutting 30,000 jobs as it handles fewer Amazon shipments, while Novo Nordisk is reducing staff amid rising competition. Beyond broad economic issues, what specific competitive pressures are triggering these major layoffs? Please walk us through the internal decision-making process.
These cases really highlight how specific market shifts can be just as impactful as broad economic trends. For UPS, the decision to cut 30,000 operational jobs is deeply intertwined with its strategic pivot away from Amazon, which is building out its own delivery network. Internally, the conversation would have been about recalibrating their entire operational footprint for a future with a different, more diversified client mix. It’s a classic case of a major customer changing its strategy and forcing a supplier to make drastic adjustments. At Novo Nordisk, the pressure is different but just as intense. They are cutting 9,000 jobs, or 11% of their workforce, while facing a surge in competition in the lucrative obesity and diabetes medication market. The decision-making process there would have centered on restructuring to become more agile, shedding costs to fund R&D, and reorienting their sales strategy to fend off rivals.
The closure of a single Tyson Foods plant eliminated jobs for nearly a third of a small town’s population. What are the immediate and long-term ripple effects on a local community’s economy and social fabric when a major employer makes such a drastic cut?
The impact is absolutely devastating and cascades through the entire community. When Tyson Foods closed its plant in Lexington, Nebraska, it wasn’t just 3,200 people who lost their jobs; it was a town of 11,000 that lost its economic heart. The immediate effect is a spike in unemployment and a sudden drop in consumer spending, which hits small businesses—restaurants, local shops, real estate—almost overnight. Long-term, the ripple effects are even more profound. The tax base erodes, threatening funding for schools, infrastructure, and public services. Families are forced to relocate, hollowing out the community and fracturing the social fabric that has been built over generations. It’s an economic shock that can take a small town decades to recover from, if ever.
With mass layoffs spanning tech, retail, and manufacturing, workers are facing immense uncertainty. What are three practical steps an employee can take today to assess their own job security and proactively prepare for a potential layoff, even if their company hasn’t announced cuts?
First, become an expert on your company’s health and strategy. Pay close attention to earnings calls and investor reports. When you hear executives at a company like Verizon talking about the need to “simplify operations” and “reorient,” that’s a clear signal that significant change is coming. Second, assess your role’s centrality to the company’s future. Are you part of a core division that’s growing, or are you in a legacy department or a cost center that could be streamlined? For instance, if your company is heavily investing in AI like Microsoft or Amazon, roles that complement that technology are safer than those it might replace. Finally, always be networking and upskilling. Don’t wait for the layoff notice to update your resume or learn a new skill. The job market is turbulent, and having a strong professional network and relevant, in-demand skills is the best insurance policy you can have.
Several companies, including HP, Intel, and Lufthansa, have announced layoff plans that extend years into the future. From a management perspective, what are the strategic pros and cons of telegraphing workforce reductions so far in advance, and how does this affect current employee morale?
From a management perspective, the primary strategic advantage of announcing long-term layoff plans is transparency with Wall Street. It signals a clear, multi-year plan for cost control and restructuring, which investors often reward. For a company like Intel, announcing a plan to reduce its core workforce from 99,500 to 75,000 by the end of 2025 sends a powerful message about its commitment to reviving the business. However, the downside is enormous and directly impacts the workforce. Announcing cuts years in advance, as HP is doing through 2028 or Lufthansa through 2030, creates a prolonged period of uncertainty and anxiety. Employee morale can plummet, productivity can suffer, and you risk losing your most talented people, who will be the first to find new jobs rather than wait for the axe to fall. It’s a delicate balancing act between satisfying shareholders and retaining the very people you need to execute your long-term strategy.
What is your forecast for the U.S. job market over the next 18 months?
Looking ahead, I expect the job market to remain in this state of cautious equilibrium, what some economists are calling a “no-hire, no-fire” standstill. Hiring will likely stay sluggish as businesses grapple with persistent economic uncertainty and high operational costs. We won’t see a full-blown collapse, but the days of rapid job growth are behind us for now. The key trend to watch will be the continued strategic layoffs in sectors undergoing transformation, particularly in tech with the AI revolution and in industries sensitive to consumer spending and global supply chain pressures. Worker anxiety will remain elevated as this restructuring plays out, and job security will feel more tenuous. The market will favor those with adaptable, high-demand skills, while roles susceptible to automation or corporate cost-cutting will remain at high risk.
