The Tokyo Metropolitan Government is set to implement a four-day workweek for its employees starting in April 2025, aiming to address Japan's declining fertility rates and promote work-life balance. Governor Yuriko Koike unveiled the plan, which also includes new policies to support working parents. The initiative is part of a broader effort to help alleviate pressures on families and reduce the gender gap in the workforce.
Starting in April 2025, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government will offer its employees a new work schedule—three days off each week. This move is part of a broader strategy to address Japan’s declining birth rates by improving work-life balance, particularly for working parents. Alongside the four-day workweek, a separate policy will allow parents of elementary school children in grades one to three to reduce their working hours in exchange for a proportional salary cut.
“We will review work styles … with flexibility, ensuring no one has to give up their career due to life events such as childbirth or childcare,” said Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike, in a policy address on Wednesday. “Now is the time for Tokyo to take the initiative to protect and enhance the lives, livelihoods, and economy of our people during these challenging times for the nation.”
Japan’s Fertility Crisis and the Need for Change
Japan is currently facing a fertility crisis, with its birth rate dropping to a record low of 1.2 children per woman, far below the replacement rate of 2.1. In 2023, the nation saw only 727,277 births, with Tokyo's birth rate sinking even further to 0.99. This demographic decline has caused significant concern, as it is expected to lead to a population reduction from 128 million in 2008 to an estimated 86.7 million by 2060.
In response, the government has introduced various policies, including incentivising childbearing and encouraging men to take paternity leave. However, experts argue that Japan's demanding work culture is a major factor driving down birth rates. Long hours and high workplace pressure often force workers, especially women, to choose between their careers and family life. This issue is compounded by Japan's substantial gender gap in labour force participation—55% of women participate in the workforce compared to 72% of men, according to World Bank data.
The Work-Life Balance Struggle
Japan's rigorous work culture, known for long hours and “karoshi” (death by overwork), has long been a barrier to balancing career and family. Women, in particular, are under pressure to choose between career advancement and motherhood, with many finding the cost of raising children, coupled with their unequal share of domestic duties, too high a price. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that women in Japan perform five times more unpaid domestic work than men, and many women who had fewer children than they wanted cited the increased burden of housework as a deterrent.
A four-day workweek could provide a much-needed solution, offering families more time together and reducing the pressure on working parents. As Koike stated, the goal is to ensure that no one has to give up their career due to childbirth or childcare, with the added benefit of helping improve fertility rates.
Global Success of Shortened Workweeks
The idea of a four-day workweek has gained traction globally, with companies in Western nations beginning to experiment with compressed work schedules as a way to enhance employee well-being and attract talent seeking a better work-life balance. A 2022 global study by 4 Day Week Global involved trials in six countries, where over 90% of participating employees reported improvements in physical and mental health, reduced stress, and better work-life integration. The trials showed that men also took on a greater share of household responsibilities, spending 22% more time on childcare and 23% more on housework.
Peter Miscovich, a global future of work expert at JLL, highlighted the benefits of shorter workweeks, saying, “The upside from all of that has been less stress, less burnout, better rest, better sleep, less cost to the employee, higher levels of focus and concentration during the working hours, and in some cases, greater commitment to the organisation as a result.”
These positive results suggest that Japan’s move toward a four-day workweek could alleviate some of the burdens of working parents and potentially boost the country’s low fertility rate.
Cultural Shifts and Challenges Ahead
While the four-day workweek has proven successful in other parts of the world, its adoption in Japan presents significant cultural challenges. In Japanese corporate culture, long hours are often equated with loyalty to the company, and shifting away from this norm will require a deep cultural transformation. Despite the potential benefits of a shorter workweek, it may take time for Japanese companies to fully embrace the idea.
Tokyo’s initiative comes at a critical time for the nation, which has seen its population steadily decline since 2008. In addition to its fertility policies, Japan is pushing for measures to create a more family-friendly society. Earlier this year, Singapore introduced new regulations requiring companies to consider employee requests for flexible working arrangements, including four-day workweeks.
As Tokyo moves forward with its plans, the success of these policies could set a precedent for other cities in Japan and beyond, encouraging broader adoption of family-friendly work policies and offering new solutions to global work-life balance challenges.
Ref
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy propose sweeping reforms for the US federal workforce, aiming to cut jobs and end remote work. Their plan, backed by President-elect Trump, seeks efficiency and cost reduction.
Elon Musk and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy have announced a plan to overhaul the US federal workforce, which includes job cuts and an end to remote work for federal employees. Their vision, published in The Wall Street Journal, introduces the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a new initiative supported by President-elect Donald Trump. The goal is to reduce the size of the federal government, cut unnecessary spending, and lessen the influence of unelected officials in policy-making.
A key policy is mandating all federal employees to return to in-person work five days a week. Musk and Ramaswamy believe this will encourage resignations among those unwilling to comply. They argue that taxpayers should not fund the 'Covid-era privilege' of working from home. This move is part of a broader strategy to streamline government operations and reduce workforce costs.
The duo is also advocating for significant workforce reductions, labelling the federal bureaucracy as bloated. Their cost-cutting measures aim to eliminate non-essential funding, such as $535 million annually for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $300 million allocated to Planned Parenthood. They estimate these reforms could save over $500 billion in unauthorised expenditures.
Beyond workforce changes, Musk and Ramaswamy aim to reduce the influence of unelected officials who create regulations without congressional approval. They claim these regulations burden businesses and taxpayers. By leveraging recent Supreme Court rulings, they plan to remove rules lacking clear congressional backing. Their strategy emphasises executive action over new legislation to stimulate economic growth by easing regulatory constraints.
Musk and Ramaswamy have set July 4, 2026, as the deadline to implement their reforms, framing it as a patriotic effort to restore governance to its constitutional roots. They anticipate resistance from political and legal interests but believe a strong electoral mandate and a conservative Supreme Court majority provide an opportunity to reshape the federal government.
The proposed changes represent a big shift in federal governance, focusing on efficiency and cost reduction at the expense of remote work flexibility and current staffing levels. While supporters see the plan as necessary reform, critics may question its feasibility and potential impact on public services.
Ref
Mark Spitznagel, who is a bearish investor, has now predicted that stock prices may soon lose nearly half their value in an upcoming sell-off, that could end up putting the stock market in a major crisis. Moreover, he is also of the opinion that a recession could become a reality by the end of the year.
A US recession could happen by the end of the year, if the government's $34 trillion debt triggers it. Universa Investments has reportedly made billions from past stock market crisis, and this hedge fund is led by Spitznagel himself, which is the clear indicator that he is quite understanding about the future situation of the stock market. If stocks lose half their value as being predicted, the US stock market may see a record crash in coming days.
Is the US economy in danger?
Spitznagel is of the opinion that the bubble and the impact of its burst, would make it even tough for the US economy to witness a turnaround, as the $34 trillion debt may make it even more difficult for the Federal Reserve to turn the economy around within due time. Therefore, there are peak chances of a major recession by the end of the year in case this situation persists.
Stock market situation like a 'time bomb' now
Spitznagel has termed the situation of the stock market to be a ticking time-bomb, and the US markets could be heading to something really bad ahead. However, it must be noted that the market mogul has been raising alarms about a stock market crash since 2023, but it has not happened as of yet but things could become a reality in the future.
FAQs
Is Mark Spitznagel expecting a US stock market crash?
Veteran market analyst Mark Spitznagel is anticipating global stock market crash in coming times, based on the record peaks they have attained over the past two years.
Is the US economy under recession?
The US economy is currently not under recession but there are possibilities that it may arrive by 2025, according to market analysts.
Ref
“Should you bargain with the Devil?” If I were pressed to provide a one-sentence answer to this question, it would be: “Not always, but more often than you feel like it.”
“Not always” because I reject categorical claims that you should always be willing to negotiate. “More often than you feel like it” for two different sorts of reasons. First, the negative traps and strong emotions may make you feel like fighting when clearheaded analysis would demonstrate that you should negotiate. The second relates to morality. You may feel that choosing to negotiate would violate a moral principle you hold dear, or be inconsistent with your sense of self. In the very hardest cases, you may feel deeply torn between the “principled” choice and the “pragmatic” one. When one is forced to choose between the two, I lean heavily in favor of pragmatism, but I want to acknowledge how painful that choice can be.
Why is it painful? Because you may feel that justice requires more than just a pragmatic resolution—it requires condemnation. In your eyes, the enemy has committed an act for which they should be punished, not rewarded. Your honor and integrity demand that you resist. This impulse can be just as powerful in business and family disputes as in international conflicts—perhaps even more so.
I have empathy for this desire to punish those who have wronged us. I share it. When we are caught between the demands of principle and pragmatism, what we really need to ask ourselves is, To what extent should we look backward and to what extent should we focus on the future? There's often an inescapable tension between achieving justice for past wrongs and the need for resolution. It is another aspect of the Faustian bargain. If you want to resolve the conflict and move forward, you may have to give the devil something you feel he doesn't deserve. This is a bitter pill to swallow.
Now that our journey is nearly over, I owe you some general advice.
We've explored together eight high-stakes conflicts where real people had to decide what to do. We've seen the traps at work. We've applied my framework. Eight stories can't capture the full range of situations in which the Devil may make an appearance; nor can they illustrate all the factors that may be relevant in applying my framework. But drawing on my framework and these stories, I can suggest four general guidelines.
1. Systematically compare the expected costs and benefits.
When we feel like fighting, we may jump to the conclusion that negotiating a satisfactory resolution is simply out of the question. The best antidote to that kind of knee-jerk impulse and the negative traps is to go through Spock's five questions carefully.
Who are the parties and what are their interests? What are each side's alternatives to negotiation? What are the costs of negotiation for each side? Are there any potential negotiated agreements that might better serve the interests of both sides than their best alternatives away from the table? If such a deal is reached, what is the likelihood that it will be implemented? (In other words, can you trust the other side to live up to it? If not, can it be enforced anyway?) I am the first to acknowledge that asking these questions will not necessarily lead to a single right answer. This isn't a mechanical exercise, like balancing your checkbook. This is tedious, it's hard, and it requires you to make predictions about future behavior in a context of uncertainty. It isn't value-free. Judgments about values and priorities—what's “good” and “bad,” what counts as a benefit and what counts as a cost—will of course beincluded in your analysis. For example, when evaluating costs, one might ask, “Will a deal here encourage more evil in the future?” Reasonable people assessing the same alternatives may reach different conclusions.
There are also deeper critiques of cost-benefit analysis, two of which I'll address briefly. They suggest that Spock's sort of analysis is not infallible and should not be your exclusive guide to decision-making.
The first is that it favors analytic over intuitive reasoning. As I said earlier, I believe that rationality encompasses both analysis and intuition.
(Think of an experienced doctor making a medical diagnosis.) But with cost-benefit reasoning, the analytic side of the brain is in charge. Spock doesn't understand intuition, so he may discount or ignore valuable information.
I am not suggesting you ignore your emotions or your intuitions. Instead I'm advising you to probe them. They may be traps, or they may be valuable insights. Ask yourself, What may have triggered this reaction? Is there evidence to support it? Evidence that would point in the opposite direction? A second criticism of cost-benefit analysis is that it values pragmatic concerns over moral categorical principles. This goes to one of the most profound issues in philosophy: Is it proper to judge the morality of an act only on an assessment of its consequences? Cost-benefit analysis is consequentialist at its core—one makes choices among alternative courses of action solely by evaluating and comparing the consequences of those actions. Some philosophers would argue that this is an incomplete and inadequate form of moral reasoning, and many ordinary people would intuitively agree. There are well-known philosophical puzzles that expose its limitations. Consequentialism doesn't explicitly leave room for philosophical and religious traditions that emphasize categorical principles for human conduct.
So why do I still insist, at least as a first step, that you assess costs and benefits? To prevent you from relying solely on intuition or unarticulated moral claims, and to be suspicious of those who do. Conduct the analysis first. If you are still conflicted, you must make the difficult decision whether your moral principle is so absolute that you cannot negotiate, even under these extenuating circumstances.
2. Get advice from others in evaluating the alternatives: don't do the analysis alone.
Like Churchill, you should be willing to expose your reasoning to rigorous questioning by people you respect. When they ask how you reached your decision about whether to negotiate, “I just know it in my gut, I can't explain it” is not an adequate response.
We saw how Churchill initially floundered under fire from Halifax and Chamberlain. It's hard to reduce a powerful instinct to rational explanation.
Churchill huffed and blustered, tossing out one half-baked rationale after another. But finally he managed to build a sound argument: Hitler had shown that he was an unreliable negotiating partner, there were substantial risks that negotiations would fail, and a failed negotiation would have a devastating effect on Churchill's ability to rally the British people for war.
This logic persuaded everyone but Halifax.
In our own lives, particularly in conflicts that involve demonization, there are times when we all need a War Cabinet. Talk with at least one person who's less emotionally involved. It may be a lawyer. It may be a trusted friend. It may be a group of advisors whose perspectives are different from yours. It may be a mediator who can help all the disputants understand the trade-offs. The point is, let other people help you weed out the traps.
In assessing the costs and benefits of the alternatives, members of your team may disagree. They may be making different trade-offs and predictions, or different value judgments about what counts as a benefit and what counts as a cost. Exposing these differences is helpful, for it will better ensure a considered decision.
3. Have a presumption in favor of negotiation, but make it rebuttable.
4. When deciding on behalf of others, don't allow your own moral intuitions to override a pragmatic assessment.
When it comes to making decisions that involve a perceived “devil,” there is a difference between individuals acting solely on their own behalf and those acting in a representative capacity—deciding on behalf of others. For an individual, a decision to override a pragmatic assessment based on moral intuitions may be virtuous, courageous, and even wise—as long as that individual alone bears the risks of carrying on the fight. This is not true for a business executive deciding on behalf of a corporation, a union representative acting on behalf of a union, or a political leader acting onbehalf of his nation. Perhaps not even for a parent acting on behalf of a child.
A person acting in a representative capacity not only must carefully and rationally assess the expected consequences of alternative courses of action, but also should be guided by that assessment. If cost-benefit assessment favors negotiation, I think it is improper for the representative to decide nonetheless to go to battle based on his personal moral intuitions.
This last guideline brings to mind the challenges facing our national leaders in deciding whether to negotiate with terrorists or leaders of evil regimes.
In the Introduction, I said that my personal journey began shortly after 9/11, when President Bush had to decide whether to accept Mullah Omar's invitation to negotiate with the Taliban, which then controlled Afghanistan.
I explained why, after applying my framework, I agreed with Bush's decision not to negotiate with the Taliban. But I must confess that I became increasingly troubled during the remainder of his two terms with his general approach to the questions at the heart of this book. Indeed, there is evidence that the president violated all four of my guidelines. Let me explain.
1. According to Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, President Bush disliked and avoided systematic cost-benefit analysis of different policy options, preferring to make decisions based on his instincts. “President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve deeply into all the possible policy options—including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them—before making a choice. Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq.”11 In other words, Bush was not a Spockian.
2. President Bush, of course, had any number of foreign policy advisors.
But there is evidence that his “War Cabinet” acquiesced without pushing him very hard to think through costs and benefits, opportunities and risks.
According to McClellan, “[O]verall, Bush's foreign policy advisors played right into his thinking, doing little to question it or to cause him to pause long enough to fully consider the consequences before moving forward.
And once Bush set a course of action, it was rarely questioned. … That wascertainly the case with Iraq. Bush was ready to bring about regime change, and that in all likelihood meant war. The question was not whether, but merely when and how.”
3. President Bush's administration did not apply a presumption in favor of negotiation. Indeed, its rhetoric suggests quite the opposite. As Vice President Dick Cheney declared shortly after September 11, “I have been charged by the president with making sure that none of the tyrannies of the world are negotiated with. We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it.”
This implies a strong presumption—if not an absolute rule—against negotiation with “evil” regimes.
4. In refusing to negotiate with certain regimes, President Bush may have allowed his moral intuitions to override more pragmatic choices that would have better served the interests of the American people. His rhetoric was highly moralistic,14 often strident, and made frequent references to concepts of good and evil.
Of course, rhetoric and decision-making are not the same thing. The president's decisions may well have been made on the basis of a pragmatic comparison of the costs and benefits of different alterna-tives, and then only justified publicly on the basis of morality. With-out looking behind the veil, it is of course impossible to know. But a number of the administration's decisions and policies are consistent with the rhetoric. Bush did not negotiate with Saddam Hussein but instead invaded Iraq. His administration consistently refused to negotiate directly with Iran. And the administration refused to negotiate bilaterally with North Korea concerning its nuclear program. I am not going to explore here the wisdom of these particular decisions. Instead, my point is that President Bush may have relied on his own moral intuitions rather than a careful, pragmatic assessment of the alternatives.
President Barack Obama's strategy and rhetoric are much more consistent with my approach. He avoids public statements that demonize regimes or their leaders. The following example, regarding relations with Iran, is worth quoting at length because of its sophistication and good sense:As odious as I consider some of [Iranian] President Ahmadinejad's statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues … the use of tough, hard- headed diplomacy, diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries, is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity.
In other words, President Obama is not only willing to negotiate with evil, his rhetoric implies a presumption in favor of it. He is focusing on American interests—avoiding nuclear proliferation and not exporting terrorism.
That I like his approach does not mean that in the years to come President Obama's decisions will necessarily be wise. As of this writing in 2009, President Obama is still in the first year of his presidency. It is too soon to tell how his approach will translate into practice.
President Obama faces many of the same foreign policy dilemmas that President Bush did. Should we negotiate with the Taliban, Hamas, or Hezbollah? Even though none of these groups currently controls a national government, they each have the capacity to harm the United States. It is easy to imagine possible deals that might serve U.S. interests but would expose a tension between pragmatism and principle. Should we negotiate with Iran and North Korea, and if so, how? I am eager to see how President Obama manages the tensions we've explored in this book. As he and future presidents grapple with these questions, we as citizens will have to decide for ourselves whether their decisions are wise.
My goal in writing this book was not to offer easy answers. I end my journey with a deep sense of humility. Deciding whether to negotiate with the Devil poses profound questions and this book is hardly the last word.
But my approach should allow you to think more clearly about how to navigate this terrain with integrity—and wisdom.
Tags: Book Summary,Negotiation,Management,Politics,
Amazon may eliminate approximately 14,000 manager positions by early 2025, potentially saving up to $3 billion per year, according to a recent Morgan Stanley analysis. This move aligns with CEO Andy Jassy's goal to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025. Jassy aims to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025. These changes are part of Amazon's broader effort to "operate like the world's largest startup," with Jassy emphasising the need for "strong urgency, high ownership, fast decision-making, scrappiness and frugality, deeply-connected collaboration."
The estimate, according to Morgan Stanley, suggests that Amazon could reduce its management workforce from about 105,770 to 91,936 globally. This reduction would result in annual cost savings between $2.1 billion and $3.6 billion, representing 3% to 5% of Amazon's projected 2025 operating profit.
Amazon confirmed to Business Insider that it has "added a lot of managers" recently and believes "now is the right time" to make this change. The company stated that every team will review their structure, and it's "possible" that some roles may be eliminated.
The restructuring aims to remove unnecessary organisational layers and improve Amazon's agility by reducing bureaucratic hurdles. However, the company has not committed to specific job cuts, suggesting that the ratio change could potentially be achieved through other methods, such as reassigning managers to new roles.
Morgan Stanley's analysis assumes that 7% of Amazon's workforce holds management positions, with an estimated annual cost per manager between $200,000 and $350,000. The investment bank views this potential move as a significant opportunity for Amazon to enhance its operational efficiency.
The global IT industry is rapidly evolving, driven by technological advancements such as AI, cloud computing, and cybersecurity. As the demand for specialized skills grows, IT professionals are grappling with a widening skills gap that threatens their competitiveness in the global market.
The IT Skills Gap: A Growing Challenge for Indian IT Professionals
According to the Economic Survey 2024, only 51.25% of Indian youth are employable, leaving nearly half of the workforce ill-prepared to meet industry demands.
The India Skill Report 2024 has revealed a significant mismatch between the skills of Indian IT graduates and industry demands. The report highlights a 60%-73% demand-supply gap in critical roles such as machine learning engineers, data scientists, DevOps engineers, and data architects.
This gap shows the disconnect between academic training and the evolving needs of the IT sector. If unaddressed, this skills disparity could hamper the growth of India’s IT industry and reduce its capacity to drive economic development, limiting the country’s potential in the global technology landscape.
The Numbers Behind the Skills Gap
This skills mismatch has resulted in a staggering 3,00,000 unfilled positions across major IT companies in India. According to a Times of India article, TCS alone accounts for 80,000 open positions, representing 13% of its workforce.
Other leading IT firms are also grappling with similar challenges, with a significant number of vacancies. Assuming 10% of their workforce is affected by the skills gap, the estimated open positions are as follows:
Accenture (35,000), Infosys (35,000), Wipro (25,000), HCLTech (25,000), Capgemini (25,000), Cognizant (25,000), Tech Mahindra (15,000), LTIMindtree (8,000), Mphasis (3,000), L&T Technology Services (3,000), and Persistent Systems (3,000).
Note: This is based on the editor’s estimation, not confirmed data from the companies.
Bridging the Gap: The Need for Skill Development
Addressing this skills gap requires a focus on reskilling and upskilling initiatives to align Indian IT professionals with the evolving needs of the global industry.
Collaboration between academia, government, and industry is essential to develop more relevant educational programs.
With major companies holding thousands of open positions, filling these roles will be crucial not only for individual career growth but also for maintaining India’s leadership in the global IT sector.
Key Metrics
Unfilled Positions: 3,00,000 across major IT companies
TCS Open Positions: 80,000 (13% of workforce)
Employability: Only 51.25% of Indian youth are readily employable
Referencessights in plus
U.S. tech giant Cisco has let go of thousands of employees following its second layoff of 2024.
The technology and networking company announced in August that it would reduce its headcount by 7%, or around 5,600 employees, following an earlier layoff in February, in which the company let go of about 4,000 employees.
As TechCrunch previously reported, Cisco employees said that the company refused to say who was affected by the layoffs until September 16. Cisco did not give a reason for the month-long delay in notifying affected staff. One employee told TechCrunch at the time that Cisco’s workplace had become the “most toxic environment” they had worked in.
TechCrunch has learned that the layoffs also affect Talos Security, the company’s threat intelligence and security research unit.
Cisco said in its August statement that its second layoff of the year would allow the company to “invest in key growth opportunities and drive more efficiencies.” On the same day, Cisco published its most recent full-year earnings report, in which the company said 2024 was its “second strongest year on record,” citing close to $54 billion in annual revenue.
Cisco chief executive Chuck Robbins made close to $32 million in total executive compensation during 2023, according to the company’s filings.
When reached by email, Cisco spokesperson Lindsay Ciulla did not provide comment, or say if Cisco’s executive leadership team planned to reduce their compensation packages following the layoffs.
Are you affected by the Cisco layoffs? Get in touch. You can contact this reporter on Signal and WhatsApp at +1 646-755-8849, or by email. You can send files and documents via SecureDrop.
A look at Cisco’s response to the current economic climate and transition trajectory leading to significant layoffs:
Cisco’s focus on subscription-based services
Cisco's $28 billion acquisition of Splunk in March signals a strategic shift towards subscription-based services. This move marked a significant shift for Cisco, traditionally known for networking equipment, as it entered the competitive cybersecurity market alongside players like Palo Alto Networks, Check Point, CrowdStrike, and Microsoft, as ET followed this development.
Cisco’s funding to AI startups
Since 2018, Cisco has been actively involved in the AI space, acquiring Accompany and CloudCherry to expand its presence in this rapidly growing technology. In 2019, the company launched the Silicon One ASIC chip, offering speeds of 25.6 Tbit/s, directly competing with Intel and Nvidia.
Cisco has allocated $1 billion to fund AI startups.
Earlier in February, Cisco partnered with Nvidia. The latter agreed to use Cisco's ethernet with its own technology that is widely used in data centers and AI applications. In June, Cisco invested in AI startups like Cohere, Mistral AI, and Scale AI. The company announced that it had made 20 acquisitions and investments related to AI in recent years.
Focus on emerging technologies
Cisco offers data center technologies like the Unified Computing System (UCS) and Nexus switches, designed to support modern data center and cloud environments. Additionally, their collaboration tools, such as WebEx and Cisco Jabber, enhance communication and productivity.
Shifting focus on cybersecurity
Since 2013, with the acquisition of Sourcefire, a network security and threat detection provider Cisco strengthened its security portfolio. Open DNS acquired in 2015, provides cloud based threat detection and prevention. CloudLock, a cloud security solutions provider for $293 million protects users and data in cloud environments. Duo Security, for $2.35 billion, provides cloud based authentication and access control.
Meet my new secretary, ChatGPT. Over the last couple of weeks, tied up by several unending writing projects, I’ve done what I once deemed unthinkable. I’ve found myself going to ChatGPT — OpenAI’s artificial intelligence bot — for everything from proof-reading and copy-editing to research and review.
I most certainly realise that I’m quite late to the chase. A lot of my friends have been employing ChatGPT for ages now to write and draft all sorts of documents. But I’m a bit of a purist writer, to be honest. I’ve always believed that words are deeply personal. If you’re writing a letter, email or essay, every word ought to come from your heart -- not from digital algorithms operating mysteriously. Admittedly, therefore, I still don’t use ChatGPT to do any of my actual writing (I assure you this column has not been written by ChatGPT).
But as I began using ChatGPT, I realised why I had previously been afraid of it. This thing is addictive and eerily efficient. It understands more about the world than I was led to believe. It reads and writes rapidly. And I hate to say this, but it can do a lot of the work that so many of us get paid to do -- for free.
To be sure, none of this makes AI all that different from the world’s previous tech revolutions. Every time a new machine has been invented, fear has followed.
In 1830, Britain was about to flag off the world’s first passenger train to run between Liverpool and Manchester. Among the railroad project’s most ardent supporters was a local Member of Parliament, William Huskisson. In the run-up to the railway’s grand opening, Huskisson had just undergone surgery and was advised by his doctor to cancel all upcoming appointments. Huskisson refused. The train’s debut was far too important an occasion, he argued.
It was a fateful decision. On the big day, as the train’s demo got underway, Huskisson walked across the tracks to shake hands with Prime Minister Arthur Wellesley. Then, disaster struck. Before he knew it, Huskisson saw the train barreling down towards him as he watched in horror. His feet got stuck in the tracks and the MP was knocked out clean.
In the aftermath of the accident, much British press coverage of the event naturally dwelt on Huskisson’s tragic death. Writers shuddered at the thought of speedy steam engines mowing down people all over England.
But something else also happened: the train cut down the usual travel time between Liverpool and Manchester to less than half. Soon, the railway became the cornerstone of Britain’s Industrial Revolution and powered the most extensive and influential empire the world has ever seen.
AI has the potential for such pathbreaking efficiencies, too, but it could also change the nature of work in unprecedented ways.
Previous tech revolutions had replaced relatively lower income and lower skilled jobs. In return, several more jobs were created further up the ladder. Trains, for instance, rendered horse carriages obsolete. But over time, the sons of carriage-drivers learnt to operate steam engines, and the economic pie expanded on the whole.
What sets AI apart is that it is also upending higher income, higher skilled jobs. That means that while economic activity might expand, the jobs that AI is likely to create will be far more skill-heavy and potentially fewer in number. Those at the top will benefit disproportionately. The masses below will have few opportunities.
To make the most of this new beast, governments will have to find ways to preempt that inequality. Otherwise, millions could risk getting their feet caught in its tracks.
SynopsisTech companies cut over 27,000 jobs in August 2024, with major firms like Intel, IBM, and Cisco among those announcing layoffs. Intel plans to reduce its workforce by 15%, while Cisco is shifting focus to AI and cybersecurity. IBM is discontinuing R&D in China. Other companies like Infineon, GoPro, Apple, Dell Technologies, ReshaMandi, Brave, and ShareChat also announced significant job cuts.
Tech companies continued to cut jobs at a rapid pace in August 2024. More than 27,000 workers in the industry lost their jobs as over 40 companies, including big names like Intel, IBM, and Cisco, as well as numerous smaller startups, announced layoffs. To date, more than 136,000 tech workers have been laid off by 422 companies in 2024, indicating significant upheaval in the sector.
Intel
Intel is undergoing one of the most challenging periods in its history, announcing 15,000 job cuts, which represents over 15% of its workforce. These layoffs are part of a $10 billion spending reduction plan for 2025, spurred by a disappointing second-quarter earnings report and outlook. Annual revenues for the company fell by $24 billion between 2020 and 2023, despite a 10% increase in its workforce during the same time frame. CEO Pat Gelsinger stated, "Intel’s revenue growth shortfall is attributed to high costs and low margins, despite our leadership in the CPU chip revolution 25 years ago."
Cisco Systems
Cisco Systems has also announced it is laying off around 6,000 employees, or about 7% of its global workforce, as it shifts its focus to high-growth areas such as AI and cybersecurity. This is the company's second major round of job cuts this year. CEO Chuck Robbins remains hopeful about the future, noting efforts to pivot toward emerging technologies. "Cisco is optimistic about rebounding demand for our networking equipment," he said. The company is restructuring to capitalize on these technologies and has committed $1 billion to investing in AI startups. Additionally, Cisco recently acquired cybersecurity firm Splunk for $28 billion. As part of the restructuring, Cisco plans to consolidate its networking, security, and collaboration departments into a single organization.
IBM
IBM has decided to discontinue its research and development operations in China, leading to over 1,000 layoffs. Chinese media outlet Yicai reported on the situation, which stems from a decline in demand for IT hardware and difficulties in expanding within the Chinese market. IBM pledged that despite these changes, customer support in China will remain unaffected. "IBM will now prioritize serving private enterprises and select multinationals within the Chinese market," the company affirmed.
Infineon
Infineon, a German chipmaker, is also making significant cuts, with plans to reduce 1,400 jobs and relocate another 1,400 to countries with lower labor costs. CEO Jochen Hanebeck explained these measures were necessary due to third-quarter revenue falling short of expectations. "The slow recovery in target markets is due to prolonged weak economic momentum and excess inventory levels," he said, leading to a downgraded forecast for the third time in recent months.
GoPro
GoPro, the action camera manufacturer, will cut about 15% of its staff, totaling around 140 employees, as part of a restructuring plan. These layoffs aim to reduce operating expenses by $50 million from projected fiscal 2024 expenses.
Apple
Apple has laid off around 100 employees primarily from its services group, which includes the Apple Books app and Apple Bookstore teams, with some engineering roles also affected. The company is redirecting resources toward AI programs, seeing Apple Books as a lower priority now. However, Apple News remains a focal point. This is not Apple's first round of layoffs this year; previously, it cut 600 employees from its Special Projects Group and shuttered a 121-person AI team in San Diego in January. As of the last report, Apple had 161,000 full-time equivalent employees. Apple declined to comment on the latest layoffs.
Dell Technologies
Dell Technologies is reportedly reorganizing its sales teams, including establishing a new AI-focused group. Sales executives Bill Scannell and John Byrne mentioned in a memo that Dell aims to become leaner by streamlining management and reprioritizing investments. Rumors suggest that the company may have laid off about 12,500 employees, or 10% of its global workforce, but this has not been officially confirmed.
ReshaMandhi
ReshaMandi, a fabric startup based in Bengaluru, has laid off its entire workforce, according to sources cited by Entrackr. The company's website has been inactive for a week, coinciding with the resignation of its auditor. "It’s all over for ReshaMandi," a source said. "The company is struggling to pay liabilities and bear operational costs, including salaries, for the past several months."
Brave
Brave, a web browser and search startup, has laid off 27 employees across various departments, as confirmed by TechCrunch. This represents a 14% reduction from its estimated 191 employees. Brave previously cut 9% of its workforce in October 2023 due to cost management challenges in a difficult economic environment.
ShareChat
ShareChat, a social media company also based in Bengaluru, has cut around 30-40 jobs, or roughly 5% of its workforce, following a bi-annual performance review in August 2024.
[ Ref ]
The highest vacancy rates are observed in regions such as Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar and Mumbai, with 42.2% and 36.64% of seats remaining vacant, respectively.
Nearly one in three engineering seats in Maharashtra remains unfilled this year, revealing a significant supply-demand imbalance. The state’s Common Entrance Test (CET) Cell reported a total of 164,336 seats available across engineering colleges for the current admission cycle. However, only 112,981 students have confirmed their admissions, resulting in a vacancy rate of 31%, up from last year’s 25.82%.
The issue of high vacancy rates in engineering courses has persisted over the past decade. Although there were improvements in recent years—vacancy rates dropped from over 44% in 2020-21 to 26% in 2022-23—the situation has worsened again in the past two years.
Despite a modest increase in total intake capacity by 3.6%, from 158,000 seats in 2022-23 to 164,336 seats in 2023-24, the number of students enrolling has declined by 4%, dropping from 117,000 in 2022-23 to 112,981 this year.
The highest vacancy rates are observed in regions such as Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar and Mumbai, with 42.2% and 36.64% of seats remaining vacant, respectively.
Engineering admissions past five years in Maharashtra
While there is an increase in vacant seats in engineering, computer science engineering and allied new-age technology courses such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), Machine Learning (ML) see lesser vacancies.
The engineering admission data with branch-wise break-up shows that computer science engineering continues to remain the most popular branch of engineering in Maharashtra with great preference for allied new-age technology courses such as AI, IoT, ML and cyber security among others.
Out of a total of 25,065 seats available in computer science engineering, including those offering AI, ML and IoT; 19,544 admissions have been confirmed; leaving 5,521 seats vacant. In super-specialised courses offering AI-ML and AI-Data Science, out of 13,286 seats admissions are confirmed on 12,678 seats; leaving a vacancy of only 608 seats.
Region-wise engineering admissions for this year
Whereas in conventional engineering branches such as mechanical engineering, out of 20,960 seats available, 12,882 admissions have been confirmed leaving 8,078 seats vacant. And in civil engineering branches, out of 14,994 total seats admission have been confirmed on 8,722 seats leaving a vacancy of 6,272 seats.
Stating that this has been a trend in the past few years, an official from the CET Cell said, “Even at the time of option-form filling, among the preferred engineering branches computer engineering and other new-age branches were seen in great demand. Whereas conventional branches like mechanical and civil continue to see less demand. The same trends are seen in confirmation of admissions. Students prefer to change their higher education plans if they do not get a seat in a desired branch or good engineering college.”
[ Ref ]
