How Greed Is Slashing The Tech Job Market

Corporate greed is out of control. In 2025, a study revealed that the CEO of a tech company could earn in one year what an average employee at the same company would make in three centuries. In 1965, the typical CEO of an American company made 21 times what the typical worker made. Fast forward to 2022, and CEOs were making 344 times the typical worker. Although this disparity is not new, in recent decades the wage gap between CEOs and workers has become enormous. In 2020, the top 350 CEOs in the U.S. made over $24 million on average. That means at my current salary, I'd have to work over, I don't know, 281 years to make what they made in one year. Likewise, research showed that since 2019, tech companies have cut more than 800,000 jobs worldwide, while at the same time their profits have grown by an average of 40%. NVIDIA, the AI titan, largely seen as the most valuable company in the world, putting out a better-than-expected earnings report, revenue storing some 56% compared to last year. The media are flooded with reports of mass layoffs blamed on AI. But recent studies have shown that this may be nothing more than an excuse for companies to reduce their workforce without damaging their image. This has led to concern even among politicians, who warn about the possible effects that corporate greed could have on the labor market and the economy. We have never seen in this country the level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. So how corporate greed is slashing the job market? The insatiable greed of corporations is nothing new. One of the most striking examples in recent history is the case of BlackBerry. During the early 2000s, the company was synonymous with innovation and expansion. The firm dominated the smartphone market, with a market share of over 40% in the U.S. in 2010. However, instead of reinvesting its profits into innovation and development, the company began to prioritize reducing operating costs and increasing shareholder value. Starting in 2011, management initiated massive layoffs under the pretext of adjusting the structure to maintain profitability, cutting nearly 5,000 jobs in a single year. Phone company BlackBerry announced plans to lay off 4,500 employees, or 40% of its global workforce. These measures were presented as part of an efficiency plan, but in practice, they weakened the company's ability to innovate. With fewer engineers and downsized teams, BlackBerry lost ground to Apple and Google, which during those same years were investing billions in research, software, and user experience. Between 2012 and 2013, BlackBerry's sales dropped by more than 50%, and its market share fell to less than 1%. As losses accumulated, the company continued its cycle of layoffs and plant closures, seeking to satisfy investors instead of rebuilding its technological leadership. In 2016, BlackBerry laid off another 200 employees and announced it would stop manufacturing phones altogether. This decision became a prime example of how corporate greed disguised as optimization can destroy a brand that once symbolized technological excellence. BlackBerry will no longer manufacture its own iconic phones, oh no. Even the lavish perks that once characterized the tech industry are now being questioned. For decades, working for a tech company had been the dream of many because of its great benefits. However, the waves of mass layoffs over the past three years have proven that companies never had real loyalty toward their workers. Many of those benefits were necessary more than they were generous gestures. They were just tools to attract and retain talent. A clear example of this was Google, which for years was famous for its campuses filled with perks such as free gourmet meals, gyms, massages, and private employee shuttles. However, after announcing more than 12,000 layoffs in 2023, roughly 6% of its global workforce, the company also began cutting back many of those hallmark benefits. Talk about technology and the crazy perks that these companies used to offer to attract and retain top talent at Silicon Valley firms. Could they be a thing of the past as they look to cut costs? In offices across the U.S. and the U.K., free lunches were eliminated for certain shifts and the number of open cafeterias was reduced. Travel expenses were restricted and internal celebrations were paused, all under the pretext of operational efficiency. This, however, resulted in Google reporting an increase of about $86 billion in its annual profits. This change revealed that many of the so-called perks presented for years as part of an innovative and human corporate culture were in fact strategies for recruitment and retention. Rather than reflecting genuine commitment, these perks primarily served to attract and keep employees. Once the labor market contracted and the company no longer had to fiercely compete for engineers, those perks became expendable. Adding to this was the rise of artificial intelligence, which provided the perfect excuse for companies to reduce their workforce without tarnishing their image in front of investors. More than 500 employees woke up with a text from Paycom telling them not to go into work today. The company terminated what they call the back office roles and replaced those jobs with AI. In practice, however, this narrative rarely translates For example, A concrete example is MetaPlatforms, which between 2022 and 2023 eliminated around 14,000 jobs, more than 10% of its global workforce. The company claimed that AI would improve efficiency in its products and operations, but experts noted that the real savings in technological infrastructure were marginal compared to the money saved on salaries. In fact, the company managed to maintain and even increase its net profits by more than 20% during that period, demonstrating that the layoffs were more related to margin optimization than to operational improvements. It's clear that Meta's year of efficiency has really paid off. Many of the measures that it took last year helped it reduce its costs, it reduced its headcount, and even with this leaner team and operations, it was really able to exceed expectations. Google has followed a similar pattern. In 2023, it cut approximately 6% of its workforce while reporting revenues of $307 billion, a 9% increase from the previous year. Corporate statements emphasized AI as a driver of efficiency. For example, Rick Smith, CEO of Axon Enterprises, received total compensation of $165 million in 2024, more than 1,000 times the average salary of his employees. In Amazon's case, the disparity reached even higher levels. Andy Jassy, the company's CEO, received total compensation of $40 million in 2024, driven mainly by stock valuation. In contrast, the average Amazon employee earned less than $38,000 per year, meaning Jassy made more than 1,000 times a typical worker's salary. This inequality worsens when top executives receive record bonuses for meeting efficiency goals, a polite way of saying they managed to lay off more people and reduce labor costs. But this has not gone unnoticed by public opinion. 87% of Americans believe this disparity to be a problem. While in the previous decade, the tech sector was seen as a driver of global prosperity, with startups growing, programmers earning high salaries, and large corporations celebrated for driving digital change, now that same sector has become the main engine of structural inequality, resembling the financial world more than the innovative one. Technology, which once promised to free people from repetitive tasks and open new opportunities for growth, is now being used as an argument to eliminate them.