Amazon fired 30,000 and gave the CEO a raise

Thirty thousand people lost their jobs. The CEO's compensation went up 30%. The numbers are almost too neat, like a parable written by an algorithm. Amazon's latest proxy statement, published in April 2026, revealed that Andy Jassy's total compensation rose to $2.1 million in 2025, a roughly 30% increase from the previous year's $1.6 million. In the same period, the company completed its largest workforce reduction in history: approximately 30,000 corporate employees cut since October 2025. This isn't really an Amazon story. It's a template, and every big tech company is copying it.

The numbers behind the juxtaposition

Let's be precise about what happened. Amazon began laying off 14,000 corporate workers in October 2025, citing a need to "reduce bureaucracy" and "remove layers." By January 2026, a second wave brought the total to around 30,000, nearly 10% of its corporate workforce of 350,000. Meanwhile, Jassy's base salary stayed at $365,000, unchanged for years. The bump came from increased security and business travel costs, pushing his reported compensation to $2.07 million. But reported compensation is only part of the picture. In 2025, $43 million in previously granted stock awards vested for Jassy. He held another $242 million in restricted stock that hadn't vested yet. His 2021 stock grant alone, from his first year as CEO, was worth over $200 million. So when you hear "30% pay bump," that's technically accurate but dramatically understates the asymmetry. The CEO sits atop a quarter-billion dollars in stock. The 30,000 people who lost their jobs got severance packages and 90 days to find a new internal role.

"AI efficiency" is the new "restructuring"

Amazon framed the cuts as organizational streamlining. But the timing tells a different story. In the same breath, the company announced it would spend $200 billion on capital expenditures in 2026, with the majority flowing into AI infrastructure, data centers, and chips. Jassy himself put it plainly in his 2025 shareholder letter: "As we roll out more Generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done." The subtext isn't subtle. AI replaces headcount, and the savings fund more AI. This is not unique to Amazon. In Q1 2026, U.S. tech companies laid off 52,050 workers, a 40% increase from the same period in 2025, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. AI was cited as the leading reason for layoffs in March 2026, accounting for 25% of all tech job cuts that month, up from 10% just a month earlier. Nearly 80,000 tech workers lost their jobs in the first quarter alone. Meta, Oracle, Microsoft, and others are running the same playbook: announce AI investment, cut staff, tell shareholders it's about efficiency. As tech investor Terrence Rohan told the BBC, "Pointing to AI makes a better blog post. Or it at least doesn't make you seem as much the bad guy who just wants to cut people for cost-effectiveness." A Harvard Business Review analysis in January 2026 put it more bluntly: companies are laying off workers because of AI's potential, not its performance. The technology hasn't actually replaced these roles yet. The narrative has.

The pattern across big tech

Amazon's cuts aren't happening in isolation. The numbers across the industry are staggering:

There's a clear correlation: companies that announce the biggest AI investments also announce the biggest layoffs. This isn't coincidental. Wall Street rewards the narrative. Since the launch of ChatGPT, AI-related stocks have accounted for roughly 75% of S&P 500 returns. Announcing layoffs framed as "AI-driven efficiency" simultaneously cuts costs and boosts the stock price. It's a financial two-for-one. As Business Insider put it, tech bosses say AI will make us work less. So far, that's mostly meant fewer of us will be working for them full-time.

Who actually benefits from AI productivity gains?

Trace the money and the answer becomes clear. Amazon spent $131.8 billion in capital expenditures in 2025. It plans to spend $200 billion in 2026. AWS revenue hit $35.6 billion in Q4 2025, its fastest growth in 13 quarters. AI revenue within AWS reached a $15 billion annual run rate. The productivity gains from AI are real. But they're flowing upward, not outward. The workers whose roles are being "streamlined" don't share in the efficiency dividend. The stock price does. The executives holding equity do. The shareholders do. This is the mechanism: lay off 30,000 people, redirect the savings into AI infrastructure, grow revenue, push the stock higher, and watch the value of executive stock grants compound. Jassy's $242 million in unvested stock isn't just compensation. It's a direct financial incentive to keep cutting.

The second-order effects no one talks about

When 30,000 experienced corporate workers flood the job market simultaneously, the effects ripple outward. Other companies can hire at lower rates because the supply of talent just surged. Wages get suppressed. And suppressed wages make AI look even more "cost-effective" by comparison, because the baseline human labor cost dropped. This creates a feedback loop. Layoffs make AI seem cheaper relative to humans, which justifies more layoffs, which suppresses wages further. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that employment in tech and management support roles fell 2.8% year-over-year as of September 2025, the largest decline in over a decade. The corporate job market is cooling, and it's not because there's less work to do. It's because companies have discovered that "AI efficiency" is a socially acceptable way to do what they've always wanted: run leaner, pay less, and concentrate returns at the top.

What this means for smaller markets

If you're a tech worker in a small, talent-importing market like Singapore, this pattern should feel especially concerning. Singapore's Information and Communications sector recorded a retrenchment rate of 0.27%, more than twice the industry average, according to a 2026 Briefcase Index study. The IT sector headcount in Singapore shrank by nearly 10,000 over two years. Smaller markets are doubly exposed. They import talent during booms and have fewer safety nets during busts. When global tech companies cut headcount, those cuts ripple into regional offices. And when 58% of companies signal hiring freezes, as reported in Singapore's 2026 outlook, the message is clear: the doors are closing. The irony is that governments are simultaneously pushing AI adoption as an economic strategy. Singapore's Smart Nation initiatives depend on a robust tech workforce. But the very companies driving AI adoption are the ones shrinking that workforce.

The problem isn't AI, it's the incentive structure

Nothing about this is inevitable. AI can augment workers instead of replacing them. It can create new roles, open new markets, and distribute productivity gains more broadly. Some companies are even discovering this the hard way: a Forbes analysis in March 2026 argued that today's AI-driven layoffs are becoming tomorrow's rehiring crisis, as companies realize they cut too deep and lost institutional knowledge they can't replace with chatbots. The problem isn't the technology. It's who controls it and who benefits. When executive compensation is tied to stock price, and stock price rewards "efficiency" narratives, the incentive is always to cut. When boards approve $200 billion in AI spending while signing off on 30,000 layoffs, they're not making a technology decision. They're making a distribution decision. Andy Jassy's $2.1 million in reported compensation is, frankly, modest by CEO standards. But the $242 million in unvested stock tells the real story. Every dollar saved by replacing a human with an AI tool flows, eventually, into that stock price. The 30,000 people who lost their jobs helped fund a quarter-billion-dollar portfolio they'll never share in. The 30,000 and the 30% aren't a coincidence. They're two sides of the same equation.

References