U.S workers just took home their smallest share of capital since at least 1947—and the lowest ever recorded
As corporate earnings soar and U.S. GDP balloons, the American workforce isn’t feeling the same boom. American workers are taking home less of the country’s overall income, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows, and employment in the U.S. is set to continue to slow.
Labor share, or the portion of the U.S.’s economic output that workers receive through salary and wages, decreased to 52.8% in the second quarter of 2026, its lowest level since the BLS started recording this data in 1947, according to its labor productivity and costs report. In the previous quarter, labor share was at 53.6%. This decade, the labor share average was about 55.6%.
That’s despite corporate earnings skyrocketing, with profits for Fortune 500 companies hitting a record $2.1 trillion in 2025. The U.S. GDP grew 3.4% in the third quarter last year, exceeding economists’ predictions.
That growth has not only come at the expense of how much of the pie of wealth workers are taking home, but also how many Americans are in the workforce, economists warn.
“That decline in the share of labor has got to be either falling earnings or falling numbers of people,” Raymond Robertson, a labor economist at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government, told Fortune. “The falling share of income is having to do with the shift towards capital.”
Indeed, there are growing signs that as national income balloons, the U.S. workforce is deflating. Unemployment ticked up to 4.2% in September, and employers added just 584,000 jobs in 2025 compared to 2 million added in 2024. The U.S. added 29,000 jobs in September, about one-third of economists’ projections.
The bifurcation of corporate victories and weak labor data raises concerns among economists of jobless growth jeopardizing the U.S. workforce, as well as a K-shaped economy, where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, becoming more exaggerated.
“Data right now is very mixed,” Robertson said. “But I think it also all consistently points to this idea that things are getting worse for workers and much better for billionaires.”
What is causing jobless growth?
Robertson attributes weakening labor share averages to the rise in automation, which he noted is displacing workers, with productivity—a metric essentially measuring worker output—continuing to rise. Second-quarter GDP data showed nonfarm productivity growth grew 1.4% last quarter, though the rate has slowed from 2.2% in the same quarter a year ago.
“All these things, bit by bit, are replacing people, and they’re concentrating income and their share of capital,” he said.
Goldman Sachs analysts Joseph Briggs and Sarah Dong estimated in a report, based on Department of Labor job numbers, that AI automation could displace 25% of all work hours. They predicted that over the course of the AI adoption period, a 15% increase in AI-driven productivity would displace 6% to 7% of jobs, and, at its peak, a 1 million increase in unemployed workers, though job displacement as a result of AI has not shown up meaningfully in any economic data.
The displacement could be substantial, the analysts said, but said the impacts of automation will be tempered by a wealth of new jobs created as a result of the technological changes.
Automation is expected to be a boon to corporate profits and GDP, projected to boost GDP by 1.5% by 2035, according to a Wharton brief published in September 2025. Early signs indicate AI could drive productivity gains, with around 80% of employees reporting AI makes them faster at specific tasks, but only 37% of companies seeing an impact of that productivity on operating profits, according to McKinsey data, and AI operating costs continue to constrain its deployment.
Robertson added that growing unemployment, which he expects to see rise over the next few months, keeps wages down, allowing margins and profits to expand.
To be sure, the recent productivity surge has been an “open question,” Morgan Stanley economists have argued, not unanimously attributed to increased adoption of AI or automation. The analysts suggested this increase would be cyclical, or vestiges of pandemic-era habits of companies making more from less.
An Oxford Economists research brief from earlier this year suggested companies are disguising overhiring-related layoffs as a result of AI, but said automation-related workforce reductions have not yet happened en masse. Additionally, while unemployment has been ticking up over the past year, it is still relatively low.
Why is an immigration crackdown backfiring on U.S. labor?
Mark Regets, senior fellow at National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), sees a different reason for a slowing workforce. He told Fortune President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown has not done what Trump administration officials, such as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, said it would in increasing the number of U.S.-born workers. Instead, according to Regets, Trump’s immigration policies have not only decimated the foreign-born workforce, but has also created fewer opportunities for domestic-born workers to find jobs.
NFAP data shows a 1.1 million to 1.4 million-person reduction in the foreign-born workforce since January 2025, consistent with the
WARN Act and Job References: What to Ask For Before Your Last Day
A WARN notice gives you time. Use some of it to sort out your references, because the law that requires the notice does not require your employer to recommend you.
The federal WARN Act is a notice law. When it applies, a covered employer must give workers 60 days' advance notice of a plant closing or mass layoff. It says nothing about references, recommendation letters, or what a former employer may tell a hiring manager. That part is left to company policy, any severance agreement you sign, and the laws of your state. Arrange a reference deliberately, while you still have access to the people who can give one.
The numbers behind this week's notices
Layoff Atlas currently tracks 686 WARN notices covering 66,703 reported workers in its 90-day window, with 29 worker counts unavailable. California leads the state ranking with 17,715 workers, followed by Washington with 17,361, Illinois with 4,385, Texas with 3,280, and Georgia with 2,492.
The upcoming weeks show 4,017 workers with effective dates in the week of November 1, 5,311 in the week of November 8, 7,830 in the week of November 15, 6,614 in the week of November 22, 5,922 in the week of November 29, and 721 in the week of December 6 — a six-week total of 30,415 workers. These are reported plans, not confirmed job losses: plans can change, shrink, or be withdrawn before the effective date.
If your effective date falls in one of those weeks, your reference window is the notice period itself. Once the site closes or the team disperses, tracking down a manager gets much harder.
What employers usually say
Many employers now follow a neutral-reference policy: human resources confirms only job title, dates of employment, and sometimes eligibility for rehire. Companies adopt neutral policies largely because managers worry that a negative comment could lead to a defamation claim.
A neutral reference still verifies that you worked where and when you say you did. But it will not describe your work. If you want more than verification, you need a specific person — a direct manager, team lead, or client contact — willing to speak for you personally.
Ask early, and ask directly: "Would you be willing to serve as a reference for me?" A vague "let me know if you need anything" is not a yes. Get a clear answer and a way to reach the person after your last day, such as a personal email address, before company accounts are deactivated.
What to ask for before your last day
Do this while you are still on the inside, not after you have left:
- A named reference contact. One or two people who supervised your work and will take calls or answer emails from hiring managers.
- A written recommendation. A short letter on company letterhead, or a LinkedIn recommendation, is portable in a way a phone call is not. Ask for it before the notice period ends, when the request is easy to fulfil.
- Agreed language, if you are offered severance. Some severance agreements include a clause about what the company will say when asked for a reference. Read it before you sign, and make sure any promised reference names the person who will give it.
- A copy of your own record. Keep your offer letter, job description, performance reviews, and awards. Your own documents back up your account even when the company's reference is neutral.
Do not assume a manager who praised you in person will remember the details six months later. A short note now — your role, main projects, and results — makes it easy for a reference to say something specific later.
If your employer will only confirm dates
A neutral-only policy is common, and it does not mean you have no references. Look beyond your direct manager: a skip-level manager, a project lead in another department, a client you served, or a colleague who later moved to another company can all speak to your work. What matters to a hiring manager is that the person actually worked with you and can describe what you did.
Be honest with new employers: "My former employer confirms dates and title only, as a matter of policy" is normal in hiring today, and it reads very differently from a gap with no explanation. Offer the references you do have early, so hiring is not held up waiting on a company that will only confirm the basics.
What hiring managers may check
Expect two different checks. A background verification firm usually confirms employment history — title, dates, sometimes salary — through human resources or a verification service. A reference check is separate: a hiring manager calls the people you named and asks about your work. Make sure the people on your reference list know they are on it and what role you are applying for; a reference surprised by a call sounds uncertain.
If a check turns up something you dispute, you can correct a factual error about dates or title with your own documents, and add another reference who knows your work better.
A WARN notice is about time, and time is what a good reference takes to arrange. The notice guarantees advance warning, not a recommendation. That is the part you have to ask for — in the notice period.
Data source: Layoff Atlas
[职场话题] 中年失业程序员的碎碎念（二）- 亦是终篇
一、年底外面没啥 HC ，很多公司面试也是套方案
二、个别招人的公司要求也多，因为市场人太多了，所以最终优中优选，作为大龄程序员还是没有性价比的
然后这段时间我基本找了通讯录里的一些好友，问了一圈，最后答复基本都是“没有 HC”“我们也在准备裁员的事情”这样的答复
9 月离职到现在其实也一直在上班，再一家同公司离职的高管身边一起做 AI 创业，月薪 1W ，创业的方式和打法我其实也不是太认同，所以干活的时候也因为找不到高收入存在焦虑，这也是一直在找工作的原因
其实最大的重点不在这里，而是最近脱离公司之后发现世界变化太大了，很多颠覆性的东西全出来了，上周和作为独立开发者的上上家前同事聊天，发现他已经有一个独自完成写代码、端到端测试、发布上线的 AGNET 了，而他所做的只需要派活，听到这个事情我是既悲观又兴奋，悲观的是很多程序员兄弟未来会大批量失业，兴奋的是我个人的吞吐会大大提高
今天和一个创业多年的好哥们聊了天，他了解了我的近况也了解了我做的东西，给的结论就是无法复制做不起来，然后他和我说“要不你别在这里干了，月薪 1W 我发给你，你停下来好好想想你要做什么事情”，是啊，该好好想想要做什么事情了，明天开始我要动起来了
Lose your job to AI? Here’s what to do if a company wants you back
Companies around the world are increasingly citing artificial intelligence when slashing jobs, fueling anxiety that a lot more workers may lose their livelihoods to machines.
Microsoft, Barclays Bank and supermarket chain Kroger are among the latest entries on a growing list of companies that have announced AI-related workforce reductions this year, including the elimination of jobs deemed redundant or shed to free up money for investing in the technology.
But the job cuts of the AI era, which are affecting tens of thousands of people, occasionally have an epilogue. Some companies, after discovering that AI models, applications and agents don’t perform as well as expected, end up rehiring laid-off workers to fill eliminated positions.
It’s unclear how common such reversals are, but they are happening often enough to acquire a nickname: the “AI boomerang.”
“Two years ago, we said, ‘Would this happen?’ and now we’re saying, ‘Yes, it is happening in real time,'” said Lucy Beaumont, a global senior vice president at SHL, a U.K.-based technology company that develops employment-related tests and tools.
Hiring managers in fields including finance, marketing, law and health reported earlier this year that their companies had eliminated positions primarily because of AI or automation, only to hire again for the same or similar roles, according to recruitment and staffing firm Robert Half.
The most frequently cited reasons for restoring dropped jobs included the technology needing more human oversight than anticipated and its inability to replicate institutional knowledge, the firm said.
“When you need critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, institutional knowledge, those are things that AI just can’t replicate,” Bill Driscoll, a senior district president at Robert Half, said. “And I think that’s where companies are starting to realize, ‘Wow, we really do need people to do these jobs.'”
Klarna, the Swedish provider of buy now, pay later services, began recruiting human customer service representatives again last year. CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski acknowledged in an interview with Bloomberg News that the company’s reliance on an AI chatbot to cut costs had gone too far.
In June, Ford said it had hired or promoted 350 veteran engineers after AI tools the automaker deployed to do quality control work did not perform at the expected level.
“AI utilization has been an important part of our quality gains and that — along with deep technical expertise of our teams — is a powerful combination,” a Ford spokesperson told The Associated Press.
However, companies don’t always broadcast their U-turns on shifting resources or responsibilities from employees to AI systems, Beaumont said.
“Maybe their shareholders love that they did this right-sizing motion … and then they have to turn around and quietly, with their tail between their legs, admit that they weren’t ready for that or they shouldn’t have done that,” she said.
Management experts offered employment advice for workers as companies make greater use of AI tools and consider — or reconsider — their staffing needs while assessing the technology’s capabilities.
Rehiring suggests the invisible work of humans is not easily replaced
When companies use AI to perform tasks previously done by people, they often miss the invisible work employees do beyond their formal job descriptions, said Betsy Summers, a principal analyst on the Future of Work team at market research and advisory firm Forrester.
That might include sensing emotions and moods, holding impromptu meetings and putting in extra effort when feeling inspired or otherwise motivated, Summers said.
“We don’t know all the work that’s required to do things well within the organization,” she said. “The citizenship behaviors of team cohesion and team building and making sure that you have trust within your team, none of that is accounted for. So when you rip out humans who are doing that work and then expect agents to be able to then deliver exactly what humans have delivered, they are frequently mistaken.”
Another factor that complicates assigning more work to AI-powered tools is that company procedures for tasks such as data processing and bookkeeping are not always well documented, experts said.
“Organizations are not spending enough time doing the up-front work to really truly understand workflows and where humans add value in the process,” said Brooks Holtom, a professor of management at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business.
In roles such as customer service, AI agents and chatbots frequently need to refer questions and complaints to a worker who can recognize emotions, assess the severity or complexity of a problem and respond creatively within established policies, Holtom said.
“It’s that combination of creativity but staying in the guardrail that’s really hard for a machine to figure out,” he said.
Figure out what gives you a competitive edge as a human
As companies redirect resources toward AI, current employees and those asked to come back might want to emphasize skills that complement the technology, such as emotional intelligence and sound judgment, Holtom said.
“Really try to be able to articulate, what’s your value proposition as a human?” Holtom said. “Don’t be afraid to lean into the technology as well, and understand how to differentiate yourself from what machines do well. Embrace that, understand that, and you can become uniquely qualified to help with implementation.”
Empathy is a human quality that technology has not fully mastered, Beaumont said.
“Think about an angry customer. They want to be listened to, they want to be heard, they really want a human on the other end of the line,” Beaumont said. “Can an AI replace that right now in a way that feels meaningful to individuals? Perhaps not.”
Banks and healthcare firms are outbidding tech for software talent, major recruiter says
More companies like Microsoft are using buyouts. Should you take one?
Microsoft is trying to cull its workforce by dangling an offer that might be hard for some employees to refuse. This week, the tech giant announced voluntary buyouts for 60,000 people, which is more than a quarter of its workforce.
Leadership has framed this as a way for employees to have more agency over their future at the company. “The Voluntary Exit Offer reflects an important part of how we’re evolving our approach to change: creating greater flexibility and, where possible, more ways for employees to shape their next chapter,” chief people officer Amy Coleman wrote in a blog post. For employees who were already entertaining the idea of an outside opportunity, she said this could present “a new choice to make that transition now with support.”
It’s not the first time Microsoft has offered buyouts to trim its head count. Earlier this year, the company used another euphemism to nudge thousands of employees to leave. The “Voluntary Retirement Program” was intended for older, more senior employees who may have been planning to retire soon; according to The Wall Street Journal, Microsoft extended offers to about 8,600 employees and more than 30% accepted.
Voluntary buyouts have become an attractive option for companies looking to cut jobs and reduce costs without resorting to explicit layoffs, which draw headlines and heightened scrutiny. Mass layoffs can also significantly impact morale, something major employers like Microsoft are all too familiar with. Just this year, Microsoft faced its share of criticism for eliminating 3,200 jobs in its Xbox division, targeting some veteran staffers who had spent decades there; the company also made thousands of cuts across other departments.
There are all kinds of euphemistic terms for this strategy, which has become a more popular approach to workforce reductions in corporate America. Just this week, Skydance—the new company formed from the merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery—proposed buyouts to a number of employees (in addition to adopting a five-day return-to-office mandate that had already been implemented at Paramount). Companies like Google and Verizon have also deployed voluntary buyouts to soften the blow when they need to become leaner.
As the public backlash over AI intensifies, companies may want to avoid the negative attention they attract when they make sweeping changes to their workforce. But they also run the risk of losing top talent when they make buyout offers—and it isn’t always clear how many people will choose to leave. (According to The Wall Street Journal, Microsoft anticipates that a much smaller share of people eligible for buyouts will accept this time, compared with the 30% who took the offer earlier this year.)
For certain employees, a voluntary exit can, in fact, present an opportunity. But it’s not always clear when it makes sense to take a buyout.
As Fast Company has reported, companies sometimes target highly paid, experienced employees in the hopes of replacing them with cheaper labor. When presented with a buyout offer, experts say it’s important to think carefully about what it could mean for your career and where you see yourself next.
“The best-case scenario for a voluntary layoff is either stepping straight into retirement or having a new job already lined up,” writes Fast Company contributor Emily Guy Birken. “Then your severance package becomes an unexpected pot of gold in the path you were already walking. Unfortunately, most of us aren’t that lucky.”
If you weren’t planning to leave prior to the buyout offer, it can be helpful to assess your future career prospects. Since companies usually give employees some time to make a decision about a buyout, you could put out feelers to get a sense of what the job market is like. A generous severance offer may be alluring, but it also means you’ll have to find a new job.
If the severance offer is not compelling enough to consider, Birken points out that you’re in a position to try and negotiate a better package. “Learning that your employer is offering voluntary layoffs is stressful, but it doesn’t mean the company has all the cards,” she writes. “The organization wants something—a reduction in force—which means you have leverage.”
The most important consideration, however, may be whether you think you’ll eventually lose your job either way, since voluntary exit programs can also just be a sign that layoffs are on the horizon. Sometimes a buyout offer is primarily a way to manage optics and give employees a false sense of control—only for a company to turn around and fire them a few months down the road.
Microsoft’s AI future has fewer jobs
To anyone listening closely to what Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has been saying over the past couple of years, this week felt like the clearest sign yet that AI is about to fundamentally change the size of Microsoft's workforce. Microsoft is now offering voluntary buyouts to around 60,000 employees across the US, UK, Canada, and India.
It's the first time the company has presented such an offer to so many employees, expanding greatly upon the retirement offer that was limited to around 9,000 employees earlier this year. It's all part of an ongoing effort to avoid reducing investment in AI infrastructure by lowering Microsoft's operating cos …
Netflix的中年危机：巨头抱团围堵，短剧疯狂抢滩
（本文作者为 极客电影Geekmovie，钛媒体经授权发布）
文｜极客电影，作者 | 葱葱
10月20日，Netflix交出2026年三季度财报，营收129亿美元，同比增长12%，是近三年增速最慢的一次。Netflix联席CEO泰德·萨兰多斯（Ted Sarandos）在财报会上称： ㅤ
我们本可以做的更好，现在我们看到了一个机会，可以将我们的产品线提升到一个新的水平。
话可以随便说，但股价很诚实。财报发布以来，Netflix的股价一路走低。
近五天，Netflix股价累计下跌4.92%
20年前，Netflix用流媒体服务颠覆了好莱坞。但现在，它正面临来自四面八方的夹击。 ㅤ
10月初，派拉蒙天空之舞（Paramount Skydance）以1100亿美元完成了对华纳兄弟（Warner Bros Discovery）的收购，合并后公司更名为天空之舞影业（Skydance）。不到半月后，CNBC报道称马斯克向Skydance注资10亿美金，为这家好莱坞大厂添上了浓浓的科技属性。
CNBC报道，马斯克向Skydance注资10亿美金
另一边，YouTube和TikTok等平台正吸引越来越多观众，蚕食用户的有限时间，短剧平台的层出不穷，更是给新一代内容平台的竞争添了一把火。 ㅤ
前有好莱坞巨头抱团取暖对抗流媒体平台，后有YouTube和TikTok竖屏视频和短剧挤占用户时间，抢走新一代年轻人心智，夹缝中的Netflix何去何从？
01 “六大”变“四强”，好莱坞电影巨头抱团，Netflix碰上更强对手
2026年，派拉蒙叫板Netflix，把原本的827亿美元抬高到1100亿美元，虎口夺食，抢下华纳兄弟，新公司重命名为天空之舞。华纳兄弟拥有的流媒体服务HBO，也被视为Netflix最强劲的对手之一。 ㅤ
这笔收购完成后，派拉蒙和华纳都被鼎鼎大名的甲骨文创始人拉里·埃里森之子戴维·埃里森收入囊中。埃里森对华纳觊觎已久，2025年9月曾三次出价要吞并华纳。 ㅤ
而在2025年8月，历时一年半拉锯战后，戴维·埃里森的天空之舞传媒以80亿美元先完成了对派拉蒙的收购。近年来，派拉蒙几乎每年都在亏钱。
美国纽约时代广场，派拉蒙全球办公室外的广告牌展示Skydance、华纳兄弟和派拉蒙标志
2025财年，迪士尼营收944.25亿美元，净利润124.04亿美元；其中流媒体业务营收246.14亿美元，营业利润13.27亿。 ㅤ
相比之下，派拉蒙2025年全年营收约290.3亿美元，净亏损约31.3亿美元，流媒体还处于亏损泥淖。 ㅤ
收购派拉蒙后，天空之舞传媒用了一年多时间，以1100亿美元高价压过Netflix，完成对华纳的收购。华纳旗下不仅拥有电影和电视工作室，还拥有流媒体服务平台HBO，是当下Netflix、Disney+最有力的竞争者。 ㅤ
两家大型公司合并后，预期实现60亿美元的成本节省。戴维·埃里森还任命了美泰（Mattel）的前董事长兼CEO伊农·克雷兹（Ynon Kreiz）担当联席CEO，负责日常运营和整合工作。克雷兹是《芭比》电影背后的关键商业推动者之一，曾在美泰推动过大规模成本削减。
伊农·克雷兹
10月26日，路透社获取的一份备忘录显示，天空之舞影业向部分员工提供一次性自愿买断方案，其执行效率可见一斑。ㅤ
完成华纳的收购后，戴维·埃里森在X平台发文写道： ㅤ
派拉蒙与华纳兄弟塑造了一个多世纪的流行文化。将两家企业整合，我们并非改写历史，而是为这两家标志性制片厂配备更强大的发展引擎。 ㅤ
天空之舞的这一操作，和当年的迪士尼几乎如出一辙。 ㅤ
2019年，迪士尼713亿美元吞下福克斯，完成流媒体平台的重要布局。并购结束后，迪士尼拿到了原本属于福克斯的Hulu股份，成为Hulu的最大股东。迪士尼，这家好莱坞巨头终于在流媒体时代与Netflix有了抗衡之力。 ㅤ
更绝妙的是，收购达成不到一个月内，马斯克向天空之舞注资10亿美元。 ㅤ
马斯克与甲骨文创始人拉里·埃里森关系密切，马斯克此举也算是投桃报李了。2022年，拉里·埃里森在马斯克将X（前身为Twitter）私有化的交易中投资了10亿美元。 ㅤ
伴随这两笔收购，好莱坞“六大”该抱团的抱团，成了“新四强”。除了派拉蒙和华纳兄弟组成的天空之舞，迪士尼外，还有环球影业和索尼。其中，天空之舞拥有HBO，迪士尼拥有Disney+、Hulu，天空之舞Paramount+、HBO Max等。 ㅤ
JustWatch报告显示，Hulu的流媒体市场份额攀升至13%，Disney+占17%，HBO Max 占11%，Paramount Plus拥有3%，Netflix仍然是流媒体老大，拿走了19%的市场份额，但环比下降一个百分点。 ㅤ
2026年第三季度SVOD市场份额，根据用户在网站、电视和移动应用上的互动情况计算得出
戴维·埃里森在一份致员工的备忘录中概述了他的愿景，言语间直指流媒体巨头Netflix，他表示： ㅤ
此次合并是“打造以创意和技术为驱动力的下一代媒体娱乐公司”的契机。他还补充说，目标不仅仅是扩大规模，而是“挑战业内最大的竞争对手”。 ㅤ
如果说过去传统巨头布局流媒体，不能跟Netflix这样的互联网原生流媒体平台比拼，那么现在，好莱坞的派拉蒙和华纳这两大好莱坞传统制片大厂不仅抱团了，还傍上了互联网巨头，Netflix没有担忧恐怕才是假的。要不然，Netflix当初也不会抢着收购华纳。
戴维·埃里森在接受CNBC采访时说：ㅤ
我们正在组建一支真正的产品和技术团队。我们坚信人工智能是艺术家的工具，而不是反过来。 ㅤ
传统好莱坞电影巨头IP资源、流媒体布局，叠加科技巨头的效率，Skydance毫无疑问将成为Netflix最大的劲敌之一。 ㅤ
02 YouTube抢占客厅，AI短剧狂飙，Netflix涉足短视频内容
Netflix面临的隐忧还远不止于此。好莱坞巨头们抱团成拳之外，YouTube正在成为Netflix最有力的竞争者之一。
Digital i的数据显示，2025年，YouTube单用户每日使用时长从87.2分钟增加到99.1分钟，Netflix则从100.5分钟下降到93.4分钟。 ㅤ
YouTube正在成为用户花费时间最多的平台
尼尔森的报告显示，2026年8月，YouTube在电视总收视时长占比达到创纪录的15.8%，是收视份额最高的平台。作为对比，Netflix的市场份额为7.7%。
YouTube 8月占美国电视观看15.8%
2026年4月，Netflix在美国电视的市场份额首次跌破8%，此后5月微微反弹回8.0%，6月到8月，又连续三个月跌破8%。YouTube的市场份额却一路从1月的12.5%涨到15.8%，已经连续七个月稳定在13%以上。 ㅤ
在Netflix的前方，还有迪士尼、华纳，他们分别拿走了9.2%和8.9%的市场份额。YouTube持续增长，Netflix却在持续下探。更重要的是，这种趋势在未来很有可能持续下去。 ㅤ
2026年三季度，YouTube广告收入增速放缓至9.2%，但电视大屏成为YouTube的重要收入来源，客厅电视观看贡献了YouTube总广告收入的三分之一以上。 ㅤ
同时，YouTube的订阅收入增速已经超过广告收入增速，平台每天上传的视频数量超过2000万个。 ㅤ
美国加州大学洛杉矶分校最新发布的《青少年与屏幕》报告显示，在被问及哪些媒体能够讲述故事时，72.9%的受访者选择YouTube。近五分之四的人认为短视频可以讲述故事，其次才是电视节目、电影和电子游戏。此外，64.2%的受访者，认为TikTok能讲故事。
【推荐阅读 》》放下“老登逻辑”，这份报告告诉你：10至24岁年轻人想看什么内容 | 深度观察】 ㅤ
年轻人更喜欢观看YouTube
报告指出，年轻观众在越来越多的平台上欣赏和观看各种长度的故事，从手机上的30秒TikTok短视频到电影院的完整电影。 ㅤ
用户有限的总时间，正在被不同的平台分流。除了YouTube和TikTok，一大批短剧平台涌现出来，也在从Netflix这些传统流媒体平台中争抢份额。 ㅤ
Omdia判断称，微剧在移动端用户参与度方面已超越流媒体。2025年四季度，一位用户每天花在ReelShort的时间为35.7分钟，在Netflix的花费时间则为24.8分钟。 ㅤ
微型剧在每日观看时长方面优于流媒体
Sensor Tower的数据显示，2026年一季度，全球短剧应用下载量延续快速增长态势，突破8.5亿次，同比增长140%。增长主要集中在东南亚、拉丁美洲和印度，三大市场合计贡献四分之三以上下载量。 ㅤ
二季度，多数短剧应用下载量有所回落，但字节的PineDrama首进Top 20短剧应用下载量榜单，展现出字节在短视频内容领域的杀伤力。 ㅤ
PineDrama发布于2025年12月，但直到今年3月才开始大规模推广。至2026年9月，PineDrama下载量已经突破1亿，日活跃用户稳定在700万+。ㅤ
上线9个月，PineDrama注册用户过亿
Netflix也意识到了短剧和竖屏视频的潜在威胁，探索相关方向的可能性。2025年10月，Netflix首席技术官伊丽莎白·斯通表示： ㅤ
Netflix正在探索竖屏视频，以此作为尝试新型内容的一种方式，但并不想与TikTok或其他短视频应用直接竞争。
2026年4月，Netflix宣布推出Clips，这是一个全新的竖屏视频推送功能，能根据用户喜好推送精选的剧集、电影和特别节目的短片。 ㅤ
10月26日，Netflix宣布，2027年将推出主题“短片”分类，以及更多围绕类型、情绪或兴趣打造的细分内容。
对于在短视频内容方向的布局，泰德·萨兰多斯在三季度财报会议上回应称，Netflix约95%的支出都集中在核心业务上，短视频、第三方或用户生成内容等都处于早期探索阶段，严格控制这些领域的投入。 ㅤ
03 裁员、换帅，Netflix如何重新定义自己的内容竞争力
大屏幕端，传统好莱坞抱团取暖，科技资本则可能进一步改变精品内容的分发方式，俨然要形成对Netflix的围剿之势。 ㅤ
移动端，YouTub
Microsoft’s cloud growth accelerates, and so too does the spending
Microsoft’s cloud business is humming even as spending to build out its AI business remains high.
The software giant’s first-quarter earnings report Wednesday showed ample demand for its AI services, as Microsoft races to put more computing capacity online and as other parts of its business, such as legacy software and gaming, lag.
The Redmond, Wash.-based company said first-quarter revenue totaled $92.3 billion, up 19% year-over-year and above what Wall Street analysts expected. Its profit was $36.6 billion, also edging out analyst predictions.
Its Azure cloud business grew by 48%, ahead of analyst estimates and a welcome sign for investors. The company’s shares were trading up around 2.5% in after-hours trading.
Microsoft investors have been eager to see Azure continue to grow at a high clip and for the company to prove that its AI bets, such as its Copilot assistant, are generating solid revenue. Both are important metrics because they show whether Microsoft, and the AI industry in general, is sustaining demand, especially as tech giants spend gobs of cash on building data centers.
On Wednesday, Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood said in a call with analysts that 2026 calendar-year spending on capital expenditures would reach about $170 billion, with the company expecting CapEx to exceed $50 billion during the current quarter. Microsoft said that its first-quarter CapEx reached $45.2 billion, higher than the previous quarter but less than what analysts predicted. Hood said the figure reflected some delays the company had seen in expected third-party capacity deliveries.
“We still have demand that exceeds supply,” Hood said.
Hood also said total revenue is expected to be between $96.0 billion and $97.1 billion during the current quarter, above what analysts expected. Operating margins are expected to be down slightly year-over-year.
Microsoft is one of several so-called hyperscalers spending big to meet AI compute demands, with Amazon, Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet, and Meta Platforms collectively expected to devote more than $700 billion to capital expenditures in 2026, mostly for data centers.
Microsoft’s Wednesday earnings comes in the middle of a run of major tech earnings reports. Meta said last week that its capital expenditures this year would surge to as much as $145 billion, and that its quarterly free cash flow, or the cash it has after expenses, had turned negative, sending its shares down. Alphabet on Wednesday reported gains in its cloud division but a weaker performance in advertising, and Amazon is scheduled to post on Thursday.
Hood said that she expects Microsoft to remain free cash flow positive during its 2027 fiscal year.
Microsoft didn’t provide an update on Copilot sales specifically, but Chief Executive Satya Nadella said the number of Copilot customers actively consuming credits through usage-based billing grew more than 75% during the quarter. In its previous quarterly report, Microsoft said Copilot had 30 million paid seats, up from 20 million the quarter before.
Investors have been anxious about the Copilot business after it had a slow start. Microsoft, for its part, has reimagined Copilot, recently turning the service into a “super app” that will span coding, chat, and autonomous functions. It also this month unveiled new features for its Windows operating system that let users work with AI agents, along with a plan to integrate seamlessly with Copilot.
Microsoft has benefited from the AI boom primarily because of its cloud computing service, which helps AI companies train their models and make them available through Azure, but the company has also strained to get computing capacity online and to balance the needs of its partners with those of its own proprietary AI models.
Earlier this week, AI company Anthropic released the prospectus for its upcoming initial public offering, which provided insight into just how much Microsoft and other hyperscalers are benefiting from the AI lab’s needs. Anthropic has committed to spending at least $44.9 billion on Microsoft compute between this November and May 2033, regardless of actual usage. That is part of Anthropic’s commitment of at least $389.9 billion for compute spending to companies including Amazon, Alphabet, and SpaceXAI.
Microsoft’s Wednesday report arrives during a time of great change at the 51-year-old company. This week, it offered buyouts to roughly 60,000 employees, or about 27% of its workforce, as it continues a company-wide pivot into AI that has pressured it to cut costs. Eligible employees must accept by the first week of December, though Microsoft expects fewer than 10% of employees will take the offer.
In July, Microsoft cut about 4,800 jobs, following more than 15,000 layoffs in 2025. Many of the recent cuts have been centered in its struggling Xbox unit, which has dragged on overall financial performance.
On Wednesday, Microsoft said Xbox content and services revenue decreased by 2%, partially offset by growth in first-party content, while its hardware revenue fell by 14%. Microsoft’s Windows OEM and Devices revenue decreased by 22%, weighing down its overall Devices and Consumer segment.
For the current quarter, the company projects Xbox content revenue to grow in the mid-to-high single digits, driven by launches of first- and third-party content. (The company last week released Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4.) It still expects Xbox hardware revenue to decrease.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
You can now "@Grok" on LessWrong
Or if you prefer, "@Claude", "@Opus", "@Astra"
@Grok is a popular Twitter/X feature where if you tag Grok in a tweet, Grok will respond in a comment. The stereotypical use case is "@Grok is this true?" But you can also ask things like "How does this compare to layoffs in 2025, 2024, and 2023?" and "How would you verify AI in the domain of AI research?"
Notwithstanding that Grok is often recruited in a charged or condescending way to win arguments, I think it's a pretty good feature:
- It requires no effort to invoke an LLM with the context of the tweet thread.
- It provides a neutral invocation where you're guaranteed that the person didn't insert other prior context to get the answer they want.
- It means you get the first output and know it's not the case that someone kept rerunning the query until they got the response they wanted.
In short, you get convenience and a neutral fact checker. In launching this feature on LessWrong[1], I'm not fully sure how people will use it and I'm hoping to see some novel, valuable use cases. Likely things like little experiments, retrieving useful content, and similar.
Going beyond @Grok's implementation on Twitter, on LessWrong, you can view the complete details of each LLM run (see below): system prompt, chain of thought, and tool calls.
What about the noise of having LLM content showing up? I'll be keeping a close eye on how it goes. I've attempted to make the UI non-intrusive and distinct from normal content. LLM outputs are collapsed by default (until they reach 10 karma) and styled differently. There are rate limits on how many times someone can @<model>. Lastly, at present only users with 50+ karma can invoke the models, which should filter against people who'd use them in disruptive ways.
The LLM Run page:
Happy invocations! Feel free to try it out on this post!
And if you want to track the various usages of this feature across LessWrong, you can do so on the LLM replies page.
- ^
- This is an experiment and we might roll it back.
- A karma score of 50+ is required to use it during beta.
- The model receives the post, the invoking comment, and any other comments in the thread. The model is able to search both the web and LessWrong content.
- A broad but non-exhaustive list of model options will be included. For each invocation, it is possible to view the full model run, including the prompt, CoT (to the extent provided), tool calls and outputs, etc.
Discuss
Microsoft offers buyouts to 60,000 employees amid AI investment
Microsoft is looking to shed a massive number of workers.
In a Monday blog post, the Windows and Xbox maker announced a voluntary buyout plan for its employees in Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. While the blog post doesn't provide a specific number, reporting from CBS News and other outlets indicates that about 60,000 employees (roughly a quarter of Microsoft's global workforce) will receive the offer. That doesn't mean all 60,000 will accept the offer, but it is a surefire sign that Microsoft feels the need to greatly reduce its human workforce.
"The Voluntary Exit Offer is new for us. We’ll learn from it," Chief People Officer Amy Coleman wrote in the blog post. "At the same time, we’ll keep helping people focus on the work that matters most, build new skills and, where it makes sense, find new opportunities across Microsoft."
As CBS News noted, this comes at the same time Microsoft is expected to spend $175 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026 alone, signaling the company is not exactly lacking in funds at the moment. Whether or not that AI infrastructure will adequately replace human labor remains to be seen.
It hasn't been a good couple of years for Microsoft in terms of generating positive headlines. The company has laid off thousands of workers across divisions, including multiple rounds of cuts at Xbox. That coincides with increasing AI creep in the Windows operating system and new, fairly strict limits on Xbox game streaming, to say nothing of Microsoft's prominent place as a BDS boycott target due to its partnership with the Israeli military.
Want to learn more about getting the best out of your tech? Sign up for Mashable's Top Stories and Deals newsletters or get Mashable push alerts today.
A WNBA championship before lunch? Fans call out Game 6 scheduling.
The Golden State Valkyries could win their first WNBA championship on Thursday morning. Watching them do it might require an awkward conversation with your boss: The WNBA announced Monday that Game 6 of the Finals against the Atlanta Dream will tip off at 12:30 p.m. ET on Oct. 29 — 9:30 a.m. in the Bay Area, where the Valkyries are based.
Valkyries guard Veronica Burton has a suggestion. "Call in sick. I recommend it," she said after Golden State’s Monday-night win, according to reporter Annie Costabile. That victory gave the team a 3–2 series lead and a chance to clinch a title in the franchise’s second season — provided its fans can clear their work calendars to watch.
The issue comes down to two teams needing the same arena. The Dream's usual home, Gateway Center Arena, holds approximately 3,500 spectators. Atlanta hosted Finals Games 3 and 4 at the roughly 17,000-seat State Farm Arena instead, selling out both games. Keeping Game 6 there, however, meant working around the Atlanta Hawks, who were already scheduled to host the Cleveland Cavaliers on Thursday evening.
The solution? A doubleheader. Move the WNBA game from 8 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. and delay the Hawks’ tipoff by an hour, from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. Commissioner Cathy Engelbert thanked the teams, leagues, arena, and broadcaster "for the collaboration and flexibility that made this move possible."
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Fans were less enthusiastic about the flexibility now required of them.
"How are we supposed to watch this game in the middle of the workday?? This is so strange to me," one commenter asked on Reddit's r/wnba. Another Atlanta-based commenter said they had planned to attend but now couldn't even watch live. "I’d rather them play at Gateway so at least folks could watch it in real time," they wrote.
Flavor Flav offered fans some help getting the afternoon off, posting a signed permission slip to give their bosses. "Consider it your contribution to gender equality," he wrote in the document.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Commentators across sports offered their own (rather heated) opinions. To Richard Deitsch, host of the Sports Media Podcast, the timing threatened to undercut the moment the season had been building toward. "The prospect of crowning a champion on a Thursday afternoon is just brutal optics (and will be brutal television ratings.)," he wrote on X.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
The Ringer founder Bill Simmons sounded similarly exasperated with league leadership, writing, "People want to like this league!"
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Their frustration comes after a season of record audience growth for the WNBA. According to the league, 51 regular-season telecasts averaged at least one million viewers, up from 19 last year. Its social accounts generated four billion views, with engagement up 24 percent from 2025. The demand is there, which helps explain why making a potential championship game harder to watch has struck such a nerve.
For some critics, the decision also sends a message about how the players are valued. Former NFL player and commentator Emmanuel Acho called it "high-key disrespectful" to the sport and its athletes.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
In the Reddit discussion, some fans also questioned why a women's Finals game had to work around a men's regular-season matchup in the first place, with many finding the whole ordeal wildly "mysoginistic" and exposed a blaring double standard. "If this were a men’s game, this time would never even be considered," one Reddit commenter said. Another commenter in r/WNBATalks wrote, "If society was less misogynistic, it wouldn’t be an issue."
Women's sports creator and podcast host Coach Jackie also questioned the decision in a video posted to Instagram. "Somebody could become a WNBA champion over brunch? During lunch? While you’re in a Teams meeting? Did you think it through?" she asked.
The players, meanwhile, have been more measured. Dream guard Jordin Canada welcomed the chance to play in front of another State Farm Arena crowd, while teammate Allisha Gray kept her focus on what was at stake.
"It’s the Finals, you gotta do what you gotta do," Gray told the San Francisco Chronicle. "We can play at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., midnight, you have a championship to win."
Claudes new smart reports tell bosses when workers are off-topic
Anthropic has announced new Claude reporting tools, allowing employers to see exactly how and why their employees are using the AI tool. Smart reports are available now for users on paid Claude Enterprise plans, and can be enabled in an organisation's settings.
Announced on Wednesday, Claude's smart reports feature produces graphs showing how a team has been using the AI tool, what they've produced, and how much they've spent on it. Managers simply specify the team, a date range up to the last 28 days, and Claude products they'd like to be included in the report.
The products that can be selected are chat, Claude Code, Claude Cowork, or the "unified chat and Cowork experience." (The recently announced Claude Duet AI agent isn't available on Claude Enterprise.) Smart reports will then pull data from the chosen tools and create an overview of what workers have been doing. This involves reading the team's conversation transcripts, grouping them into workstreams and types of output (such as vibe code or technical documents), and determining how much they've been spending.
"If a spend limit is holding someone back, admins with billing permission can raise it from the report," wrote Anthropic.
On Monday, the company submitted an IPO filing stating that its existing customers had increased their spending by 900 percent since last year — though it still reported $80 billion loss in the first half of 2026 alone. Organisations can generate up to 10 smart reports per month for free, after which they'll incur an additional fee.
Anthropic states that in addition to telling smart reports what to focus on in its analysis, managers can also ask their own custom questions about usage and cost. These questions can be saved to be asked again, so managers don't have to reenter them every time. Smart reports will make recommendations as well, such as suggesting new rules that could be added to a code repository.
Each smart report generates interactive charts, with managers able to click on them to see a breakdown of sessions in a workstream. Sessions can be ranked and filtered by cost, the product used, the date, and the type of output produced.
Smart reports will also not only show obstacles encountered and how often they cropped up, but also what Anthropic calls "inefficiencies." This includes sessions where workers didn't produce usable output, as well as ones classified as were "personal or off-topic."
Claude's new AI reporting tool is likely to leave some workers feeling apprehensive. There have been multiple reports of companies using AI to make layoff decisions, with a recent survey finding that one in four managers in the U.S. use it for this purpose "often or all the time." In July, a group of former Meta employees alleged that it relied on improperly tested AI tools to evaluate workers' productivity and track their AI token use, ranking them for inclusion in a mass layoff. Meta denied the allegations, saying workforce decisions were made by people, not AI.
Anthropic appears aware of such concerns, noting that Claude's smart reports aren't intended to be used in this manner.
"Smart reports help you understand adoption and plan your investment in Claude," Anthropic wrote. "They aren't designed and should not be used for evaluating individual performance or making employment decisions."
Claude's smart reports also have restrictions on the questions it will accept. Users will not be allowed to ask queries on topics such as race, gender identity, religion, political affiliation, immigration status, health, union activity, harassment complaints, or workers' personal lives.
Even so, the AI-powered reports are unlikely to nurture worker affection for the technology, or trust in their managers.
Macmillan Staff Say the Publisher Threw a Party for a Workplace AI Assistant That Was Later Killed
Optimus的第一份工作是插枪：人形机器人的主战场，从来不在工厂
（本文作者为 韩工观察，钛媒体经授权发布）
文 | 韩工观察
奥斯汀的特斯拉超充站，一辆Cybercab自己开了进来，自己倒车入位，停稳。然后它就停在那里——等一个真人小跑过来，弯腰，把充电枪插上，或者拔下、归位。无人驾驶的最后一公里已经无人了，最后半米，还卡在一个插枪动作上。
10月27日，Munro Live的采访里，特斯拉工程副总裁Lars Moravy把这半米的解决方案说了出来：让Optimus学插枪，短期接手Robotaxi车队的“插枪、拔枪”补能环节。（据Munro Live采访及快科技等媒体报道，2026年10月27日）
同一个10月，珠海、武汉、上海的商场、景区和酒店里，数百台人形机器人正在补货、导购、铺床、巡检——它们也不在工厂。
两个画面拼在一起，是读懂这个行业的钥匙：机器人没有先去替谁拧螺丝。它先去插枪、补货、铺床。因为标准场景早被专用设备吃了两百年，剩给它的，是这些“脏活、碎活、移动着干”的缝。
一、回看几百年，机器只干一种活
1589年，威廉·李发明织袜机，女王拒绝授予专利，理由是“它会夺走臣民的饭碗”。两个多世纪后，英国手工纺织工人砸毁机器，史称卢德运动。
但历史的结果不是机器停下，而是机器接走了“重复织造”，把设计、销售、维修留给了人。
1913年，福特流水线投产，真正的自动化范式在此定型：人不动，工件动。把“标准动作”从人身上剥下来，交给专用设备——传送带负责连续搬运，机械臂负责固定工位，叉车负责短距转运。
这一范式运转了一百多年，今天的全球工厂里，工业机器人的保有量已超过460万台（据国际机器人联合会IFR《World Robotics 2025》，该口径为工业机械臂及专用自动化设备存量，不含人形机器人），AGV、码垛机、航吊各自守着自己的标准工位，成熟、便宜、可靠，而且越来越便宜。
服务业的历史同样清晰。ATM机上世纪六十年代上岗，银行柜员减少了，但网点没有消失——柜员转去做了理财和投诉处理。点钞归机器，判断归人。
把两百年串起来，规律只有一条：机器先干“重复、可量化、不移动”的活。标准场景里的每一寸土地，都站着一台比人形机器人便宜一个数量级、皮实一个数量级的专用设备。
规律没变，疑问就来了：为什么今天所有人形机器人公司，排队进的都是工厂？
二、工厂是健身房，不是赛场
先看行业自己怎么说。宇树科技在招股书中坦承：通用具身大模型尚未规模应用，现阶段仍依赖开发者指令与遥操作补充数据（据宇树科技招股书及公开报道）。
王兴兴在世界机器人大会上也划了界限：固定场景下成功率可以接近100%，陌生环境泛化仍有瓶颈（据王兴兴2026年8月世界机器人大会演讲及媒体报道）。
这两句话翻译成产业语言：工厂的价值，恰在于它的标准化。
对人形机器人，工厂有三重训练价值。其一，练硬件：恒温、恒湿、固定工位，关节寿命、散热、防水防尘的短板在这里一寸一寸暴露、一寸一寸修掉。其二，练闭环：工件位置偏差、光线变化、输送带速度波动，这种“有限非标”恰好够训练“感知—对齐—抓取—放置”的基础动作闭环。其三，练数据：有CAD模型、有工艺参数，数据标注成本远低于开放环境。
还有一个值得思考的事实：工厂自己恰恰是“去通用化”最激进的选手。此次Munro Live采访同步披露，Cybercab的总装线只有约25个全自动工位、自动化程度接近80%，连涂装车间都取消了（据Munro Live采访及媒体报道）。
造车的产线设计思路，是尽可能把每个动作专用化、把通用性需求从流程里剥离出去——但人形机器人却在这一阶段大规模进入工厂。它进去干的，自然不是给传送带接班。
它进厂真正接的活，是非标上下料、料箱拆码垛、线边仓转运——全是机械臂和AGV“够不着”的缝隙，是练兵场里的攀岩墙，不是主战场上的阵地。
工厂是健身房，练肌肉可以，打比赛不行。肌肉练完，赛场在哪？
三、赛场在服务业，数据已经在说话
IDC今年9月发布的全球人形机器人跟踪报告显示：2026年上半年全球出货接近2.5万台，同比增长432.1%；中国出货超1.9万台，占全球约77.9%；智元以超8600台位居全球第一（据IDC《全球人形机器人跟踪报告》，2026年9月）。
但这份报告里最有信息量的不是总量，是结构：科研教育、表演展示、政府数采三类场景合计占比，已从2025年全年的83.8%降至69%（据IDC同上）——也就是说，约三成的机器人，已经在真实场景里干活了。
这三成去哪了？汽车产线之外，珠海长隆部署了300多台机器人、覆盖100多个点位，干导览、零售、酒店服务（据21世纪经济报道2026年10月报道）；武汉汉口江滩的零售仓里，智元A3 Ultra夜间理货带路，项目方披露其稳定运行18天、累计完成827单、抓取成功率超97%（据亿邦动力、上观新闻2026年10月报道，为项目方披露数据，尚无第三方独立复现）；爱仕达线下门店进驻100台灵犀X2做导购，厂商披露试营业3天带动产品销售额约223万元、合作门店业绩平均增长39%（据上观新闻2026年10月报道，为短期试营业统计口径）。
为什么服务业反而先跑通？答案藏在任务结构里。Figure官方披露，其机器人在旧金山30户陌生住宅里铺床的成功率是67%（据Figure官方2026年9月发布，为厂商单方披露，尚无第三方独立复现）——铺床歪一点，只是不太好看。
服务业的大量任务正是这种“容错型”：理货歪一点、导览慢一步、插枪重试一次，都不构成事故。
而产线拧螺丝是“阈值型”：拧到4度是松，6度是滑丝，差一点都不行（容错型与阈值型之分的详细论证，见笔者《具身智能，卡在哪——王兴兴的“一两年”到底承诺了什么》，钛媒体10月刊）。当前机器人“能演示”的成功率，放在容错型服务业里已经可以算账，放在阈值型产线里还得再练。
再加一层付费方逻辑：商户为“省人力＋引流”买单，酒店为“夜间没人愿干的巡检”买单，账算得过来，订单就发生。
Optimus插枪，是同一逻辑最干净的样本。车能自己开进站、自己入位，特斯拉全球超8.2万根超级充电桩（据特斯拉2026年二季度财报）却不能一夜改成无线充——于是“插枪”这个高频、固定、好验收的动作，成了无人化系统里“最后一个人力缺口”。
特斯拉自己规划的终局其实是无线充电：感应充电板铺开后，插枪机器人就会退居二线，转去干擦传感器、换件、巡检的活（据Munro Live采访及媒体报道）。这说明连特斯拉自己都清楚：插枪不是Optimus的终身职业，只是第一个能算回本的工位。
这引出必须补上的理论一刀：物理载体有极限。要求微米级精度的手术机器人，去扫地会把自己扫报废；要求扭矩和耐造的扫地载体，做不了手术。精度和力量、成本和通用性，在一条机械臂上不可兼得——“一个机器人包打天下”是伪命题。
终局格局大概率是“专用设备守标准场景，人形吃移动缝隙，多机协同干活”：传送带继续转，机械臂继续焊，AGV继续跑，人形机器人负责那些需要走动、临场应变、使用人类工具的碎活。（注：此终局格局为作者推演，并无公开文件确认。）
缝隙市场能开多大？答案是：比想象大得多，但有一道不以技术为转移的天花板。
四、天花板是社会容忍度
先把规模感建立起来。世界经济论坛预计，2025至2030年全球将有9200万个岗位被技术替代，同时新增7800万个——替代先发生，创造滞后（据WEF《Future of Jobs 2025》）。
而需求的另一侧，是真实的用工缺口：养老院夜间招不到值守的人，酒店保洁流动率常年高企，餐厅传菜、商超理货的岗位长期空缺——这些活不是机器人抢走的，是人本来就不愿干、也干不长。
但“能替代”不等于“会替代”。这道天花板由社会定价。2026年10月，国务院办公厅印发《关于适应人工智能技术发展助力构建就业友好型发展方式的意见》（国办发〔2026〕29号），明确提出“有效减缓人工智能应用就业替代影响”，并要求人工智能优先承接高风险、重复性、人力供给不足的岗位（据中国政府网2026年10月发布）。
司法也在划线：2026年，杭州中院一例“AI替岗”案件判决企业违法解除劳动合同、赔偿员工26万余元（据新华网浙江2026年4月报道）。该案并非否定技术升级，传递的裁判逻辑是：技术迭代的成本，不能单方面转嫁给劳动者。
企业的实操则是缓冲带：格力自动化率超过80%但不裁员、以转岗安置；京东把一线员工转往机器人维修与调度岗位（均据公开报道）。替代的速度，被“安置能力”限速。
再往底层，是我此前那把量过AGI的尺子。在《黄仁勋说AGI已来，奥特曼说只是营销词》（钛媒体9月刊）里，我用0.618/0.382切分过智能：可计算的理智侧归机器，不可计算的体感侧归人。
这把尺子搬到物理世界同样锋利：机器人吃的是0.618的物理版——插枪、理货、铺床、巡检，这些动作可定义、可量化、可验收；0.382的物理版它吃不到——陪诊时的安抚、护理老人的分寸、理发时察觉客人皱了一下眉，这些绑在肉身经验上的体感，硅基系统算不出来。
养老场景是最好的观察窗。南京建邺区一家社会福利院里，消控机器人24小时值守，巡房机器人夜间识别老人跌倒并联动护理站（据扬子晚报2026年6月报道，经江苏民政厅官网转载）——它吃下了“夜间值守”和“跌倒识别”，但没人让它碰“洗澡、喂药、急救判断”。
前者是0.618的物理版，后者是0.382的物理版。技术的边界和社会的边界，在这里重合。
看清了战场和天花板，再回头看行业里流传的两句口号。
结语
“人形机器人替代工厂工人”，和“AGI已来”，是同一类话术的两个版本——都用一个技术的名字，去承诺一个行业图景。
而产业史的真实写法一直很朴素：机器一步步吃掉“重复、可标准化”的活，把人省下来，去干那些没有标准答案的事——创造、情感、陪伴、欲望。
两百年前的织袜机没有消灭纺织业，它只是把“织造”交给了机器，把“设计”留给了人。今天的人形机器人也不会消灭服务业，它只是把插枪、铺床、理货、夜间巡房这些没人爱干的活接过去。
人形机器人的终极主战场在服务业。但工业是必经之路：工厂不是终点，是起点；服务业不是备选，是终局。
【信息说明】
- Optimus学习为Cybercab/Robotaxi插枪、Optimus电池约2.5kWh、Cybercab总装线约25个全自动工位及自动化率约80%、取消涂装车间、无线充电为终局方向等信息，来自Munro Live对特斯拉工程副总裁Lars Moravy与Eric Earley的采访，经快科技、IT时代网、汽车之家等媒体报道（2026年10月27日）转述；采访为高管单方表述，机器人实际部署进度以特斯拉官方披露为准。
- 2026年上半年全球人形机器人出货近2.5万台（同比+432.1%）、中国市场约1.9万台（占77.9%）、智元超8600台、科研教育/表演展示/政府数采合计占比由83.8%降至69%、2030年全球出货预计超75万台，均据IDC《全球人形机器人跟踪报告》（2026年9月）及其经证券时报、北京商报等媒体报道的转述口径。
- 珠海长隆300余台机器人覆盖100余点位，据21世纪经济报道2026年10月报道。武汉江滩智元A3 Ultra“运行18天、827单、抓取成功率超97%”，据亿邦动力、上观新闻2026年10月报道，为项目方披露运营数据，尚无第三方独立复现。爱仕达100台灵犀X2导购及“3天销售额约223万元、业绩平均增长39%”，据上观新闻2026年10月报道，为厂商短期试营业统计口径，不代表长期经营效果。
- Figure Helix在30户陌生住宅铺床成功率约67%，据Figure官方2026年9月发布，为厂商单方披露，尚无第三方独立复现报告。
- 宇树科技“通用具身大模型尚未规模应用”表述，据其招股书及公开报道转述；王兴兴关于“固定场景成功率接近100%、陌生环境泛化仍有瓶颈”的表述，据其2026年8月世界机器人大会演讲及媒体报道。
- 工业机器人存量数据：据国际机器人联合会（IFR）《World Robotics 2025》，2024 年全球在役工业机器人运营存量约 466.4 万台（即“超过 460 万台”），同比增长 9%；其中中国在役存量 202.7 万台。该统计遵循 ISO 8373 口径，涵盖工业机械臂、SCARA、协作臂等专用自动化设备，不含人形机器人（人形由 IFR 在服务机器人统计类目里另行归类）；2025—2030年9200万岗位被替代、7800万新增，据WEF《Future of Jobs 2025》。
- 《国务院办公厅关于适应人工智能技术发展助力构建就业友好型发展方式的意见》（国办发〔2026〕29号），据中国政府网2026年10月发布，文中表述以文件原文为准。杭州中院“AI替岗”案判赔26万余元，据新华网浙江2026年4月报道，案件细节以法院生效裁判文书为准。格力转岗安置、京东一线员工转岗机器人运维等案例，均据公开报道。
- 南京建邺区社会福利院消控机器人、巡房机器人案例，据扬子晚报2026年6月报道，经江苏民政厅官网转载；文中仅采用原始报道所载“24小时值守、识别跌倒并联动护理站”等信息。
- “0.618/0.382理智与体感分割”为笔者借黄金分割数提出的比喻性分析框架，用以区分可计算与不可计算部分，不作心理学定量结论（详见钛媒体9月刊《黄仁勋说AGI已来，奥特曼说只是营销词》）；“容错型/阈值型任务”“工厂是健身房”“最后一个人力缺口”“移动缝隙”“机器负责干活，人负责生活”“专用设备守标准场景、人形吃移动缝隙、多机协同干活”均为作者分析框架与推演，非行业官方结论。
- 本文提及的《黄仁勋说AGI已来，奥特曼说只是营销词：四个人的AGI，四本账》《具身智能，卡在哪——王兴兴的“一两年”到底承诺了什么》均为笔者发表于钛媒体的稿件。
本文基于公开信息独立撰写，文中涉及对企业的分析与判断，均为作者基于公开资料的研究性观点，不构成投资建议，亦不代表对相关企业的任何立场。相关数据以企业官方披露为准。
更多精彩内容，关注钛媒体微信号（ID：taimeiti），或者下载钛媒体App
AI裁员背后：消失的不只是工作，还有年轻人的机会
（本文作者为 登顶可选，钛媒体经授权发布）
文 | 登顶可选
10月23日，国务院办公厅公开发布《关于适应人工智能技术发展助力构建就业友好型发展方式的意见》。
文件提出18项任务，其中包括减缓AI应用的就业替代影响、建立就业风险评估机制，以及调整收入分配和社会保障制度。
国务院办公厅《意见》原文 | 中国政府网 · 2026年10月23日
一份关于人工智能的政策文件，开始具体讨论如何减少岗位替代、帮助劳动者转岗，以及应对规模性失业风险。
这让一个长期争论的问题变得更加现实——官方出手，那么AI对就业究竟影响有多大？
2025年9月，Salesforce首席执行官马克·贝尼奥夫在播客中透露，公司客服团队已经从9000人缩减至约5000人。
AI承担了越来越多的客户咨询，还帮助公司重新联系过去积压的大量销售线索。贝尼奥夫将这段经历称为自己职业生涯中最令人兴奋的时期之一。
对企业来说，这是一笔漂亮的生意。客服团队缩小了，销售机会却增加了。
当然，4000人的差额并不等于4000人全部遭到裁员。部分员工被重新安排到其他岗位。但有一点已经确定：Salesforce不再需要原来规模的客服团队。
过去两年，AI几乎成了科技公司裁员新闻里的高频词。有人认为机器正在大规模抢走工作，也有人认为，企业只是借AI之名掩盖经营压力。
两种说法都有现实依据，却都无法完整解释这场变化。
因为企业减少人工需求，并不一定要先发出裁员通知。
01｜裁员公告之外，还有一本账
2024年，瑞典金融科技公司Klarna公布了一组数字。
AI客服助手上线一个月，处理了230万次客户对话，相当于700名全职客服人员的工作量。平均问题处理时间从11分钟缩短至不到2分钟。
图：Klarna官方披露数据整理（非原始网页截图）
到了2025年，Klarna向美国证券交易委员会提交的上市文件披露，在截至当年6月的过去12个月里，AI处理了69%的客服聊天。公司估算，仅2024年就节省了约3900万美元成本。
Klarna AI客服官方披露文件 | Klarna · 2024年2月
当然，700人不是裁员人数，而是AI承担的等效工作量。3900万美元则说明这项技术已经产生了可以计入经营账本的成本收益。
Klarna后来重新强调人工客服的重要性，调整服务人员的配置。AI能处理大量标准化问题，但复杂投诉、特殊需求和客户体验仍然需要人工参与。
中国企业也在算同一笔账。
国际劳工组织2026年9月发布的一项中国企业研究，访谈了21家企业，调查了1591名从业者。
其中一家保险公司，在300名客服员工规模不变的情况下，借助AI将每日问题处理量从6000个提高至15000个。
一家旅游服务企业估算，AI承担的数据处理工作量相当于5至6名全职员工。
这些数字来自企业访谈，尚不能作为整个行业的平均水平。但它们揭示了一个重要变化：工作量和员工数量，正在逐渐脱钩。
国际劳工组织中国企业研究
保险公司没有减少300人的客服团队，却能处理过去2.5倍的问题。如果业务继续增长，企业可以用现有团队服务更多客户；如果业务规模保持稳定，新增招聘的必要性就会下降，这就意味着新增就业机会逐渐减少。
这类隐形变化很少被称为AI裁员，公开裁员数据则是另一种口径。
美国裁员咨询机构Challenger, Gray & Christmas的2026年前九个月统计显示，企业宣布的裁员计划中，约12万人被归类为AI相关，占同期全部裁员公告的约21%。
这个数字来自企业公布的裁员理由，并非独立审计确认的AI替代人数。经营不善、组织重组和技术升级往往同时发生，企业给出的解释也有自身的传播动机。
但即使剔除那些无法确定归因的裁员，Salesforce和Klarna的经营数据仍然说明，AI已经改变了部分企业的人工需求。
因此，衡量AI的就业影响，至少需要看三项变化：已经减少的岗位、被AI承担的工作量，以及因此减少的新增招聘。
图：AI影响就业的三个观察口径
前两项已经有越来越多的企业案例。第三项更难统计，却直接关系到年轻人的职业前景。
斯坦福AI与青年就业研究 | Stanford Digital Economy Lab
02｜AI先改变的，是年轻人的职业入口
2026年8月，斯坦福大学数字经济实验室更新了一项就业研究。
研究人员利用美国薪资服务商ADP覆盖数百万劳动者的数据发现，在AI暴露程度较高的职业中，22至25岁年轻劳动者的就业表现持续弱于对照群体。
截至2026年6月，两类群体的相对就业差距达到19%。
图：斯坦福研究结论摘录示意（非研究原图）
这不是美国年轻人整体就业下降19%，也不能直接理解为AI消灭了19%的岗位。
研究更重要的发现是：差距主要体现在招聘减少，而非年轻员工被解雇的比例明显增加。
一些年轻人没有被AI裁掉，因为他们根本没能进入那个岗位。
过去，初级岗位不仅承担基础工作，也承担人才培养功能。
程序员从修改简单代码、编写测试开始；市场人员通过搜集资料、制作初稿熟悉业务；咨询和研究岗位的新人，则在整理数据、处理文档的过程中积累判断能力。
如今，这些基础任务恰好是生成式AI能够大量介入的工作。
经验丰富的员工可以让AI生成代码初稿、整理资料，再自行检查、修改和决策。企业减少了重复劳动，也开始重新评估初级岗位的招聘数量。
短期看，这是效率提升；长期看，行业面临一个矛盾：
企业仍然需要经验丰富的人，却在减少让新人获得经验的工作。
如果一家企业减少初级招聘，可以通过更高的效率获得竞争优势。但当越来越多企业采取同样的做法，行业就必须回答下一代资深员工从哪里来？
中国招聘市场也出现了相关信号。
一项分析2019年至2024年约6700万条中国招聘广告的研究发现，AI替代型暴露较高的岗位，常规认知技能需求占比下降；AI增强型暴露较高的岗位，非重复性分析技能需求则有所增加。
另一项覆盖超过1300万条招聘广告的研究发现，生成式AI普及后，AI相关招聘参与度较高的上市企业，中等工资和教育要求岗位的招聘占比相对下降。
这些研究观察的是招聘结构，不能直接等同于就业人数变化，但它们呈现了企业技能需求的调整方向。
企业越来越重视独立判断、复杂问题解决和AI应用能力，而传统初级岗位承担的基础任务正在被重新分配。
新的AI职业当然也在出现。模型评估、AI产品运营、自动化流程设计等工作，正在创造新的就业需求。
但新旧岗位的技能要求以及数量并不相同，岗位消失和创造也不会同步发生。
对一个刚毕业的年轻人来说，最困难的未必是学会使用AI，而是如何在缺少实际业务经验的情况下，获得企业越来越看重的判断能力。
这已经超出了单纯的裁员问题。
AI正在改变的不只是岗位数量，还有职业成长的路径。
03｜企业赚到了效率，劳动者分到了多少？
Klarna节省了约3900万美元，Salesforce缩小了客服团队，中国的保险公司用同样的人力处理更多业务。
企业获得了可以衡量的生产率收益。但节省下来的成本，并不会自动转化为员工收入。
它可以通过降价让消费者受益，可以用于研发和业务扩张，也可以增加员工报酬，或者成为企业利润。
不同的分配方式，会产生完全不同的就业结果。
一家利用AI扩大市场的企业，可以同时增加收入、利润和就业；另一家主要利用AI压缩人工成本的企业，则可能在员工减少的情况下提高产出。
两家公司都实现了降本增效，劳动者的处境却不一样。
经济学中有一个指标叫劳动收入份额，衡量劳动报酬占创造的增加值的比例。
图：劳动收入份额变化的假设示例
假设一家企业原本创造1亿元增加值，支付5000万元劳动报酬，劳动收入份额为50%。引入AI后，企业创造的增加值增长至1.5亿元，劳动报酬总额增加到6000万元。劳动者获得的报酬总额上涨20%，收入份额却下降至40%。
这个假设说明：劳动者拿到的钱可以增加，但他们在经济增长中获得的比例仍然下降。
如果企业同时减少基础岗位、提高高技能员工薪酬，平均工资甚至可能上涨，而失去岗位的人已经不在平均工资统计之中。
关于AI与劳动收入份额，中国上市公司的实证研究目前存在不同结果。有的发现AI应用促进了劳动收入份额提高，有的观察到份额下降及收益向高技能员工集中的现象。
研究样本、AI采用程度的衡量方法和统计时期不同，尚不足以得出AI必然降低劳动收入份额的结论。但这恰恰说明，技术进步与劳动者收入增长之间，并不存在自动生效的分配规则。
AI提高生产率之后，谁获得新增价值，取决于市场竞争、企业经营方式、员工技能结构和收入分配制度。
但是，当更多企业能够用更少的人完成更多工作，这个问题就不再局限于企业内部。因为现代社会的工资收入，还连接着税收、社保和公共服务。
04｜当机器接手工作，谁来承担社会成本？
2017年，比尔·盖茨接受Quartz采访时，提出了一个颇有争议的建议：考虑向机器人征税。
2026年8月，他在个人网站再次讨论这一问题，甚至提出研究对AI tokens征税。
盖茨担心的是，当机器替代部分劳动者，原本依靠工资形成的税收和社会保障缴费可能受到影响，而失业保障、职业培训和其他公共服务的需求反而增加。
比尔盖茨对AI警示原文
这不是AI完全不交税的问题。
开发AI的企业、销售AI服务的公司，仍然需要按照适用法律缴纳相应税款。企业支付的工资和社保费用通常也可以按规定税前扣除，不能简单地说雇人是税后成本、买设备才是税前成本。
真正的差异在于，劳动和资本适用不同的税收与缴费规则。
企业雇用员工，需要承担工资及相关社会缴费；投资设备、软件和自动化系统，则按照相应的折旧、摊销及税收政策处理。
例如，中国财政部、税务总局2023年第37号公告规定，2024年至2027年，企业新购进、单位价值不超过500万元的设备和器具，可以按规定一次性计入当期成本费用，在计算企业所得税时扣除。
这是一项普遍的设备投资政策，并非专门鼓励AI替代员工。但它说明，税制会参与企业对人工和资本投资的成本计算。
盖茨提出的机器人税，试图让自动化收益承担更多公共责任。国际货币基金组织却不赞成简单征收专门的AI税或机器人税。
IMF在2024年的财政政策研究中指出，直接对AI征税不仅难以界定征税对象，还可能抑制有益的技术投资。
工厂里的机械臂容易识别，企业用AI审核合同、生成代码、处理财务报表，又该如何计税？如果AI帮助员工提高效率，没有减少就业，是否也要征税？
IMF更倾向于调整现有税制中可能鼓励劳动替代的政策，完善资本收入和企业利润税收，并加强职业培训与社会保障。
盖茨与IMF的路径不同，却共同面对一个问题：
当企业越来越容易在不增加员工的情况下扩大产出，公共财政如何分享生产率收益，并为受到冲击的劳动者提供保障？
税收制度不会因为一家企业部署AI就立即失效。生产率提高也可能带来更高利润、更多消费和新的税收来源。
但如果劳动收入增长长期落后于产出增长，依赖劳动收入的税收与保障安排，就需要作出调整。
这也是为什么，AI就业问题最终会延伸到社会制度。
05｜谁来接手“雇佣”原本承担的功能？
工业革命时期，机器大幅提高了生产效率，劳动者却没有立即分享全部增长成果。
经济史研究中有一个概念叫“恩格斯停顿”，用来描述英国工业革命早期，生产率增长与劳动者实际工资增长长期脱节的现象。
不同研究对其持续时间和工资变化幅度存在争议，但它提出的问题至今仍然成立——生产力进步，并不保证普通劳动者同步受益。
2026年10月27日，国家发展改革委网站刊发了国家信息中心研究人员关于防范“恩格斯停顿”的专家文章，讨论如何避免技术进步与民生改善脱节。
国家发改委“恩格斯停顿”文章
历史不会简单重演，今天的劳动市场、社会保障和技术扩散速度，也与十九世纪完全不同。
但AI正在让一个长期被视为理所当然的关系受到挑战。
过去，企业扩大业务通常需要增加相应的人力投入。雇佣关系不仅提供工资，也让新人积累经验，并将劳动者连接到社保和公共财政体系。
今天，企业已经能够在部分业务中，通过AI提高产出而不同比例增加员工。
这意味着，雇佣关系原本承担的几项社会功能，开始面临不同程度的压力。
基础工作被AI接手，职业培养需要新的路径；企业人工需求减少，劳动收入的分配方式需要重新审视；工资增长与生产率增长脱钩，公共保障也需要寻找更稳定的支持机制。
这些变化不会在同一天发生，也不会同时出现在所有行业。但它们已经超出了单个企业如何裁员的范围。
10月23日公布的国务院办公厅《意见》，恰好回应了这些问题。
文件明确提出减缓AI应用的就业替代影响，鼓励企业探索失业缓冲期制度，并要求加强转岗培训、就业风险评估、收入分配和社会保障制度建设。
尤其值得注意的是，文件提出开展AI就业影响专项调查，持续跟踪岗位创造与替代、技能需求变化，并将AI应用就业风险纳入规模性失业风险防范机制。
这意味着，AI对就业的影响不仅需要被讨论，还需要被持续测量和管理。政策已经开始回应，接下来考验的是落实速度。
企业可以在一个季度里完成AI系统部署，在下一轮预算中减少招聘计划；但一个劳动者从失去工作到掌握新技能、重新获得稳定收入，往往需要更长时间。
这才是AI就业转型中最现实的时间差。
尾声
回到最初的问题：AI裁员潮，到底有多少是真的？
目前没有一份统计能够完整回答。
裁员公告记录了部分岗位消失，企业运营数据记录了AI接手多少工作，招聘研究则开始捕捉那些从未出现的就业机会。
三者共同说明，AI对劳动需求的改变已经发生，但影响远不止公开裁员人数。
我们也不必因此认定，人类工作终将被机器全面取代。技术可以创造新需求、新职业和更高收入，历史上的生产率进步也确实扩大过社会财富
As AI threatens entry-level jobs, Gen Z is souring on if another degree can help—U.S. business school applications have plunged 25%
Gen Z is staring down an AI-driven job market with fewer guarantees—and even business school is looking less like a lifeline.
Applications to U.S. graduate business programs plunged 25% in 2026, marking the steepest decline in nearly a decade.
According to the data released Tuesday by the Graduate Management Admission Council, the drop reverses two consecutive years of application growth.
A perfect storm of factors—including economic uncertainty, shifting visa policies, and geopolitical tensions—is weighing on demand. But the economy stands out as the biggest drag: 90% of graduate business programs surveyed said economic changes, including recession fears, layoffs, and shifts in the job market, affected application volumes, while 73% reported a major or moderate impact, the highest share of any factor.
That’s a shift from the usual pattern: When jobs are scarce, people often turn to school to improve their prospects. But this time, economic uncertainty is making prospective Gen Z students think twice about the cost of another degree.
It comes as entry-level jobs continue to be in the crossfire of AI.
One-third of employers said they were replacing entry-level jobs with AI, according to GMAC’s Corporate Recruiters Survey released over the summer. More than half of the roughly 600 respondents recruit for Fortune 100 or Fortune 500 companies.
MBA applications are on the decline—but top schools still offer salary prospects of $175,000
The decline extends to MBA programs specifically: Two-thirds of full-time MBA programs worldwide reported application declines, with applications falling 13% year over year.
But the pullback isn’t equally distributed. Applications to highly-selective programs, with acceptance rates below 40%, fell just 9%. At programs with acceptance rates above 85%, applications dropped 21%—suggesting that even as prospective students grow more cautious about business school, selective programs are proving more resilient.
The six-figure payoff may help explain why. Across the elite “M7” business schools—Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Northwestern Kellogg, MIT Sloan, University of Pennsylvania Wharton, and University of Chicago Booth—roughly 90% of 2025 graduates seeking employment received job offers. Median base salaries for graduates who accepted jobs reached at least $175,000 at each school.
But the high career prospects also come with a hefty price tag: Tuition at top MBA programs has climbed to over $300,000 in some cases, raising the stakes for students weighing whether the degree is worth the investment.
Like Gen Z, Fortune 500 CEOs have begun questioning the value of degrees
Even as young people increasingly question the value of degrees, some top business leaders have similarly voiced that credentials may not be worth the same as they did previously.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who graduated from Harvard Business School in 1982, has pushed back on the idea that an elite education automatically makes someone a better employee.
“I don’t think necessarily because you go to an Ivy League school or have great grades it means you’re going to be a great worker or great person,” Dimon told LinkedIn in 2024.
Standard Chartered CEO Bill Winters, an alum of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, has been more blunt.
“I studied international relations and history. I got an MBA later, but that was a waste of time,” Winters said last year.
“I learned how to think at university, and for the 40 years since I left university, those skills have been degraded, degraded, degraded.”
For Joy Jones, GMAC’s CEO and a Stanford MBA alum, business schools need to be more upfront about the return on investment they can offer—or where they fall short.
“[Gen Z] want a return on their investment that goes beyond salary: careers that feel stable and fulfilling, the flexibility to keep their options open, and work that makes a positive impact,” she told Fortune.
Still, she remains bullish on business education: “I believe the question isn’t whether business school rebounds, but which programs earn the trust of a generation that wants proof of value up front.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Skydance issues 5-day RTO mandate, announces employee buyout program
Skydance, the megastudio formed via the recent merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), is ordering workers back to the office full time and offering voluntary buyouts to certain employees.
Paramount-Skydance already had a five-day in-office workweek, but WBD still required only three days.
“We believe in-person collaboration is vital to our culture and to the success of our business,” wrote chairman and CEO David Ellison and co-CEO Ynon Kreiz in a memo to staff on Monday. “Especially in a creative company like ours, the best ideas come from people in the same room, sharing perspectives, challenging one another, and solving problems.”
Employees selected for the buyout program will receive “an individual communication with their personalized details and terms, and a window to decide whether to accept this onetime offer,” they added. “We recognize that not everyone will see their future here.”
When contacted by Fast Company, Skydance declined to make additional comments.
Skydance formed through the $111 billion merger of Paramount-Skydance and Warner Bros., which closed earlier this month. Along with two major movie studios, the new company includes CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, MTV, and TBS, and the streaming services Paramount+ and HBO Max, among other assets and businesses.
The new company, loaded with almost $90 billion in debt, previously acknowledged that layoffs will be necessary.
“Integrating two companies will bring change, including difficult decisions that affect our workforce,” Skydance said in a memo on October 6. “We are committed to handling this process thoughtfully and respectfully.”
Major corporations across the U.S. have adopted mandatory return-to-office (RTO) policies in recent years. Though the policies are often framed as necessary for productivity and collaboration, experts say other factors may be at play—including the broader power struggle between management and labor and the need for companies to justify real estate spending. And in certain cases, RTO mandates are just layoffs in disguise—in one survey, a quarter of C-suite executives expressed hope that implementing an RTO policy would lead to voluntary turnover.
RTO policies also remain generally unpopular among workers, forcing many employers to reboot RTO mandates when attendance falls short.
Deadline reported that Skydance will phase in the RTO mandate over time at its various office locations, concentrated in Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, and London.
UPS just revealed a $92.6 billion surprise, and it’s bad news for one of its biggest customers
UPS is breaking up with Amazon—and so far it’s paying off.
The delivery company issued its Q3 results on Tuesday, beating expectations and showing that scaling back its business of schlepping packages for a major competitor was a smart gamble that could put its financials back on track.
“We’re driving more premium growth, improving revenue quality and mix, and creating greater operating leverage through a more efficient network,” CEO Carol Tomé said in the earnings call. “All of this is strengthening the underlying performance of our business.”
Investors were skittish about the shipping stalwart’s plan to sever much of its Amazon delivery business, but UPS just improved its outlook for the year, raising revenue expectations from $91.2 billion to $92.6 billion. The company’s shares were up around 5% on the news at the time of this writing.
UPS announced that it would scale back its partnership with Amazon early last year, with a plan to cut its Amazon delivery volume in half by this summer. “Amazon is our largest customer, but it’s not our most profitable customer,” Tomé said of the decision, calling its high-volume, low-margin arrangement with Amazon “very dilutive to the U.S. domestic business.” Amazon accounted for around half of the carrier’s domestic package deliveries in 2023, accounting for 12% of its revenue.
Amazon returns remain good business
But the carrier didn’t cut ties with the online retail behemoth outright. Instead, UPS opted to continue handling Amazon returns while reducing the kind of small, frequent deliveries that litter front porches with cardboard boxes. Amazon customers will still be able to return their packages in person at UPS locations, a part of its business Tomé said the company does “very, very well” and plans to hang onto.
“Returns are the nemesis of anybody who’s in the e-commerce space,” Tomé said. “In fact, 19% of all e-commerce sales are returned. And so with our great reverse network, the capabilities that we have for box-less, label-less returns—that relationship with Amazon is just going to continue to grow.”
The pandemic-era boom in deliveries sent UPS stock soaring in 2020, but its shares are now only worth half of what they were four years ago. Shares of the company’s chief rival, FedEx, climbed consistently during the same time period, gaining around the same percentage of value that UPS lost.
Both companies are racing to undo some of their pandemic-inspired expansion, when consumers stuck at home were ordering more to their door than ever before. UPS announced that it would slash 30,000 jobs and shutter dozens of warehouses earlier this year, a piece of its turnaround plan that followed the 48,000 job cuts it made in 2025.
“We’re well into the largest U.S. network reconfiguration in UPS history,” a UPS spokesperson told Fast Company at the time. The shipping giant remains focused on its plan to transform into a “nimbler, more efficient operation” by winding down pieces of its business that aren’t delivering.