Amazon's "Efficiency through AI" Drives the "Second Wave" — Why is There a New Round of Layoffs Involving Thousands Now?

"Where will be cut next?"—Reports of restructuring at giant corporations can drastically change the atmosphere both inside and outside the company. It has been reported that Amazon may once again proceed with large-scale layoffs, potentially affecting thousands of employees, citing the restructuring of operations centered around AI utilization and a review of organizational structure. Just last October, Amazon laid off about 14,000 employees, mainly white-collar workers, and this time it could be on a similar scale. There are also reports that they are considering a long-term goal of "cutting around 30,000 employees," raising questions about the company's "next form."

The framework that cannot be explained by "efficiency through AI" alone

What stands out in this report is that AI is not merely a tool for cost reduction but involves "redesigning the organization itself." Amazon has been advancing the replacement of white-collar jobs with AI, such as code creation by generative AI and automation of routine tasks by so-called AI agents. As AI capabilities increase, the "reason for humans to do the work" is naturally redefined.

On the other hand, Amazon's top executives have hinted that "AI is not the only cause." The point is the "layers." As an organization grows, the number of management layers increases, decision-making slows down, and work shifts from "results" to "coordination." Addressing this issue seems to be a response to the chronic problems that companies often face, separate from the AI boom.

In other words, this restructuring

• AI-driven task replacement (replacing the content of work)

• Reduction of organizational layers (replacing the workflow)
  may be happening simultaneously. The former impacts on a job unit level, while the latter affects across departments. If both overlap, the impact on personnel will be significant.

Which areas might be affected?

The report mentions multiple areas, including AWS, retail, Prime Video, and the People Experience and Technology department. This suggests that the "center of AI investment" and the "target of cost reduction" do not necessarily align.

For example, while AWS is the main battleground for AI, it also has enormous peripheral functions such as sales, support, operations, and management. Retail is the core of revenue but tends to have a multi-layered structure. Prime Video constantly faces the balance between content investment and revenue. HR is one of the areas most susceptible to AI introduction, with significant potential for automating routine processes like recruitment, evaluation, and inquiry handling.

The more a company bets on AI, the more paradoxically the pressure to "thin out everything else" increases.

The "90-day grace period" indicates the limits of the "internal job transfer" model

In the previous round of layoffs, a system was reportedly in place that allowed affected employees to apply for internal job postings while still receiving a salary for a certain period. This was designed to mitigate "immediate loss of talent upon resignation" and promote internal redeployment. However, if the second round comes at a similar scale, there may not be enough vacancies within the company, and the capacity for redeployment may shrink.

For internal job transfers to function, three conditions are needed: (1) sufficient open positions, (2) transferable skills, and (3) willingness of the hiring side to take risks. In a situation where large-scale layoffs continue, these assumptions can easily collapse.

Layoffs as a "common challenge" in the tech industry

Not limited to Amazon, tech companies have been simultaneously advancing layoffs and AI investments in recent years. Capital markets strongly demand not only "growth" but also "efficiency," forcing companies to reevaluate the weight of labor costs. Moreover, generative AI has begun to bring "realistic improvements" rather than "illusions of automation" across planning, development, operations, and back-office functions.

However, what is easy to misunderstand here is the simplistic notion that "AI will replace all humans." In reality,

• a part of the work is replaced by AI

• As a result, the "composition" of necessary personnel changes (e.g., more seniors than juniors, more design than implementation)

• At the same time, the "management cost" of the organization is reduced
  This complex phenomenon occurs. Layoffs can be both "due to AI" and "structural reforms using AI as an excuse."

Reactions on social media: Distrust, anger, and realism intersect

On social media, emotions regarding this news vary widely. Especially on Reddit, discussions have expanded beyond mere layoffs to include "quality of employment," "optimization of labor costs across borders," and "contradictions in work styles."

1) "AI is an excuse. Is the reality overseas relocation and outsourcing?"

One axis of the discussion is suspicion towards offshoring rather than AI. There is a prevalent view that "domestic jobs are being cut while hiring is increasing in other regions," with criticism involving visa systems and overseas hiring. Additionally, there is a cold observation that "since remote work became common, the 'distance' is no longer a barrier for companies."

Here, AI tends to be discussed more as a "justification banner" rather than the "main character."

2) "While strengthening RTO (Return to Office), are they moving jobs overseas?"

There are also voices pointing out contradictions in work styles. While there is a corporate culture promoting a return to office, the work itself is optimized across borders—this gap leads to dissatisfaction. There is a nuance of "it's too convenient to demand domestic employees to return to the office while hiring in cost-effective regions."
When "come to the office" and "hire cheaply across borders" coexist, employee satisfaction tends to decrease.

3) "The culture is bad," "The layers are too thick"… Internal perspective self-diagnosis

In another Reddit community (related to Amazon employees), more vivid "internal perspectives" emerge.

• "Even though AI results are insufficient, are they cutting other areas for AI investment?"

• "The management and evaluation culture exhausts people"

• "As people decrease, the remaining teams become skeletal, and quality and maintenance crumble"
  Such voices are lined up. Among them, there is also a counterargument that "it's not that there are too many people, but that the 'scope' of projects is too wide," and the pros and cons of the cuts are not unanimous. However, what is common is the sense of crisis that "the field is already losing its leeway."
  

4) "As automation progresses, what will happen to human life?"

On LinkedIn, there are also laments from a more social perspective. Drawing on examples of autonomous driving and robotics, ethical questions are raised about "whether it's right for society to cut human jobs for convenience." This is likely an expression of anxiety directed not only at Amazon but at AI and automation as a whole.

What will happen next? Three points of discussion

Finally, I would like to narrow down the important points to follow in this topic to three.

1. The "content" of the cuts: Not just the number of people, but which job types, grades, and regions are targeted. The impact of AI varies by role.

2. The effectiveness of redeployment: Whether internal job postings and transfers function. If large-scale cuts continue, the gap between the ideal and reality of the system may widen.

3. The return on AI investment: Where the efficiency generated by AI appears in customer value, revenue, and productivity. The heavier the investment, the more likely short-term "performance presentation" is to occur.

The reports of Amazon's layoffs are not just about "another big tech company cutting jobs." AI is changing operations, organizations, and the common sense of employment—at the center of this chain is one of the world's largest employers.

As the introduction of AI accelerates, what is questioned is not only technological capability. It is how companies design the anxieties of workers and the sense of acceptance in society. Whether the next announcement can provide an answer to that will be closely watched.

Source URL

1. Business Matters
   　https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/amazon-slash-jobs-ai-overhaul-second-round/

2. Reuters (January 22, 2026): 30,000 reduction target, possible start next week, affected departments, Amazon declined to comment
   　https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/amazon-plans-thousands-more-corporate-job-cuts-next-week-sources-say-2026-01-22/

3. The Verge (context on the 14,000 cuts in 2025): Background supplementing the context of previous cuts (AI, restructuring, internal grace period, etc.)
   　https://www.theverge.com/news/807825/amazon-job-layoffs-2025-ai

4. Reddit (r/technology thread): Examples of "public opinion" reactions regarding overseas relocation, employment, RTO, etc.
   　https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1qkbl0m/amazon_plans_second_round_of_corporate_job_cuts/

5. Reddit (r/amazonemployees thread): Examples of "employee perspective" reactions such as skepticism towards corporate culture, AI investment, and concerns about skeletal teams
   　https://www.reddit.com/r/amazonemployees/comments/1qa9pxl/amazon_layoffs_from_14000_to_a_potential_30000/

6. LinkedIn (comments on Reuters post): Examples of ethical concerns about the impact of automation on employment
   　https://www.linkedin.com/posts/reuters_amazonis-planning-a-second-round-of-job-activity-7420222489663877122-Culy