We just had a thread on H1B's sucking up US jobs in tech. WSJ (paywalled of course) just had a big story on tech. Some points (abstracted from SlashDot): https://it.slashdot.org/story/25/04/27/088238/wsj-tech-industry-workers-now-miserable-fearing-layoffs-working-longer-hours

"Not so long ago, working in tech meant job security, extravagant perks and a bring-your-whole-self-to-the-office ethos rare in other industries, but now tech work "looks like a regular job," with workers "contending with the constant fear of layoffs, longer hours and an ever-growing list of responsibilities for the same pay."

"I'm hearing of people having 30 direct reports," says David Markley, who spent seven years at Amazon and is now an executive coach for workers at large tech companies. "It's not because the companies don't have the money. In a lot of ways, it's because of AI and the narratives out there about how collapsing the organization is better."

"More than 50,000 tech workers from over 100 companies have been laid off in 2025, according to Layoffs.fyi, a website that tracks job cuts and crowdsources lists of laid off workers..."

Accoding to the Mercury New (Silicon Valley) : " In 2020, 2021 and 2022, the San Francisco Bay Area added 74,700 tech jobs But then in 2023 and 2024 the industry had slashed even more tech jobs -- 80,200 -- for a net loss (over five years) of 5,500."

When the bust came, I survived until the 6th round of cuts at my DotCom gig, then consulted and later went back to professoring. I feel for students who have worked through really tough majors who now are facing cut-throat competition from H1-B's, their peers, and AI in a time of likely ever-declining demand.

Even less reason to go to college for many?

BTW - The posters on SlashDot tend to strongly support climate hysteria, Bad Orange man, etc. Fair warning.

Is 30 direct reports supposed to be a lot?

Oh no! What will all the nerds do?? Will they have to speak to live people now??

:-)

I guess it depends on how much you expect the manager to contribute to his employees? In creative fields, small teams seem to be the norm (4-6) and most tech probably as historically used 7 -10? In my experience, at least.

Over_ed said:

---

:-)

I guess it depends on how much you expect the manager to contribute to his employees? In creative fields, small teams seem to be the norm (4-6) and most tech probably as historically used 7 -10? In my experience, at least.

---

Had 20 in IT, had 100s elsewhere. Have a few right now in mfg.

It's all in how good of a leader you are and how good of employees you hire.

Maybe they can get jobs combating climate change.

No industry grows at light speed forever with everlasting job security, higher and higher salaries and hugely valuable stock options. All industries eventually mature and efficiency and cost cutting comes into play.

Probably worth remembering many of those early 2020s hires sat poolside and worked 20 hours a day to answer a few emails. Never should have been hired and only were because of the big grift pumping out Covid money.

BigRobSA said:

---

Is 30 direct reports supposed to be a lot?

---

Umm it is. Assuming they don't have just a menial job.

BigRobSA said:

---

Is 30 direct reports supposed to be a lot?

---

If you actually want a manager to you know... "manage" the resources, yes, 30 is way to many.

BigRobSA said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

:-)

I guess it depends on how much you expect the manager to contribute to his employees? In creative fields, small teams seem to be the norm (4-6) and most tech probably as historically used 7 -10? In my experience, at least.

---

Had 20 in IT, had 100s elsewhere. Have a few right now in mfg.

It's all in how good of a leader you are and how good of employees you hire.

---

You've had over 100 people directly reporting to you and not to supervisors/mid level managers or someone underneath you? That sounds like an absolutely awful company to work for if actually true (but seems very doubtful)

When DEI requirements had to be met in Tech... companies had to hire from Hospitality and added layers of non-contributors.

Time to thin the heard.

The company I work for has doubled the number of employees from 2019 to 2024 and we reached an acceptable level of demographics.

We haven't released anything of relevance since 2018 and have gone from innovative solutions to being a commodity. A month ago, a developer told me one of our core products was not updated since 2019.

So, here we are.

gougler08 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

:-)

I guess it depends on how much you expect the manager to contribute to his employees? In creative fields, small teams seem to be the norm (4-6) and most tech probably as historically used 7 -10? In my experience, at least.

---

Had 20 in IT, had 100s elsewhere. Have a few right now in mfg.

It's all in how good of a leader you are and how good of employees you hire.

---

You've had over 100 people directly reporting to you and not to supervisors/mid level managers or someone underneath you? That sounds like an absolutely awful company to work for if actually true (but seems very doubtful)

---

Yep

I was a regional manager, of 24 states.

I hired, fired, did HR, payroll, etc. For all of them.

Probably the most fun job I've ever had.


Again, if you're a great leader, it's easy.

Oh well….

The job market is fluid. A lot more jobs are about to be extinct

Learn to code…..that is what the Dems told us on how to deal with job/industry loss

FatZilla said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Is 30 direct reports supposed to be a lot?

---

If you actually want a manager to you know... "manage" the resources, yes, 30 is way to many.

---

Corporate America has ruined things.

No, it really isn't.

That mentality is why, in corporate America, you have WAY too many levels of "management". I'm back in it, in mgmnt, and it's ****ing stupid how many levels, that bring no intrinsic value to the company, there are.

BigRobSA said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

:-)

I guess it depends on how much you expect the manager to contribute to his employees? In creative fields, small teams seem to be the norm (4-6) and most tech probably as historically used 7 -10? In my experience, at least.

---

Had 20 in IT, had 100s elsewhere. Have a few right now in mfg.

It's all in how good of a leader you are and how good of employees you hire.

---

You've had over 100 people directly reporting to you and not to supervisors/mid level managers or someone underneath you? That sounds like an absolutely awful company to work for if actually true (but seems very doubtful)

---

Yep

I was a regional manager, of 24 states.

I hired, fired, did HR, payroll, etc. For all of them.

Probably the most fun job I've ever had.


Again, if you're a great leader, it's easy.

---

So I'm a regional manager as well, but I have a team that then has people. I just don't see how anyone could actually do anything if your company was that flat

Good for you I guess, but that doesn't seem efficient to me at all

What do these tech workers do exactly?

Elon fired 80% of the "tech workers" at Twitter and didn't miss a beat.

Not all "tech workers" are created equal.

We've got some posters who supposedly work in tech and I have serious doubts about their exact "technical" role based on posts they've made about technology.

You did not have 100s of direct reports

gougler08 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

:-)

I guess it depends on how much you expect the manager to contribute to his employees? In creative fields, small teams seem to be the norm (4-6) and most tech probably as historically used 7 -10? In my experience, at least.

---

Had 20 in IT, had 100s elsewhere. Have a few right now in mfg.

It's all in how good of a leader you are and how good of employees you hire.

---

You've had over 100 people directly reporting to you and not to supervisors/mid level managers or someone underneath you? That sounds like an absolutely awful company to work for if actually true (but seems very doubtful)

---

Yep

I was a regional manager, of 24 states.

I hired, fired, did HR, payroll, etc. For all of them.

Probably the most fun job I've ever had.


Again, if you're a great leader, it's easy.

---

So I'm a regional manager as well, but I have a team that then has people. I just don't see how anyone could actually do anything if your company was that flat

Good for you I guess, but that doesn't seem efficient to me at all

---

Completely agree. That's way too many people to be effective. Unless they are doing very trivial "tech" work. For example, if I had 100 Starbucks baristas reporting to me, I guess I could see it.

Captain Winky said:

---

You did not have 100s of direct reports

---

Yes, I did. I answered directly to the Sr VP (only had 1 VP anyway) of operations.

Not corporate America, smaller company that eventually grew (because we did it right) and got bought by a corporate giant in our field and they had the idiotic way too many levels of mgmnt. I peaced out and sought greener pastures.

Logos Stick said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

:-)

I guess it depends on how much you expect the manager to contribute to his employees? In creative fields, small teams seem to be the norm (4-6) and most tech probably as historically used 7 -10? In my experience, at least.

---

Had 20 in IT, had 100s elsewhere. Have a few right now in mfg.

It's all in how good of a leader you are and how good of employees you hire.

---

You've had over 100 people directly reporting to you and not to supervisors/mid level managers or someone underneath you? That sounds like an absolutely awful company to work for if actually true (but seems very doubtful)

---

Yep

I was a regional manager, of 24 states.

I hired, fired, did HR, payroll, etc. For all of them.

Probably the most fun job I've ever had.


Again, if you're a great leader, it's easy.

---

So I'm a regional manager as well, but I have a team that then has people. I just don't see how anyone could actually do anything if your company was that flat

Good for you I guess, but that doesn't seem efficient to me at all

---

Completely agree. That's way too many people to be effective. Unless they are doing very trivial "tech" work. For example, if I had 100 Starbucks baristas reporting to me, I guess I could see it.

---

Wasn't in tech at that time. In IT, I had two teams I ran near the end of my 19 yrs, totaling 20 people or so.

When we got laid off, they hired 4 people to replace me.

I've had over 350 reporting up to me with the sun never setting on my departments. I was "told" I needed 10 direct reports. I refused and got it done with seven.

Good on you Big Rob for having over a hundred direct reports, but that's hard to give that many people the attention they deserve.

There had to be local support in all 24 states?

How did this go from an H1B discussion to a team size dick contest?

Gilligan said:

---

I've had over 350 reporting up to me with the sun never setting on my departments. I was "told" I needed 10 direct reports. I refused and got it done with seven.

Good on you Big Rob for having over a hundred direct reports, but that's hard to give that many people the attention they deserve.

There had to be local support in all 24 states?

---

Nope. Had a team lead in the Charlotte area. Another along the West Coast of Florida, but that was about it.

I've been in mgmnt, at some level, for a lot of my adult life. Managing is easy.

It's really just one person who is full of crap or he was a glorified paper pusher.

BigRobSA said:

---

Is 30 direct reports supposed to be a lot?

---

DIRECT reports? Yeah, that's and insane amount. No way I could do that.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

When DEI requirements had to be met in Tech... companies had to hire from Hospitality and added layers of non-contributors.

Time to thin the heard.

The company I work for has doubled the number of employees from 2019 to 2024 and we reached an acceptable level of demographics.

We haven't released anything of relevance since 2018 and have gone from innovative solutions to being a commodity. A month ago, a developer told me one of our core products was not updated since 2019.

So, here we are.

---

Sounds like we might work for the same company - LOL

I had a chance to talk to our CEO recently and he said that when they decided to start reducing headcount last year, our company with ~ 2500 people, had 130 people in HR.

Those are the folks with crazy salaries and perks who don't contribute anything to the bottom line.

They slashed HR by half and in my opinion, they're still overstaffed.

For a couple years, we had diversity programs running several times a month.

I sure am going to miss the Black History speakers and Lesbian Latino cooking classes. It was every bit as bad as what Matt Walsh exposed in his - Am I Racist? movie.

Crazy uncertain time for new tech grads as well. The jobs just aren't there.

BillYeoman said:

---

Oh well….

The job market is fluid. A lot more jobs are about to be extinct

Learn to code…..that is what the Dems told us on how to deal with job/industry loss

---

And yet I see CDL jobs advertised everywhere.

If places like Texas A&M wanted to prepare kids for employment, they'd offer a truck driving major or at least a minor so people can get a job after majoring in "Studies".

https://www.trueup.io/job-trend

Open tech jobs at start-ups, tech unicorns, and public tech companies currently small trending up over last 2 years after big drop in 2022 from post-pandemics excess hiring hangover.

2022: high of 460K
2023: low of 180K
2024: 205K
2025: 212K

layoffs in 2023: 430K
Projected layoffs in 2025: 160K (approx. +60K open jobs less layoffs)

Lots of stats in the site data above if interested.

Summary the pandemic in 2020-2022 when the entire world started working from home causes a bloated tech industry to quickly form that then had a big market correction drop in 2023 but now the tech job count has been on a slowly positive (increasing) trend last couple of years.

The military is organized the way it is for a reason, a lot of research and trial and error. Normally 6-8 direct reports is max, 12 is a stretch. If you have 30 that company is chaos. When I came into management the old boss burned out and had 22 under him, within a few months I had 10 while adding more employees. By the end of the year should have 8 direct reports.

Captain Winky said:

---

You did not have 100s of direct reports

---

Ahhh, a classic TexAgs response. Unless you are Big Rob's alternate ego, you can't possibly know how many direct reports he had.

He isn't wrong though. The person claiming hundreds of direct reports doesn't appear to use the term the same as most people. He appears to be claiming everyone below him in the organization chart is a "direct report".

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Captain Winky said:

---

You did not have 100s of direct reports

---

Ahhh, a classic TexAgs response. Unless you are Big Rob's alternate ego, you can't possibly know how many direct reports he had.

---

He might think he has 100 "direct" reports, but I guarantee you several in that 100 are providing leadership. It's impossible to directly manage 100 effectively. Otherwise those employees must have the easiest jobs in the world. People are idiots and do stupid crap all the time requiring a significant amount of time to deal with. I've led a team of 500 and was constantly dealing with stupid bs. And they were 95% college educated.

P.U.T.U said:

---

The military is organized the way it is for a reason, a lot of research and trial and error. Normally 6-8 direct reports is max, 12 is a stretch. If you have 30 that company is chaos. When I came into management the old boss burned out and had 22 under him, within a few months I had 10 while adding more employees. By the end of the year should have 8 direct reports.

---

This is correct.