Copyright Inc. Magazine
Job creation by U.S. companies has nearly flatlined since last spring, with most employers only hiring to replace departing staff members, or leaving those positions vacant. The bad news for people looking for work is that this trend may be gaining momentum as many businesses decide they can continue growing while either maintaining or cutting current headcounts. That thinking contrasts the conventional wisdom often cited to explain why hiring rates have fallen to a measly monthly average of 26,750 new jobs filled since May. Many analysts said that hesitation to recruit was based in large part on uncertainties employers faced about future economic growth. Other experts pointed to the still evolving effects that import tariffs, mass deportations, and relatively robust inflation are having on businesses. Another reason cited was the spreading effort by companies in adopting artificial intelligence(AI) to automate tasks that many employees previously performed. That move has provoked thousands of layoffs, while also fully taking over many entry-level positions that younger job seekers have habitually relied on. But while all those factors may be shaping the wider business community’s current aversion to hiring, other evidence suggests some companies recently made indefinitely freezing or decreasing their headcounts a central growth strategy. Featured Video An Inc.com Featured Presentation “We’re convinced that we need to be organized more leanly, with fewer layers and more ownership, to move as quickly as possible for our customers and business,” Beth Galetti, Amazon senior vice president of people, experience, and technology wrote in a staff memo Tuesday announcing “an overall reduction in our corporate workforce of approximately 14,000 roles.” Similarly, on Tuesday UPS said it has already cut 48,000 jobs in 2025 alone in an effort to improve productivity. Other companies have also adopted the tactic. “By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Meta’s chief AI officer, Alexandr Wang, said in a memo obtained by Business Insider that announced last week’s 600 job cuts at the company’s Superintelligence Labs division. ‘Preemptively hold the line’ Both Wang and Galetti noted their dramatic cuts would be followed by the creation of future, presumably far fewer jobs. But a recent Wall Street Journal report offered evidence that the trend to continually reduce net staffing levels is spreading across big U.S. businesses. The paper quoted a JPMorgan Chase executive’s observation that the bank now has a “very strong bias against” reflexively hiring people for needs it might fulfill otherwise. It also noted Goldman Sach’s stated intention to “constrain head count growth through the end of the year,” and Walmart’s similar objective of keeping overall staffing flat. In many cases it examined, the Journal said the increased use and performance of AI are allowing businesses to continue growing, innovating, and serving customers with fewer employees than previously required. “If people are getting more productive, you don’t need to hire more people,” Airbnb’s chief executive Brian Chesky told the paper, saying he plans to keep headcount stable at around 7,000 employees over the next year. “I see a lot of companies preemptively holding the line, forecasting, and hoping that they can have smaller workforces.” Yet there are also signs that in addition to hedging against economic uncertainties and reaping the efficiencies provided by AI, there may be another calculation in the current moves to freeze or cut staffing levels. That thinking may internalize the habitual approval of Wall Street investors to layoff announcements, as companies move to reduce their salary bases, increase efficiencies, and boost their bottom lines. “(H)istorically, if someone leaves, if Jane Doe leaves, I’ve got to backfill Jane,” Intuit chief financial officer Sandeep Aujla told the Journal. To weaken that that reflex, Aujla said, company managers are required to make convincing arguments for replacing departing employees to get approval, with new hiring now viewed as a last resort. As a result, Aujla said, both layoffs and voluntary quits encourage managers to ask, “Is there an opportunity for us to rethink how we staff?” ‘Companies do not want to hire’ A similar reflection process in the opposite direction is now underway across social media platforms. A growing number of users are posting their beliefs that even companies that advertise job openings no longer have any intention of actually filling them. Whether commentators attribute that to continual downsizing strategies, AI as an opportunity for replacing employees, or the economic uncertainty that has reduced hiring levels since May, many online commentators now suspect the entire employment and recruitment process is broken, or even rigged. “Companies do not want to hire new employees,” posted JackReaper333 on a recent Reddit thread. “They want their current employees to (a) produce more and (b) do the work of any other employees that quit… Companies will only hire new employees when they are forced to do so, that is to say, things have gotten so bad that even the higher-ups have to finally admit that their current employees cannot produce anymore.” Some redditors sharing that view also interpret the abundance of job openings overlapping with flat or shrinking hiring rates as reflecting an ulterior motive behind recruitment notices. One thread claimed employers who are advertising opportunities, or even interviewing candidates, “are prospecting, not hiring.” “I have seen first hand, companies will just prospect without actually hiring anyone,” wrote thread initiator pastelpaintbrush. “They will post job listings, do interviews, and never hire. They just want to see what’s in the job pool.” Another redditor offered an alternative analysis that factors in the the increasing use of AI to automate the scanning and analysis of job applications. “They want to data mine our resumes and show their investors that they are ‘growing,’” said Feisty-Problem516. “Making job postings is a win-win. There is no intent to hire.” While those allegations are clearly too broad to apply to many, perhaps even most businesses recruiting people, they do reflect darkening public opinions about the health of the U.S. employment market. Those dim views aren’t likely to improve after redditors get a look at the Journal’s report quoting business leaders’ no-hire strategies seeming to confirm their fears.
