#costsavings

Many employees today are feeling the pressure of rising living costs. Housing, groceries, and transportation expenses continue to climb, and commuting to work has become an increasingly heavy financial burden for many families.

For this reason, I believe Canon should seriously consider offering greater flexibility when it comes to working from home.

Across different sectors and regions of the world, many companies are already encouraging remote work where possible. This approach helps reduce unnecessary commuting, lowers fuel consumption, and eases the financial strain placed on employees.

In times when global energy markets remain volatile due to geopolitical tensions involving countries like Iran, Israel, and major powers such as the United States, reducing unnecessary travel is not only economically sensible, it is also responsible.

Allowing employees to work from home when their role permits can help reduce commuting costs, decrease fuel consumption, and improve overall work-life balance. It is a practical solution that benefits both employees and employers.

Flexibility in the workplace is no longer simply a perk; it has become an important way to support employees during a time of economic uncertainty and rising costs.

This YouTube video describes Canon perfectly, as well as most large corporations.

Don’t believe the “collaboration & innovation” propaganda, it’s all about cost savings and making you miserable.

Rules for thee, not for me!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_p7W3g3UVg

Response was

Using AI to replace a CEO’s decision‑making can be framed as beneficial when the focus is on cost efficiency, consistency, and data‑driven governance, especially in organizations where strategic decisions are already heavily analytics‑driven.

Core Argument: AI as a High‑Precision, Low‑Cost Executive

Replacing a CEO’s decision‑making with AI can be seen as a net positive because it removes one of the most expensive and variable elements of corporate leadership—human executive compensation—while potentially improving decision quality through constant, unbiased, data‑driven analysis.

AI systems don’t demand bonuses, equity packages, or golden parachutes. They operate continuously, process vastly more information than any human, and make decisions based on evidence rather than ego, politics, or fatigue.

Cost Savings: Regaining the CEO Salary

CEO compensation is extraordinarily high across most industries:
• The average CEO salary in the U.S. is about $812,900 per year A.
• At large public companies, total compensation often exceeds $18–23 million annually B C.
• Some CEOs earn over $100 million per year in total compensation packages B.

Replacing this with an AI system—even one requiring significant infrastructure and oversight—would cost a fraction of that. Even a robust enterprise‑grade AI system might cost low millions per year, and often far less, depending on scale.

Savings could range from $800,000 to over $20 million annually, depending on company size.

Those funds could be redirected toward:
• R&D and innovation
• Employee compensation
• Lower consumer prices
• Shareholder returns
• Long‑term strategic investments

Why AI Decision‑Making Can Be Better

1. Data‑Driven Consistency
   AI evaluates every decision using the same logic, the same data, and the same criteria—no mood swings, no biases toward certain executives, no political maneuvering.

2. 24/7 Strategic Awareness
   AI can monitor markets, competitors, supply chains, and internal metrics continuously, not just during quarterly reviews or executive meetings.

3. Faster Decision Cycles
   AI can simulate outcomes, run forecasts, and evaluate risk scenarios in seconds, enabling rapid responses to market shifts.

4. No Ego, No Personal Incentives
   Human CEOs may prioritize:

• Personal legacy
• Compensation tied to short‑term stock price
• Risk‑averse decisions to protect their position
AI has no such incentives and can be optimized for long‑term organizational health.

1. Scalability
   One AI system could theoretically oversee multiple business units or even multiple companies, something no human could do.

Trade‑offs and Constraints
This argument is strongest in contexts where:

• Decisions are highly quantitative (e.g., logistics, pricing, supply chain, finance).
• The company already relies heavily on predictive analytics.
• The culture values efficiency and transparency over charismatic leadership.
• Oversight mechanisms exist to prevent runaway automation or misaligned incentives.

It is weaker in contexts requiring:
• Deep human intuition
• Complex interpersonal negotiation
• Visionary leadership
• Ethical judgment in ambiguous situations

But even here, AI can serve as a powerful co‑pilot or decision‑support system.

A Non‑Obvious Insight

The biggest benefit may not be cost savings or even better decisions—it’s eliminating the single point of failure that a CEO represents. Human executives can burn out, get sick, make emotional decisions, or cling to outdated strategies. AI systems can be versioned, audited, and improved continuously.

I previously shared a compensation comparison showing how much a company like Blackbaud could potentially save by offshoring engineering roles. The analysis was based on publicly available median software engineering salary data, comparing total compensation across regions and calculating how many times less expensive certain markets can be relative to the U.S.

When you run the numbers, the difference in median compensation is substantial, 3 to 6 time cheaper. Scaling that gap across multiple engineering roles makes the financial rationale behind offshoring clearer from a pure cost-structure standpoint. Anyone can verify this by checking compensation sources or using an AI tool to compare median SWE pay levels and compute the multiple. Give a prompt to ask for median salary for different engineering roles in GCC (Global Capability Center) in India

For some reason, my earlier post outlining this math was removed by moderation. I’m simply sharing publicly available data and a straightforward economic comparison to understand the business decision from a financial perspective.

A U.S. software engineer costs 3–6× more than an equivalent engineer in India, with the gap largest at junior levels (5–6×) and narrower for seniors (3–4×). Senior roles are often cut first for maximum savings, followed by juniors, then managers once IC layers shrink. Even modest offshoring saves tens of millions annually despite coordination, time zone, and attrition challenges.

The key question: is your work worth 3–6× the cost? If the answer is yes, then you are safe.

How did I get these numbers? Pick your favorite AI model and paste this prompt.

Prompt

Search the web and retrieve the latest (2024–2026) median total compensation data for Software Engineers in India and the United States at the following US-based companies:
Tier 1 (Top-Tier Big Tech):
• Google
• Meta
• Amazon
• Apple
• Microsoft
Tier 2 (Strong Product / Upper Mid-Tier):
• LinkedIn
• Salesforce
• Uber
• Nvidia
• Adobe
Tier 3 (Established US Tech / Enterprise / Platform Companies):
• Oracle
• Cisco
• Qualcomm
• Walmart Global Tech
• Intuit
For each company:

1. Provide median total compensation in India and in the U.S. in USD.
2. Break it down by role level:
   o Entry (0–2 years, L3/IC1 equivalent)
   o Mid (2–5 years, L4/IC2 equivalent)
   o Senior (5–8 years, L5/IC3 equivalent)
   o Staff/Principal (8+ years, L6+/IC4+ equivalent)
3. For each level, include:
   o Median Base Salary (USD)
   o Median Annualized RSU/Stock (USD)
   o Median Bonus (USD)
   o Median Total Compensation (USD)
4. Calculate the ratio: U.S. median total compensation ÷ India median total compensation for each level — i.e., how many times U.S. employees are more expensive than Indian employees.
5. Use data only from:
   o Levels.fyi
   o Glassdoor
   o Blind
   o AmbitionBox
   o Official compensation reports (if available)
6. Cite all sources with direct URLs.
7. Clearly mention the number of data points used (if available).
8. Convert INR → USD using the current exchange rate and state the rate used.
9. If level mapping differs across companies, normalize levels to the four categories above.
10. Present results in well-structured tables, grouped by company tier.
11. Flag where data is incomplete or sample size is small.

Denver-based Angi Inc. announced 350 layoffs this quarter. The company cited AI-driven efficiency improvements as the primary reason for these cuts. These reductions are projected to save Angi up to $80 million annually. Separately, the National Laboratory of the Rockies cut 134 employees. This was the lab's second round of layoffs in less than a year.

https://www.9news.com/article/money/business-brief/ai-layoffs-denver-economic-aftershocks-golden/73-4fa0ec3c-2fb9-484a-9cec-dd6b6feed6ea

Spotted getting off on the 16th floor. Eyeroll. Expect them to be paid millions to recommend “cost savings” in RIFs that will never materialize.

If an external Advisor or Team becomes part of FINET, does the CRG Market team receive recruiting credit for it? I have observed a significant transfer of FINET oversight to the CRG team. Will a single division be established, leading to everyone ultimately being part of FINET? If that is the case, they could eliminate numerous positions and save a substantial amount of money.

While CEO says Verizon is in drastic cost cutting mode, thus laid off 15K employees last month and another 8-10k will be next month...
While Verizon executives are posting pictures of their DINNERS IN KOREA while attending Samsung meetings in person! So much for cost Savings!!!

I just read a post on LinkedIn from a female CEO praising Cisco HR “leader” for sharing how the shutdown is designed to let workers connect with their families by not having to work. What a crock. Anyone who knows anything about how things work at Cisco knows it’s cost savings. A few days of payroll savings is worth millions. And the reason for the timing is so they can control personnel who would likely be asking for the same days off anyway. Furthermore, if mental health is a concern, why have people work on Christmas Eve? And how do you explain the July shutdown in 2024. Honesty is a wonderful thing; even when it’s not convenient

Go Go claims that BT has reduced the cost of refining 1 barrel of crude by $1.
Any price reduction at all was due to the price of natural gas being at a low price.
Now that the price has gone back up there is very little or no cost reduction. BT hasn’t lowered the cost per barrel any at all.

Execution is offshore.
Accountability is onshore.
Answers are expected instantly — from US leaders — even when the work is “handled” elsewhere.

So if leadership asks a question and you don’t know because the team is offshore? That’s your problem. Which means US folks quietly become backup, escalation, translator, and babysitter… on top of their real jobs.

Meanwhile:
• India and Mexico are on holiday (again).
• US teams keep things moving (as usual).
• Offshore teams won’t engage unless you’re senior enough.
• And somehow there’s monthly travel to the US with no agenda, no outcomes, just vibes.

But don’t worry — it’s “saving money.”

No one seems to track:
• US leadership overhead
• Context switching and rework
• Travel costs
• Decision delays

If the US is still accountable, always on, and filling every gap…
are we actually saving money — or just calling it offshoring and hoping no one does the math?

Verizon to Eliminate Up to 15,000 Roles by 2026

https://www.thehrdigest.com/verizon-layoffs-to-hit-15000-roles-in-2026-as-automation-takes-over/

Verizon plans significant job reductions in 2026 as part of a major restructuring. Between 13,000 and 15,000 roles could be affected. New CEO Dan Schulman aims for greater efficiency and cost savings. The company expects $3 billion to $4 billion in annual savings from these changes. Automation and a competitive market are driving these decisions.

Maybe for the cost savings we get a new CEO that is at the Engine? Would save over 30 million a year. Or let AI do the ELT job, cant be any worse that what we have now. We are wasting millions on our ELT now!

Layoffs are not going to come after so many people voluntarily leaving. It is good as it won’t affect people in bad way. It is better to go find a job that pays a bit less instead of getting a layoff.

If they offered, 5K pay cut for working from home 100% remote. I would totally take it. Why burn gas or waste time. It will save me time and save company money. I hope they consider that option

5k x4000 employees = 20million in savings/year. In 10 years, 200 million savings.

The automatic rank everyone lower…
The place people on PIPs…..
The lack luster severance…..

Its all done to run off people to avoid any severance payouts AND it’s all designed to recoup money.

1.2 billion $ Russia mistake…the AI promise of cost savings….all black eyes and recouping money any way they can is the make up to cover it up.

So, use this as motivational fuel for later. The job market will get better. Trust me, there are jobs out there that pay more money than Citi, even more so since Citi is not giving up any $ for bonus’s or raises. Citi would have you believe that you’ve got a better deal “here” but at best Citi is average on pay and perks. This…all of this….that Citi is doing is a well rounded snapshot of what Citi thinks of you and your worth.

Take the hint and when things turn around, start seeking jobs outside of Citi even look beyond the financial sector. Use all of what Citi is doing to sharpen your focus on leaving. Use it as motivational fuel to leave once you find something comparable. As far as the return to office jargon…..you might as well work somewhere else for more money and go in the office there instead of here for less $.

Let's say every worker averages 100k. So each personal day is ~$400 on average and each worker uses 2 personal days during Christmas because they dont carry over. Let's also exclude NJ workers from the equation who get 90 days notice.

Since they don't pay out personal days it saves up to ~5-10 million by getting rid of Workers before Christmas week. As opposed to being off books on 12/31.

So how many value people are left? Now that corp stores are moving indirect, why not move 100% indirect? Save $$$

How much money (and time) has CDW wasted on consultants? Between Deloitte, Bain, and others we have spent millions on companies that don't give us answers, they just get paid to tell us we are doing it wrong (and then leave it to our own people to try to figure out how to fix it). We also have hired on way too many former consultants too who clearly don't know how to lead. If we had just invested the money wasted on consultants internally on our people we would be performing better.

Whatever brilliant leader thought the best strategy was to pay a ton of money to consultants to come in, should be fired immediately.

Thoughts on this shocking move? If saving money is the long game, then make the move now! Sell the assets. Cancel the contracts. Exit these high tax states. Don’t offer relocation. Eliminate 50% of corporate staff at HQ. If you don’t face a customer or directly interact with those that do, then time to let go. Get rid of the Pelaton marketing crew and turn out the revenue.

This is not a rumor. Just throwing this out there.

What’s the opinion on this words from MD?

“ Over the past two years, we have built one of the most efficient, data-driven cloud environments in our history, cutting costs, boosting performance, and shrinking our carbon footprint at the same time.
Through smarter architecture, tighter governance, and cross-functional discipline, we've saved double digit millions and improved computing performance all while reinvesting those savings into new digital experiences that elevate how we serve athletes around the world. 🚀
This transformation isn't just about cost, it's about capability. It's about unlocking faster performance, smarter scaling, and stronger resilience. It's about building smarter, recovering faster and managing better through tagging, infrastructure-as-code, and managed platforms. Savings is one of the many outputs.”

So folks can retire earlier without taking such a reduction. Please make it years of service plus age = a magic number for full retirement pay. This would be the best way to get those higher salaries off the books.

TII offshoring + rework, also time zones & duplication keep coming up as cost‑savings on paper. But in real life all of this creates waste in practice... The board is salivating as they are looking at cost savings projectiosn but they are clueless about what's actually happening - that sh-t is eating the company from inside. No self-respecting company in charge of it's own destiny does this - all outsourced cos are just junk

If this company is truly serious about cutting costs and improving performance, the most effective step is to end the five-day RTO mandate.

AT&T spends enormous amounts each year maintaining office space through real estate, utilities, maintenance, security, cleaning, and on-site operations. Industry data shows these costs average between $12,000 and $14,000 per employee annually. With roughly 150,000 U.S. employees, that means more than $2 billion every year just to keep offices running. If even half the workforce transitioned to hybrid or remote work, the company could save around $1 billion in overhead. Combine that with reduced turnover, since flexible work increases retention and engagement, and total potential savings easily reach $3 billion or more per year.

Some might argue that attrition is part of the point of RTO — that losing employees is a form of cost savings. That could not be further from the truth. The type of attrition RTO creates is indiscriminate. It pushes out talented employees, under-30 professionals, and people with critical institutional knowledge. The financial and operational cost of losing these employees far exceeds any “savings” from headcount reduction. Replacement costs, lost productivity, mistakes, and disrupted client relationships all add up, often surpassing the money “saved” by forcing people out.

The future of work is clear. Surveys from Gallup, McKinsey, and Pew Research consistently show that over 70 percent of workers prefer hybrid or fully remote work, and they are more productive and engaged when given flexibility. Companies that embrace this trend retain top talent, improve morale, and increase performance. Companies that ignore it face higher attrition, disengaged teams, and rising costs.

Ending mandatory RTO is not just the right move culturally, it is the smartest financial decision the company can make. It saves billions, retains talent, boosts productivity, and aligns AT&T with the reality of the modern workforce. The evidence is clear. The policy is failing, and the time to change is now.

Costs went down, but so did quality. Now we spend twice as long fixing mistakes that never used to happen. Figure that.

A lot of medtronic sites doing cost saving but VP level still can have business trip with just to have meeting on site, why can’t do online meeting which can have cost saving

So in the spirit of this website that focus on company layoffs I wanted to run what I done to my fellow loyal, dedicated, hardworking L3Harriss co-workers.

I'll try an be brief an get to the point. After attending multiple sessions of L3Harriss A.I. event week a light bulb instantly went off in my head. I said umm since I have extensive continuous improvement experience why don't I submitt this great cost savings ideal via L3Harris e3 program. So I did just that. What did I do you ask? Well I basically submitted a cost savings project where I projected the company can save easily 25 million or more a year and not skip a beat. Basically I submitted a cost savings project that replaces from the CEO of L3Harris all the way down to lower and middle level mangers. This also include all of H.R. department, EHS, Finance, and especially the absolute most worthless position ever created the dam program management department. I said in a few sentences that after attending the A.I. event and some of my own personal use of A.I. software well this technology is now ready to replace all of the forementioned positions/management/departments! They are all manily indirect charging and absolutely bring no tangible value into design, engineer, manufacturing and or testing of hardware/products. Therefore all of these positions can be replaced with? YOU GUESSED RIGHT A.I. BABY!
Now if you still reading let me explain. Without exposing to much about me I am an experienced degreed engineer with multiple years under my belt. I have set up private machine shops with different types of cnc machines and other supporting processing type equipment to be fully automated where only one experienced person can operate everything remote with very minimal human interaction. No HR, management, program management etc is on site or is even needed. Now yes these are smaller facilities and more dealing with high volume production components but this can apply to other manufacturing scenarios to a certain degree.

So to end my rant the point I am making is us real workers who brings true value to the company should say hey upper management please explain to us what justification can you provide to justify your salary because A.I. can easily do your job for the cost of a software engineer who can create an A.I. agent that can literally replace you. If this was a good ideal or stupid comment below as I value your opinion.

A year ago, Dell Technologies made a big, bold move: it slashed nearly half of its executive leadership, claiming there were simply too many cooks in the kitchen. Cost savings were touted, “streamlining” was the buzzword, and the company pitched the decision as a smarter, leaner way forward. To top it off, product marketing (FPM) was folded under marketing. The logic? Keep all things “marketing” under one roof. Simple, clean, efficient.

Fast forward just twelve months… and things look a little less logical.

Dell has now re-hired a former exec—someone who had been let go years back—this time with a hefty paycheck. Not only that, the very same FPM org that was tucked neatly under marketing has been yanked out again and repositioned under this new hire. The shiny new label? RevOps.

Is that per year or over several years?

Because if the target is saving 2B from laying off, the math doesn’t seem to jive. Lets say avg employees salary+benefits etc is $300k/yr/person, which is a reasonably high est for avg, laying off 3k will only amount to 0.9B. How could they target to save 2B and said estimated 2-3k employees?

Q3 was not good, heads will roll. Add in Champion X and the other new purchase. The need more cost savings to keep free cash high.

Did you know… HCSC recently purchased a new private jet?

Surely that will help keep administrative costs down.

We are going to see something crazy really soon. People will cut lines as they lose revenue and get laidyed off. The is going to mean one thing an one thing alone. PHONE PLANES MUST GO DOWN.....PHONE PLANES MUST GO DOWN. We can't afford india anymore. the poeople in the USA won't pay. they will cut costs. they are going to do the best and most wise thing. cut costs. First is the car...2nd is the phone. lovely world coming