Microsoft is offering voluntary buyouts to around 60,000 workers, according to a report by Bloomberg. The company employs approximately 223,000 people, so this would constitute over a quarter of the global workforce.
Select employees at the vice president level and below are eligible for the program. Reporting has indicated that the terms of the buyout are similar to a standard Microsoft severance package, according to TechCrunch.
Certain groups won’t be eligible, which includes teams working on data centers. As a matter of fact, this whole thing looks to be part of the company’s larger effort to cut costs and retool its workforce for the AI era.
Microsoft has set aside billions and billions of dollars for data centers and AI infrastructure, with nearly $175 billion being spent in 2026 alone. To that end, it has opened up nearly 90 hyperscale data centers this year.
The company certainly seems to have a lot of money for large-scale AI construction projects, but not too much for its human employees. It has been laying people off left and right. The Xbox division just got slammed with thousands of layoffs, and other departments have also suffered.
It is worth reiterating that this is a voluntary buyout program. That 60,000 number sounds huge, and it is, but we don’t know how many people will accept the terms. Microsoft did something similar earlier this year and only 30 percent of eligible workers signed on the dotted line.
More at:
Microsoft offers buyouts to around 60,000 employees
Microsoft is offering buyouts to around 60,000 employees, the company confirmed to TechCrunch on Monday. The move marks Microsoft’s latest efforts to cut costs and rework its workforce for the AI age.
Microsoft’s chief people officer, Amy Coleman, sent employees a note about the buyouts, which was also published on the company’s website.
Employees at the vice president level and below on select teams in the United States, Canada, India, and the United Kingdom will be eligible, according to the note. Bloomberg reports that divisions including Xbox, Windows, Copilot, and Finance are participating in the buyout offer. Some employees, including those working in data centers, sales and marketing, are excluded.
The news was first reported by Business Insider.
“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,” the note to employees reads. “This offer gives eligible employees who may be considering a future outside the company a new choice to make that transition now with support.”
The company said eligible employees would be receiving an email with a link to their Voluntary Exit Offer details on Monday. The terms of the buyout will be similar to Microsoft’s standard severance.
“The Voluntary Exit Offer is new for us,” the note reads. “We’ll learn from it. 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. There is no one-size-fits-all approach for every team or every employee. These are a few of the ways we’re trying to meet different business needs while continuing to create opportunities for our own people to grow and contribute.”
The buyout offer gives Microsoft a way to reduce its workforce without resorting to the more disruptive approach of mass layoffs. It’s also not the first time that the company has offered buyouts. Earlier this year, Microsoft offered buyouts to retirement-age employees, with more than 30% of the roughly 8,750 eligible workers accepting.
More at:
Microsoft offers exits to thousands of employees, including staff on AI and Copilot teams
The voluntary separation program comes as Microsoft pours tens of billions into AI infrastructure and reshapes its workforce around new priorities.
Microsoft is offering voluntary exit packages to about 60,000 employees, roughly 27% of its workforce, including staff on teams building Copilot and other AI products, as the company looks for ways to fund its AI investments.
Amy Coleman, executive vice president and chief people officer, announced the Voluntary Exit Offer (VEO) in an internal memo on Monday, which Microsoft republished on its official blog.
“This offer gives eligible employees who may be considering a future outside the company a new choice to make that transition now with support,” Coleman wrote in the memo. It also gives participating organizations “another way to adapt their workforce to changing needs,” she wrote in the blog.
The offer covers employees at level 70 and below in participating teams in the US, Canada, India, and the UK, according to the memo. “Some organizations are providing the Voluntary Exit Offer, and some are not,” Coleman wrote. She added that participation depends on each business’s “priorities, customer commitments and workforce needs.”
However, her memo did not specify how many employees are eligible for this offer. According to a Reuters report, the move will impact about 60,000 employees globally, or about a quarter of the global employee base.
Participating teams include AI experiences, Copilot, Xbox, and Windows + Devices, Reuters reported, citing a person familiar with the matter. Marketing, sales, commercial business, and security teams, along with some data center staff, are excluded, the report added.
Employees have until early December to decide, and those who accept will leave at the end of the year, the report added. The memo describes the offer as time-limited and says it includes financial support and career planning resources. However, it does not give the terms of the packages.
From retirement to exit
The VEO builds on what Microsoft “learned earlier this year through the Voluntary Retirement Program,” Coleman wrote. That program, introduced in April, was aimed at long-serving US employees.
Hood said in April that the retirement program would carry roughly $900 million in one-time costs. In July, she said its expenses had come in lower than expected.
The new offer is not tied to age or years of service, and it extends beyond the US. “The Voluntary Exit Offer is new for us. We’ll learn from it,” Coleman wrote in the blog post.
A smaller company by design
Microsoft has said its workforce will shrink this fiscal year. “We expect headcount will decrease year-over-year,” CFO Amy Hood had said on the company’s April 29 earnings call, referring to fiscal 2027, which began July 1. On the same call, she said the company was changing how it operates “to increase our pace and agility.”
Microsoft employed about 223,000 people full-time as of June 30, 2026, down from 228,000 a year earlier, according to its annual report filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Hood said on the company’s July 29 earnings call that total headcount had declined 2% year over year.
AI spending and the staffing question
The workforce changes coincide with a sharp rise in AI infrastructure spending. Microsoft spent $41 billion on capital expenditures in the quarter ended June 30, Hood said on the July earnings call, and she guided to more than $50 billion for the September quarter.
Microsoft has also urged customers to rethink how they fund AI. On the April earnings call, CEO Satya Nadella said IT budgets would be reshaped by business outcomes and “reallocation from other line items on the income statement, like OpEx.”
Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, cautioned against reading Microsoft’s moves as a template.
“Microsoft’s internal AI use does not establish substitution of particular roles,” he said. He advised enterprises to measure completed work at an agreed quality level across representative roles and difficult exceptions before changing staffing, and to keep experienced staff available while doing so.
“Workforce savings earn credibility through the capability that remains,” Gogia said.
Account coverage in question
Whether customer-facing teams take part is an open question for buyers. Coleman wrote in the memo that participation varies based on each business’s “priorities, customer commitments and workforce needs.”
Microsoft’s annual report counts 89,000 employees in operations, a category that includes product support, consulting services and data center operations. Another 43,000 work in sales and marketing. Microsoft has not said whether staff in either group are eligible.
“The practical test is whether customer-critical capability remains available throughout the transition,” Gogia said. He recommended that CIOs confirm the accountable account owner and a qualified backup. They should then test the successor on an unresolved exception and compare support cases against a recent baseline.
At the same time, Microsoft is adding people to customer engagements. Nadella said on the July earnings call that the company had launched Microsoft Frontier Co., which will embed 6,000 industry and engineering experts with customers.
Gogia said delivery commitments need checking at a granular level. “Aggregate headcount does not identify the expertise required by an Azure migration or a Dynamics implementation,” he said. He advised verifying Azure dependencies by subscription and region, reconfirming Dynamics implementation specialists, and distinguishing previews from contractual milestones on product roadmaps. Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
More at:
Anthropic reveals $80 billion loss, huge spending spree ahead of IPO
Artificial intelligence startup Anthropic on Monday unveiled its public IPO filing ahead of what is expected to be one of the largest stock debuts in history.
That offering, widely expected to come sometime in mid-November, could value the Claude developer at more than $2 trillion. That could surpass the current record holder, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which raised $75 billion in an IPO in June that valued the rocket-AI-social-media firm at $2.1 trillion.
The filing did not include a potential share price, the number of shares to be offered or a valuation for the whole company, all of which will be determined after Anthropic holds a “road show” with investors, prospective investors and its bankers.
Monday’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission showed that Anthropic, like other AI firms, is splashing out unprecedented amounts of cash on cloud services to run its AI models.
The company plans to spend at least $110 billion with Amazon for cloud services through April 2036 and another $120 billion with SpaceX through 2029.
Anthropic also said it planned to spend $115 billion with Google and $45 billion with Microsoft, both through 2033, for computing infrastructure.
The filing said that the company recorded revenue growth of “1,368% year over year for the three months ended June 30, 2026.”
The cost of renting servers and chips grew by 300% over the same period.
Anthropic’s net loss for the first six months of 2026 was $80.7 billion. For the entirety of 2025, the company reported a $42 billion net loss.
Anthropic added that it expects its current cash and sales to be sufficient for the next 12 months but warned that future revenue growth depends on a number of important factors, including the cost of infrastructure. As a result, it said, “we may be required to seek additional financing sooner than we currently anticipate.”
The company said it has raised about $141 billion of capital through the end of June and is sitting on $112.4 billion of cash.
The company plans to list on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “ANT.” Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are leading the historic offering, as they did with SpaceX’s record deal.
But already, the offering is coming slightly later than expected as recent market moves give investors pause about the trajectory of the seemingly ever-expanding AI boom.
Monday’s filing is unlikely to calm those fears.
Alongside its dramatic spending and borrowing figures, Anthropic warned that it “may not generate sufficient revenue to achieve or sustain profitability in the future.”
“While we have experienced significant revenue growth in recent periods, our business is highly capital intensive,” the company said. “Our revenue growth may not be sustainable, and our rate of growth may decrease.”
More at:
The Biggest Myth About H-1B Is That It’s ‘Broken’
Every debate over the H-1B visa program seems to follow the same script. Employers insist they cannot find enough qualified American workers. Industry lobbyists argue the program is essential to attract the world’s brightest talent. Critics point to Americans who have been laid off and replaced by H-1B workers. Both sides then call for “reforming” a program they describe as broken.
But much of the public discussion rests on myths that have been repeated for so long they are accepted as fact. The reality is that many of the most common claims about H-1B simply are not true.
Myth No. 1: H-1B Exists to Fill Labor Shortages
Reality: The H-1B program is designed to replace Americans with foreign workers.
Congress made it explicitly legal to replace Americans with H-1B nonimmigrants. A program that legally permits replacing available American workers cannot honestly be described as a labor-shortage program.
There is no shortage or market test of any kind in H-1B. In fact, when Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 it eliminated the labor-shortage requirement that existed under its predecessor.
The largest occupational group receiving H-1B visas is computer occupations. The U.S. imports more H-1B workers in computer occupations than there are jobs created in such occupations.
Myth No. 2: Employers Must Prove No Qualified American Is Available
Reality: No employer is required to prove Americans are not available before importing H-1B nonimmigrants.
The closest requirement is that a handful of employers are required to certify they recruited Americans by checking a box, and this requirement only applies under a combination of circumstances that rarely occur.
Such a requirement would be inconsistent with Congress making it explicitly legal to replace Americans with H-1B nonimmigrants.
Myth No. 3: H-1B Is a Program for the World’s Best and Brightest
Reality: If the goal were to recruit exceptional talent from around the world, the program would probably look very different.
Nearly all H-1B workers come from one country: India. Most Indian H-1B workers come from just two states, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
Nor does the program prioritize extraordinary ability. Congress requires petitions to be processed largely in the order they are filed. Employers themselves classify 82 percent of H-1B workers at the Department of Labor’s two lowest wage levels — 31 percent as entry-level and another 51 percent as qualified workers. Only about 18 percent are paid at levels that indicate above-average experience or expertise.
The H-1B program rewards the greatest volume of applications and speed, not exceptional talent.
Myth No. 4: America Needs H-1B Because Our Students Cannot Compete
Reality: The evidence says otherwise.
Supporters frequently argue that American schools are failing to produce enough STEM graduates while countries such as India are producing better-trained workers.
But international assessments tell a different story. India’s students performed near the bottom when the country participated in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. In addition, an international study published by the National Academies of Sciences found that American computer science students outperformed students from India and China. The average American student scored higher than students attending elite institutions in those countries.
The problem is not that American graduates lack ability. It is that many employers can hire foreign workers at lower wages.
Myth No. 5: H-1B Workers Are Paid the Prevailing Wage
Reality: The law says employers must pay at least the prevailing wage for the occupation and location. Yet the H-1B system is designed to allow employers to ignore this requirement with impunity.
Employers may determine the prevailing wage themselves rather than use the Department of Labor’s published wage data. Federal law requires the Department of Labor to certify Labor Condition Applications within seven days and generally prohibits the agency from verifying employers’ wage claims before approval.
The result is predictable. In 2024, over 90 percent of employer-submitted prevailing wage claims for approved H-1B visas were below the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ prevailing wage for the occupation and location.
Newly available USCIS data show that H-1B workers are typically paid substantially less than comparable American workers in the same occupation and metropolitan area.
Myth No. 6: H-1B Is for Highly Skilled Workers
Reality: The only occupation that requires H-1B nonimmigrants to be highly skilled is fashion models. For others, a four-year degree is all that is required.
Under the Department of Labor’s four-tier, skill-based prevailing wage, employers classify 31 percent of H-1B workers as entry level and 51 percent as qualified, the two lowest skill levels. Employers even classify H-1B nonimmigrants in their 50s and 60s as “entry level”.
Myth No. 7: Only 65,000 H-1B Visas Are Issued Each Year
Reality: The often-cited 65,000 cap is only part of the story.
Congress created an additional 20,000 visas for graduates of U.S. universities. Universities and many nonprofit research institutions are exempt from numerical limits altogether.
As a result, the government approved approximately 141,000 new H-1B workers in FY 2024 — more than double the statutory cap most people hear about because many visas are exempt from the quotas.
The largest H-1B job classification, by far, is computer occupations, where the number of H-1B nonimmigrants exceeds job creation. Supporters try to hide this flood of foreign workers by making the apples-to-orange comparison of H-1B numbers to the entire labor market.
Myth No. 8: There Is a $60,000 Minimum Salary for H-1B Visas
Reality: This is a complete fiction. No such requirement exists.
Over 2,000 H-1B visas were approved in 2024 with wages below $60,000.
Myth No. 9: The Department of Labor Sets the Minimum Wage for H-1B Workers
Reality: The employer determines the prevailing wage for H-1B employees.
The Department of Labor is required to certify whatever the employer claims is the prevailing wage within seven days and is prohibited from checking the accuracy of the claim, even after approval.
Some 90 percent of employer prevailing wage claims in 2024 were less than the actual prevailing wage for the occupation and location reported by the BLS.
The employer can request a prevailing wage determination from the Department of Labor, but this rarely happens.
Myth No. 10: H-1B Wages Are Comparable to U.S. Wages
Reality: Overall, H-1B wages are nowhere close to U.S. wages for the same occupation and location as the law ostensibly requires.
Only wages for H-1B workers from a handful of countries, particularly in Northern Europe, Australia, and Canada are comparable to U.S. wages and often exceed U.S. wages. These represent less than 5 percent of the visas.
The countries with wages comparable to U.S. wages are more than offset by wages paid to H-1B workers from India, who collectively have absurdly low wages and make up nearly all H-1B visas.
Myth No. 11: The H-1B Program Is Broken
Reality: This is the biggest myth of all.
A broken program is one that fails to achieve its intended purpose.
But Congress deliberately eliminated the labor-shortage requirement. Congress chose not to require employers to recruit Americans first. Congress created a Labor Condition Application system that relies largely on employer self-certification. Congress has known for decades that American workers have been replaced by H 1B employees, yet it has never prohibited the practice broadly.
Congress has known for decades that employers have been replacing Americans with H-1B nonimmigrants. Congress’s response to this abusive behavior was to make the practice explicitly legal. No one should be surprised at an employer that lays off thousands of Americans while hiring thousands of H-1B nonimmigrants.
The H-1B program is producing exactly the outcomes its structure encourages: employers gain access to a large pool of lower-cost foreign labor while facing few obligations to recruit American workers first or verify wage claims independently.
If policy-makers truly want an H-1B program focused on exceptional talent, they should redesign it accordingly. That means requiring meaningful recruitment of American workers, independently verifying prevailing wages, prioritizing genuinely exceptional applicants rather than first-filed petitions, and prohibiting employers from replacing American workers with H-1B employees.
Until then, the public should stop asking why H-1B is broken because H-1B works exactly as Congress intended it to work.
More at:
Nothing to See! Networks Ignore Hijinks in Results of Brazil’s Presidential Election
On Monday morning, the “Big Three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC each dedicated a news brief on their lead morning shows to the results of the Brazilian presidential election, with far-left incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeating Senator Flávio Bolsonaro by a razor-thin margin. The networks, though, framed it as Lulu “soundly defeating” Bolsonaro in a “clear” victory.
In reality, though, there was a litany of issues with the election, including a ruling by a justice on the Supreme Court — who also happens to be a former lawyer for Lula — that demanded polls reopen for two hours past closing time in pro-Lula precincts.
…
The broadcast networks made vague allusions to the vote count, but only in the context of chiding Bolsonaro for not immediately accepting the outcome.
Starting with the rancorous corporate liberals at Disney-owned ABC and Good Morning America, weekday newsreader and weekend co-host Will Reeve boasted of “the surprise results of the presidential election in Brazil” with Lula “winning an historic fourth term, soundly defeating right-wing Senator Flávio Bolsonaro.”
Reeve then scoffed at Bolsonaro having any credibility to suggest any funny business occurred: “Bolsonaro is the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison for refusing to accept his own defeat four years ago. Flávio Bolsonaro has refused to concede in this case, and he’s asked the Supreme Court for an annulment of the results, which analysts say is unlikely to happen.”
Over at CBS Mornings, Saturday co-host Adriana Diaz shared Brazil’s “closely watched presidential election has a clear winner,” as “[l]eftist president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva won his fourth term in a runoff with almost 52 percent of the vote.”
Diaz followed Reeve’s template by refusing to explain why the younger Bolsonaro had yet to concede: “He defeated right-wing rival Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of former president Jair Bolsonaro and a close ally of President Trump. Bolsonaro is challenging the results and refuses to concede.”
Finally on NBC’s Today, co-host Craig Melvin relayed, “Alright, some news from Brazil now, where President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won an historic fourth term yesterday. He did that by defeating Flavio Bolsonaro. He’s the eldest son of President Jair Bolsonaro.”
Melvin didn’t get into Bolsonaro’s lack of a concession, and instead said the win by “[t]he left-wing incumbent” and “vocal critics of President Trump” “buck[ed] a trend in Latin America, where increasing numbers of right-of-center presidential candidates have been winning.”
To see the relevant transcripts from October 26, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).
More at:
More Stories
Stunning Sharyl Attkisson Report: Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, FOX, NY Post Being Shut Out on Yahoo, MSN and other Major Online News Platforms
Biden’s immigration failures went far beyond the border
House Dems’ Response to Ilhan Omar Warrant: Eliminate Homeland Security