By John Q. Hosedrinker 
HP Inc. announced a global workforce reduction of 4,000 to 6,000 employees by fiscal 2028, primarily impacting product development, internal operations, and customer support teams, with the goal of streamlining operations and leveraging AI. This initiative is expected to generate $1 billion in gross run rate savings over three years. The company is also navigating challenges from rising memory chip prices, driven by increased demand from data centers, anticipating the impact in the second half of fiscal 2026. While Q4 revenue exceeded expectations, HP anticipates adjusted profit per share for fiscal 2026 to be slightly below analyst estimates.
Read the original article here
HP to cut about 6,000 jobs by 2028, ramps up AI efforts – let’s unpack this, shall we? This announcement isn’t just about job losses; it’s a symptom of a much larger, more complex economic shift. The headline itself – 6,000 jobs gone, AI efforts intensified – sets the stage for a story that’s been playing out across industries. It’s the classic narrative: streamlining operations, boosting efficiency, and, of course, keeping shareholders happy.
The immediate reaction is, understandably, skepticism. Let’s be honest, the “AI” label is often a convenient cover. It’s easy to see how companies might use AI as a buzzword to justify layoffs, inflate stock prices, and deflect criticism. Some of us have firsthand experience with HP’s products, and let’s just say, the quality hasn’t always matched the hype. So, the question arises: how much of this is actual AI implementation and how much is simply cost-cutting disguised as technological advancement?
Then, the fundamental question emerges: if AI replaces workers, who’s left to buy the products? Profit requires consumption, a concept that seems to be lost on those making the decisions. This is where the core issue lies. If the labor force shrinks, and wages stagnate, who will have the disposable income to purchase the goods and services that these companies produce? It’s a paradox, a self-defeating strategy that could ultimately lead to economic stagnation and decline.
It’s tempting to view this through a purely capitalist lens, the relentless pursuit of profit, even if it undermines the very foundations of the market. But, as some have pointed out, there’s a disconnect. The focus is on short-term gains – quarterly dividends and boosting stock values – at the expense of long-term sustainability. The CEOs and executives are incentivized to boost their own compensation, regardless of the company’s long-term health. The “golden parachute” becomes the ultimate symbol of this short-sighted approach, and the inevitable outcome will be a plummeting stock value.
This situation echoes a well-known historical pattern. Henry Ford understood the importance of ensuring his employees could afford to buy the products they made. He understood the connection between wages, consumption, and economic success. The current trend seems to ignore this basic principle. The goal is no longer sustainable, balanced growth, but rather artificial “growth” achieved by laying off workers, increasing costs, cutting product quality, and creating artificial needs via subscriptions.
It all boils down to the fact that, in capitalism, production is typically easier than selling. It seems that the executives haven’t realized that markets are limited. When the market cannot consume what is being produced, the economy implodes. This is further exacerbated by the illusion of neoliberal prosperity, which is being dismantled as we speak.
The acceleration of AI is only making things worse. It’s a trend that is only going to accelerate the crisis. We’re approaching a point where the economic system cannot function because of the growing inequality. These are the same people who are historically unconcerned with long-term consequences. What will the senior workforce be when the entry-level jobs are replaced by AI? Is it a future where a few wealthy individuals control the vast majority of resources while the rest of the population struggles?
The real fear is a future without consumers, a future where machines and a small class of “haves” rule the world. This is what it all seems to be leading towards. It seems the shareholders and the few wealthy individuals are the ones that matter at all. The plan seems to be to accumulate enough power to control the masses through force, if needed. If they control everything, they don’t need money.
Is this what Marx called a “crisis of overproduction?” When the companies can build robots that can do everything, what will people be needed for? This feels like a turning point, a moment where the consequences of unchecked capitalism are becoming painfully obvious. Sadly, the people in charge don’t appear to be thinking about tomorrow; they’re too busy with their immediate gains.