996 the number of labour control in Big Tech

In the space of a few years, the climate in the big US technology companies has changed radically: after a decade of expansion and 'pampering' employees - record salaries, generous benefits and extreme flexibility - 2023 marked the beginning of a phase of contraction. In the months I spent in Seattle, I was able to experience first-hand not only the change in the model implemented by Big Tech but also the effect this has on everyday life. It all started with the revision of the span of control, the relationship between managers and direct reports. To make structures leaner, the average ratio was changed from 1 to 5 to 1 to 20. The result was that thousands of managers were made redundant, in the name of agile decision-making. Immediately afterwards came the mass redundancies, leading to the exit of tens of thousands of employees between 2023 and 2025. If we listen to the official statements made by the companies, the reasons are to be found in the strategic realignment and concentration of investments on artificial intelligence. However, the consequence has been a significant reduction in the workforce, accompanied by a cultural shift. After this, in 2025, companies imposed the Return to Office, requiring employees, on pain of dismissal, to physically return to their offices at least three days a week, with the emergence of frictions especially for those who had chosen to live in cheaper areas or in other states during the pandemic, with the consequence that many preferred to leave rather than face a return to chaotic cities with high living costs. Official communiqués read that the aim was to rebuild the internal culture and collaboration in attendance. However, many observers read in this a form of implicit selection, useful to reduce the workforce without new formal redundancies. And finally, an acronym has now appeared in the managerial lexicon that comes from a completely different continent: 996, i.e. working from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week, a model typical of Chinese companies, which is also finding an echo in Silicon Valley in softer forms but similar in spirit. What one now hears in the corridors of Big Tech are phrases such as: 'The competition works this way, we must adapt'. We have moved seamlessly from 'work better' to 'work more'.

But what are the causes of this new frontier? It is not financial crises - the accounts remain excellent with Nvidia, Microsoft and Apple each valued at over $4 trillion (the GDP of a G7 nation). Neither is AI, at least for now, the direct cause: right now it is only redefining the skills needed by laying off non-reconvertible profiles to hire new specialists in data science, machine learning and cloud infrastructure. In reality, the key is demographic: there is a shortage of STEM graduates. For years, Big Tech has been competing for the best engineers, computer scientists and mathematicians with bonuses and stock options. But those same companies funded university programmes, scholarships and educational campaigns to expand the talent base. Today, the market is saturated: more supply, less bargaining power for workers. Which ones on this frontier? In fact, after a period in which the worker had acquired greater bargaining power (producing a greater redistribution of wealth), bargaining power now seems to be back in the hands of the companies. The 'pampering' of the past - gourmet canteens, unlimited holidays, guaranteed remote working - are being replaced by longer hours and greater on-site presence. The first ethical question is about social justice and how to guarantee a redistribution of wealth if even the best minds can no longer participate meaningfully in the enormous wealth they manage to make companies produce. This starts to affect the precious US universities that see their very expensive curricula no longer able to secure millionaire careers. However, the picture could change again: the tightening of H1-B visas announced by the Trump administration (de facto the de aunties would have to pay $100,000 a year to the government for each worker) will reduce the influx of foreign talent, particularly from India and China, which have been feeding the Big Tech research teams for years. If the domestic supply is not enough, the pendulum will swing back to a new talent war - and perhaps, as many in Seattle and Silicon Valley hope, to a return of the

"lost 'cuddles'. Amid mass layoffs, forced returns to the office and new production pressures, large US technology companies are rediscovering a more rigid managerial model. But if behind the change of pace is a profound transformation in the supply of STEM talent, frontier ethics asks us to question how to turn a conflict of interest into a resource for development.