Thread regarding SAS Institute layoffs

I don't mind AI taking my job as long as I get to keep my pay. AI does not need the money anyway.

OMG AI
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2025/03/05/trump-speech-state-union-russia-elon-musk-grok/81507335007/

Straight Arrow News:
DOGE altering 20-year-old DOD software to automate firing of workers: Report
Elon Musk's DOGE is reportedly working on an artificial intelligence tool that can automate its sweeping cuts to the federal workforce.

Why would you need to fix them? After all, a deferred defect is a managed defect 😂.

I suggest recalling all of those old FUTURE defects that were marked NOFIX and letting AI loose on fixing them. I have to imagine that those old backlogs will be no match for the new technology. Let’s start with the old MVA code, because no person in their right mind, these days, wants to work on maintaining a legacy code base that requires extreme attention to detail. Let the AI find the fixes, push the code, and handle the documentation updates. It won’t get frustrated or tired but will just do the job at a tiny fraction of the cost of even a single developer.

Interesting thoughts. VC is indeed harder to get these days, when any investor can earn decent interest on safe fixed income.

The exception is VC for AI, as for the AI+Analytics suggestion of @g8+1jmwepnn0. That poster may be an old SASser like myself, mourning what could have been, should have been, our product in our market. But at this point, anyone wanting to apply AI to Analytics can get VC, and several companies are doing exactly that. Unfortunately, they don’t need SAS.

Certainly, there are tremendous online and Open Source resources where juniors can learn to become seniors. The top talented ten percent will always find a path to succeed.

That said, I knew juniors at SAS Institute who could not code as well as ChatGPT. Any VC, any Board of Directors, will say, “Let’s don’t pay that salary. Let’s use the AI instead.”

We are living through a sea change. Because of AI, we may need less than half as many juniors as we currently have.

Regardless of what title they have attained, it’s quite likely the case that most “senior engineers“, i.e. those possessing a significant skills/experience matrix, will be among the first to concede that the further their career goes, the more they feel they need to keep learning. It’s very easy for tech skills, especially the deep and specific tech skills required to be a competent and effective senior level developer at SAS, to become stale relative to the forward pace of technology.

It is also often the case that professionals in more advanced positions need to periodically revisit foundational skills in mathematics, formal logic, graduate level writing, executive-level verbal communication, second language fluency, etc.. This is the case because one of the biggest advantages that the best prepared young professionals, especially those who graduated from top universities have, is their recent and intense academic exercise of these topics. This is why a well-educated, articulate 25-year-old can sound more intelligent in a meeting than a 45-year-old who has gotten “dulled by experience”.

Responding to the last 2-to-3 posts … Is it not the case that VC has become constrained and is getting harder and harder to go to obtain?

It can be argues that for at least the past 5 to 10 years, the availability of so many (often free) online learning resources and tech meetups/conferences, along with the ability to contribute to innovative open source projects, makes it possible for bright, energetic and resourceful individuals to work towards “senior engineer” level skills outside the time-honored “rising through the ranks” of software development at a corporation.

Sure, one might have to initially work as a barista and live in a relative’s attic spare room, yet with the right Intelligence, discipline, patience and motivation, it’s possible to build a tremendous technical skill set In a few years and “leap frog” much of the “intern->junior engineer” process. If AI shuts down certain traditional doors of opportunity, resourceful folks may still find a way to ultimately get hired in tech. Given how expensive University has become, this may progressively become a favored path for many.

For some extremely bright young people, yeah they can bypassing being a junior engineers the conventional way and just get VCs to bank roll their startups and become founders of new companies but they still hire other "junior" engineers. You have to have a mix of junior and more senior engineers to run a successful business.

I think the woman in the video was actually referring to "junior engineer" as someone younger with less experience and "senior engineer" as someone older with a lot more experience in the context of the video clip. I don't think she means that is their actual literal title since there is no such "junior engineer" title and senior can encompass a wide range. In that context a "senior engineer" could be considered a senior, principal, or distinguished at SAS with lots more experience and expertise. SAS cracked down on the rare "distinguished" and in some cases demoted them down to principal. I personally knew quite a few "senior engineers" at SAS that are more capable than some principal engineers.

One cannot become a senior engineer without starting out as junior engineer when younger and gaining more experience and expertise along the way in order to become a senior engineer eventually.

And what she said at the very end is valid!

Engineers with good ideas don’t need money to leave SAS. As the girl in the video says, they can get venture capital. A few SAS employees did leave to start their own companies, and some have been successful.

But only a few can start companies. And SAS never offered equity, so only a few could retire early. For most, there is no financial path to retirement except to keep working.

Once you reach 50, it becomes difficult to get hired. So you become stuck at SAS, and making the best of it. That applies to many people now.

The short answer is yes, even among FAANG + Microsoft + Tesla, etc. , each of these behemoth companies has engineers into their 60s. Giving their size, it’s the totals can easily be in the 100s each. The reason is simple. Most of these companies were founded 25 to 40 years ago when the now older engineers were in their prime. Just like with SAS, they built skill sets on a company culture/MO and decided to stay.

The difference is the West Coast engineers who did this likely had sufficient net worth to retire by the time they were 50. Many chose to stay for various reasons, often because they had built a great skill set in companies where stock prices and therefore their equity grew precipitously. Why cash out and take risks when you have that? SAS provided neither equity nor exponential net worth growth opportunities based on it.

Do most companies not have 100s of 60 year old software engineers like SAS? Do they have enough money and equity to leave at 40 and start their own companies or ventures?

With AI getting better and better, what's next for the coming generation of old timers -- Soylent Green.

Depends on how the term “senior engineer“ is defined. In many companies, the title “senior engineer“ is below staff engineer, which is below senior staff engineer, which is below principal engineer. In this poster’s experience working with West Coast, engineers, it’s common to encounter staff engineer titles and even above as young as late 20s. Although SAS has a more compressed set of developer career titles, I made senior at age 32. Based on the work, I was doing at SAS and comparing that to later experience on the West Coast, at most Silicon Valley companies I likely would’ve been a staff engineer ant or before age 32. There was a time when in most groups it was extremely difficult to get promoted at SAS. The standards were very high. Perhaps financial constraints have forced to return to that?

In any case, assuming the average age of a “true senior engineer“ (whatever that is) is 39 or 40, it’s not unrealistic to think that AI will attain the capability to do that level of work long before current senior engineers meet full retirement age.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/big-bank-to-cut-4-000-roles-as-ai-replaces-humans/ar-AA1zKhBk?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=d57efbd7d59a4aeeed75a1c0ac63ab09&ei=26

Actually the average age range of a "senior engineer" in Silicon Valley is 40+.

AI answer to the question "what is the average age of silicon valley engineers in 2025?".
According to current data, the average age of a Silicon Valley engineer in 2025 is likely around 39 years old, with most software engineers falling within the 30-39 age range.
Key points to remember:
Average age range: Most sources place the average software engineer age between 30 and 39.
Senior engineers: For senior software engineers, the average age tends to be slightly higher, around 40+ years old.
Silicon Valley trend: While not significantly different from the national average, Silicon Valley may have a slightly younger average due to its reputation for attracting young talent.

OMG the chick in the vid is annoying. She might instead want to observe and ask: given the average age of a Silicon Valley “senior engineer” is ~30, what is the likelihood AI will catch up to their abilities before they retire?

How Sr Devs are really made
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ioi7DPTHG6A



“Cut at least 50% of the workforce… The freed up cash flow should then be reinvested in products that maximally exploit AI and advanced analytics…”

This won’t happen under current ownership, because they feel loyalty to employees and want to minimize layoffs. Also, at their age, for the sake of their heirs, they need to sell their company.

It won’t happen under new ownership, because the people who buy declining revenue streams want to milk them. Those buyers, like Broadcom or private equity, are experts at cutting costs to maximize profits. That’s their business model.

Anyone who wants to build products to “exploit AI and advanced analytics” won’t buy SAS, because SAS has nothing they need. Financially, it makes much more sense to start a new company with venture capital, and base it on open source.

This is indeed a painful truth. The AI + Analytics market is huge, so this plan absolutely could work. But financially, no one has reason to do it. 


@fv+1jmwepnn0

Speaking of painful truths. If SAS wishes to survive and have any hope of sustained prosperous growth, they’re going to have to cut at least 50% of the workforce ASAP and align on a plan to provide a viable support strategy to retain existing customers who are providing the recurring revenue stream.

The freed up cash flow should then be reinvested in simplified yet innovative new industry niche products that maximally exploit AI and advanced analytics. SAS cannot succeed long-term by continuing to build toolsets. They need to hire a Cabal of genius level product designers and selectively hire mostly new engineering blood to build these products. Significant compensation and equity needs to be proffered to achieve this.

Sadly, outdated thinking that SAS is still a leading edge tech company seems to prevail among too many current employees. Their LinkedIn posts often expose this.

Re: University

“If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library” - Frank Zappa

That’s the consensus opinion. At this time, AI is not good enough to replace senior experienced people. But it can replace a lot of juniors.

The phenomenon is global. AI is not good enough to replace the best Indian and Chinese workers. But it can replace the rest.

Bottom line: we still need senior leaders, but they don’t need as much staff.

SAS existed in a golden age, when if you could get the computer to do anything at all, you were a god guaranteed gainful employment.

Those days are gone, and it’s best we all admit reality.

obviously there are other questions such as what are the growth rates? what is the potential?

for AI, certainly am worried. in the short term, it seems to be boosting our analytics productivity (at a customer org). we've used it for translating of language syntax as well. more concerning, fewer humans seem needed for this work in the longer term. those few of us who remain can likely (must?) be a lot more productive, so we probably don't need as much staff.

@f6+1jmwepnn0 There ate no external sources for internal numbers.

If you work at SAS, you can verify JMP revenues with anyone in JMP sales. Internally, the $150M figure isn’t secret.

It’s not a particularly impressive number, compared to other software companies. But $300K per employee is doing better than the rest of SAS.

@e4+1jmwepnn0

I laugh every time I write it. Plus, it's a joy to see other people pick it up and run with it.

"arent these JMP vs SAS numbers a bit misleading"

Yeah. Hearsay at best. Never any sources cited either. Probably because there aren't any.

Pets are protected.

“Aren’t these JMP vs SAS numbers a bit misleading?”



These numbers are approximate. But even if we deduct a few million for “landscaping, housekeeping, security, etc.” JMP’s revenue per employee is still ahead of many SAS products.

Sure there’s fat in JMP; there’s fat in every area. But when a CEO hires “outside help”, they don’t usually cut costs in areas with strong revenues.

A few years ago, I knew of a SAS product with annual revenues of $300,000. That was all. That product had 24 developers.

That’s the sort of area where I expect the ax to fall.

@e9+1jmwepnn0

Take a deep breath in through your nose. Let it out through your mouth. Go walk barefoot in the grass. Drink some warm tea. You are going to be ok.

Arent these JMP vs SAS numbers a bit misleading because JMP doesnt have its own landscaping, housekeeping, security, maintenance, healthcare, etc etc etc?

“Both areas have fat.”

All areas have fat. People complain about these two.

But many areas of SAS have less revenue per employee than JMP and greater expenses than the Art Department.

The “outside help” hired to “cut costs” will focus on those.

@e9+1jmwepnn0

Read the post right before yours.

Privilege is the only logical explanation for no cuts in either JMP or the Art Department. Both areas have fat.

@e5+1jmwepnn0
Did you mean "competent graduates"? "First remove the beam from your eye so that you might see clearly enough to remove the mote from mine." Or are you going to blame phone posting, autocorrect, ???

@e5+1jmwepnn0
competent graduates

SAS has ~$3B annual revenue, divided by ~12,000 employees = ~$250,000 per employee.



JMP has ~$150M annual revenue, divided by ~500 employees = ~$300,000 per employee.

JMP is not protected by JS, but by its revenues.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/elon-musk-s-use-of-ai-could-spell-doom-for-a-powerful-industry/ar-AA1zIDx3?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=11e08360529f42caa03e82e6e8e7f41a&ei=24

@dk+1jmwepnn0
"...It is not hard to imagine a college education being MUCH less worthwhile 20 years from now."

Most college degrees are already worthless. Universities now exist mostly to extract as much money as possible and use it to sustain their tenured bureaucracy. They have no incentive to be cost efficient or to produce competent graduations that have meaningful education.

@ap+1jmwepnn0

The joke was funny the first time, and probably the second.

Round about iteration 19, the joke lost its remaining humor.

the Art Department remains safe."

As does JMP.

At best it is insulation that is provided by the current steady state of compassion for Ann and JS's pets. No addressing now usually mean more addressing later. Few steady states can endure change and change is surely coming.

The current steady state will fade when JG and JS lose some/all control. Way more people are feeling that than talking about that.

It is what it is.