Meta Platforms Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg told employees at an internal company town hall that the forthcoming workforce reductions are being driven by rising capital expenditures, and he did not rule out the possibility of further cuts.
"We basically have two major cost centers in the company: compute infrastructure and people-oriented things," Zuckerberg said during the session. "If we’re investing more in one area to serve our community, then that means ... we do need to take down the size of the company somewhat." The comments were delivered at an internal meeting held on Thursday.
Company plans call for approximately 10% of Meta's workforce to be laid off on May 20. Additional job reductions are planned for the second half of the year, according to the timeline disclosed by the company. Executives, including Zuckerberg, have affirmed the May 20 rounds of layoffs but have not offered specifics about any actions beyond that date.
On the prospects for long-range planning, Zuckerberg acknowledged limits to the company's foresight. "I wish that I can tell you that I have a crystal ball plan for the next, like, three years of how all this stuff is going to play out. I don’t. I don’t think anyone does," he said, expressing uncertainty about multi-year outcomes.
The explanation provided by Zuckerberg framed the cuts as a budgeting and investment choice: heavier spending on compute infrastructure - a capital-intensive area - can necessitate reducing expenses in other parts of the business, including headcount. He described people-oriented costs and compute infrastructure as the two main expense categories that determine how the company allocates resources.
The town hall was the first time Zuckerberg addressed employees directly about the layoffs since the plan was reported in March. He and other executives have confirmed the immediate-round layoffs but have been careful not to commit to a defined long-term personnel plan.
Contextual note: The comments emphasize the company's stated trade-off between capital investments and personnel spending and underscore leadership's reluctance to provide a fixed long-term forecast for workforce needs.