Federal Reserve taps Xbox CEO Asha Sharma to lead jobs task force days after Microsoft laid off 3,200 people

[midian182]

A hot potato: Xbox CEO Asha Sharma has been chosen to co-lead a Federal Reserve task force examining productivity and employment. Somewhat ironically, her new advisory role comes only three days after Microsoft unveiled the largest restructuring in Xbox's history, which will eliminate 3,200 positions and immediately put 1,600 people out of work.

The Productivity and Jobs panel is one of five new task forces created by Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh to examine areas central to monetary policy. The others will focus on communications, balance sheet policy, economic data, and inflation frameworks.

Sharma will lead the group alongside Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Marc Andreessen and Stanford economics professor Charles I. Jones, who is currently on leave at Anthropic. Its job is to assess how general-purpose technologies, including artificial intelligence, are affecting productivity, employment, and economic growth, with the findings used to help inform future Federal Reserve policy.

The groups will be supported by Federal Reserve staff but operate independently. They've been told to follow the evidence, provide candid feedback, and produce findings for the Federal Open Market Committee. Updates on their progress will be posted periodically.

"The Federal Reserve's commitment to price stability and maximum employment is unwavering. As is our resolve to pursue our mandate with rigor. The US economy has changed significantly over the last generation, and never more so than right now," Warsh said. "Each task force will carefully consider whether policymakers' means and methods, analytical tools, and policy approaches can be improved upon. I am honored that the best minds from a range of disciplines have agreed to work with us to sharpen our performance as an institution."

Sharma's appointment is raising some eyebrows given what happened at Xbox last week. Microsoft plans to eliminate around 3,200 positions across its gaming division between now and July 2027, with 1,600 employees losing their jobs immediately.

The restructuring also involves spinning off Compulsion Games and Double Fine, while Ninja Theory and Undead Labs are being sold. Bethesda, ZeniMax, id Software, Activision, Obsidian, and Microsoft's accessibility team are among the groups facing deep cuts.

The panel will also examine AI's impact on jobs. Sharma has a lot of experience in this area, given that Microsoft has spent billions of dollars expanding its AI infrastructure while repeatedly reducing its workforce. It's just one of many tech companies cutting employees as more resources are redirected toward automation and data centers.

Sharma moved from Microsoft's CoreAI division to become Xbox CEO earlier this year. In the first few months of her tenure, she has overseen another hardware price increase, falling Game Pass membership, and what Microsoft describes as the most significant restructuring in Xbox history.

The Federal Reserve has not said when the task forces will publish their final findings, only that more information will appear on its website periodically.

Image credit: Adam Fagen

Permalink to story:

Federal Reserve taps Xbox CEO Asha Sharma to lead jobs task force days after Microsoft laid off 3,200 people

 

[JMGuy]

Rob, your article provides decent context, but that "irony" framing is just completely unnecessary sensationalism and just clearly negative spin to cash-in on cheap clicks.

Using a tech executive who is actively managing automation and workforce shifts is a logical, real-world choice for a productivity task force. We can critique policy without pretending standard corporate restructuring is somehow a disqualifier for advising the Fed.

 

[yRaz]

Rob, your article provides decent context, but that "irony" framing is just completely unnecessary sensationalism and just clearly negative spin to cash-in on cheap clicks.

Using a tech executive who is actively managing automation and workforce shifts is a logical, real-world choice for a productivity task force. We can critique policy without pretending standard corporate restructuring is somehow a disqualifier for advising the Fed.

I'm trying to find the sensationalism in the article. I don't see an personal opinion in the article or see the title as clickbaity. Mind clarifying specifically what you're referring to?

 

[NumberNine]

I guess firing all those people was a test to show she has what it takes to join.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

End the Fed.

End government's ability to overspend on everything including handouts to giant companies with generous campaign contributions.

 

[JMGuy]

I'm trying to find the sensationalism in the article. I don't see an personal opinion in the article or see the title as clickbaity. Mind clarifying specifically what you're referring to?

Thanks for asking! My point isn't that the facts themselves are wrong, but rather how the narrative is framed.

By leading with the word "ironically" and tying her appointment so closely to the layoffs, the article leans into a populist narrative—essentially, "look at this tech executive cutting jobs right before leading a jobs task force." It is far too easy to passive-aggressively drop a one-liner that attempts to discredit and criticize every government move or dismiss these committees as out-of-touch, especially so when big tech is involved in this way, IMHO.

While some skepticism toward leadership is always warranted, these panels actually do important foundational work. The Fed specifically brought her in because she is actively navigating the shift toward automation and AI. For any task force studying how new technology impacts productivity and employment, having someone with front-row, real-world experience managing those exact corporate shifts is highly practical, not ironic.

The framing just feels like it's chasing that anti-institution click-bait sentiment for engagement. Case in point:

End the Fed.

End government's ability to overspend on everything including handouts to giant companies with generous campaign contributions.

This is a perfect example of what I mean. The idea that any institution is ever going to be corruption-free is insanely naive. This is not how the world functions. I’m not saying corruption deserves a pass, I’m saying that this kind of hyperbole is precisely the kind of engagement such a passive aggressive headline is intended to stoke.

Perhaps I’m being a bit harsh. It’s just my opinion. I think we deserve a better journalistic standard than that kind of low ball contributes.

 

[Endymio]

Rob, your article provides decent context, but that "irony" framing is just completely unnecessary sensationalism and just clearly negative spin to cash-in on cheap clicks.

Using a tech executive who is actively managing automation and workforce shifts is a logical, real-world choice for a productivity task force. We can critique policy without pretending standard corporate restructuring is somehow a disqualifier for advising the Fed.

All very true. Modern-day neo-socialists believe businesses are merely another form of government welfare, and they should ensure that all jobs permanently exist, whether or not they're profitable to the company. They forget the fact that, if a company doesn't occasionally restructure to remain profitable, then **all** the workers it employs will wind up on the street.

 

[Kirby1]

Thanks for asking! My point isn't that the facts themselves are wrong, but rather how the narrative is framed.

By leading with the word "ironically" and tying her appointment so closely to the layoffs, the article leans into a populist narrative—essentially, "look at this tech executive cutting jobs right before leading a jobs task force." It is far too easy to passive-aggressively drop a one-liner that attempts to discredit and criticize every government move or dismiss these committees as out-of-touch, especially so when big tech is involved in this way, IMHO.

While some skepticism toward leadership is always warranted, these panels actually do important foundational work. The Fed specifically brought her in because she is actively navigating the shift toward automation and AI. For any task force studying how new technology impacts productivity and employment, having someone with front-row, real-world experience managing those exact corporate shifts is highly practical, not ironic.

The framing just feels like it's chasing that anti-institution click-bait sentiment for engagement. Case in point:



This is a perfect example of what I mean. The idea that any institution is ever going to be corruption-free is insanely naive. This is not how the world functions. I’m not saying corruption deserves a pass, I’m saying that this kind of hyperbole is precisely the kind of engagement such a passive aggressive headline is intended to stoke.

Perhaps I’m being a bit harsh. It’s just my opinion. I think we deserve a better journalistic standard than that kind of low ball contributes.

You're spot on. The guy you're explaining it to will bend over backwards to play devils advocate even when it makes it clear he can't see the Forrest through the trees.

Techspot does this kind of thing constantly, very minor event presented as something important to be mad about, followed by a pretty poorly written article.

 

[SRB]

Well, although the article did just hop on the low hanging fruit, I must admit to having a hard time seeing how the group will benefit from her background. I have no idea how many employees she had when she ran the AI section, or if anything she was tasked with had anything to do with Microsoft's head count. In other words, what IS it she brings to the table. As far as the head count at XBox, I'm sure the crowd in the C suite had this decided for her before she took the job.

As far as AI job loses, I think the biggest reason Microsoft is slashing jobs is the lack of patience by any of the big shots to even attempt a turnaround. And the reason for that is the AI money pit is a hungry beast, and the needed to free up capital to feed it's growth. If XBox wasn't making money to feed the beast, we'll just feed it XBox, instead.

 

[amghwk]

So, the Federal Reserve finally found someone who can help to downsize workforce to reduce government spending on civil servicemen/women.

She reminds me of Duke Nukem 3D's Shrinker Ray weapon.

 

[oicu81234]

Yet another Indian in management that are willing to fire Americans to hire more Indians using H1-B visas.

 

[Str8Shot]

End the Fed.

End government's ability to overspend on everything including handouts to giant companies with generous campaign contributions.

Agreed. This is the source of all our problems, literally it all starts here: the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

 

[Endymio]

Agreed. This is the source of all our problems, literally it all starts here: the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Most people are never taught how the creation of the Federal Reserve turned a normal business cycle into the Great Depression of the 1930s.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Yet another Indian in management that are willing to fire Americans to hire more Indians using H1-B visas.

Maybe indians are better qualified for the job?
Using Americans regardless could come off as DEI-ish.

 

[Hexic]

Maybe indians are better qualified for the job?
Using Americans regardless could come off as DEI-ish.

While some Indians are more qualified for the job - the reality is we can pay them 1/2-1/3 of what we would pay stateside employees, and that’s why they’re so tempting.

US firms are more than happy to let quality slide to save on payroll. And then have the gall to ask how and why quality is sliding.

 

[Endymio]

While some Indians are more qualified for the job - the reality is we can pay them 1/2-1/3 of what we would pay stateside employees, and that’s why they’re so tempting.

It's a cool story, but H1-B visas require such workers to be paid the prevailing local wage, and/or the actual wage paid to similar workers in the firm, whichever is higher.

If you actually know a firm not doing so -- rather than simply promulgating fictional falsehoods -- you can report them for immediate action by the federal government.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

This is a perfect example of what I mean. The idea that any institution is ever going to be corruption-free is insanely naive. This is not how the world functions. I’m not saying corruption deserves a pass, I’m saying that this kind of hyperbole is precisely the kind of engagement such a passive aggressive headline is intended to stoke.

Perhaps I’m being a bit harsh. It’s just my opinion. I think we deserve a better journalistic standard than that kind of low ball contributes.

You obviously have no idea about the Federal Reserve so let me hit the high points. It is a private bank (not gov agency) that loans the government money when it can't raise it through normal borrowing (bonds) AND has both the power and mission to create money at a rate that devalues the currency (benefitting the government loans, large business loans, and anyone with large amounts of assets).

So the Fed in doing it's intended (uncorrupted) purpose is responsible for the massive government debt that interest on the loans is one of the largest budget items, massive spending on wars and other government waste since printing money is easier than staying in budget, and the reason your grandfather could go to the movies for 25 cents and now it costs 25 dollars.

The Fed states it *wants* to devalue the currency (inflation) by 2-3% each year, but uses a pricing metric for tracking that which allows 4-8% devaluing while showing 2-3% for the news.

More advanced economics points to the Fed being the cause of the increased boom / bust cycle (e.g., housing bubble, major recessions) but that's more than I want to get into here.

 

[Hexic]

I’d heavily suggest you plug in the search to Google (or any LLM) of, “Do Indian employees, working out of India, get paid less than their US equivalents in large multinational firms?” - it’ll enlighten you.

I work in a large multinational firm who hires global employees straight from India, and I’m deeply involved in the hiring process; the only fictional falsehood is your gross misunderstanding of the international professional services hiring landscape.

 

[Endymio]

I’d heavily suggest you plug in the search to Google (or any LLM) of, “Do Indian employees, working out of India, get paid less than their US equivalents in large multinational firms?” - it’ll enlighten you.

Was that a joke, or is your understanding of the subject so poor that you believe H1-B recipients are working in India, rather than the US? Do you understand the purpose of a work visa?

 

[rmcrys]

All very true. Modern-day neo-socialists believe businesses are merely another form of government welfare, and they should ensure that all jobs permanently exist, whether or not they're profitable to the company. They forget the fact that, if a company doesn't occasionally restructure to remain profitable, then **all** the workers it employs will wind up on the street.

That reasoning of yours is exceptionally... Flawed.

Yes a company just be profitable not to close. Yes a company needs a restructuring to be competitive.

No, it doesn't mean all those standard workers that will be unemployed are the reason. It's well known that most big companies get in trouble because:
- CEO / CIO and top end workers make horrible decisions
- they hand out a lot of money for AI (hardware and software), but they have issues handing out for human resources
- no money for human resources, but they have millions for funding political partying and give huge "administration" bonuses

So: you are partly correct but a lot of companies just have a flawed way of being run. The bad decisions are paid by "standard" workers and usually the final customer gets a worse product.

Example, most German or French automakers:
- administration got huge bonus
- they didn't invest in human resources, specially on the R&D and future innovating products
- they focused in having a monopoly, not innovating and even hiding the bad product
- they were caught and thus the VW scandal. They had to pay a huge fine.

Result: next products were and as bad, they produced worse for more money to compensate the fines; they also had nothing good to release. Now they are firing 100k people and closing 4 factories.

Who's to blame?

 

[Endymio]

It's well known that most big companies get in trouble because:
- CEO / CIO and top end workers make horrible decisions...

"It's well known" is a code phrase that translates to "please ignore my total lack of facts or evidence". What's worse is that your statement, even when true, is meaningless. Struggling firms lay off CEOs far more often than they do other employees: if a new CEO can't effect a turnaround in a year or two, they're usually replaced with someone else. And layoffs in large firms happen more often when the firm itself is healthy, but certain divisions are being reduced or shut down. When IBM stopped producing personal computers, what would you suggest they do with thousands of PC assemblers and support engineers?

- no money for human resources, but they have millions for funding political partying and give huge "administration" bonuses

Learn math. For most major corporations, the amount they spend on CEO compensation and political lobbying combined wouldn't change the paycheck of the average worker by more than a few dollars a month.

Example, most German or French automakers..

French workers pretend to work only 35 hours a week, will strike if someone sneezes, and can't be fired no matter how incompetent they are. That's why French automobiles are the laughingstock of the world. Germany's workers, OTOH, while not perfect, have a higher work ethic and a more reasonable legal structure for firing ... and thus German autos are sold around the world.

 

[rmcrys]

"It's well known" is a code phrase that translates to "please ignore my total lack of facts or evidence". What's worse is that your statement, even when true, is meaningless. Struggling firms lay off CEOs far more often than they do other employees: if a new CEO can't effect a turnaround in a year or two, they're usually replaced with someone else. And layoffs in large firms happen more often when the firm itself is healthy, but certain divisions are being reduced or shut down. When IBM stopped producing personal computers, what would you suggest they do with thousands of PC assemblers and support engineers?


Learn math. For most major corporations, the amount they spend on CEO compensation and political lobbying combined wouldn't change the paycheck of the average worker by more than a few dollars a month.


French workers pretend to work only 35 hours a week, will strike if someone sneezes, and can't be fired no matter how incompetent they are. That's why French automobiles are the laughingstock of the world. Germany's workers, OTOH, while not perfect, have a higher work ethic and a more reasonable legal structure for firing ... and thus German autos are sold around the world.

You pretend you know, but ultimately... You give no examples from where you get that info. As just a line of BS: "French workers ... will strike if someone sneezes, and can't be fired no matter how incompetent they are. That's why French automobiles are the laughingstock of the world"... so... According to.. You... French cars are bad, because workers can't be fired. So why are most American cars (except Tesla) a complete garbage and everyone can be fired in a minute? If french car manufacturers try to skip their support or warranty and pass the costs to the client, the fault is on the -according to you- the French working law protecting the worker too much? What a piece of BS you say.

So "Germany's workers, ... have a higher work ethic ... and thus German autos are sold around the world": the "Abgas Skandal" was decided by high positioned Germans, not the common worker. Also not investing in R&D and staying in pre historic environments regarding to batteries, electric motors for cars and software in general was NOT a decision affected by the common worker nor the work rights in Germany. It was done by greedy high level CEOs / administration.

The same BS in the US: most of the high level bank administrations accepted the ultra high risk business because of greed, and that lead to the last big world economic crisis.

Greed IS the problem, not the common worker nor a country's job protecting laws.

 

[Hexic]

Was that a joke, or is your understanding of the subject so poor that you believe H1-B recipients are working in India, rather than the US? Do you understand the purpose of a work visa?

I wasn’t referring to H1-B recipients - let me help you out:

My quote, “…the reality is we can pay them 1/2-1/3 of what we would pay stateside employees, and that’s why they’re so tempting.”

Stateside employees. This would mean that I was talking about domestic Indian employees who are working in India… hence the comparison to the term, “stateside employees”.

Your own misunderstanding of the conversational direction is no one’s fault but your own.

 

[Endymio]

I wasn’t referring to H1-B recipients - let me help you out:

My quote, “…the reality is we can pay them 1/2-1/3 of what we would pay stateside employees, and that’s why they’re so tempting.”

Why not read posts before replying to them? The "fictional falsehood" I mentioned -- and which you specifically referenced in your response, was the statement that H1-B workers are hired because they can be paid so much less than citizens.

Your own misunderstanding of the conversational direction is no one’s fault but your own.

Laughably ironic, given your faux pas here, eh?