As I said, I think our takes will differ based on what our metrics are.

My metrics include how much agency and stability do their employees feel they have? And how much stability does the larger industry workforce feel they have? How much of employees value addition goes to them versus investors? Does their user base have high trust and use their products enthusiastically? Reluctantly?

But that's the subjectivity. If you look at big tech and judge their success by, "do they make investors money?" then you will likely score a company highly that I think has a lot of room for improvement.

The issue I have is that these companies have clearly internalized a belief that layoffs are a tool with no downside and embrace them casually as a part of deliberate, planned strategies.

They didn't need to hire that aggressively. And if any pressure against layoffs existed, they almost certainly wouldn't have.

Layoffs are a part of the trend towards "blitzscaling", which I think is irresponsible in startups, but unconscionable in established firms.

Look at those numbers! They grew their staff 23% in 2018? And then 20, and then 13, and then 15... The company is 24 years old! There is no reason for them to be trying to double in four years! Especially not in the midst of a global upheaval.

My point is that the hiring managers were paying people to relocate in 2022 when they knew that many of those people were likely going to be out of a job within months. We need to stop normalizing this kind of labor economy. Think of the kids who have to move to new schools only to suddenly have an out of work parent while they're trying to reorient themselves. We build the economy. There's no reason to make it so heartless.

I think you're right that they're acting as a herd to reduce negative exposure, but I don't think they're removing dead weight. I think they're shedding weight, regardless of whether it's dead or not. From what I've read, the goal clearly prioritized reducing the size of the company over specifically removing low performing individuals or projects.

>So its greedy for a company to fire labor they determine don't need?

First, I don't think you mean "need".

Most profitable companies don't need most labor. They gain value from it, but that's different than needing it. I think what you mean to ask is, 'Is it greedy for them to terminate workers if they conclude it's a good financial decision?'

And the answer is that it's subjective. I think it's absolutely a demonstration of greed, but I try to work in objective measures.

I think objectively, the costs of this action are very, very high, unless you strip worker well-being and the well-being of our society at large entirely from the cost assessment equation.

The main thing I take away is that company-wide layoffs don't seem to be motivated by necessity. It's not like some giant unforeseen event just toppled their primary business model. If a correction was needed, it should be enough to reduce hiring in relevant divisions, or trim 1 or 2 % of those relevant divisions. Slicing off 6% of the entire company because you had a 5% decline in operating profit even with roughly a year's worth of gross profit in reserve is just ruthless and greedy as fuck.

Check here:

http://nevertellmetheodds.org/

It's not as active as it used to be, but it's where I used to go to find what was happening each weekend.