[theanarcrist]

My current theory on this, particularly for Google, is they're just taking advantage of the macroeconomic moment to cut some fat. Slowing growth or outright letting people go is a no-go in times of macroeconomic growth. Big companies, even if not strictly needed, can be opportunistic here and make some cuts they wouldn't be able to in other circumstances.

[PragmaticPulp]

Yep. The hiring market has shifted from ultra-competitive during the COVID economic boom to being much tighter and more competitive during this economic downturn. You can't hire at Meta and Google scale without collecting some mis-hires and poor performers.

When the hiring market is tight you might keep them on longer and try to mentor them up to par, but when the hiring market shifts and there are a lot of great candidates on the market it's better to let the underperformers go and re-fill those jobs with great performers who are back on the market for whatever reason.

They're still hiring. This is more like cycling out hires that didn't work AND some collateral employees who unfortunately got lumped into those teams and cancelled projects. Often, the great employees who get "laid off" are quickly scooped up by other teams within the company who need their talent. It's not good business to let great engineers go.

[game_the0ry]

> This is more like cycling out hires that didn't work AND some collateral employees who unfortunately got lumped into those teams and cancelled projects

I see - if they are cycling out the lower performers and hire recently laid off people on the market for a bargain, then that kind of makes sense, assuming they are not in a hiring freeze.

[singron]

If they are laying off their poor performers so they can hire the laid-off from other companies, wouldn't they just be trading lemons?

The strategy probably works regardless of macro economic conditions assuming you let go of "lemons" at a greater rate than you hire them, but it seems easier when the market isn't being flooded. You could maybe argue that layoffs at other companies are reducing the proportion of lemons, but it's not clear to me.

I think reducing headcount gives an immediate outlook of lower expenses without affecting revenue in the medium term. Tons of employees at these companies aren't working on projects that will have monetary significance within several years if ever.

[leaflets2]

> so they can hire the laid-off from other companies

They don't only hire recently laid off people. Most people who apply do that for other reasons I think. Also, maybe eg Google s recruiting accuracy is better than other companies lay-off accuracy

[shostack]

Is there data suggesting comp bands are reducing as a result of the hiring climate? Cost of living is still through the roof, so while companies should pay based on value, there will presumably still be pressure based on that.

[duckmysick]

I'm confused. It was ultra-competitive before and now it's more competitive?

[hwbehrens]

Given the context of their message, I think the parent switched perspectives mid-stream: ultra-competitive from the perspective of the employers (very hard to hire) to competitive from the perspective of the employees (somewhat hard to be hired).