[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.