[echelon]

If a layoff isn't an attempt [1] to get rid of under-performing talent or dump under-performing business divisions, then I've always felt that across the board pay adjustments are a much more ethical approach.

I'd be much more inclined to stay at a company that lowered my pay 20% than a company that laid off my coworkers. Not letting people go shows empathy, and uniform pay decreases align everyone's interests in getting back to a good state.

I could see why some might jump ship from a poorly performing company during ordinary economic times, but during this down tech cycle, the grass isn't necessarily greener. Going elsewhere might be difficult or put your head back on the chopping block.

[1] Or as some might view it, an opportunity.

[rtpg]

For people on the lower end of the pay spectrum, 20% is a lot. I don't know exactly the wage distribution, but it's not like the customer support people being laid off are getting SWE salaries. So "let's just uniformly cut salaries" can be a much harder proposition.

And then you get into the difficulties where the highest paid people tend to be paid with stock, so _they already are having pay cuts from drops_. When you're looking at "cash on hand" problems it's hard to get everything balanced right. Though I do think it's worth it to try and make something work.

Personally I'm a bit of the opinion that larger companies have a responsibility to bank in employee costs more long term than in growth phases. Especially places with higher attrition, if you're able to run the clock for a year hiring freezes + shutting down teams that you want to shut down anyways feels like it would be less demotivating. But I don't know

[kanwisher]

Nah the best people just leave