[DarkNova6]

> Could there be a tech recession? Yes. Was there a bubble in valuations? Absolutely. Did Meta overhire? Probably.

I'm glad we agree

> But is that why they are laying people off? Of course not. Meta has plenty of money. These companies are all making money.

How does this follow any logic at all. He does not even dispute that overhiring took place. Should companies continue with a stupid hiring frenzy until they run out of money? This is the logical implication.

> They are doing it because other companies are doing it.

How is this explanation better than any other? This is such a strong claim and he offers ZERO evidence for it. And gross overgeneralizations like "oh, there are cases in which..." are argumental rubbish. This infuriates me because this is bad science and plainly opinionated.

[aeze]

I think you may be unintentionally misinterpreting some of the items you've quoted.

1) Layoffs != Hiring frenzy. A company can slow or stop hiring but also not do layoffs. It's actually a common way to downsize softly.

2) Most of these companies are profitable. Running out of money isn't likely.

[DarkNova6]

No, I don't think so.

1) I really have no issues with layoff in Big Tech. They pay very very well and no parent who was let go can't feed his family all of a sudden. If you were even a semi-decent employee, you can find a job at another place quickly. So many places still look for people in spades.

There are as many good business reasons to contract your workforce, as there are bad ones. And it's likely you hired a lot of low-performers and quacks during peak hiring. Now is the time to do so without creating public outrage.

2) This implies that the reason for layoffs are exclusively linked to payrolls. And the guy in the interview suggest as much as well. I dispute this notion.

[SahAssar]

What are you quoting? Neither this thread nor the article says these quotes.

[DarkNova6]

it is in the article