[nine_k]

But by hiring all these people a few years ago, didn't Amazon (and other large tech companies) give these people some valuable experience, beside a quite decent salary?

I personally would prefer to be hired by a big tech company and then laid off, having received the salary, severance pay, and experience, than to never set my foot there.

The in-between time sucks, of course.

[blululu]

Debatable, maybe some people like new grads would prefer it that way but a lot of these people already had experience and jobs before showing up at Amazon. Some may have moved, others turned down other offers, 6-12 months of 20% extra pay doesn’t justify the lurch. In general forcing employees to take on the lion’s share of risk is a jerk move without offering a similar share of profits.

[robswc]

It is frustrating, to be sure... but I think 18k jobs for 2 years is a net-positive for society.

We wouldn't be here discussing this if the economy had not done so poorly.

What if on average, you hire 10 people a year. Each year, there's a 10% chance of having to lay off 10 people. Details of profit/loss aside, what is the optimal move? Never hire so you never have to lay anyone off? Hire only 5 people a year so the impact is not so large?