[notinfuriated]

Depends on your definition of "dire." Perhaps some companies have Finance departments that believe they're in a dire situation when they have less than six months runway if all revenue stopped. I don't know what they factor in to the decision other than they believe their costs are too high given the current economic conditions.

It's kind of like me having plenty of money, right now, to afford Netflix but cancelling it anyway because I feel $14/mo or whatever the price is still too much for the value it delivers in the current year, and generally worried that I might need that $14 in a year (multiplied out across a bunch of other services or habits I engage in). I'd rather save my money now, as I've decided the situation is dire or could easily become dire. Am I actually cruel and obligated to keep my Netflix subscription (gotta make sure Netflix employees make a living) because I am not, at this moment, in what others perceive to be a "dire" situation?

[lapcat]

> because I feel $14/mo or whatever the price is still too much for the value it delivers in the current year, and generally worried that I might need that $14 in a year

What if you're wrong, though, and indeed what if many people are wrong in the same way, cancelling Netflix and passing up the opportunity of enjoyment to save a little money, but in the long run it makes no difference, and only hurts them in the short-term by depriving them of the enjoyment? That's the point of the article, that layoffs are empirically self-defeating.

It's not about a mythical "obligation" to employ someone. The cruelty comes from laying off people unnecessarily, when there's no benefit.

[Aeolun]

I think it’s more that cancelling your existing Netflix contract for a few months because it’s too expensive right now, knowing that you’ll likely want it again 6 month in the future, and knowing Netflix will likely increase the price to $21/month for new contracts, seems a little bit shortsighted.