[giantg2]

Those might be bad decisions for the employees, but those might be good decisions for the company.

Basically, scoop up talent while you can, then cut the lowest performers. It's basically the last step in a thorough interview process.

[wootland]

If you've ever worked somewhere where there's been layoffs, you'll know that of the remaining employees, all of the best people immediately start looking for jobs elsewhere. If management is so incompetent that they overhired or underperformed bad enough to lay people off, the writing is on the wall to jump ship. It can take years to repair the motivational and cultural damage caused by a layoff. Especially when paired with "soft" layoff behavior like mandating RTO and "performance" management.

[s1artibartfast]

I've definitely been through some layoffs where most employees said good riddance and moved on with life immediately, so I think there is definitely some variations in morale response.

It is one thing if the layoffs are at a startup running out of money, and another if layoffs are at a profitable company

[deltree7]

Where is this magical "elsewhere" part where there would be no layoffs?

It's mind-boggling that we have raised a generation of people who are absolutely clueless about "Cost-of-Capital". It is worse than people not understanding democracy

[wootland]

> Where is this magical "elsewhere" part where there would be no layoffs?

Any company with competent management. That includes not cargo culting layoffs while turning a blind eye to the damage they cause to a company.

> It's mind-boggling that we have raised a generation of people who are absolutely clueless about "Cost-of-Capital". It is worse than people not understanding democracy

What's mind-boggling is that people think the cost savings from a layoff happens in a vacuum. There are definitely repercussions in terms of loss of productivity, increased employee churn, brand damage, increased difficulty hiring in the future, loss of operational knowledge...

Layoff are a sign of mismanagement. That has nothing to do with the "cost-of-capital".

[deltree7]

So you have never created a bug in your life? Made a mistake?

Your statement is as naive as "A Production Bug / Latency is a sign of Incompetent Software Developer" Should we fire you as soon as you hit the first bug?

BTW, You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Cost of Capital

Tomorrow if your salary is cut by 50%, would you cut-down on extra expenses? Is that a sign of mismanagement from you?

[wootland]

I'm not sure if you replied to the right comment or not since I didn't say anything about firing engineers (or anyone).

My point is that over-hiring and layoffs aren't "good for the company" as the post I was responding to claimed. They're both a sign of bad management that incurs a cost on the company being poorly managed. One of those costs is that top performers leave as they are the first to recognize mismanagement.

[ztrww]

> Tomorrow if your salary is cut by 50%, would you cut-down on extra expenses? Is that a sign of mismanagement from you?

if you knowingly and willfully put yourself into a situation which resulted in your salary being cut by 50% then yes

[s1artibartfast]

It's still worth it to a apply for a job that pays double or take a job that pays double. It is only a personal failing if you misunderstand the risk and cost going in.

Similarly, if you gamble on a coin flip and lose, that doesn't mean it was a bad bet. It is only a bad bet if you calculate the odds and expected returns incorrectly. People seem to really struggle with this concept

[lazyasciiart]

That's not what Salesforce did. They cut longterm and high-performing employees, and we still have freshly hired randoms who know nothing.