[lbotos]

6% is not large scale.

Many would say that if the company only had to lay off 6% they were taking "reasonable" risk.

Compare to say Luno who had to cut 35% of staff: https://techcabal.com/2023/01/26/luno-layoffs/

Counter: What's better for morale, your project to get stopped now and cut and you re-prioritized or let go, or a slow bleed through the year where no new headcount get put on the project as people leave for you to eventually find out in a year that management knew and kept you on that project aimlessly to "avoid a layoff"?

Personally, I'd prefer the former, as the latter would give me a lot more doubt for future projects

[Retric]

You can cut 20% of a workforce through attrition, but it requires long term planning and shifting people to new roles. You don’t bleed projects over time but move people around after milestones.

Not every job is fungible so you may end doing some small scale hiring and let a few people go. But that’s normal and occurs outside of large scale layoffs.

Layoffs aren’t companies tossing risks, they’re companies offloading risk to their workforce.