I’m not sure there’s ever been a merger in history that lead to more jobs being created after. These expensive deals get sold to investors by claiming “synergies”.
Congressional testimonies are just show business to let politicians market themselves. There was nothing stopping the FCC or whoever from requiring T-Mobile to agree to penalties if total headcount did not reach certain targets at certain dates.
No one in leadership had intent to ensure a minimum number of jobs.
How many people were at YouTube and Instagram before their mergers?
It all depends on the stage of the companies. When companies are still in growth mode it can create more revenue and jobs. When companies run out of ways to grow (mature industries like telecom) then mergers are almost always about economies of scale and cost savings.
Yes, Google Video was similar sized to YouTube (maybe), but Google itself was far greater.
If you're bought out, the bigger company that now owns you can put more money behind your product vision and that leads to more employment.
Mergers only happen between 'equals', and in that case the benefit is the two companies can stop fighting each other in the market and 'synergize' by firing all the sales, middle-manages, and customer support that now are unnecessarily overlapped. Do you really need two sales guys to target the same customer now that you're the same company? No.
I guess it’s all semantics to me, as when I read “merger“ or “merger of equals” there is usually a dominant partner. Either way it gets to the end you’re pointing at. Less need for excess sales, support, etc.
I see this in some acquisitions too. (Like when IBM buys anyone)