[nine_zeros]

> It's worth pointing out that, historically speaking [0], we're not an in era of particularly high interest rates yet, just not absurdly low ones.

The question is what is the right level of interest rate in 2023 as compared to say 1960.

19060s were boom time with GI bills, lots of new industries started by veterans, a booming suburban household, booming number of children. People and companies of the time had very low debt aka there was room for them to take on more debt. All of this leads to rising credit, which requires a higher interest rates to keep inflation low.

2023 is an anomalous post-pandemic boom coming from trillions added to US government debt. There is no population boom, no business boom, no new tech boom (excluding the AI stuff going on now). Nobody can take on more debt as most people/companies are completely tapped out. This actually requires lower interest rates but we have high inflation so the FED is keeping interest rates artificially high.

This is to say, that companies like SNAP just cannot continue to exist in a higher interest rate environment. Neither can companies like Meta, Uber, Google, Microsoft without cutting costs somewhere or without letting the stock collapse.

A recession is the only way out because companies will NEVER let the stock collapse in favor of saving their employees.

[robertlagrant]

> A recession is the only way out because companies will NEVER let the stock collapse in favor of saving their employees.

Only as stock in this case is a useful proxy for the finances of the business. It would be better to say that, outside of ridiculously comfortable and easy financial environments, companies will prioritise investing in activities that make money (directly, such as making products, or indirectly, such as security) over activities that don't.

[nine_zeros]

> It would be better to say that, outside of ridiculously comfortable and easy financial environemnts, companies will prioritise investing in activities that make money (directly, such as making products, or indirectly, such as security) over activities that don't.

And these activities are designed to increase the stock price. Everything they do is for the price of stocks. That's how the system is.

[robertlagrant]

That seems a jaundiced viewpoint though. Stock prices are a proxy for the business's value going up, which businesses should in general strive for, unless they have it so monopolistic that they don't need to compete with anyone else. This is just as true in a business without stocks even being available.

[nine_zeros]

I'm not claiming that companies shouldn't strive to raise value of business.

All I said was their activities are designed to boost stock prices, given the prevailing economic conditions. Stock prices may be related to business value or financial engineering or whatever. Doesn't matter how they get there. Their goal is to just keep stock prices rising.

With this in mind, if it ever comes to choosing between employees, customers, product, or anything versus the stock price, they will choose the stock price.

[robertlagrant]

I don't think there's any point saying this in this way, though. Not every company will do anything it takes to hit a stock market goal, even financial engineering. Many will just work on fundamentals, and either go broke or get outcompeted or succeed.

And there are plenty of companies that aren't public companies with any stock to buy.

It just seems far too simplistic. You seem to be critiquing the times that some company use slightly dodgy financial engineering to boost their stock price. But that's not many companies, and not all the time - it's never a permanent fix. There's certainly no need to attach stock price reason to these layoffs, which are much more likely just cost-cutting measures designed to save the company a load of money it thinks is more valuable than the work of those people.