[sneak]

> They're gambling with people's lives to make themselves look impactful, nothing more.

They laid people off, they didn’t send them to the gulag. It’s just business, no lives were gambled in the remotest stretch of the imagination.

[johnchristopher]

> They laid people off, they didn’t send them to the gulag. It’s just business, no lives were gambled in the remotest stretch of the imagination.

Please, it's an hyperbole and a regular one. Nobody read that and picture people being shot behind the garbage bins.

Their lives are definitely heavily impacted.

[erikerikson]

No. It's definitely better to make the people get in the garbage bins before shooting them. Otherwise you have to do the lifting. ;P

[johnchristopher]

Indeed, indeed !

[echelon_musk]

Livelihoods, then.

[pjc50]

Eh. Tech people are usually financially self-sufficient enough to bounce back, but I've definitely heard of people being laid off very shortly after a difficult and expensive relocation. And it always incurs further costs on the individual to get back into the job market. It can be extremely stressful. That misery is real and should be weighed on the other side of the scale of these decisions.

[AlexandrB]

This is one reason high income/wealth disparity is corrosive to society. I suspect many executives have "let them eat cake" thoughts even if they don't voice them when it comes to layoffs. Being laid off when you have millions in the bank would just mean free time to perfect your short game and it's hard to understand the stress layoffs cause people who depend on regular paycheques for food and shelter.

[sneak]

With the exception of people living right at the poverty line (which is hopefully not that many people), saving up an emergency buffer is within the realm of possibility for just about everyone. It’s not only prudent, it’s practically required.

To pretend it’s the employer’s fault that someone in a skilled trade is living paycheck to paycheck is to misattribute responsibility.