[taurath]

> To think that employers are just randomly firing people for no reason has never struck me as being even remotely true

Have you only ever worked with reasonable management? The problem with quick to hire quick to fire is that eventually you might be quick to fire. I suspect you have a much higher level of security than most people to have quality of coworkers as a top priority!

[RHSeeger]

Heck, there's companies where standard practice is "fire the lowest x% of workers on a regular basis". Doesn't even matter if they're doing a good job or not; just that someone else is doing a _better_ job.

Optimal strategy is to sabotage your coworkers in such an environment.

[ta_1138]

And don't forget that the percentages are not global, but in small buckets. This makes the worst performers extremely valuable, because not only you have someone to get rid of, but if they are bad enough, the rest of the team knows who will be laid off, so they can be far less tense.

It's also bad for the high performers, as working in the same team is bad: Having 3 great performers in a team means at least one, if not two are going to get a middling review. Everyone's behavior gets warped in ways that don't align well with what would be good for the company

[JamesBarney]

And the problem with slow to hire, slow to fire is one day you might be incredibly slow to hire.

And overall if you're looking to be employed as much of your life as possible quick to hire/quick to fire is obviously better based on unemployment data.