[jjk166]

> They go hand in hand. Companies need to be able to innovate. And yeah that means hiring and firing teams as they see fit.

Think about any job you ever worked at.

When layoffs happened, did the work ever get easier or done to a higher standard because of the layoff, or did the sudden loss of knowledge and manpower make your job harder?

When things were bad enough that layoffs were being talked about, who jumped ship, the low performers who don't really do anything or the high performers who can get a job anywhere?

When innovation happened, did it tend to come from the team that would be fired for screwing up, or the team that could confidently experiment and incorporate lessons from past trials.

The idea that weak labor protections is a key requirement for innovation doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

[matchbok3]

Um, yes? Layoffs have helped. Teams are faster, products ship more efficiently.

Sometimes (believe it or not!) companies over hire. Or they try a thing and it fails. Or you need to pivot. (called "innovation")

Why is this so hard to understand?

America is, indeed, an outlier in terms of innovation right now.

Honestly, do you think high performers are ever mad that people just coasting are let go? Do you think a team has great morale when 20% of the team aren't pulling their own weight?

Every layoff is different, so your generalizations don't make any sense. But they are, in fact, a necessary part of an innovative market. The alternative is a company paying people to do nothing productive because they can't fire them.

[jjk166]

> Why is this so hard to understand?

Because a functioning neocortex prevents it.

Over-hiring is inneficient. If not being able to easily lay people off prevents that issue, it's a good thing.

You're making an logical leap that trying a thing and it failing, or otherwise pivoting requires layoffs despite clear evidence to the contrary.

I can tell you for a fact high performers don't want to see their coworkers laid off, and layoffs destroy team morale more than anything else.

The generalizations make perfect sense because what makes something a layoff makes all the conditions I described true.

I can't imagine any intelligent person arguing in good faith that there is no middleground between freely laying people off on a whim and paying people to do nothing because they can not be fired.

[matchbok3]

Please avoid strawmans when using this forum. Also the personal attacks weaken your already weak argument, FYI.

Nobody said layoffs are happening on a whim. Companies obviously would like to avoid them when possible. No idea what your argument actually is. Layoffs cost a lot of money to do. They don't just "happen". I have done them - the company, and employees, in the long term, were better off. Guess what? People are resilient, they don't need coddled their entire lives.

Yeah, overhiring is inefficient. Guess what is even more inefficient? Keeping those people on the payroll forever. 10 dollars > 5 dollars. :)

Please use your "functioning neocortex" to understand that if a company is limited to fire people in 5 years, they are much, much less likely to hire anybody. Please talk to literally anybody in a hiring role.

Your ideal, I guess, is to have people sitting around in jobs doing nothing (or less busy than they could be) so they aren't building experience, learning, challenging themselves, etc all because company XYZ is legally bound to not fire them? So people's feelings aren't hurt? What a sad, low-ambition, pathetic worldview that is. Nobody wants to work in that environment, that's for sure.

I'm not going to respond any more to this chain because you clearly don't have team leadership experience or have built a company, so are not equipped to engage in this topic at full throttle. Maybe when you start your company you can guarantee the jobs for life! Let me know how that works out for you. :)

[jjk166]

Please avoid strawmans when using this forum. Also the personal attacks weaken your already weak argument, FYI.