It is good to see some messages from those who do have inside knowledge about working within (and being kicked out of) this particular bureaucracy. The similar

It is good to see some messages from those who do have inside knowledge about working within (and being kicked out of) this particular bureaucracy. The similarities and differences between different bureaucracies in different "tech" companies, some quite similar and others quite different by design, is interesting too. Regardless, it fundamentally looks like the decent companies that have a system to truly hire employees worth investing in, and are qualified enough investors to never let that investment in their people lapse (since it always pays off, short-term or long-term), would be the last ones to lay people off at all. Certainly not layoffs as part of a non-emergency long-term planned business strategy, in such a non-astute effort known as "across-the-board", or even more childishly by algorithm. As a businessman while trying to maintain or accelerate growth, if you can also limit the downside to the rate of attrition, you will never need to lay anybody off. Depends on how good a businessman you are. There have always been companies that are not decent, some even have an actual system to exclude potential employees who would otherwise provide the most return on resource investment, and there are some that never even leverage a respectable percentage of their capable people anywhere near their full potential. Even for these lesser companies, bold downsizing leaves unmeasurable damage to the company and remaining employees, just as strongly as it can to those who are kicked out. Although many who are laid off move on to much better careers after being separated from companies which didn't seem so poor up until that point. When the unmeasured damage exceeds the cost of retaining actual good people, the direct negative effect on the bottom line can still be completely obfuscated. This can easily be ignored by the ignorant or malicious, or swept under the rug by a large variety of bureaucracies, most of which are not capable of building or maintaing alignment of employee interests with those of shareholders. In this case it can be a significant notch-down in opportunities for both employees and shareholders from that point forward, with no indication whatsoever on any current financial statement. Too bad it's the future financial statements that will be less impressive or more disappointing, depending on the situation. Just like in the 20th Century, 19th Century . . .