Right. People are not using the phrase "hire to fire" uniformly. One way to interpret that is that you are literally hiring someone just to fire them. Another

Right. People are not using the phrase "hire to fire" uniformly. One way to interpret that is that you are literally hiring someone just to fire them. Another way, the way I and some others are using it, is that they're hiring people *so that* they *have* people to fire. As in, they're not necessarily firing the people they hire, but that they need to hire so that they have options when they need to fire. I don't think the latter is any better than the former because they're still going about hiring with the explicit intention of firing people. Maybe it's not the hire specifically, but when they have that intention, it still creates the same kind of toxic environment.