> The biggest downside to staff IME is that you are almost constantly reminded that you are a cost and at danger of being cut. It seems like this shouldn't be

> The biggest downside to staff IME is that you are almost constantly reminded that you are a cost and at danger of being cut. It seems like this shouldn't be an absolute that applies to all staff roles, just a sign of a company with an immature viewpoint on costs. Or even just an inconsistent one. Consider the electricity used to keep the office running, it's a cost, but no one would feel the urge to remind the utility company that it's a cost and therefore at danger of being cut. That "and therefore" isn't even true in general anyway. Pre-pandemic most would consider the risk of cutting the office electricity to be no higher than the risk of the company ceasing to exist for whatever reason, i.e. if the company goes the office also goes, and there aren't many other causes for the office to go for most companies so it's mostly vice-versa too. Similarly there are businesses basically entirely supported by staff teams/individuals doing maintenance of some old software, if they go, the business goes, and vice versa. Anyone trying to pull a "don't forget you're a cost and might get cut!" reminder on them would be an asshole. Meanwhile companies like Google have no problem killing off entire products and their teams (though I think they tend to re-purpose the programmers rather than officially lay them off) even though it's making on the order of ("only") $200m/yr in profit. Sure, if people can get something for cheaper than they used to, or get rid of something they realize they don't need/want, there's incentive to do that and "cut costs" by that amount if they can, but this incentive applies regardless of the staff/line division. Maybe the cure is to remind line roles at such places that they too are in some vague danger.