I think you misinterpret my comment. Being "laid off" is being fired (in consequence) because of the incompetence of your management. It is ironic that the inco

I think you misinterpret my comment. Being "laid off" is being fired (in consequence) because of the incompetence of your management. It is ironic that the incompetent jerk who ran the business into the ground does get to keep their job. Now, you raise another point. Unfortunately in the US, being laid off is not supposed to carry a stigma. But ironically in fact, possibly illegally, it really does. Because companies think "gosh: google has 120,000 people. They laid off 12,000, therefore you are in the lowest 10%". Companies are also often very reluctant to fire for incompetence. So a layoff can serve as a cover for "cleaning house". The consequence is that it is always a question afterward: did this guy get laid off because he was the problem child? Why him/her? When you have a job the recruiters beat a path to your door. When you are laid off, you are in a cycle of endless interviews and are regarded as damaged goods for the fault of bad management.