There are two different contexts around layoffs. 1) The company is struggling, losing money, etc and needs to tackle corrective action before everyone loses th

There are two different contexts around layoffs. 1) The company is struggling, losing money, etc and needs to tackle corrective action before everyone loses their jobs. 2) The company is generating record revenues, profits are high, but growth will be 4% instead of 5% so we need layoffs. There seem to be a staggering number of layoffs from camp two. > But it's weird to see all of these think pieces implying that once someone is hired into a job, that job should exist forever. It's also really weird to see: - Rescinded offers - People hired and let go in 3 months (not for performance but because oopsie we miscalculated) - Entire teams built in the first half of a year let go in the second half - People with 10+ years of exemplary service dumped without even a phone call. This is all also happening against the backdrop of low unemployment, high demand for tech labor, and a skills gap that's growing. The analysis was of Fortune 1000 companies which typically aren't companies that would be suffering from long term declining performance which would imply the layoffs are a reaction to a short term fluctuation rather than a long term trend that needs to be corrected. And I don't think the author is saying that laying people off won't balance the financials for that year or that quarter but that the ripple effects from a layoff can actually do more harm than the calculated returns. - snap back attrition - loss of knowledge - opportunity cost - lost productivity from demoralized workforce Nintendo is a great example of a company that when confronted with economic hardship due to bad strategy avoided layoff and instead reduced executive compensation. https://www.polygon.com/2013/7/5/4496512/why-nintendos-satoru-iwata-refuses-to-lay-off-staff https://www.polygon.com/2013/7/5/4496512/why-nintendos-sator... Satoru Iwata effectively stated the same conclusions this article did that such moves might resolve short-term difficulties, but always proved counter-productive in the long-term. Long term thinking versus short term thinking not surprising for a company that has been around since 1889 and has evolved constantly. It's almost like maybe investor sentiment and stock price is not a good metric for actually running a successful business. Just look at Apple this morning... Revenue: $117.1 billion versus $121.1 billion expected Investors are pulling their hair out because Apple only made $117 billion. Is anyone really going to miss that $4 billion? You'll hear investors and talking heads calling for corrective layoffs when in reality nothing needs to be done. They are still ridiculously profitable and will continue to be.