3 ms·
This is obviously false. Layoffs do work. 2003 - 2007 is not a sufficiently long enough period to assess layoff impacts on a company. For example: >Apple Comp
by vivegi 4y ago
This is obviously false. Layoffs do work. 2003 - 2007 is not a sufficiently long enough period to assess layoff impacts on a company.
For example:
>Apple Computer Inc. said late Friday it was slashing its work force by 4,100 in a last-ditch effort to save the troubled computer maker.
> Out of the total number affected, about 2,700 are full-time workers. The remainder are part-time and contract employees. The cuts will affect about 30 percent of Apple's work force. Fifty-five percent of the job cuts will be in the United States.
(Source: https://money.cnn.com/1997/03/14/technology/apple/ https://money.cnn.com/1997/03/14/technology/apple/)
This is from 1997 in the pre-Steve Jobs era when Gil Amelio was CEO.
You can call it what you want, but if that action didn't occur at that time, Apple as we know today may not have existed.
I am picking Apple as a deliberate example because they are the the only big-tech company that hasn't announced a large scale layoff (yet). So, many people may be quick to jump to point out, "Look Ma! No layoffs at Apple".
For a large corporation, business cycles are a reality and layoffs become part of the tactic. It is very unpleasant for the people involved. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't work (in the long run).
- anon7725 4y agoNone of the large tech companies conducting layoffs have had their back against the wall. They are mostly just purging after their irrational pandemic hiring as well as doing galaxy-brained copycat layoffs. Isn’t it remarkable that “economic conditions” lead dozens of companies to need to cut the same 5-7% of staff?
- vivegi 4y agoI agree with you that the pandemic era hiring went off the rails. We don't hear any media mentioning The Great Resignation anymore. It is all just doom and gloom. Labor cost is the major cost driver for big-tech. They just decided to axe that because that is the quickest way for them to impact costs and conserve cash when revenues are expected to drop, stay flat, or at best grow very slowly. At best, they are right in their economic activity projection, it slows their revenue and profit growth (they will still be profitable). At worst, they are wrong about it and the revenue and profit growth is not slowed (a good problem for them to have) and they can just resume hiring. Regarding your comment on companies not necessarily having their back against the wall -- unfortunately, this is behavior is quite common. Companies don't have to be bleeding in their P&L to take layoff decisions.