Because employees are primarily a cost vs output equation for public companies in particular (and that's even more true with gigantic firms). Acquisitions are b

Because employees are primarily a cost vs output equation for public companies in particular (and that's even more true with gigantic firms). Acquisitions are broadly viewed as expanding shareholder value (whether accurate or not in a given situation). The stock market tanked thanks to the Fed rate hikes. It's believed shareholders will respond positively to cost optimizations. So they'll try to hold the line on growth while boosting margins re cost centers. It's quite straight-forward thinking as it pertains to getting a positive reaction from shareholders. The question for that context is: are your cost centers well optimized, or can you trim staff (real-estate holdings, inventory, whatever)? That's a very common question that would be pushed at public companies by large institutional shareholders. Big tech is extraordinarily bloated with labor. They frequently grow at almost comical rates in terms of adding unnecessary employees (they do it just because they can afford to hoover up the talent to keep it from their competition; one common path forward in the hierarchy for managers is to grow their staff count and expand their footprint), and pretty much everyone knows it. It happens with every fast growth era in tech.