> If they don’t have anything coming down the pipe, they should save their money. I know it's a hypothetical and I get your point in a way, but I think in that

> If they don’t have anything coming down the pipe, they should save their money. I know it's a hypothetical and I get your point in a way, but I think in that example the execs have some explaining to do as well, as to why they hired those 500 FTEs for a temporary need, or why they apparently have no further interesting ideas to work on. I guess you could point to Shopify or Meta as a real-life example of this, where they were on an absolute hiring spree and didn't stop to ask themselves if they actually needed that staff in the first place. If they never plan to expand again, it sounds like the company will wither without any innovation or research taking place, and if they do plan to do another 180 and hire 500 people next year, they really need to consider how expensive hiring and training is and maybe smooth out their pipeline a bit so they don't have to oscillate so wildly.