Is it though? There's always a business justification for hiring, simply because there has to be to get the headcount approved. That doesn't mean that it's th

Is it though? There's always a business justification for hiring, simply because there has to be to get the headcount approved. That doesn't mean that it's the actual reason, as in the deciding factor that gets the decider to say "yes, we're going to hire more people". Principle agent problems are a thing. You can always come up with reasons that are true but wouldn't by themselves change your decision. And conversely, you can figure out what someone's actual reasons are by looking at counterfactuals where those conditions didn't occur and the person (or a peer) made a different decision. Between 2020 and 2023, Google went from 118k employees to 190k. Meta went from 58,604 to 86,482. Stripe went from ~2000 to ~7000. Coinbase went from 1200 to 4500. These companies are not competing significantly in podcasting and audiobook efforts. But what they do have in common is that they are growth tech companies whose business models are pretty sensitive to interest rates and availabilty of capital. Who didn't hire in 2021-2022? Mostly industries like restaurants and hospitality that are not particularly interest rate sensitive, and were still recovering from COVID. They're catching up now that people are spending more. That makes me strongly suspect that directors hire simply because there are funds available, and there are funds available because rates are low. Indeed, this is the Fed's lever on the unemployment rate. If they didn't, then changing the money supply wouldn't have any effect on unemployment or wage inflation, which would be purely determined by shifts in consumer demand.