As others noted here, irrespective of whether there is a coming recession, for companies like Google and Microsoft, 10-20k employees are not so expensive as to be existential for the company, *or even for specific opportunities the company wants to pursue*. (E.g. for Microsoft, buying Blizzard is not predicated upon laying off employees.)
Instead, it's best to see this as a sort of social trend: layoffs to demonstrate fiscal responsibility to investors, in order to promote equity valuations that are in general valuable (either strategically, or as the ultimate purpose of a publicly traded company).
If that sounds like I think this is all reasonable and justified, I don't. But it's a reasonable thing to do if your sole goal is profit, which is how we generally look at public companies in a capitalist economy.
Yes exactly. CEOs that don’t follow the “trend” will be marginalized and questioned. Of course they need to demonstrate that they’re “serious” and can make “tough” decisions.
Keep in mind that being the CEO often requires a person to have a certain kind of personality that might be easier to influence this way.
As others noted here, irrespective of whether there is a coming recession, for companies like Google and Microsoft, 10-20k employees are not so expensive as to be existential for the company, *or even for specific opportunities the company wants to pursue*. (E.g. for Microsoft, buying Blizzard is not predicated upon laying off employees.)
Instead, it's best to see this as a sort of social trend: layoffs to demonstrate fiscal responsibility to investors, in order to promote equity valuations that are in general valuable (either strategically, or as the ultimate purpose of a publicly traded company).
If that sounds like I think this is all reasonable and justified, I don't. But it's a reasonable thing to do if your sole goal is profit, which is how we generally look at public companies in a capitalist economy.