I see what you're saying, but I think this is a take that doesn't stand up to much analysis. The correct amount of employees is the goal, we wouldn't cheer their workforce growing by 10x as a universal good, it's not sustainable and likely to imperil the jobs of everyone. But it's the "good" that's the inverse of this "bad".

> I see what you're saying, but I think this is a take that doesn't stand up to much analysis.

I don't think it needs to, nor was I trying to make any kind of argument of the sort. The (former) employees are going to suffer and pay the price for the past mistakes of the corporate leaders. It's a depressing situation even if it is the absolute correct action for Twitter to take.

For that reason, I don't think it is hard to understand why there are so many comments against the layoffs.

I didn't really understand yakaccount4's take on this. If they are concerned about optics, what can one do to not layoff? would they just let the company continue to perform mediocrely and continue to bloat its burn just for the sake of not laying off people?

> would they just let the company continue to perform mediocrely and continue to bloat its burn just for the sake of not laying off people?

Who's more important the workers or the company? I bet the answer to that question will align with people's views on the layoffs.

> Who's more important the workers or the company?

The workers all lose when the company goes bust.

The company goes bust without the workers. There’s more to it than just the extremes.

True. It's also true that the best thing a company can do for its workers is make a decent profit.

Amazon went over a decade minting millionaire employees while not making a profit. Ditto Uber, and half of the other cheap-money unicorns.

this makes the common mistake that there will always continue to be a company with resources for the workers, regardless of how it performs. The company as a concept exists as a going concern, _then_ it can support workers. If the company ceased to exist, the workers could continue to report to work and produce output, but they would be unhappy with the compensation.

It's not that black and white. It's nuanced, it is situational, and it is conditional.

Firing people based off of "lines of code submitted" immediately after crunching them for 80+ hour weeks is a really shitty way of trying to accomplish that goal.

Losing jobs will eventually happen regardless for any business that loses money like they were. When the company has over-hired, layoffs at least mean they're taking corrective action now.

Sucks for the people affected now, possibly impacts fewer people long-term though. I doubt many Twitter employees will struggle to find reemployment quickly.

You're mistaken. I am not wishing for it and my comment doesn't "wish for it". I am just not against the decision that I clearly have no say in. I'm just looking forward into a decision that was already made.

At the same time, "too many people would lose their jobs [in insurance]" was *one of the reasons why we didn't get the public option when Obamacare passed.

There are definitely cases where people losing their jobs is a necessary evil to get us to a place of greater good. We should certainly support those that get laid off, but it shouldn't stop us (collectively) from improving how our society functions.

I'm reminded of the Soviet Union joke about full employment. Of course we have full employment - like at the subway entrance: one person takes your ticket, another brings it to the machine, the third one makes the stamp and the fourth hands it back to you. See? Everyone has a job!