> 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.