>The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years.

Is that the point? That implies the market is hot again (and I agree with you, it will be eventually) and people are working where they want to. If that's your prediction, what's the problem here? The solution is not to jump ship to Google, then, isn't it?

But by hiring all these people a few years ago, didn't Amazon (and other large tech companies) give these people some valuable experience, beside a quite decent salary?

I personally would prefer to be hired by a big tech company and then laid off, having received the salary, severance pay, and experience, than to never set my foot there.

The in-between time sucks, of course.

Debatable, maybe some people like new grads would prefer it that way but a lot of these people already had experience and jobs before showing up at Amazon. Some may have moved, others turned down other offers, 6-12 months of 20% extra pay doesn’t justify the lurch. In general forcing employees to take on the lion’s share of risk is a jerk move without offering a similar share of profits.

It is frustrating, to be sure... but I think 18k jobs for 2 years is a net-positive for society.

We wouldn't be here discussing this if the economy had not done so poorly.

What if on average, you hire 10 people a year. Each year, there's a 10% chance of having to lay off 10 people. Details of profit/loss aside, what is the optimal move? Never hire so you never have to lay anyone off? Hire only 5 people a year so the impact is not so large?