..or they are simply more enjoying life by maintaining a better life-work balance.
Can't a company reach an equilibrium where the right people are doing the right things, and everyone is happy with their role and compensation? Sure, people may leave and be replaced, and even a moderate amount of growth could be healthy, but why focus so much on constantly expanding teams, more products, more revenue, more, more, more...? It seems to boil down to basic human greed, at the end of the day.
I much prefer working for companies that don't have this growth obsession. IME they place more value and care into their product and customers, rather than chasing the next big thing, which often ruins the good thing they had.
So hyper growth is actually a signal for me to leave, not stay. With all these layoffs going on, how can we say that the growth/layoff cycle is a sign of a healthy company? It might not hurt their bottom line, but I sure wouldn't want to work in an environment where I'm worried I might be laid off at any moment.
And if you don’t dominate the market, a more hungry competitor absolutely will. Software products can be developed incredibly quickly.
It is capitalism at its best (or worst, depending on how you see it). While it might be desirable to work in a more stable setting, without some kind of regulatory protection or stickiness this is hard to achieve in practice.
What I find objectionable is the constant focus on unbounded growth, and that that is somehow a signal of a healthy company. This is usually the case in VC funded companies, which is not the only way to build a business. It might be the quickest and easiest, but it creates an environment where wrong incentives can thrive.
When growth stops, there's little chances to gain status by solving problems: Someone already has status, and really doesn't want to lose it. Those frustrated with the lack of growth, and who have good skills applicable somewhere else will leave. The people that stay are those that have fewer opportunities to find something better elsewhere. So when you see an architect/principal engineer that has been there for 15 years, you know they know that they'd not be hired at the same level anywhere with more chances of growth: Those people have already left.
This is why i understand the middle manager that tries to empire build: If you don't have growth opportunities, your top subordinates will leave you, and with them your group's performance.
There are other reasons to leave a company, like if you see good chances that you'll dislike your boss and they will remain your boss for at least another year, but the lack of growth will always be bad.