I suppose it's largely a matter of perspective but I would argue that fewer more stable jobs would likely be better for both the companies and employees.

Also, you're missing another obvious argument. Most tech companies that are doing layoffs could afford to keep their employees. Dropbox hasn't done 3 rounds of layoffs because they're on the verge of bankruptcy but rather they're just following the trend and pleasing shareholders or whatever.

So I'm not arguing for less jobs but rather less corporate bullshit.

>I suppose it's largely a matter of perspective but I would argue that fewer more stable jobs would likely be better for both the companies and employees.

How do you expect this to work? Companies hire because they think the extra man-hours is going to give them a competitive advantage. Companies agreeing not to compete each other seems suspiciously like a cartel.

They can still hire people and compete with each other? I'm just saying they shouldn't hire in mass quantities if there's a high chance that all of those people will be let go later on. It seems unethical to me but again it's a matter of perspective.

>They can still hire people and compete with each other?

That's still cartel behavior. If Google and Apple formed a cartel to fix handset prices, they could still theoretically compete with each other on features or whatever, but that'd still be a cartel.