I'm disputing the claim that the above statement was ever in question. FAANG doesn't employ people because they mistakenly thought they needed that many, they do it because adding more employees has either lowered their infra costs or increased their revenue.

I really believe the layoffs were not about needing less people, it was about gaining some ground in the employee/employer dynamic.

There are always low performers. Periodically transitioning out the bottom 10% or so, and rehiring different people, possibly in a different departmental distribution, is always net beneficial to the company.

Using regional/national/global events as the explanation is always better than blaming yourself.

Bad for people in the short term, of course. Arguments are made that it's good for society in the longer term. Wars are fought between opposing sides of that opinion. :)