Typically cutting is a top-down decision, while hiring is organic. If they think they can justify budget for it, managers want to hire. Managing more people has direct rewards apart from anything the headcount is doing for the organization overall, so incentives are misaligned.

All the big FAANG companies that did major layoffs have rehired to the original amount since then.

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

From a pure economics perspective, this is healthy.

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. :)