[beardedman]

I'd be interested to know the age (or any other) demographic of HN'ers commenting on posts like these. Lot of people sounding very personally slighted by companies trying to remain profitable (or just in business).

[figassis]

I don't think FAANG is trying to just stay in business. My point is not that they should not be laying off, is that they should not have hired this bloat in the first place, and responsibility should come from that. If you need to fire 10k people, as a CEO you should not get out unscathed from the decisions that let to having hired these people, especially if your company would remain highly profitable whether you fired them or not.

[throwayyy479087]

I’ve seen Zoomers think Tech is the safest, best job. They’ve only seen the 3 years of boom. I’ve been around for much longer - tech jobs are great but very much come and go.

In some ways we’re all consultants

[beardedman]

> In some ways we’re all consultants

Surprisingly true!

[simplotek]

> Lot of people sounding very personally slighted by companies trying to remain profitable (or just in business).

Do you really need to make an effort to figure out why employees feel slighted for being fired without notice, and specially by an employer whose profitability is not questioned?

You made it sound like only unreasonable people would be bothered by being forced out of a job while having rent/mortgage and bills to pay.

[beardedman]

I haven't made any comment on the manner, nor assumed that those "HN'ers" were the ones layed off (which I think is a bit of a stretch anyways). I'm only commenting that whenever one of these "x company lays off x people" posts get made, you have this pitchfork-party effect happening.

EDIT: added missing words

[5560675260]

It's the same industry where it's common wisdom that you should take a new, better offer every two years and change jobs. Shouldn't come as a shock that sometimes it work the other way.