What don't you understand about it? The part where people need money to buy food and shelter or the part where not everyone is a tech worker that can have multiple, better job offers in a week or so.
Some parts of the country have very few jobs for anyone in any field, and the jobs that exist pay so shitty that its very difficult to move to a place with better prospect (which in most cases will have the added drawback of removing you from any kind of support system you might have had with family+friends).
You can adopt the modern, warped version of libertarian philosophy that says "its not my problem", but most people don't like living in a world where people lose their houses so a rich guy can make a few million dollars extra.
There are times where its necessary to lay people off. Hell, this might have been one of them. But even if it was, the guy didn't have to be such a douchebag about it.
If you value community, society and loyalty, then what they did is bad.
If you value profits?/money?/greed?, then perhaps you are right.
Many would feel that reducing the world to no more than the efficacy of fiscal transactions and it all becomes worth pretty much nothing. There is so much more to life.
Speaking of profits/money/greed, would you also despise a person who cancels their Spotify subscription? Because it's the same situation in reverse – someone stops paying for somebody else's services. Would you blame such person for being greedy? Would you moralise them that there is much more to life than the money they'll save?
I felt the same way until I became very ill and rely on my job for healthcare and remaining alive. Millions of Americans are in similar situations where being out of work for any amount of time is financially ruinous.
What full time jobs give is a sense of security, a community, a sense of belonging. It's not simply a trade of time for money, it's where people build friendships and identity.
It's also quite disrespectful to treat people as disposable. They built up the company, not the boss. To fire 95% of a company, the ones who got them there, that's... cruel.
I believe it would be more cruel to the rest of us if an employer was required to keep unnecessary employees just so that they can benefit from sense of security and community. It would be terribly inefficient and hurt the economy.
And it's unfair to discredit the success of employer only because employees did the majority of the jobs. The key here is that managers do the most important jobs and take more risks.
My dad was really tight with money, to the extent that after he died my mum couldn’t remember him taking her out for even a birthday meal. He was not poor.
If the social norms for a business environment make most labour casual service provision, I’m OK with attitudes like yours. On the other hand, if social norms say “jobs are for life” and blame those who lose their jobs for that loss, then I find it… selfish.
(I wouldn’t say “evil”, but that’s because of too long in philosophy lessons; it is where I imagine a neural net classifier would be bouncing around a lot).