I don't really get these takes. Why would any company keep more employees than they need? It's not a charity. Shareholders, who ultimately foot the bill for all those incredibly juicy RSU packages, expect management to pursue to greatest ROI.
And HN has been saying for years that these companies are extremely bloated (insert generic "how does Company X need Y engineers?").
> Why would any company keep more employees than they need?
Why would any company hire more employees than it needs? Do you really think the amount of work at Google has declined?
If Google didn't need them they shouldn't have hired them in the first place.
Same applies to all the big tech companies that hire boatloads of people and then have major layoffs. Exceptions apply to companies that are actually still fighting to survive or who have massive _declines_ in profits but a lot of the time the layoffs are just a "protect profits" measure, not a "we didn't need them" measure.
There is, of course, a separate discussion to be had around "do big companies really need _thousands_ of employees?" but by their own thinking the answer is yes, so they did need to hire them, and thus the question to them is "Why was protecting literal billions in profits more important than protecting the people who you employed? Why do you think you'd be worse off with those people you claimed to need, but 1 billion less 'profit' ? "
> Do you really think the amount of work at Google has declined?
Yes I do. The pandemic changed everything for tech companies. Now it's over. It's not that there are less things to do, but there is less urgency, so there's less to do right now.
There are a bunch of issues that others have said, but my primary one is vaguely semi-moral: is it reasonable to give someone a job, and then lay them off when they become inconvenient even if they are still doing that job? If someone knows that this is what you’re planning on doing, do you think that would impact their opinion on whether they should take the job? Or the minimum comp they’d require?
So while I do think it is reasonable for a company to lay off people if they aren’t needed (product cancellation, etc), I don’t think that makes overhiring is reasonable, if that is your plan.
Especially given you’re planning to do this at the same that their options for alternative employment are going to be reduced.
> Why would any company keep more employees than they need?
Because layoffs severely damage morale and make hiring significantly more difficult. Sometimes it's cheaper to just slow down hiring and let people leave naturally.
And (especially in the case of the top tech companies, like Google, MS, and Amazon) as a hedge against the competition.
Employee X may be under-performing relative to their peers, but if they're still going to perform 1.2X the average of your closest competition were they to change companies, you pay them to keep their ass out of the other guy's seat.
> Employers keep people employed as a bargaining chip with the government.
I said this in a comment above, but the question was rhetorical.
If you are using employees as a bargaining chip with the government, then by definition these are employees that you need (not sure I fully understand this hypothetical though).
No, they are inessential staff being kept as a bargaining tool. As soon as the tool becomes ineffective, they will be fired. They are the opposite of necessary.
It's arithmetic, not an opinion. RSUs dilute shareholders.
I'm not suggesting they are stealing profit, I'm saying they have earned a share of the profits. That's literally the point of share awards: to align management with shareholders.
And HN has been saying for years that these companies are extremely bloated (insert generic "how does Company X need Y engineers?").