The one where tech companies fire a bunch of people and are about to regret it because hiring is slow and costly. If they can't figure out what to do with their money then obviously they're not being taxed enough.
>fire a bunch of people and are about to regret it because hiring is slow and costly.
Let me play the devil's advocate: Not if they manage to fire the low performers, bad hires, or those who are a poor fit actively hurting progress or those who are dead weight. Every big company has those people. It would be crazy to deny this fact. Especially in big companies where there's a disconnect between what's needed in the trenches and what the companies actually hire.
Some people have been poor hires that slipped through the hiring process. And some are just dead weight because they have nothing to do because they have been hired in the post Covid money printing boom with an insane growth in mind, growth which never happened last year and might not happen this year either (at least in most of Europe). Ultimately, every company has poor fits, so why keep them around?
I remember in one company, a project was getting delayed and they kept hiring more and more people thinking that would speed things up (you know, the classical have 9 pregnant women deliver a baby in one month joke), but the excessive hiring was actually leading to more delays, and an exec asked "how many more people should we hire to speed things up?" and my boss said "no, we gotta let some people go if you actually want to speed things up". We need to admit that some hires end up being dead weight or actively holding back progress so getting rid of them would actually improve things.
So, paying employees you don't need high six figure wages for a couple of slow years to sit around and do nothing just so you're prepared for the next money printing bull run is a poor unsustainable financial decision that no companies, other than those with massive war chests, like Google for example, can sustain.
>Usually the actual workers get fired, not the deadweight managers and support staff.
You've never been in a large, rich, inefficient company with plenty of useless "actual workers" doing nothing all day? I have several friends at large companies barley doing one hour of work per day. And no, they're not 10x devs.
The thing is, due to the great economy and infinetly abundant free money there was never any real reason for these companies to let go of the "actual workers" that were doing nothing so they kept on hiring regardless. Now they hired too much and the free money dried up, and so they need to cut the ballast loose before they sink.
Wow - even compared to other crap articles about this subject the last few weeks, this one was amazingly weak.
The 'journalist' quotes the "founder of the Fear Group, international property developers and investors" and the "chief executive of the Partnership for New York City" on the supposed reasons why people will be forced back to the office, before doing some fence-sitting about how remote work is both more productive and more satisfying for employees, as well as potentially saving companies money.
Not sure how many more of these ChatGPT-written articles about this subject we need to see?
They can keep offices empty only for so long before the costs start to mount and they need to lower prices or remodel to them into housing.