> Obviously companies should not care about the their stock dropping massively in the last year, rates going up and consumer spending reducing. The layoffs is just copycat behavior.
I agree that the article seems overly dismissive about the macro changes, but I think your argument (like so many other comments dismissing the article itself in this thread) is orthogonal to its point, which is arguing against the concept of layoffs itself. If you actually read the article, its whole point is challenging that layoffs should be the hammer that companies reach for in the toolbox whenever recessions (or at the present, rumors of recession) loom.
The social contagion theory in the article applies both to whether there's a reason to do layoffs at all (which you and many others disagree with, that's fine) and whether layoffs are the appropriate response (which I'm not seeing many responses to, other than the discussion of doing company-wide compensation cuts as an alternative to layoffs).
If you actually read the article, it's mostly arguing against using layoffs even if there might be something to respond to:
> Academic studies have shown that time and time again, workplace reductions don’t do much for paring costs. Severance packages cost money, layoffs increase unemployment insurance rates, and cuts reduce workplace morale and productivity as remaining employees are left wondering, “Could I be fired too?”
> Layoffs often do not cut costs, as there are many instances of laid-off employees being hired back as contractors, with companies paying the contracting firm. Layoffs often do not increase stock prices, in part because layoffs can signal that a company is having difficulty. Layoffs do not increase productivity. Layoffs do not solve what is often the underlying problem, which is often an ineffective strategy, a loss of market share, or too little revenue. Layoffs are basically a bad decision.
And so on. The article definitely cites more than one source for that, even some of it is anecdotal, such as Southwest not doing layoffs after 9/11, or the words of this CEO or not. But the point is that your criticism misses the point of the article.
If I were to write an article about a current hot topic and the title is a question, such as "Why are there so many individuals abusing opiates, should we be worried?". Then, in the first paragraph I said, "the answer is simple, copycat behavior". I would not expect anyone read anything beyond that point.
The main question has been answered, in the worst kind of way. This isn't a black and white issue caused by a single thing. It is laughable really.
I think the article has flawed framing and it is rather sensationalist journalism in that respect. I disagree that, even in that flawed frame, that the main question has been answered. Even if the cause of layoffs is not copycat behavior, the article attempts to argue that the use of layoffs (as opposed to cutting wages, etc.) is copycat behavior.
And it does feel convincing in the sense that it seems like many companies are choosing to respond to a problem in an identical way, which rather undercuts the tech industry's claims and culture of innovation and disruption and out of the box thinking.
> Obviously companies should not care about the their stock dropping massively in the last year, rates going up and consumer spending reducing. The layoffs is just copycat behavior.
I agree that the article seems overly dismissive about the macro changes, but I think your argument (like so many other comments dismissing the article itself in this thread) is orthogonal to its point, which is arguing against the concept of layoffs itself. If you actually read the article, its whole point is challenging that layoffs should be the hammer that companies reach for in the toolbox whenever recessions (or at the present, rumors of recession) loom.
The social contagion theory in the article applies both to whether there's a reason to do layoffs at all (which you and many others disagree with, that's fine) and whether layoffs are the appropriate response (which I'm not seeing many responses to, other than the discussion of doing company-wide compensation cuts as an alternative to layoffs).
If you actually read the article, it's mostly arguing against using layoffs even if there might be something to respond to:
> Academic studies have shown that time and time again, workplace reductions don’t do much for paring costs. Severance packages cost money, layoffs increase unemployment insurance rates, and cuts reduce workplace morale and productivity as remaining employees are left wondering, “Could I be fired too?”
> Layoffs often do not cut costs, as there are many instances of laid-off employees being hired back as contractors, with companies paying the contracting firm. Layoffs often do not increase stock prices, in part because layoffs can signal that a company is having difficulty. Layoffs do not increase productivity. Layoffs do not solve what is often the underlying problem, which is often an ineffective strategy, a loss of market share, or too little revenue. Layoffs are basically a bad decision.
And so on. The article definitely cites more than one source for that, even some of it is anecdotal, such as Southwest not doing layoffs after 9/11, or the words of this CEO or not. But the point is that your criticism misses the point of the article.