So you are saying they shouldn't have given those 30k people a job to begin with? I don't know if that's any better.

> So you are saying they shouldn't have given those 30k people a job to begin with? I don't know if that's any better.

For the long term health of the company it's near a certainty that would have been better. The effects of adding ~20K then laying off 30K in such a relatively small period of time are gonna be felt for years

	▲	nedt a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. I'm just also thinking about the human side that is discussed here so often and having a more pessimistic view on hiring might be bad for the job market. Especially in countries that are not considered a social state. So while it's not good for the company itself it might not be so bad for people overall if those billionaire companies are wasting some of their money - at least until investors start to complain.