Lack of health care during a worldwide medical emergency could outright destroy the lives of those you lay off should they or their families get sick and require medical intervention.
Are you trying to give guidance to startups to lay off? Why not advocate for pay cuts instead, that way they can keep their healthcare? I think most would be understanding.
Lives are worth immeasurably more than the businesses at risk.
> I wrote this letter to myself because I know what I would do differently 12 years ago and I have the benefit of hindsight now.
> keep in mind what ended up happening 12 years ago is that everyone lost their jobs
That's my fear for this pandemic, too. It's a really awful situation.
Stay safe.
Alternatively:
If the business goes under, all employees will suffer. If some are laid off and the business continues to survive, those that make it will be spared.
So from a harm reduction point of view, laying nobody off is probably worse than laying some people off.
Even if you reduce pay, people may not be able to afford housing even though they're still working for you (e.g. in the bay area). And health benefits still cost the same even if you reduce other employee associated costs.
Things are not as simple as (I'm interpreting) you're implying they are. It's not black and white, and the decision needs to be made on a case by case basis.
Is all going down together a better outcome?
I posted an article earlier today about expanded unemployment benefits in the US. It's not a founder's job to provide a nanny state (so to speak). It's the job of government to look out for the people in that way.
If you don't have the money, you don't have the money.