Right now there's a misaligned incentive to perform layoffs in order to appease investors (including those in the boardroom) and pump the stock price even if the company is doing well.
It's in the best interest of the shareholders that the CEO of a failing company either have faith that it will turn around or negotiate an acquisition. I don't believe this is the case with current executive compensation structures.
And at least this penalty would be an incentive towards shrinking the company via attrition instead of disrupting the lives of thousands of employees and shocking the labour market.
Also, stock value definitely needs to be in the equation. It makes no sense to fire people if the company's valuation is increasing and thus stockholders are getting richer.
If they are right, then isn't the job of management, in a principle fundamental to the US economic system, to follow their wishes? Management doesn't have to do whatever investors ask for, but there is no real justification for them to do something which is both against their wishes and against the interests of the company.
If they are wrong, then surely the problem is that most US companies are having their decision-making driven by a group of people who are paramount but who are making misguided or misinformed decisions. Any tweaking of the exact incentives which doesn't solve this problem is both a distraction and subject to the law of unintended consequences.
Note that I am not strongly in favor of either sweeping layoffs or of the specific US variant of capitalism in general. I just think that one should be honest about to what extent problems are unavoidable to the extent that one cleaves to a given system.
It’s better to have loved and to have lost than to never have loved at all.
I would much rather have been hired at AWS in mid 2020 (which I was), make over six figures more over the next two years than I would have anywhere locally (I work remotely) and gotten laid off (I haven’t) than not be hired at all.
I too work remotely making more than I would locally, and I left my previous company for a new place only to be laid off six months later. I would far rather not been hired into the new company and still be where I was at than suddenly job hunting (I have plenty of runway, I should be fine).
Well, in my specific case do you know of any other major tech company that would have hired me to consult other enterprise companies on how to develop on top of AWS?
> and I left my previous company for a new place only to be laid off six months later. I would far rather not been hired into the new company and still be where I was at than suddenly job hunting (I have plenty of runway, I should be fine).
I changed jobs 6 times between 2012-2020. I stay prepared to interview.
Those that ignore that rule become heavily fined.