If you've managed more than 20 people in your life, I'm gonna go ahead and guess at least one (5%) of them wasn't a good performer. That doesn't mean they're a bad person or that they don't deserve a job, it just means they're not doing well at the job they were hired for. Someone who is truly unable to do their job makes everyone's lives harder and they'd probably be better off doing something else in the long run.

I can also tell you from experience that loads of managers lack the grit required to fire even the most toxic employee. If you've ever worked with someone who you wished would just get fired, then maybe you'd have been better off if your company practiced occasional layoffs. If you've never worked with someone like that... are you hiring?

Edit: I think I misinterpreted your comment. Of course, layoffs don't only target low performers and typically have a lot more to do with corporate restructuring. Low performers just get bundled in to kill two birds with one stone.

How so?

Not sure about Microsoft, but laying off the lowest performing 2-5% each year is a pretty standard practice in tech. It allows managers and HR to avoid the lengthy one at a time performance management and firing process which can easily take over a year while also giving folks 2-to-4 months severence so they have time to find a new job. With ~3% unemployment in tech and Microsoft on their resume, these folks will land on their feet.

MS added 40k jobs in 2022 alone, so this is really a pretty small correction. It's crazy how fast hiring has ramped up in tech during the pandemic.

Cool video. I've always been curious about the old relics of the railroad systems in the bay and what things looked like back in those days.

The war on Christmas goes waaaay back, lol.