> I guess I just dont understand where that assumption comes from.
It comes from multiple people in this post, so it might be worth just asking them, if you want to find out. I'm sure the posters are willing to answer a good faith question.
>I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI.
I have not seen this, but there are assumptions that the employees fired were somehow unprofitable. Perhaps at another company, this might be a safer assumption. In this case, it's more likely the action was irrational, impulsive, and drug- and/or ego-fueled. We'd need some evidence that they were fired because they were worth less than they cost, to make that assumption.
It comes from multiple people in this post, so it might be worth just asking them, if you want to find out. I'm sure the posters are willing to answer a good faith question.
>I guess this is part of a greater pet-peeve where every time a layoff comes up the predominant sentiment is either: 1) that the workers are productive revenue generators and the company is stupid and less informed than random outsiders or 2) employment should not be contingent on the employer ROI.
I have not seen this, but there are assumptions that the employees fired were somehow unprofitable. Perhaps at another company, this might be a safer assumption. In this case, it's more likely the action was irrational, impulsive, and drug- and/or ego-fueled. We'd need some evidence that they were fired because they were worth less than they cost, to make that assumption.