Of course, but one must acknowledge that past growth is a large (often, dominating) contributing factor to future growth.
But that's part of my question: what did they predict that merited a layoff, when their cost structure wasn't ballooning out of control, and which made the alternative of maintaining a hiring freeze throughout 2023 insufficient?
I’m guessing that a certain percentage of new hires over the past boom years aren’t working out. It’s easier to identify them and do a massive layoff than have to justify each case individually. The fact that everyone else is also laying people off gives them the cover to avoid the huge morale hit than comes with a layoff announcement.
But that's part of my question: what did they predict that merited a layoff, when their cost structure wasn't ballooning out of control, and which made the alternative of maintaining a hiring freeze throughout 2023 insufficient?