To the extent it doesn’t overly impact institutional knowledge, etc. hiring/firing should be FIFO, if you want to minimize costs. Hire new people, train them up, fire (some) experienced people that cost more.
Whether that’s a “good” property of the system or not, I suppose depends at some level on how you feel about capitalism. Should a business owner be allowed to fire an employee to maximize their company’s value, and eventually their own income?
Yes, I have had it happen very clearly a few times. It’s always my father’s voice. I’ve also heard a snare drum once and a shopping cart crash once; both were so clear, and so clearly hallucinations, that they’ve stuck with me for decades.
I don’t know what that would do with feeling no sympathy? It’s a pain to hire internationally. Not like a huge one, but for non-enterprise if really is a burden.
> your executive leadership would run you over with their cars if you stood between them and revenue growth.
This is ridiculous. I’m sure such sociopaths exist but there’s literally 30MM+ companies in the US. If only 1MM have an executive team this proposes there are millions of near murderers about. Pretty sure there’d be more murders.
It’s stupidly hyperbolic and actually implicitly assumes that which it purports to reject. Namely, it conflates job loss with death, giving companies more agency over your life than they actually have; the phrasing ignores its own first statement, in pursuit of clickbait nonsense.
It is nevertheless eminently possible to walk and bike more.