A layoff fundamentally changed how I perceive work

I've been in high tech for 30 years, and I've been laid off many times, most often from failed start ups. I _strongly_ disagree with a fully cynical response of working only to contract, leveraging job offers for raises, etc.

There are a few reasons for this, but the most concrete is that your behavior in this job has an impact on getting the next one. The author is correct that exemplary performance will not save you from being laid off, but when layoffs come your next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before. If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles. If people think you are a hired gun who only does the bare minimum that next role will be harder to find.

On top of that, carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you. Pride in good work and pleasure in having an impact on customers and coworkers is good for you. Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.

To be sure, don't give your heart away to a company (I did that exactly once, never again) because a company will never love you back. But your co-workers will.

You are touching on what I would classify as two different kinds of layoffs.

If you're working for a startup, a layoff is a likely outcome. Most startups fail. Those that don't often end up pivoting, often more than once, and cutting costs tends to go hand in hand with that.

Layoffs from big tech companies is a relatively new phenomenon, really only since the pandemic, and they're fundamentally different. It's actually the sort of thing that Corporate America has been doing for decades. In this case, big tech companies make money hand over fist yet they have layoffs, typically ~5% of the workforce every year.

These layoffs will be perpetual because the reasons for them aren't around controlling costs, avoiding bankruptcy or any of the "normal" reasons for layoffs. The goal is suppress labor costs. People fearful for their jobs aren't demanding raises or better benefits. Plus you can dump the work the 5% were doing onto the remaining 95% who won't say no because they're fearful for their own jobs. And that's the point.

The veneer of tech companies being mavericks who were employee-focused is completely over. A lot of the "perks", which are really just part of your cojmpensation package, are getting and will continue to get cut or just made worse through less funding. At some point, you'll start getting charged for those "free" meals.

In 10 years, all the big tech companies will be indistinguishable from Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman.

Actual salaries haven't fallen. The point of paying those salaries is you have to earn every penny. If they overhire and a bunch of people start taking the money for granted, that breaks down the social contract

Half of the perks e.g. sabbaticals or sleeping pods don't even make sense in a competitive working environment

Compensation gets attacked in a number of ways.

Your base salary won't tend to drop but at the same time you'll get an annual 1.5% increase when inflation is 9% and the company made $300 billion in profits last year.

Bonuses for normal employees (below VP) are essentially formulaic at most big tech companies, for the most part. So if you're a senior SWE with a 15% bonus target, well that's based on yoru base salary. It hasn't gone down in nominal terms but it has in real terms.

Also, depending on your company, there's a pool of discretionary funds on top of the formula. Your bonus can even be taken away and given to someone else on the team (yes, this happens). How big is that pool? Has it increased over time? Decreased? Or stayed the same? On a per-employee basis. You don't have visibility into that unless you're a manager.

Next is stock compensation. Your initial grant is obviously known. Annual refreshes if you get them tend to be formulaic too. But what about discretionary grants? That's where the big money is. How much is being thrown around in total? Is it going up or down over time? You have no visibility into that.

All of the above have, as input, your performance ratings. There are quotas for each performance level at a certain level (usually 150+ people or director level) so not everyone gets Greatly Exceeds Expectations. What are the quotas ("target percentages") for each bucket? Has that changed over time? Some compoanies now have targets for subpar ratings (ie ratings below "Meets Expectations"). It's the pipeline for getting rid of people and getting people to do more for the same money.

So technically you have to do more now to maintain a Meets Expectation rating than you did 5 or 10 years ago. Is that a pay cut?

And then we have promotions. The typical way this works is a company will divide promotion candidates into pools. A promotion committee will essentially rank the packets they have. At a certain level there is a quota for promotions to hand out. Those get distributed to those from the top down until there are no promotions left to give out.

Companies have allegedly reduced costs by simply reducing the promotion target percentages / quotas.

And then there are all the benefits that have a tendency to get worse over time. Health sinsurance, 401k matching and less tangible benefits like food, facilities and so on.