Bear in mind that different countries have different interpretations. I'm guessing you're all arguing about a US view. In the UK, "fired" would mean that you lost your job because you did something seriously wrong.
That is how I view it in the US as well. My fault? Fired. The company's fault (or "nobody's")? Laid off.
There's a distinction in HR. Colloquially, "fired" means "involuntary dismissal of any sort."
Edit: To be clear, by colloquially I mean how people tend to use the word in practice.
In either case you're here today but gone tomorrow. They're the same but the excuse is different.
There is some difference. Fired with cause means no unemployment benefits. Laid off and you qualify to receive benefits.
Hm. Yes, it actually does. It's just a nice way of putting it.
Fired - removed from your position "for cause" - can be performance, breaking company policy etc.
Laid off - company's business situation has changed and does not require your services anymore - no fault of yours.
I've literally never heard anyone make that distinction.
It's a pretty important distinction as it can decide whether you qualify for unemployment or not.
My impression is that there is a legal issue in calling something a layoff, in that the position has to have been eliminated.
I believe you don't qualify for unemployment insurance if you are fired, as opposed to laid off.
Yeah that's the basic difference, but I believe there's also something accounting-ish or tax-y about it, too.
This is not accurate. Getting fired versus laid-off are different; it's important to understand this. For one, if you're communicating with a professional and express that you were fired, they will make much different assumptions than if you were laid-off. Second, the distinction can affect your eligibility for employment insurance (or 'unemployment').