It's hard to tell the difference between "stop the bleeding" title/pay inflation and "aggressively competing for talent" inflation.
Meta is ~$2M/employee. Probably more like $1M once contractors are accounted for? But for a good person, even if the rest of the company has random issues, they can carve out a win.
Fast was like $1K/employee
Consider what that's like for some hypothetical B2B startup BlitzScaler Inc. They're betting on 3x+ growth year-over-year for next 2+ years, 2-3 year sales payback periods, etc, and is probably closer to Fast levels of revenue per employee than Meta's. But hitting $500K is hard, $2M is hard again in different ways, then again to $10M, and again to $20M+ (and increasing range depending if many sales people inflating it). That matters because many aren't there, even unicorns (!). That means, like Uber, they're burning increasing piles of money, except unlike Uber, the revenue is unlikely to be keeping pace. Fundraising buys team, and an artificial sense of fit+growth (kool-aid-drinking team + forced sales that tap out + churn.)
A cockroach team is closer to Amazon style: reinvest ~100% in growth, but don't gamble your employee's stock options.
What could be a legitimate reason for giving silly titles? If it were a startup, it would be a huge red flag for an auditor.