I gather there are a lot of smaller companies in the tech hubs that are happy to pay $200k+ for a former FAANG'er, and moving is hard - most people won't want to move, so they'll probably stick around in the tech hubs. And now that remote-for-everyone has transitioned into remote-for-some-hybrid-for-most, I don't think the tech workforce is as location-fluid as some might expect.
Basically I think most people who aren't FAANG'ers, living outside the hubs and making "ok" money, are probably safe from getting displaced by the layoffs. A huge amount of the layoffs aren't even really coders, lots of recruiters/HR/support staff and so on are part of this, since they were making boatloads too but for arguably more replaceable work.
As for getting displaced... I would worry about that... in 2000-2001 a lot of companies in SF/SV folded and many more shrunk workforces rapidly in tech... it hit here by the end of 2001, and was near the end of 2002 before I was working regularly again (for 30% less)...
Note: I'm sure many very talented people were caught up in this tide, too. I'm just relaying some anecdotal opinions that I've heard from hiring managers and execs in my personal and professional circles.
For other things, I think some of it is short sightedness and may or may not be good/bad. For many of these layoffs, it's probably office politics as much as anything else.
Because you axed a 400 person division and at least a few of those folks were the mythical 10X-ers.
>You'd have to be an idiot.
Maybe. There are plenty of idiots in upper management with the power to decide who stays and who goes. But back to the hypothetical 400 person division, the executive will see a spreadsheet with $$$ expenditure and -$$$ revenue and make the cut with little concern for individual abilities.
Yep. Like someone who could do it through an algorithm. Like how Google did...