I saw GP's arguments less as guesses and more as statistical probabilities. We are discussing layoffs, which is a socio-economic topic after all. So unlike Physics, you should expect probabilistic reasoning here.
Regarding conviction / sincerity, do you see any problem with any of the 4 arguments GP presents? If so, let's discuss that instead of just ad-hominems.
Really? Let's go one by one.
1. "Cuts are companies preparing for recession. We are long overdue for a down cycle and every indicator says its here or on its way." - we are indeed overdue for a down cycle. COVID could have been that but it was short lived due to massive stimuli. And all the traditional indicators (like yield curve, fed's statements) are pointing towards a recession (empirical evidence, as you ask).
2. "Workers increased salaries were passed to consumers. No problem until consumers stop purchasing. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT" - there is empirical evidence right there in that line.
3. "In a recession cash flow is everything. For most companies labor is the largest variable element of cash flow." - first part is objectively true. No cash flow, no viable business. And for second part, just go read the 10-Q's. It has labor costs spelled out.
4. "Wages don't go down. Not that they cannot, they just don't. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ECIWAG" - again, GP is cognizant of possibilities and says so. And also provides evidence.
What are you really objecting to?