In a healthy company, I would expect every employee to contribute to the bottom line, either directly or indirectly. They hired these people because they needed them to do a job, a job that somehow helps making the company money.
As such, unless there are sudden significant changes to the market and product (which as far as I can tell is not the case here), firing employees should result in lower revenues. After all, employees generate more money than they cost, that's the entire point of employees.
This leaves me with a bunch of questions when I read things like this:
1) If the company can get by without these people, what were they doing in the first place? 2) If these people did not contribute to the bottom line (directly or indirectly) what was the point in hiring them? 3) If they did contribute, why let them go?