So the thing about all large layoffs is that there is actually some non-obvious calculus behind them.

One thing for instance, is that typically in the time period soon after layoffs, there is some increased attrition in the surviving employees, for a multitude of reasons. So if you layoff X people you actually end up with X + Y lower headcount shortly after. There are also considerations like regulations.

What this means is that planning layoffs has multiple moving parts:

1) The actual monetary amount to cut -- it all starts with $$$;

2) The absolute number of headcount that translates to;

3) The expected follow-on attrition rate;

4) The severance (if any) to offer;

5) The actual headcount to cut with a view of the attrition and severance;

6) Local labor regulations (e.g. WARN) and their impact, monetary or otherwise;

7) Consideration, impact on internal morale and future recruitment.

So it's a bit like tuning a dynamic system with several interacting variables at play

Now the interesting bit of tea here is that in the past couple of years, the follow-on (and all other) attrition has absolutely plummeted, which has thrown the standard approaches all out of whack. So companies are struggling a bit to "tune" their layoffs and attrition.

I had an exec frankly tell me this after one of the earliest waves of layoffs a couple years ago, and I heard from others that this was happening across the industry. Sure enough, there have been more and more seemingly haphazard waves of layoffs and the absolute toxicity this has introduced into corporate culture.

Due to all this and the overal economy and labor market, employee power has severely weakened, so things like morale and future recruitment are also lower priorities.

Given all this calculus, a company can actually save quite some money (severance) and trouble if people quit by themselves, with minimal negative repercussions.

Not quite moustache-twirling but not quite savory either.