> Usually it’s recent hires and people who’ve been there a long stretch who get cut first, of course with lots of exceptions.

This was a bit confusing to me.

Are you saying in your experience that it is both the most senior and most junior employees (in terms of company tenure) that get laid off?

I entered the job market during the 2008 recession. I definitely experienced the "hired... and..now you're laid off" ~ as the saying goes "when times get tough, last to hire = first to fire". As for laying off senior folks -- I've seen this too; I've seen people who are senior by virtue of just having been there the longest (20+ years) and have had the most pay raises... but don't necessarily contribute as much value as someone who's been there 10 years and costs less. If you're senior and your boss knows* that you're contributing more value add than is reflected by your paycheck -- you won't be let go.

* This is one reason why you should be sure to convey your wins to your boss; when you have 1-on-1 conversations, be sure to highlight obstacles that you've overcome. You don't have to brag, but it's okay to be realistic - humble, but proud.

> that you're contributing more value add than is reflected by your paycheck -- you won't be let go

That's a very optimistic take. What usually happens is that there's an obvious bottom line improvement to laying off a few very senior people, but the impact isn't so obvious, so from the business's perspective it looks like a win.

I remember the cognitive dissonance of being an employer's rep at a job fair in 2010 and telling everyone who came up to our booth that I could take resumes, but we weren't hiring! At least I got a free lunch out of it.

Businesses don't always do what makes sense from the outside.

This exception wise might be the case but, the cost to performance is probably just less for some senior folks compared to up and coming new people. For instance if i have 10+ year employee who has received 3% cost of living raises + additional performance raises they likely have a cost/performance ratio worse than the A player with 5 years experience who wants to move up. I can promote them for a bump in salary and have someone who hasn't accumulated as much cost overtime with a similar performance. I reduced capacity, improved moral for an A player and cut cost in one decision. There would also be minimal impact moral wise to the remaining organization by hiring within. That's just my take though and I am no authority in the topic.

Why do people think oldtimers at companies get paid better than new hires?

That is the case for traditional companies, but not for tech. I worked for one company (most of the time as a manager) for almost 27 years, and never made as much as new hires at most tech companies. My company got an insane bargain with me, and my whole team, and they knew it.

I don't think that cost is the reason that companies like firing older folks.

HR only understands years of service sometimes. I've seen business analysts doing entry level work with nearly no responsibilities and making ~$140k. It's insane. No matter how much the rest of the company complains, those people are safe until layoffs come.

Some people just barely do their work but are kept on because they are good for the team/team spirit. I've seen a lot of those people getting axed in 2008.