The answer to that is easy: Quantity < Quality... Less quality guys will make a better product in the same amount of time as a horde of code monkeys.
Which goes back to implying the people laid off were underperformers. Brad said before they were laid off through no fault of their own.
In my field at least, we just count on losing $100,000 per every headcount of turnover. That's recruiting costs, admin overhead, training, lost productivity time (because you're paying them salary & benefits over a period where they're too new to contribute much), etc.. And that's just for attrition. These are layoffs, where there's a serious hit to morale, severance, and lost productivity in addition to that, and all at the worst possible time.
That raises my eyebrow right there, why you couldn't just reassign and/or re-train the talented people you're proud of whom you already have. And then you hire big-name type people, which personally strikes me as buying the name. Similar to buying the really cool Abercrombie & Fitch and Calvin Kleins at the fashion store. That's something you do when you've got money to burn. When you're on a budget, you stick to your Old Navy and your Levi's jeans--or even better, the cheapest jeans out there are the pair you've already got.
I mean, Jon, Derek, Dave and all are here. It's done, you have to welcome them and work with them. They're certainly not complaining that it gave them a job. But--WTH???
