I've heard it mentioned on HN that big companies use mass layoffs in bad times to cut a lot of people that the don't want but can't fire. Unless a whole department gets axed, the valuable employees are usually retained.

> > Bad candidates are more likely to laid off,

> ... mass layoffs ... cut a lot of people that the don't want ... the valuable employees are usually retained.

There's a huge difference between, "was not sufficiently valuable for prior company's developing needs," versus, "is a bad candidate."

This reminds me of the superior/inferior bias that people try to put onto evolution. "Suboptimal for its niche," does not mean, "inferior."