Is that something that's usually rewarded by Wall Street? I would think being more efficient (ie. making more money with less employees) would be viewed as more successful.
Yes it is, people are an asset in a growth company and not a liability. The ability for Alphabet to survive is to continue to innovate and go into new areas, and that always needs more, new, people. Also if Google has X % of the top new grads joining that’s X % who aren’t joining their competitors etc
There is a principle (some claim it holds true in pretty much every case) that in a company of N people only square root of N are doing all the work. So if you are a 4 person company you need to hire 12 more to double your output. if you are a company with 10 000 employees you will need to hire 30 000 more to double your output :)
May show, especially with such a strong company, intended growth and development within new territories which in turn, can mean new opportunities (Cloud, Waymo, etc.)
