It is now. It started when Facebook would make a really big deal about their productivity per employee as a way of showing the incredible efficiency of their technology.

I worked at reddit at the time, and we laughed because ours was double Facebook's, despite the fact that we weren't even doing very well. But we also had very few people.

So the calculation doesn't really work at very small numbers, and also doesn't account for expenses.

There's been some talk about how reddit is seriously undervalued, and I'm leaning more towards believing it, now.

I know when I'm looking for an authoritative answer to something I often append 'site:reddit.com' to my search - and I think younger generations are, if anything, moving more in that direction.

In general yes but obviously nuanced. Gives you a sense of scalability

Well, it's a philosophical conundrum.

If a business has enough money to hire more people (revenues per employee is proxy). It should do so as long as it can recoup the investment.

If a business already has thousands of people sitting around doing nothing, should it continue to hire more?

There are a near infinite amount of small optimizations and extensions in global businesses that can pay for themselves, so technically it should always hire... but should it really?