Either that or why not interview, accept a certain level of experience, and then expect to do a bit more training during the onboarding phase.

My previous two companies didn't do a great job with onboarding and I think it can be so varied and not very helpful many times.

I feel like assigning blame is neither here nor there. Leaders in these companies often look at what other companies are doing, and follow suite. There's an argument that Elon laying off 80% of twitter is another catalyst - so why companies not follow?

Ultimately, if hiring managers offered these roles because work was needed but no longer is, would you blame them for adjusting their approach?

I'm not looking to assign blame or anything, I've just seen this pattern play out in the last couple of decades. I think it's a valid theory of the current "market correction."

because A’s hire B’s that hire C’s that hire D’s /incorrect grammar

Because time-to-market matters? Because even minimally productive folks were ROI-positive in ZIRP world, but a bad idea in 8% interest world? Because Wall Street rewards growth?

Because that's how managers promote themselves...by hiring.