Most of the hiring snafus at Google are because they use a large population of temp recruiters, whose contracts may not be renewed before the candidates they're sponsoring get offers. When that happens, the candidates are often left in limbo.
When there's a recession, all the temps are laid off, and you only get the permanent recruiters who now fear for their jobs. They are extra incentivized to a.) make sure the candidate gets through the process, so that they have a reason for their job to exist and b.) make sure the candidate has a good experience, so they get a commendation. And c.) they're all experienced, so you don't get the kind of gratuitous screw-ups you might with temps.
The hiring bar is higher during down cycles, but that can also work in your favor as well; your resume doesn't just show "Worked at Google", it shows "Started at Google when nobody was hiring", and you occasionally get comments like "So how long you been at Google? Oh, that means you started in...January 2009, wow, you must be smart to have gotten through the hiring process then."
This is a bad idea: there was a hiring stop at the down-cycle and Google tried to cut costs while keeping all engineers. (the biggest change that I felt was that bottled mineral water was changed to ultra-clean water from the river in Zurich).
Yeah, you'll know it when you see it. Some indicators:
The press never writes articles on startups, except to report their demise.
Everybody is seemingly in hiring freeze at once. (But don't let that stop you! Many times, companies that are reported to be "in hiring freeze" are actually still hiring for the right candidate.)
VC firms start telling their portfolio companies to conserve cash, shutter lines of business, and lay off people.
Plans for new corporate headquarters are shelved indefinitely.
You start hearing "Well, at least I still have a job" from friends.
You start hearing "Fuck, I just got laid off. Can I crash at your place for a month while I find a cheaper apartment?" from friends.
Searching for new jobs starts to seem dauntingly frightening - what if they go under? (In the context of this thread, this is ridiculous - Google is not going under.)
Most of the hiring snafus at Google are because they use a large population of temp recruiters, whose contracts may not be renewed before the candidates they're sponsoring get offers. When that happens, the candidates are often left in limbo.
When there's a recession, all the temps are laid off, and you only get the permanent recruiters who now fear for their jobs. They are extra incentivized to a.) make sure the candidate gets through the process, so that they have a reason for their job to exist and b.) make sure the candidate has a good experience, so they get a commendation. And c.) they're all experienced, so you don't get the kind of gratuitous screw-ups you might with temps.
The hiring bar is higher during down cycles, but that can also work in your favor as well; your resume doesn't just show "Worked at Google", it shows "Started at Google when nobody was hiring", and you occasionally get comments like "So how long you been at Google? Oh, that means you started in...January 2009, wow, you must be smart to have gotten through the hiring process then."