Lets look back in history. In the 1990s GM had BILLIONS in profit per quarter, and yet it laid off people at a near constant pace. Yes it moved its production to Mexico and other places, but that does not change the fact, that GM had mega profits and laid off American workers at a constant pace for decades.
Lets look at today. Electrolux, one of the biggest home appliance companies in the world, had profits jump 6 fold last quarter and yet it is cutting 3000 jobs world wide, 850 in the US alone. Why? Because they are moving production to cheaper locations (aka 3rd. world countries). Again, higher profit does not mean jobs will stay in the US or Sweden (its a Swedish company)
Or how about IBM. In 2005 IBM fired 10 to 15k workers world wide, so to "improve the profit". It had a healthy profit margin already and 7 billion in the bank at the time, but it wanted more, so it fired 10 to 15k workers worldwide to save 1 billion dollars. So again your theory falls apart.
Companies downsize constantly despite higher profit or/and revenue. Usually they do it by moving the production to a 3rd world country, and they do it to up the over all profit and keep shareholders happy. Workers are never a consideration for said companies (relatively speaking). And no I aint saying it is a bad thing (or good), just pointing out a fact.
Wrong again. Companies often have increased revenue but decreased profits. Things like currency exchange rates, strikes, higher commodity costs, and so on, all hit the profit margin. For example during the 140 dollar oil period. Companies could easily have increased sales and hence revenue, but that oil price cut into profit margins considerably.2. The only way that increased revenue won't mean inreased profit, is if there is some sorta catastrophic shortfall that wasn't foreseen, or, the company was orginized in such a way to not make money, to begin with.
And then there are the companies who are bloated with cost.. GM comes to mind.