The cycle in 2 previous recessionary periods (1990's and 2000 dot come crash) were very similar.  There is little to suspect the principles will be the different. However there are a couple of marked differences.  So firstly the sequence of the cycle is:

1. Easy cost cuts: contractors OUT, with the good ones taking any available permenant roles

2. More painful cost cutting: redundancies of permenant staff

3. Realisation that need critical resource: hire contractors as block on permenant staff recruitment

4. Contractors too expensive in long term roles: once the roles are established as needed long term, recruit permenant 

So what are the differences:

1. No idea how long to get from 2. to 3. in the above cycle

2. Before it was the 'oldies' that went. Why? Because they were more expensive (salary, benefits, pensions). But benefits have disappeard and young upstarts are earning more.  So now less cost disparity.

3. In previous recessions companies realised laying off 'oldies' lost a huge amount of experience. But a quick, short, sharp dip meant you needed the young blood on the upturn. A long term recession needs experienced, steady hands'