That would simply mean you were under-utilized and not working up to your full productivity to begin with. It would mean that the original decision to hire that second employee was an incorrect one; the firm being led to malinvest in more labor than it really needed because of inflation and artifically low interest rates.
I've been in situations where I worked at "Full Productivity". It was during the tech bust in 2002-03, and the company could afford to abuse the hell out of their good people, because jobs were few and far between.
FWIW, "Full Productivity" for me at least, equated to 80-120 hours a week, 100% travel, no days off for a month or more at a time, a near divorce, ulcers, and ultimately, a new job as soon as one presented itself. I wasn't the only one in that boat, either.
It won't be happening again.
Now, if there were 6 people on staff who were working 40 hours a week, three get laid off, and the other three are still at 40 hours....that says to me that either the three laid off were useless, or the three remaining weren't working very hard. If that's what you meant, well, sure, that makes complete sense.
But, that's not always the case. I'm as pro-business as anyone, but I still recognize the fact that in an economic downturn, companies will push their workers a little harder. Partly because they need to, and partly because they can get away with it.
This, from a guy who's worked the past two weekends, Monday night and is already scheduled for this evening. I'm not complaining, though. They haven't hit 100 hours a week yet. :-)