Hold on here. How can you call making cuts to keep from bleeding money, taking from the poor?
Oh I dunno cutting people from jobs means they have no (or limited) money. A rich dude will cut 10 guys on the floor before he takes a cut in pay.
(its not so much taking from the poor as it is helping to create poor in the first place.) Edited, Nov 22nd 2011 2:12pm by rdmcandie
That's stupid. New technologies may replace a person in one place but they only spur on more technology elsewhere.
If the company can make more widgets for less money with a robot, then the price of the widget comes down and the guy who's out the job can now save enough money to go to school to learn to be a robot repairman.
The company selling the robots needs techs and engineers and scientists to develop better robots, etc, etc.
True, but not all jobs can be filled by all workers. The development of self-checkout systems probably created way fewer jobs than it has costed. Like a fraction of a percent.
I don't think that would be an issue if we had a system that could provide for those people who lost their jobs. But the fact is that our system pretty much says "tough luck, you have 2 months to find a new job."
And when the entirety of your job experience is in retail... Well, it's not like you have options right now.
It's also important to flesh out the whole story, imo.
Let's say a CEO cuts 10 jobs because he realized that they weren't increasing company profits at all. This can because they decrease profits or because they break even. If they are decreasing profits, it's much easier to justify keeping them.
But what if they are bringing as much as it costs to keep them? Yeah, the company is going to see no difference if they go (beyond having slightly less paperwork), but it seriously hurts the worker.
But let's say they ARE decreasing profits. Well, why is that? Are they not doing their jobs, or is it because their jobs aren't as useful as others? A janitor can bust his *** every night and still mean very little for the company's profits. I mean, instead of having two people deep cleaning the building, you can have one person monitor trash areas, bathrooms, floors and windows. And, other than that, require employees to keep their work area clean.
Did that person deserve to lose their job? I don't think so.
Either way, I don't think the CEO deserves a bonus for it. At least not when every other employee isn't going to see anything from it. And remember that layoffs are always bad for morale in an office, so it's not like it doesn't influence them as well.
But, again, this wouldn't be an issue if laying them off didn't royally fu
ck them, which isn't really the employer's fault. And I deliberately chose a job that didn't require much training. Now imagine that you have a masters in engineering. Oh, don't want to flip burgers while 80k in debt? Lazy *******.