|
| |
| ||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
![]() |
« Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry » Could the Government Limit the Number of Layoffs a Profitable Company Could Make? Name:
Steve Eppley
Question: Obama and Geithner said they would act aggressively to fix the economy. So, why hasn't the administration limited the number of employees that profitable companies may lay off? That could help significantly by keeping the unemployment rate down, partially breaking the vicious cycle in which layoffs cause more layoffs. It would also save the government some money, unlike the other actions taken to stimulate the economy. And it would be progressive in the sense that the burden of fixing the economy would be shared by the companies most able to bear it. (The more profitable the company, the fewer employees they would be permitted to lay off.) Paul Solman: And while we're at it, why not get profitable companies to clean up the environment, treat their employees well, and serve organic food in the cafeteria? I don't mean to mock, Steve, but within certain fairly broad parameters (laws and regulations), our sort of economy lets private enterprise figure out how to make money (profits) to build their businesses while paying back investors. The more rules you make, the harder that job can become. Just imagine that you and I run a profitable cotton farm, employing workers to de-seed the cotton by hand. (Cotton is nothing more than nature's delivery system for the seeds, like so much of the world's fluff: Think dandelions.) Along comes our friend Eli with a new-fangled invention: the cotton gin. It de-seeds automatically. "Sorry, Eli, no reason to buy. Government says we can't lay off workers." So Eli goes to China, already the world's largest cotton producer, and Chinese cotton soon costs a tiny fraction of its identical American counterpart. And soon after that, of course, American cotton firms are profitable no more. It's just very hard to craft well-meaning industrial policies, Steve. It's why socialism seems so difficult to pull off in practice. And even the world's most successful "socialist" countries, like those in Scandinavia, allow companies, profitable or not, to lay off workers. It's just that those countries then SUPPORT the workers for long periods of time until they find new work -- in Denmark, up to 4 years, last I looked. -- Posted June 12, 2009 | Comments (2) | Permalink
TrackBacksListed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Could the Government Limit the Number of Layoffs a Profitable Company Could Make?. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1390 2 CommentsLeave a comment |
||
![]() |
![]() |
| ABOUT US | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS: |
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
I think most economist would call this communism?
Dear Mr. Solomon:
How about a variant? How about government placing priorities on who gets laid off first? I speak specifically about H-1B visa holders. Now, my issue is not with the foreigners themselves, but the program (I've been taught by and worked with foreigners for over 30 years).
The program has been corrupted to pit one group of workers against another; a group of hungry, but not so special, foreign workers, willing to put in 60 hour weeks for fear of being sent home; against a group of not so special local workers who have bigger demands for their out of work time. It has been demonstrated that companies who use H-1B visa workers have 5-6% lower salaries on average (and it still didn't help Sun Microsystems survive). Both sets of employees are being abused.
Since H-1B visa holders are by definition temporary workers, it makes sense that they should be laid off first, preserving employment for local employees. But the reverse is what usually happens.
I also do not like your argument above. The circumstances are way different. In a large crisis like this one, it might be appropriate to initiate temporary (one year) measures to preserve employment. A temporary measure would not have deflected Eli's invention, just like price freezes in the 70s were temporary and didn't force any more companies than usual out of business.
Thanks!