Instead of laying off people...

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
... why don't employers reduce hours? Unemployment is 5%? I don't think anyone would mind working 5% less in exchange for full employment.
 

optoman

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 1999
4,181
0
0
It won't help to work 5% less because most companies still pay the same amount for benefits. You would have to cut workers pay by around 15-20% before you would see a 5% cost reduction per worker.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
An employee is more than just an hourly wage or monthly salary. They are also benefits, space, and equipment.
 

Toasthead

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,621
0
0
you are assuming that all unemployed people WANT TO work. You are also assuming that all unemployed people share the same skill set. There are LOTS of unemployed people who have little to no skills and would be unable to do a lot of jobs.

also employees cost companies a lot of money. Having 100 95% time workers would cost a company a lot more than having 95 100% workers.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Americans have created a dog eat dog world that's turned everybody into dogs. Dogs worry about their share, not the welfare of the next guy. Any softness could be fatal. Unemploynent can be ended overnight by executing people who aren't working.
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
Wages are inflexible downwards. Take a look at unions. They fight if they don't get the wage increase they want, let alone a raise reduction. People simply don't want to accept a drop in their income. Also, as everyone else has stated, employees are more than simply a paycheck.
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
Originally posted by: Toasthead
you are assuming that all unemployed people WANT TO work. You are also assuming that all unemployed people share the same skill set. There are LOTS of unemployed people who have little to no skills and would be unable to do a lot of jobs.

also employees cost companies a lot of money. Having 100 95% time workers would cost a company a lot more than having 95 100% workers.

Okay I see now the other costs.
People who don't want to work aren't counted as unemployed though.
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
Originally posted by: Toasthead
you are assuming that all unemployed people WANT TO work. You are also assuming that all unemployed people share the same skill set. There are LOTS of unemployed people who have little to no skills and would be unable to do a lot of jobs.

also employees cost companies a lot of money. Having 100 95% time workers would cost a company a lot more than having 95 100% workers.

The official 5% unemployment rate does not include people that don't want to work. They are considered out of the work force. The only people that are counted in offical government data are those people actively looking for a job, those that are sending out resumes, going to interviews, etc.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,945
571
126
France already tried this and unemployment went up.
Huh? Do the frenchies still go to work at all?

Last I heard they were fighting for something like a 4 day work week and overtime over six hours in one day.
 

FenrisUlf

Senior member
Nov 28, 2001
325
0
0
There will always be some level of unemployment. It's not a bad thing, it helps create some fluidity in the workforce and provides a decent selection pool for employers to match their needs. 5% is actually on the low side of normal. Some people are moving. Some people have high paying itenerant work where they only need to work for 6 months a year. Some people have insufficient skills. There are lots of reasons for unemployment that aren't necessarily bad.
 

rufruf44

Platinum Member
May 8, 2001
2,002
0
0
Those layoff is also a mean for management to toss out the bad apples. Sometimes, it works wonder on efficiency.
 

spyordie007

Diamond Member
May 28, 2001
6,229
0
0
I agree, I say if you're an employer and you need to cut costs lay off your 5-10% of lazy @ss employees who are just "along for the ride". There is no point in making your high-productivity employees pay to keep the low-productivity employee's jobs.

-Spy
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
Originally posted by: Jellomancer
... why don't employers reduce hours? Unemployment is 5%? I don't think anyone would mind working 5% less in exchange for full employment.
99.99999999999999% of the population could not care less what the unemployment rate is as long as they have a job.

And full employment is impossible. The world has a large supply of lazy people....

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
I agree, bad economic times are a great way to lay off the worthless scum. Anybody with a job knows that.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Mwilding:

99.99999999999999% of the population could not care less what the unemployment rate is as long as they have a job.

And full employment is impossible. The world has a large supply of lazy people....
-------------------
Actually Mw, I've always looked at people with jobs as those from inferior blood lines who haven't got the cash to pass to their kids so they don't have to work.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: Dudd
Originally posted by: Toasthead
you are assuming that all unemployed people WANT TO work. You are also assuming that all unemployed people share the same skill set. There are LOTS of unemployed people who have little to no skills and would be unable to do a lot of jobs.

also employees cost companies a lot of money. Having 100 95% time workers would cost a company a lot more than having 95 100% workers.

The official 5% unemployment rate does not include people that don't want to work. They are considered out of the work force. The only people that are counted in offical government data are those people actively looking for a job, those that are sending out resumes, going to interviews, etc.

HAHAHAHA That is the funniest thing I have ever read:D

 

xuanman

Golden Member
Oct 5, 2002
1,417
0
0
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: Dudd
Originally posted by: Toasthead
you are assuming that all unemployed people WANT TO work. You are also assuming that all unemployed people share the same skill set. There are LOTS of unemployed people who have little to no skills and would be unable to do a lot of jobs.

also employees cost companies a lot of money. Having 100 95% time workers would cost a company a lot more than having 95 100% workers.

The official 5% unemployment rate does not include people that don't want to work. They are considered out of the work force. The only people that are counted in offical government data are those people actively looking for a job, those that are sending out resumes, going to interviews, etc.

HAHAHAHA That is the funniest thing I have ever read:D

why is that funny?
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Americans have created a dog eat dog world that's turned everybody into dogs. Dogs worry about their share, not the welfare of the next guy. Any softness could be fatal. Unemploynent can be ended overnight by executing people who aren't working.
Families still care. In the olden days and still today if a family member experiences economic turbulence another member helps out. And of course charites were plentiful then.

Today you hold out your hand to the government. Now I'm not against this if it's reasonable and up to the States but the Olden Wayes brings people together and, I think, more effectively get the jobless out of depression/worry and back on track. Think Little House on the Prairie. If Albert was in dire straights Charles Ingals was always there and the ending was happy!

But healthy nuclear families and private charities are ever shrinking. Promoting either ones does not get you elected.
 

rawoutput

Banned
Jan 23, 2002
429
0
0
I think 4% unemployment is the best you can really hope for, so we're not doing that bad overall. Full employment is listed as 96%, correct? You can never have 100% employment becuase there will always be people switching jobs, on leave, etc etc. Not much of a point to this thread, but you can never really have 100% employment.
 

spyordie007

Diamond Member
May 28, 2001
6,229
0
0
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Americans have created a dog eat dog world that's turned everybody into dogs. Dogs worry about their share, not the welfare of the next guy. Any softness could be fatal. Unemploynent can be ended overnight by executing people who aren't working.
Families still care. In the olden days and still today if a family member experiences economic turbulence another member helps out. And of course charites were plentiful then.

Today you hold out your hand to the government. Now I'm not against this if it's reasonable and up to the States but the Olden Wayes brings people together and, I think, more effectively get the jobless out of depression/worry and back on track. Think Little House on the Prairie. If Albert was in dire straights Charles Ingals was always there and the ending was happy!

But healthy nuclear families and private charities are ever shrinking. Promoting either ones does not get you elected.
Now you've touched onto another topic alltogether, I think community support is better because people feel responsible for the money or food or whatever that they take from others. Now the government just steals from me and the rest of you who work and give it to the lazy who cant manage to take care of themselves. Damn socialists :|

The whole tax system has just become a massive legalized system to steal from those who provide for themselves.

-Spy
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Jelly, you mention a time when people cared in a time when you can clearly see they do not. Then you tell me that the politicians are uninterested too. Are you trying to make me mad or do you have another intention? :D I was merely trying to tell those who don't care because they have jobs that there are those of us out there who could care less if they become unimployed, because we got ours through superior genetics. People who work are inferior, not much better then their lazy kin. You see that don't you?
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: Dudd
Originally posted by: Toasthead
you are assuming that all unemployed people WANT TO work. You are also assuming that all unemployed people share the same skill set. There are LOTS of unemployed people who have little to no skills and would be unable to do a lot of jobs.

also employees cost companies a lot of money. Having 100 95% time workers would cost a company a lot more than having 95 100% workers.

The official 5% unemployment rate does not include people that don't want to work. They are considered out of the work force. The only people that are counted in offical government data are those people actively looking for a job, those that are sending out resumes, going to interviews, etc.

HAHAHAHA That is the funniest thing I have ever read:D

Glad to brighten your day, I guess. Now, care to tell everyone what's so funny, I want to know my great joke dammit. ;)