4 ms·

If the goal of Japanese policy makers is to boost demand, and that does seem like a wise goal, then keeping 50,000 workers employed at Sharp seems like a smart

If the goal of Japanese policy makers is to boost demand, and that does seem like a wise goal, then keeping 50,000 workers employed at Sharp seems like a smart bet, compared to keeping 100 people employed at some nimble, fast-moving startup. If you want to make sure people have money so that demand is increased then just give them money, don't keep useless jobs around. the USA was able to sell its stake in GM at a profit No: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/09/government-treasury-gm-general-motors-tarp-bailout-exit-sale/3925515/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/09/governme...

lmm 11y ago
> If you want to make sure people have money so that demand is increased then just give them money, don't keep useless jobs around. Ideally yes, but that's politically difficult.
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  Also something about the commonly held belief in the dignity of having employment (especially in a culture like Japan's) and supporting the family.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  In spite of fifty+ years of MBA thinking, jobs aren't really fungible. When you fire a lot of people you're not just reducing costs - you're also hoping that you will never again need the skills and the knowledge of your internal processes that those people have. Sometimes it's a good bet. Sometimes it isn't.
jljljl 11y ago
USA didn't sell at a profit. But the loss was $10.5B to save (according to the article) 1.2M jobs, and saved $34.5B in tax losses. Even if you ignore the saved tax income, thats less than $9,000 per job saved. So the bailout was probably _still_ a net positive for the US.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
crdoconnor 11y ago
>If you want to make sure people have money so that demand is increased then just give them money In Japan they'd mostly just put it in a savings account or use it to pay down debts which wouldn't contribute much to demand.
woliveirajr 11y ago
Well, take a look on how Brazil is doing, since they had this idea in (more or less) 2007 to save the economy from the global crisis, and tell me more about it. give a special attention to the years 2014-2015.

lmm 11y ago

> If you want to make sure people have money so that demand is increased then just give them money, don't keep useless jobs around. Ideally yes, but that's politically difficult.

hkmurakami 11y ago
Also something about the commonly held belief in the dignity of having employment (especially in a culture like Japan's) and supporting the family.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
In spite of fifty+ years of MBA thinking, jobs aren't really fungible. When you fire a lot of people you're not just reducing costs - you're also hoping that you will never again need the skills and the knowledge of your internal processes that those people have. Sometimes it's a good bet. Sometimes it isn't.

jljljl 11y ago

USA didn't sell at a profit. But the loss was $10.5B to save (according to the article) 1.2M jobs, and saved $34.5B in tax losses. Even if you ignore the saved tax income, thats less than $9,000 per job saved. So the bailout was probably _still_ a net positive for the US.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

crdoconnor 11y ago

>If you want to make sure people have money so that demand is increased then just give them money In Japan they'd mostly just put it in a savings account or use it to pay down debts which wouldn't contribute much to demand.

woliveirajr 11y ago

Well, take a look on how Brazil is doing, since they had this idea in (more or less) 2007 to save the economy from the global crisis, and tell me more about it. give a special attention to the years 2014-2015.