9 ms·

If you do that companies will be more reluctant to hire, since they’ll have to factor in the risk of paying a hefty severance.

urfullofsht 4y ago
[dead]
shafyy 4y ago
That's the whole point
- dinkumthinkum 4y ago
  Does that really make sense if layoffs only happen a minority of the time after hiring sprees?
  - chucksmash 4y ago
    If the answer to "am I likely to have to lay this person off soon?" isn't "probably not" then it's good that the company becomes more circumspect in hiring. The other side of the token is that such a guarantee would help convince more people to accept an offer. I'd personally be hesitant to switch to a less stable job right now, and getting an offer yanked or immediately laid off with minimal severance would be brutal for many. A company providing "we changed our mind" insurance would retire a lot of risk for job seekers - and, if things are going well, it costs them essentially nothing to do.
    - dantheman 4y ago
      Why do you want to make it harder for people to get hired?
      - chucksmash 4y ago
        I've laid out my thinking above, which part was unclear? Many people taking a job are leaving some other job or passing up on other offers to do so. Imposing a cost on employers when they pull a "whoopsie daisy" and rescind offers or immediately lay off a new employee seems like a reasonable trade off to me.
water-your-self 4y ago
Thats the point
neon_electro 4y ago
Do you like the current status quo where employers are not reluctant to hire, and they're just as likely to lay folks off? Where's the efficiency for employee or employer?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I like it more than the (admittedly extreme) situation in France. There could be a happy medium, but going far enough down the road to making it hard to fire makes it hard to get hired.
  - mattkrause 4y ago
    I feel like there's a fairly big difference in effects between: - "If we hire this specific person, we might be stuck with them for a while" and - "If we build out this entire department, we can't close it down on a whim"
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I think where a lot of companies find themselves is "[last year] we think we're going to grow 20% next year and need to hire 15% to cover that business growth; [this year] oops, we only grew 5%, meaning we should have only grown headcount by 2% and now need to layoff around 10% of our staff to keep our financials sound and protect the jobs of the other 90%" I think that's a lot of repeated applications of the former case.
- scarface74 4y ago
  No matter where you work in any major city in the US, whether you are working for a major tech company or your run of the mill enterprise shop, you should be making at least twice the median household income of your local area if you have at least three years of experience. If people making half of what you make can manage to survive and it be homeless or go hungry, you should be able to save enough “to live in a position of f%%l you” (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI). You may not be able to put little Timmy in private school and he may have to gasp go to a public college.
willcipriano 4y ago
The people downvoting you are suffering from a sort of survivorship bias. Sure, now you'd like the comfort of knowing your employer would have to pay you a ton of money if they laid you off, but what if you were somebody who was recently laid off looking for a job and people were reluctant to hire beacuse of this requirement? It's not clear to me that it's a net win, from my perspective I'd rather be able to easily replace my employer as opposed to them paying me for a few months. A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years, it's entirely possible that a weaker labor market with stronger workers protections would've been less effective at doing so leaving the very poor worse off.
- rybosworld 4y ago
  > A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years Source?
  - mym1990 4y ago
    Not really the source and not specific to the bottom 25(but the bottom 50), based on this graph(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLB50107 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLB50107) we can see net worth going up quite dramatically. If you look at pretty much any metric of capital(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=453&eid=813668#snid=813803 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=453&eid=81366...), it has been rising for the bottom 50. How much of that is attributed to income vs government stimulus is unclear.
    - bcrosby95 4y ago
      That chart basically mirrors real estate prices.
  - jfghi 4y ago
    Gaslight handwavy talking point
- andrekandre 4y ago
dmitryminkovsky 4y ago
That's the point...
majormajor 4y ago
Would the overall economy be worse off if companies hadn't gone nuts with hiring in 2020/2021? Does "more reluctant" here = "more thoughtful"? I'm sure you could take it too far, but I'm highly skeptical that we're in any sort of optimal situation today.
wintogreen74 4y ago
>> since they’ll have to factor in the risk of paying a hefty severance Typically there is not a hefty severance paid by most companies though. There's some restructuring costs and lots of disruption though.

urfullofsht 4y ago

[dead]

shafyy 4y ago

That's the whole point

dinkumthinkum 4y ago
Does that really make sense if layoffs only happen a minority of the time after hiring sprees?
- chucksmash 4y ago
  If the answer to "am I likely to have to lay this person off soon?" isn't "probably not" then it's good that the company becomes more circumspect in hiring. The other side of the token is that such a guarantee would help convince more people to accept an offer. I'd personally be hesitant to switch to a less stable job right now, and getting an offer yanked or immediately laid off with minimal severance would be brutal for many. A company providing "we changed our mind" insurance would retire a lot of risk for job seekers - and, if things are going well, it costs them essentially nothing to do.
  - dantheman 4y ago
    Why do you want to make it harder for people to get hired?
    - chucksmash 4y ago
      I've laid out my thinking above, which part was unclear? Many people taking a job are leaving some other job or passing up on other offers to do so. Imposing a cost on employers when they pull a "whoopsie daisy" and rescind offers or immediately lay off a new employee seems like a reasonable trade off to me.

water-your-self 4y ago

Thats the point

neon_electro 4y ago

Do you like the current status quo where employers are not reluctant to hire, and they're just as likely to lay folks off? Where's the efficiency for employee or employer?

sokoloff 4y ago
I like it more than the (admittedly extreme) situation in France. There could be a happy medium, but going far enough down the road to making it hard to fire makes it hard to get hired.
- mattkrause 4y ago
  I feel like there's a fairly big difference in effects between: - "If we hire this specific person, we might be stuck with them for a while" and - "If we build out this entire department, we can't close it down on a whim"
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I think where a lot of companies find themselves is "[last year] we think we're going to grow 20% next year and need to hire 15% to cover that business growth; [this year] oops, we only grew 5%, meaning we should have only grown headcount by 2% and now need to layoff around 10% of our staff to keep our financials sound and protect the jobs of the other 90%" I think that's a lot of repeated applications of the former case.
scarface74 4y ago
No matter where you work in any major city in the US, whether you are working for a major tech company or your run of the mill enterprise shop, you should be making at least twice the median household income of your local area if you have at least three years of experience. If people making half of what you make can manage to survive and it be homeless or go hungry, you should be able to save enough “to live in a position of f%%l you” (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI). You may not be able to put little Timmy in private school and he may have to gasp go to a public college.

willcipriano 4y ago

The people downvoting you are suffering from a sort of survivorship bias. Sure, now you'd like the comfort of knowing your employer would have to pay you a ton of money if they laid you off, but what if you were somebody who was recently laid off looking for a job and people were reluctant to hire beacuse of this requirement? It's not clear to me that it's a net win, from my perspective I'd rather be able to easily replace my employer as opposed to them paying me for a few months. A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years, it's entirely possible that a weaker labor market with stronger workers protections would've been less effective at doing so leaving the very poor worse off.

rybosworld 4y ago
> A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years Source?
- mym1990 4y ago
  Not really the source and not specific to the bottom 25(but the bottom 50), based on this graph(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLB50107 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLB50107) we can see net worth going up quite dramatically. If you look at pretty much any metric of capital(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=453&eid=813668#snid=813803 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=453&eid=81366...), it has been rising for the bottom 50. How much of that is attributed to income vs government stimulus is unclear.
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    That chart basically mirrors real estate prices.
- jfghi 4y ago
  Gaslight handwavy talking point
andrekandre 4y ago

dmitryminkovsky 4y ago

That's the point...

majormajor 4y ago

Would the overall economy be worse off if companies hadn't gone nuts with hiring in 2020/2021? Does "more reluctant" here = "more thoughtful"? I'm sure you could take it too far, but I'm highly skeptical that we're in any sort of optimal situation today.

wintogreen74 4y ago

>> since they’ll have to factor in the risk of paying a hefty severance Typically there is not a hefty severance paid by most companies though. There's some restructuring costs and lots of disruption though.