3 ms·
> If they have enough slack to reduce headcount they're going to do it anyway. This is so incorrect that it's hard to take seriously. When revenues go down (f
by Supermancho 3y ago
> If they have enough slack to reduce headcount they're going to do it anyway.
This is so incorrect that it's hard to take seriously.
When revenues go down (for any reason), companies cut costs. Most employees are a cost. Why have 2 people when 1 will just have to work harder? A company rather cut and see what happens, when push comes to shove. Many company initiatives are also re-evaluated with a bottom-line mentality when revenues are down. That project that's 4 weeks overdue for a milestone? Time to cut it and everyone involved. When revenue is up, the opposite effect. "slack" is relative to market conditions. Job security along with it.
Small companies are often lean, but it's never surprising how much leaner they will run when money gets tight. Big companies can always pare down assets and associated headcount. These are just the things I see every time revenue is down, but far from an exhaustive list.
- pixl97 3y ago1 having to work harder works when 1 will actually work harder... The problem is that is a failing paradigm these days and it's not uncommon to walk to up locations that say "closed, no staff". If the 'no immigration' voices get there way expect to see a rapidly declining population here in the US and these businesses that are used to abusing labor start to freak out.
- jandrese 3y ago"Closed, no staff" is quickly followed by "Retail space for rent". If you see that sign you can rest assured that the business is poorly managed. Beyond the low pay it is quite likely that the manager is an asshole and the reason he can't find workers is because for what he's offering there are loads of opportunities for jobs at better managed stores in the area. This is a person who was spoiled when the job market was tight and now can't adjust to a new reality where people have options and if you suck they won't choose you. If the business isn't profitable without effectively slave labor then it was poorly structured.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y agoIt's just so puzzling to me that so many capitalists have no problem with the laws of supply and demand unless it applies to labor. If there's a shortage of wheat, everyone expects the price of bread to go up. Everyone shrugs their shoulders and accepts it. Shortage of oil? Gas prices go up. It sucks, but that's life. Shortage of labor? NO, WE CAN'T INCREASE WAGES. UNACCEPTABLE. NOBODY WANTS TO WORK ANYMORE!
- patrick451 3y agoI don't think it's puzzling, at all but is instead smart rhetoric that exploits the protestant work ethic. You get to pay people less, and those people get to pat themselves on the back for their superior work ethic. It strikes me as a similar trade to how we pay teachers and NASA scientists less money because they get increased social standing.
- lednax 3y agoGood. If the business can’t operate, it doesn’t deserve to exist.
- chii 3y agoAdd yet society find it acceptable to subsidize farming of food.
- carlosjobim 3y agoWhen revenues go up (for any reason), companies cut costs. Why have 2 people when 1 will have to work harder? Your argument is completely wrong, yet you start by berating the other poster. Companies will always cut costs and try to whip their employees as much as they can, regardless of if they're making a profit or a loss. That is business.