3 ms·

It should actually be very very expensive for a company to fire people. Why do stock markets have an automated forced "PAUSE" when stocks seem like they are cra

It should actually be very very expensive for a company to fire people. Why do stock markets have an automated forced "PAUSE" when stocks seem like they are crashing? It's because companies, investors, people, or even computers don't always act rationally. That pause has prevented a lot of hiccups from turning into full-blown crashes. Right now, when a company lays people off, the town, state, and federal government are the ones who have to end up picking up the downstream effects of that in the macro sense. And local businesses, families, loved ones have to pick them up in the micro sense. This trade doesn't actually make sense if you think about it, a company _should not_ be able to cause that level of a disruption, without a penalty to itself. This is why I actually don't mind some specifics of European companies, where firing people is _genuinely really hard_. This also means that when hiring, you simply have to plan better. It is okay to expect a large company to "plan better" than an individual with a single income stream. It is okay to push the burden of the pain of bad markets onto companies, rather than individuals.

landemva 3y ago
> when a company lays people off, the town, state, and federal government are the ones who have to end up picking up the downstream effects If the existing unemployment _insurance_ (forced payroll contributions to each State) are not sufficient, then change that insurance system. There could be a business opportunity for supplemental market-priced contributions which pay on job loss. That wouldn't be worse than the 'legal assist' ripoff plans HR pimps at employee hiring.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Unemployment insurance can't, and shouldn't be designed around market acting irrationally. That's not a reasonable insurance plan. > then change that insurance system. Also, more about this, why? We have a ton of levers and controls we can utilize here. Why does it need to be that the insurance system needs to change? That seems like we're closing off a lot of levers _just because_
  - landemva 3y ago
    Forced unemployment insurance is a supposed safety net, so should be open to discussion as part of solution. Let me opt out, or take premiums to a non-State provider.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > There could be a business opportunity for supplemental market-priced contributions which pay on job loss. Private job loss insurance exists already, its not an non-addressed potential market.
  - landemva 3y ago
    Wow, I might be interested. Do you have any recommendations in USA?
educaysean 3y ago
The employment laws in many Asian countries make it very difficult to lay people off or fire them. This sounds great on paper, but comes its own host of problems. One knock on effect is that the job market for anyone that isn't a new grad is tough and extremely hostile. Having been laid off or fired carries such a stigma because it is a rare thing that most people don't encounter. If you're past your 30s and laid off? Good luck landing a new gig anywhere near the level you were at before. This can devastate many families in ways unimaginable to many Americans. Another secondary effect is that workplace politics become dominant. Many incompetent workers that should've been fired long time ago are allowed to linger on, gaining seniority and accumulating more power. This translates into a workplace where your value isn't tied to the work you output, but which "line" you stand behind. There is no panacea. Pick your poison.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  > This translates into a workplace where your value isn't tied to the work you output, but which "line" you stand behind. I’m glad we’ve avoided this in the US /s. Sarcasm aside, a lot of those problems exist here. Has anyone worked in a large company had a different experience in this regard?
  - fardinahsan 3y ago
    The difference is in the magnitude, not kind.
rft 3y ago
In Germany, if you lay off many people you might need to inform the unemployment office beforehand. There are thresholds based on both the amount of people laid off and the size of the company. This is not exactly a circuit breaker, but combined with other employment law this means laying off many people is quite a lot harder and takes longer. German source with the thresholds: https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/unternehmen/personalfragen/pflichten-arbeitgeber/anzeigepflicht-bei-entlassungen https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/unternehmen/personalfragen/pfl...

landemva 3y ago

> when a company lays people off, the town, state, and federal government are the ones who have to end up picking up the downstream effects If the existing unemployment _insurance_ (forced payroll contributions to each State) are not sufficient, then change that insurance system. There could be a business opportunity for supplemental market-priced contributions which pay on job loss. That wouldn't be worse than the 'legal assist' ripoff plans HR pimps at employee hiring.

aaomidi 3y ago
Unemployment insurance can't, and shouldn't be designed around market acting irrationally. That's not a reasonable insurance plan. > then change that insurance system. Also, more about this, why? We have a ton of levers and controls we can utilize here. Why does it need to be that the insurance system needs to change? That seems like we're closing off a lot of levers _just because_
- landemva 3y ago
  Forced unemployment insurance is a supposed safety net, so should be open to discussion as part of solution. Let me opt out, or take premiums to a non-State provider.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> There could be a business opportunity for supplemental market-priced contributions which pay on job loss. Private job loss insurance exists already, its not an non-addressed potential market.
- landemva 3y ago
  Wow, I might be interested. Do you have any recommendations in USA?

educaysean 3y ago

The employment laws in many Asian countries make it very difficult to lay people off or fire them. This sounds great on paper, but comes its own host of problems. One knock on effect is that the job market for anyone that isn't a new grad is tough and extremely hostile. Having been laid off or fired carries such a stigma because it is a rare thing that most people don't encounter. If you're past your 30s and laid off? Good luck landing a new gig anywhere near the level you were at before. This can devastate many families in ways unimaginable to many Americans. Another secondary effect is that workplace politics become dominant. Many incompetent workers that should've been fired long time ago are allowed to linger on, gaining seniority and accumulating more power. This translates into a workplace where your value isn't tied to the work you output, but which "line" you stand behind. There is no panacea. Pick your poison.

aaomidi 3y ago
> This translates into a workplace where your value isn't tied to the work you output, but which "line" you stand behind. I’m glad we’ve avoided this in the US /s. Sarcasm aside, a lot of those problems exist here. Has anyone worked in a large company had a different experience in this regard?
- fardinahsan 3y ago
  The difference is in the magnitude, not kind.

rft 3y ago

In Germany, if you lay off many people you might need to inform the unemployment office beforehand. There are thresholds based on both the amount of people laid off and the size of the company. This is not exactly a circuit breaker, but combined with other employment law this means laying off many people is quite a lot harder and takes longer. German source with the thresholds: https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/unternehmen/personalfragen/pflichten-arbeitgeber/anzeigepflicht-bei-entlassungen https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/unternehmen/personalfragen/pfl...