4 ms·

> The U.S. is not going to shut down Boeing. It's a monopoly. Just break it up. > How many jobs would be lost if that happened "We don't negotiate with [ec

> The U.S. is not going to shut down Boeing. It's a monopoly. Just break it up. > How many jobs would be lost if that happened "We don't negotiate with [economic] terrorists." > especially in this economy? $77b annual revenue. Positive quarterly growth rate the last 8 out of 12 quarters. Two global wars we refuse to negotiate peace in and Boeing is a major weapons supplier. Then again, if you kill and scare enough people with faulty planes, the state of the economy will be immaterial to what will happen to your interests.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> "We don't negotiate with [economic] terrorists." This is just so silly. Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved.
- grecy 2y ago
  > Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved. I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs". Making asbestos essentially illegal resulted in tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and shutting down coal plants will do the same. It makes no sense to protect jobs at all costs, and doing so can have very bad outcomes. If a company is doing something illegal or dangerous or that does not serve society anymore, we shouldn't bend over backwards just because people will lose their jobs.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs". I wasn't invoking any unholy protection of jobs. It's very clear the context I was replying to: that "job loss" isn't "economic terrorism". Can we not treat the comment section as that party game where people only read the previous sentence of the story and write a follow-on sentence? You have the whole thread available to you.
- Zigurd 2y ago
  Spirit Aerosystem will soon no longer exist. but the assets and almost all the jobs will be divided between Boeing and Airbus. If Boeing were split up the result would be similar.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. And ending murder and child victims results in people (investigators, litigators, counselors) losing their jobs. Should we stop trying to solve these problems too?
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Once again, what I'm saying is "people losing their jobs is a consequence of shutting down a business" is not "economic terrorism".
    - akira2501 2y ago
      When the people who run those business factor this exact thing into their decision making, then yes, it's precisely that. You're acting as if the company is somehow entirely detached from these circumstances or that this all happened to them by accident.
- plumarr 2y ago
  There is two aspects to a company : - one that benefits a few private people, mainly the share holders and high level manager/executives - one that benefits the society as a whole, mainly through the company production/services and the salaries of its employes There is an option to punish the first aspect while limiting the damage on the second one : the nationalisation of the company, with limited compasation to its shareholder. Strangely it seems to only be done or considered to save "to big to fail" business, such as bank, in time of crisis, not as a tool of law enforcement.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> "We don't negotiate with [economic] terrorists." This is just so silly. Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved.

grecy 2y ago
> Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved. I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs". Making asbestos essentially illegal resulted in tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and shutting down coal plants will do the same. It makes no sense to protect jobs at all costs, and doing so can have very bad outcomes. If a company is doing something illegal or dangerous or that does not serve society anymore, we shouldn't bend over backwards just because people will lose their jobs.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs". I wasn't invoking any unholy protection of jobs. It's very clear the context I was replying to: that "job loss" isn't "economic terrorism". Can we not treat the comment section as that party game where people only read the previous sentence of the story and write a follow-on sentence? You have the whole thread available to you.
Zigurd 2y ago
Spirit Aerosystem will soon no longer exist. but the assets and almost all the jobs will be divided between Boeing and Airbus. If Boeing were split up the result would be similar.
akira2501 2y ago
> Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. And ending murder and child victims results in people (investigators, litigators, counselors) losing their jobs. Should we stop trying to solve these problems too?
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Once again, what I'm saying is "people losing their jobs is a consequence of shutting down a business" is not "economic terrorism".
  - akira2501 2y ago
    When the people who run those business factor this exact thing into their decision making, then yes, it's precisely that. You're acting as if the company is somehow entirely detached from these circumstances or that this all happened to them by accident.
plumarr 2y ago
There is two aspects to a company : - one that benefits a few private people, mainly the share holders and high level manager/executives - one that benefits the society as a whole, mainly through the company production/services and the salaries of its employes There is an option to punish the first aspect while limiting the damage on the second one : the nationalisation of the company, with limited compasation to its shareholder. Strangely it seems to only be done or considered to save "to big to fail" business, such as bank, in time of crisis, not as a tool of law enforcement.