Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

insurancejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 241 posts

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#61

Post by [deleted] »

Spooky23 wrote: post #46
JKCalhoun wrote: post #2

All I see in the article is the discussion of "profits". I would think the PR department could come up with something about "trying to keep costs competitive for our customers" or something like that. Instead they're telling California and Florida customers to take a hike ... along with 11% of their employees. When is the last time we heard a company enact a company-wide, 50% cut in officer's salaries and a freeze on…

What they are really saying is that they can’t effectively model the risk. Say you were an insurer… would you want to take risk for Florida hurricane losses knowing what we know? If we want a functional insurance market in these places, we need a student loan type solution - make the Feds the reinsurer and have the insurance company mostly administer the policy.

[deleted]

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#62

Post by jf22 »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #53
sydbarrett74 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are 'rarer than hen's teeth' exceptions that prove the rule.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-taking-pay-cuts-prevent...

7 examples out of how many companies?

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#63

Post by brookst »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #31
hajile wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to keep it vague for plausible deniability during potential lawsuits.

There is nothing to sue over since there is no law that says a business cannot reduce expenses for the purpose of reducing expenses.

I think you mean there is nothing that they would likely lose a suit over.

There is plenty to sue over. Statistically, are the laid-off employees older, more male/female, or more minority representative than the national workforce? Were any verbal promises of no layoffs or ongoing work made by anyone to any employee in those states? Do any municipalities in those states have unique notification other laws around layoffs?

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. If I sue you for emotional distress because I allege you like clowns and that bothers me, it will be thrown out (rightfully) more or less instantly. But a huge layoff at a national corporation? There will be thousands of nuisance suits and probably tens of maaaaybe suits given the complexity of state and federal laws.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#64

Post by game_the0ry »

This is a trend -- corporations are lowering services offerings and quality for short term profits. Why would they do harm to their own business? Bc they think the future is going to be worse and, instead of figuring out how to grow revenue, its easier to cut costs.

Airline service, healthcare, government, etc. Take your pick, you will notice it wont work as well as it used to.

Expect more of the same. Climate change is just a part of this, the other part is end-stage capitalism. This is what it looks like when quality of life goes down for the next couple of generations.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#65

Post by pyrophane »

> The layoffs come after Farmers has pulled back from Florida and California in recent months.

Implies that these two things could be related. Would make sense that reducing/stopping business in two very populous states could impact their workforce.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#67

Post by Invictus0 »

gorjusborg wrote: post #57
FredPret wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be great for investors if the top positions were paid mostly / entirely in stock. That way we can entice a good CEO with high pay and our interests will still align.

I'd also be great if we collectively admitted that one person (no matter who they are) can determine the success of a large organization of people. Today, we compensate them like they are doing the lion's share of the work.

Not seeing many successful CEO-less companies. When you start your democratic/committee-led company, please let us know.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#68

Post by wahnfrieden »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #53
sydbarrett74 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are 'rarer than hen's teeth' exceptions that prove the rule.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-taking-pay-cuts-prevent...

Execs who are heavily compensated in equity also benefit from reducing their wage salaries to minimize tax liability exposure

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#69

Post by CalRobert »

tedivm wrote: post #39
lotsofpulp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did, from federal taxpayers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr... From my understanding, this subsidy to people living in flood prone areas was basically untouchable due to Florida’s status as a swing state. I wonder if that has or will change due to Florida no longer being a swing state.

California also has a state backed earthquake insurance program. Florida may turn into a swing state again. There's a lot of demographic changes occurring there.

Earthquake risk should remain reasonably consistent though, as opposed to flooding which will become increasingly bad

(though, as glaciers melt, you apparently get some seismic activity due to the reduced weight on the crust)

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#70

Post by sokoloff »

jf22 wrote: post #62
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-taking-pay-cuts-prevent...

7 examples out of how many companies?

Do you think that Business Insider's list of 7 is the entire list?

I know 2 CEOs who aren't on that list who took pay cuts. If I told BI about it, that's not enough for them to publish an errata on the article.

Post reply on HN