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

Loyalty and Layoffs

heartmindcode.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#131

Post by yummyfajitas »

antihero wrote: post #130
yummyfajitas wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, we have a GDP/capita of $50k/year. In the UK, it's just under $36k/year. In Poland it's $21k/year. If it's impossible for a Brit to save, since they must consume everything they earn to survive with a minimal level of enjoyment, then how do the Polish avoid death? Do the Polish simply not enjoy life at all? And surely you'd agree that Americans should be able to save, simply by reducing their consumption t…

Have you heard of cost of living?

The numbers I gave are adjusted for PPP, though using the world bank method rather than the OECD method given by ahh in his reply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#132

Post by yummyfajitas »

dredmorbius wrote: post #128
yummyfajitas wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adam Smith might have been right about his era, but his reasoning does not apply in our era. It is illegal for employers to collude to lower wages, while unions gain legal privileges by doing so. Parliament and congress tend to be bought and paid for by unions. Similarly, due to a combination of high wages and welfare, most workmen can subsist for long periods without work. (Most workers don't value stability, and ch…

Adam Smith might have been right about his era, but his reasoning does not apply in our era. I disagree profoundly. Much of the world still operates under conditions Smith would recognize quite readily. Even industrialized nations still have a fundamental set of circumstances as described by Smith which benefits employers. It is illegal for employers to collude to lower wages, while unions gain legal privileges by do…

I didn't say Americans had savings. I said "Most workers...choose consumption over savings." Further downthread I pointed out that if Americans chose to consume at Polish or British levels they could save.

Try disagreeing with what I actually said, rather than some straw man.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#133

Post by dredmorbius »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #132
dredmorbius wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adam Smith might have been right about his era, but his reasoning does not apply in our era. I disagree profoundly. Much of the world still operates under conditions Smith would recognize quite readily. Even industrialized nations still have a fundamental set of circumstances as described by Smith which benefits employers. It is illegal for employers to collude to lower wages, while unions gain legal privileges by do…

I didn't say Americans had savings. I said "Most workers...choose consumption over savings." Further downthread I pointed out that if Americans chose to consume at Polish or British levels they could save. Try disagreeing with what I actually said, rather than some straw man.

I didn't say Americans had savings. I said "Most workers...choose consumption over savings."

The effect is the same result in the context of the original statement: that employers and firms are better positioned to weather a work outage than employees are.

Your aren't holding up particularly well on any of your other points, and I could point at any number of issues, including, for what it's worth, reduced wage-bargaining power, which leaves employees in the US with lower savings than those elsewhere. There are also comparisons such as purchase power parity or costs which are individual and out-of-pocket or just generally higher in the US (health care, education, transportation) than elsewhere.

Most of what you've said has been strawman arguments. QED.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#134

Post by lotsofpulp »

gknoy wrote: post #92
lotsofpulp wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, in the US, there is no legal mandate to pay severance. However, getting their employees to resign probably saved them a lot of money on their unemployment insurance by making the employees ineligible for unemployment benefits (that's why I try to get my employees to resign) and/or they may have gotten their employees to sign release forms for liability from wrongful termination or discrimination or…

> making the employees ineligible for unemployment benefits (that's why I try to get my employees to resign) Am I the only one that finds this utterly and totally horrific? Why would you do that? What do you gain by someone who leaves being unable to collect unemployment benefits? Does it directly affect you? I thought that was something that all taxpayers put money into. It reads like "I take pleasure in ensuring th…

If I am getting rid of someone, it's usually for cause. However, if I terminate someone, then they can file for benefits, then I have to fight to say that the employee was fired for cause, prove my case, yada yada yada. It's much more time efficient for me if the employee just resigns, as all I have to show is the resignation letter.

Unemployment insurance is paid for by employers, and the more former employees that collect unemployment, the higher the employer's unemployment insurance premiums. I save a ton of money by making sure my former employees do not get unemployment benefits. This is also why a resignation is important, in that it gives me assurance my premiums won't rise.

I haven't had to let anyone go simply because I didn't have enough work for them, so I can't say I've screwed anyone out of unemployment benefits. I'm just making sure my costs stay down when I do need to get rid of someone. However, this is also why companies may offer severance. They can either pay increased unemployment insurance premiums to the government, or they can win goodwill from employees by giving them some cash and also releasing the employer from some additional liabilities.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#135

Post by sogen »

dredmorbius wrote: post #74
chasing wrote: post #20

I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. You both need to provide the other with value, and you both need to be frank about your relationship when these values are lop-sided. And you need to be clear about what the value of the things being offered are. Your employer is not your family, your mom, or your significant other. It's a peer with which you trade value. Ever…

I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. That's a false statement whose falseness has been observed by economists since Adam Smith: What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. Th…

Great comment, thanks

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#136

Post by elihu »

dkuntz2 wrote: post #33
afarrell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if your loyalty to yourself and your professional ethics are in conflict with the wishes of your employer, it is far better to follow your true loyalties. Though it might come at great personal cost if you end up having to flee to Russia.

I'm sorry, but I can't let your aside at the end stand. From my point of view it had nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with the possibility of fame. He revealed himself. He couldn't even wait, he had to let people know what he did. He practically bragged about it. The personal cost wasn't due his ethics, it was due to his inability to shut up.

If he had remained anonymous, the naysayers would have called him a coward. By revealing himself, he's labelled a narcissist.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#137

Post by rmc »

jacques_chester wrote: post #30
einhverfr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that I run a couple of small but growing businesses and have worked for major corporations. One thing I would point out is that in my experience the people who are laid off in a company advance their careers and those who remain stagnate. I am not sure I would put this in a layoff email though. If times are tough, I still think that layoffs are a real last resort. Your best assets are the entrepreneurs i…

In Australia I've seen two common patterns: 1. Reducing hours by X% instead of sacking X% of employees. 2. Offering voluntary redundancy packages. Option 1 tends to lead to some people quitting anyhow. Option 2 has the problem that it can dramaticaly exacerbate the Dead Sea problem. Anyone with any pep grabs the package and looks for a job elsewhere.

In either case if companies need to cut back, then the best people will leave first, since they have more options.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#138

Post by rmc »

Millennium wrote: post #114

Neither employer nor employee is inherently owed loyalty, but the only way to earn loyalty is to give it in return. Sooner or later, one party is going to have to act irrationally if it wants that kind of relationship with the other. A company that wants 1950s-style loyalty from its employees should be giving them 1950s-style loyalty. If you as a corporation would prefer layoffs to bankruptcy protection, then you do…

Minor nitpick, although I know what you mean, "Giving 1950s style" would need lots of qualification if you were to say it. Simple example: Women were not paid the same as men for the same work in the 1950s, and women could (and were) fired when they got married and/or pregnant. If you (the company) want to claim "we'll give you (the employees) 1950s style loyalty", be sure to expand on that.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#139

Post by rmc »

lutusp wrote: post #107
Xylakant wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stocks are only worth anything if a) you're allowed to sell them. b) somebody is willing to buy them or c) you get a dividend and own a significant portion. The value of most stocks in companies is overrated. Yes, your company might be the next google and you'll hit gold but most companies shares are worth little to nothing. Depending on the company structure they might have some interesting rights attached - such as…

> The value of most stocks in companies is overrated. If the Efficient Market Hypothesis is true (it's certainly approximately true), then most stocks, most of the time, have exactly the value they ought to have. So no, on average, stocks aren't overrated and investors aren't fools.

Perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be "Most people (incl. employees) overvalue the stock they got", or that employers will try to pass off stock as worth more than they are actually worth. e.g. if you're offered 1,000 shares, it's highly unlikely they are worth €100,000,000.
Post reply on HN