If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   You know how conservatives always say layoffs are good for the economy because they boost productivity? Yeah, funny thing about that   (upi.com) divider line 71
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

3831 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 Mar 2009 at 3:05 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-05 12:02:12 PM
To be fair, I have never heard a conservative say that. I know they do it to pad exec. salaries, or the bottom line, or to pay opff the stock owners,but I have never heard less workers boosts productivity.

And I am saying this as my newspaper's current web/print/videographer/photographer. There are just so many farking hours in the day.
 
2009-03-05 12:14:12 PM
Fewer workers, in general, boosts the productivity per worker. The reason for that is usually excess capacity or some such, where some of the workers don't really end up doing much. If you are cutting capacity, the overall productivity will of course not increase, because the amount of work you require to be done shrinks.
 
2009-03-05 01:22:34 PM
Layoffs often give a short term boost to corporate income. Still doesn't mean it's a good thing.

And as EatHam says -- Fewer workers, in general, boosts the productivity per worker -- there's a limit. If the amount of work to do exceeds worker capacity, productivity drops.

What's even worse is what I experienced at AT&T (years ago). They would rate and rank the employees and put them in three categories: No risk, at risk, and GTFO. But, they would offer a great buyout. If you were at risk or GTFO and took the package, you'd save someone else on those lists. The result was that the people with talent took the package and got employment elsewhere. Those that were left and/or saved were nitwits. So you have a reduced workforce, and reduced capabilities in that smaller workforce.
 
2009-03-05 02:33:20 PM
I don't think I've ever heard anyone, conservative or otherwise, make such an asinine statement.

but now I've read it on Fark
 
2009-03-05 02:41:38 PM
filth: I don't think I've ever heard anyone, conservative or otherwise, make such an asinine statement.

but now I've read it on Fark


Outside of the political arena, I have heard it out of some managers and execs during my sentence at AT&T.
 
2009-03-05 03:12:43 PM
||||||||

/for you to build another one.
 
2009-03-05 03:15:51 PM
Pay people less to do more so the CEO's can pocket the difference.

Yep, Capitalism is still alive and well.

Enjoy your wage slavery.
 
2009-03-05 03:17:52 PM
Conservatives say layoffs are good for the economy? Really, subby?

fantasybaseballnonsense.files.wordpress.com

Submitter.
 
2009-03-05 03:19:45 PM
Is this why I'm still batting .000 in my headline submission? Because I don't submit nonsensical bullshiat trolly headlines like this?


...and because I don't make good funny?
 
2009-03-05 03:20:33 PM
vartian 2009-03-05 12:02:12 PM To be fair, I have never heard a conservative say that. I know they do it to pad exec. salaries, or the bottom line, or to pay opff the stock owners,but I have never heard less workers boosts productivity.
===============================

This.

If having less workers is boosting productivity, you shouldn't have hired so many workers in the first place :)
 
2009-03-05 03:20:41 PM
Layoffs make my bootstraps all tingly
 
2009-03-05 03:21:26 PM
Rickmansworth: Conservatives say layoffs are good for the economy? Really, subby?



Submitter.


It's not like they/you don't say enough other stupid stuff. Lay off.
 
2009-03-05 03:21:49 PM
I came in expecting a gang-rape of conservatives based on an emotionally-charged and inaccurate headline, and was shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you with the way vartian started things out with a fair and balanced assessment.

/still expecting gang-rape of conservatives posts...just need to wait for it a bit longer...
 
2009-03-05 03:29:42 PM
Yep, because what companies really need to do is to continue to churn out things that people have no way of puchasing.
 
2009-03-05 03:32:20 PM
Not quite subby.

In a thriving economy, layoffs are the result of an inefficient company shrinking. They're usually shrinking at the expense of a more efficient competitor's growth, so yeah productivity figures grow up.

In a recession, a different dynamic is playing out. Here, you have whole industries that are being downsized because the entire economy was inflated by misallocated capital. Now you'll see belt-tightening across the board. The economy's resources are being shifted around to a more efficient distribution, but it may be quite some time before that shows up in productivity numbers.

That's because productivity numbers don't care what is being produced, so long as a lot of it is being produced easily.
 
2009-03-05 03:42:19 PM
Don't need to worry bout no productivity. Obama gonna pay my gas and mortgage!

Happy day! What a happy day!
 
2009-03-05 03:42:39 PM
This whole conservative/liberal paradigm is getting old. You're not necessarily one or the other. There a is a whole political spectrum out there, and the cause of all of society's evils isn't the "other guys".
 
2009-03-05 03:43:34 PM
I have never heard of this statement before.....wtf.
 
2009-03-05 03:48:47 PM
Diogenes: Layoffs often give a short term boost to corporate income. Still doesn't mean it's a good thing.

And as EatHam says -- Fewer workers, in general, boosts the productivity per worker -- there's a limit. If the amount of work to do exceeds worker capacity, productivity drops.

What's even worse is what I experienced at AT&T (years ago). They would rate and rank the employees and put them in three categories: No risk, at risk, and GTFO. But, they would offer a great buyout. If you were at risk or GTFO and took the package, you'd save someone else on those lists. The result was that the people with talent took the package and got employment elsewhere. Those that were left and/or saved were nitwits. So you have a reduced workforce, and reduced capabilities in that smaller workforce.



Y'know, I was saying the same thing every time the Detroit auto companies did their force reduction buyouts. The best and brightest would take the money and run. The drones and yes-men would stay. No wonder the D3 are in the dumper. Thanx for the validation!

/Phyrrhic victory, of course
 
2009-03-05 03:52:33 PM
The Ice Cream Man: Y'know, I was saying the same thing every time the Detroit auto companies did their force reduction buyouts. The best and brightest would take the money and run. The drones and yes-men would stay.

Yup, and it would work very well for the economy as a whole if we just let all of the dead weight accumulate in one place and then watch it go bankrupt.
 
2009-03-05 03:56:00 PM
Nightjars: This whole conservative/liberal paradigm is getting old. You're not necessarily one or the other. There a is a whole political spectrum out there, and the cause of all of society's evils isn't the "other guys".

You're no Goddamn fun at all.
 
2009-03-05 04:05:06 PM
This just in: Conservatives are generally wrong about things.
 
2009-03-05 04:07:07 PM
EatHam
Fewer workers, in general, boosts the productivity per worker. The reason for that is usually excess capacity or some such, where some of the workers don't really end up doing much. If you are cutting capacity, the overall productivity will of course not increase, because the amount of work you require to be done shrinks.

No you lay off a few and the others work harder so they aren't next on the unemployment line.

/fear is a hell of a motivator
 
2009-03-05 04:09:30 PM
"You know how conservatives always say layoffs are good for the economy because they boost productivity?"

No.
 
2009-03-05 04:10:28 PM
Nightjars: This whole conservative/liberal paradigm is getting old. You're not necessarily one or the other. There a is a whole political spectrum out there, and the cause of all of society's evils isn't the "other guys".

There are only four people in the world and don't your forget it! Commie libruls, Freeper Conservatards, Randian Libertarians, and Moonbat Greens.

That's all there is, all there ever will be, and all people fit in nice neat little categories.
 
2009-03-05 04:15:07 PM
LibertyFirst:
There are only four people in the world and don't your forget it! Commie libruls, Freeper Conservatards, Randian Libertarians, and Moonbat Greens.

That's all there is, all there ever will be, and all people fit in nice neat little categories.

Since its the only group you didn't make fun of, I am going to have to guess you're a Libertarian sympathizer.

Shame on you. You want babies to starve to death and be eaten by the rich.
 
2009-03-05 04:18:50 PM
Nightjars: I am going to have to guess you're a Libertarian sympathizer.

I thought about calling them Randian Libercrazians, but I thought automatically relating all libertarians to Ayn Rand was insulting enough.
 
2009-03-05 04:20:45 PM
LibertyFirst: I thought about calling them Randian Libercrazians, but I thought automatically relating all libertarians to Ayn Rand was insulting enough.

You'd have to insinuate Libertarians with having sexual relations with Ayn. You know, sharp knees and all.
 
2009-03-05 04:36:24 PM
EatHam: Fewer workers, in general, boosts the productivity per worker. The reason for that is usually excess capacity or some such, where some of the workers don't really end up doing much. If you are cutting capacity, the overall productivity will of course not increase, because the amount of work you require to be done shrinks.

You are sort of correct on this. More simply put, there have not been enough layoffs to offset the collapse in demand.

Several months ago when you argued against my hypothesis that the economic expansion since 2001 was a farce, you were incorrect.

But you know that now, don't you?
 
2009-03-05 04:37:05 PM
Layoffs are good for the economy because they boost productivity.

/conservative who felt bad for dumbass subby. There, I said it. If we can find one more, subby could be right!
 
2009-03-05 04:42:49 PM
No, what's good for the economy is massive government spending, followed by massive tax increases. Oh, and nationalized healthcare, too. That'll have us perkin' right along in no time!
 
2009-03-05 04:44:09 PM
Marla Singer's Laundry: Rickmansworth: Conservatives say layoffs are good for the economy? Really, subby?



Submitter.

It's not like they/you don't say enough other stupid stuff. Lay off.


Like what conservatives think is good for the economy?

www.p0stwh0res.com
 
2009-03-05 04:47:10 PM
filth: I don't think I've ever heard anyone, conservative or otherwise, make such an asinine statement.

but now I've read it on Fark


Since I was reading books and newspapers in the 1990s, I saw it lots. It's from the past century's late economy - and therefore part of the toolkit for this century's early economy's management. The thing is, when companies laid people off in the 1990s, the shareholders made huge profits. So for a time, expanding profits meant layoffs. If anyone pointed out the ironies in the system, they were only listened to by academic socialists, or trade unionists who liked Mike Moore's Roger & Me. Eventually it wasn't news anymore. ...And now here we are, under new conditions, where layoffs might not mean awesome profits and growth on paper.
 
2009-03-05 05:00:10 PM
Submitter took Obama's straw man class. Nothing else to see here.
 
2009-03-05 05:08:03 PM
See, it's simple ... the neo-cons want to increase the disparity between what management make and the blue-collar (or not so blue) workers make. Hence, the proletariat would protest, and the management doing their job would chuck them out. Voila! More layoffs with increased wage disparity.

/Bah, this kind of logic is way too tortuous.
//It's too late to troll :/
 
2009-03-05 05:17:16 PM
EatHam: Fewer workers, in general, boosts the productivity per worker. The reason for that is usually excess capacity or some such, where some of the workers don't really end up doing much. If you are cutting capacity, the overall productivity will of course not increase, because the amount of work you require to be done shrinks.

Diminishing marginal product FTW!
 
2009-03-05 05:25:39 PM
Oh, and nationalized healthcare, too.

I swear I should put this story in my profile for ease of access...

I worked for four years for a private physician billing firm in Boston. We had several hundred doctors under our umbrella, from pediatricians to neurourgeons. We needed only one person to handle the combined Medicare/Medicaid claim load. Her desk was neat and clean. Meanwhile, over in the commercial carrier section, it took three people to handle just BCBS of MA, which is considered one of the best carriers in the country. Their desks looked like ground zero of a paperwork explosion. And that was ONE carrier (admittedly one of the largest).

Now multiply that labor and administrative costs across all other carriers, and you are looking at possibly the only industry where consolidating into a single, government payor system will actually reduce the amount of bureaucracy.

We don't need to nationalize the doctors and hospitals. They can remain private and compete on service and costs. But we need to scrap the insurance system.
 
2009-03-05 05:32:40 PM
Hey failmitter, like you humbly keep reminding the rest of us, YOUR party won the elections this past fall.

All of this economic turmoil is in your lap now. Your talking heads promised hope, change, and prosperity for all...where are the hope, change, and prosperity now?

Don't blame Bush either. You've overplayed that hand for 8 years now and that farker is out office. And no, you can't have it both ways, you leftist knob-gobblers.

If this economy is Bush's fault, then what happened on Bush's watch- a 2 recessions and a terrorist attack- were inherited from the Clinton administration.
 
2009-03-05 05:34:14 PM
JeffMolby: In a thriving economy, layoffs are the result of an inefficient company shrinking. They're usually shrinking at the expense of a more efficient competitor's growth, so yeah productivity figures grow up.

Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner. Someone with a realistic grasp of the labor availability aspect of capitalism.

This would be a great time to build up a company with bargain basement talent for the next generation of something or other. If you could gather the capital to launch a new car company right now you'd be king, being able to go as far as hiring union labor and still come out ahead because you aren't being drained by pensions.
 
2009-03-05 05:57:58 PM
nosferatublue: Is this why I'm still batting .000 in my headline submission? Because I don't submit nonsensical bullshiat trolly headlines like this?


...and because I don't make good funny?


Patience, little one. I've been here forever and had my first one go green in '06.
 
2009-03-05 06:03:44 PM
ramathorn83: Hey failmitter, like you humbly keep reminding the rest of us, YOUR party won the elections this past fall.

All of this economic turmoil is in your lap now. Your talking heads promised hope, change, and prosperity for all...where are the hope, change, and prosperity now?

Don't blame Bush either. You've overplayed that hand for 8 years now and that farker is out office. And no, you can't have it both ways, you leftist knob-gobblers.

If this economy is Bush's fault, then what happened on Bush's watch- a 2 recessions and a terrorist attack- were inherited from the Clinton administration.


Did you miss the part where the economy started falling apart last September?
 
2009-03-05 06:06:06 PM
DOW: -283

Yes, Hussein, healthcare reform = economic reform.

He's more retarded than Bush.
 
2009-03-05 06:10:12 PM
HeartBurnKid: Did you miss the part where the economy started falling apart last September?

To be fair, people tried blaming the Nasdaq bubble on Bush, too. That is equally retarded.
 
2009-03-05 06:17:38 PM
I've never heard anyone speaking as a conservative say any such thing. I have now heard a liberal speaking for a conservative say it though.
 
2009-03-05 06:19:41 PM
Nightjars: HeartBurnKid: Did you miss the part where the economy started falling apart last September?

To be fair, people tried blaming the Nasdaq bubble on Bush, too. That is equally retarded.


That it is. There's already enough to blame Bush for without heaping the dot-com crash on the guy.
 
2009-03-05 06:21:09 PM
godofusa.com: DOW: -283

Yes, Hussein, healthcare reform = economic reform.

He's more retarded than Bush.


He is selling fear on that one too. BO claimed that there was a medical BK every 30 seconds and when the media called him on it his economic spokeswoman had to quickly back off the claim since it was pure BS.
 
2009-03-05 06:21:39 PM
Well, I watched some Fox and some CNBC on and off today, and all I heard any of them rambling on and on about was, "What's it going to take to get this market moving again?", or somesuch.

Bobble-heads, there's really only one dot to connect.

When the millions of folks worried about losing their homes and their jobs are added to the millions of folks who've already lost their homes and their jobs, and the folks who've already lost it all, get their jobs and their homes back, and it all comes back far enough so that the others can all quit worrying about it too, then, and only then will they all start heading back out to the mall in droves and buying up all the products made by the companies listed on Wall Street.

Really, not much before that.
 
2009-03-05 06:23:03 PM
nosferatublue: Is this why I'm still batting .000 in my headline submission?

The modmins read the threads, and tag the headline whiners. The more whining you do, the longer you get to wait for your next (which might also be your first) greenlight.

Maybe you make good funny. It's hard to tell. It's a matter of opinion, and I can't see your redlit headlines.
 
2009-03-05 07:02:52 PM
If you employ frightened, stupid people, you might get more productivity out of the "survivors" after the mass layoffs, but more likely, those that remain will feel more indispensable and able to slack off far more than when they had more competition in the office and were less busy. Those remaining employees know that if they get laid off, they can collect unemployment and perhaps severance pay. They have a win-win situation and can kick back, roll in late, and otherwise torment their employers. Now is a great time to be the last remaining employee. Even if they bombard you with work, your employer is at your mercy. Productivity will be low for a long, long time - or until the economy picks back up and unemployment goes down.
 
2009-03-05 07:20:09 PM
My company laid off 10%. Guess who got laid off? Yeah, the unproductive guys.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report