Maybe companies can have like a savings account for when they don't make a lot of money, that way if they think they might not make as much then they can cover the difficult times.
better, Cheaper, and with out the political corruption that comes with all government programs.
Hell we just saw during COVID unemployment "insurance" being used as a political tool to essentially buy votes, by all political parties and organizations. Also used a tool to make authoritarian control of the population palatable
Further How many dystopian novels have the trope of the masses being paid not to work...
The axiom of a "social safety net" is apt but not the the way people using it believe it to be, the social safety net in practice tends to be like a fishing net, once you get entangled in it, you rarely escape it...
So its a waste for the bottom line of the company owners? Thats what 100 people max? Compared to 10.000 jobs and livelihoods lost its pretty clear to me.
To the economy as a whole. At the end of the day you're still having workers twiddle their thumbs not doing anything productive, with no incentive to move onto another job where they'll actually be doing something useful. We should weigh this against the workers' economic security, but let's not pretend that keeping workers around is some sort of free lunch.
> surprise! You are probably needed elsewhere!
Is not the way to handle this kind of thing.
Decentralized people that each make individual choices more quickly and ideally allocate unused labor where it's most needed.
... but to the broader point from sibling threads, the humane solution here is {permit companies to be agile with layoffs} + {fund strong government-provided safety nets for unemployed workers}.
Also its about 10% of employees right, that means if you give the whole company 1 day off every two weeks. Everyone who would have a full workload again. Googles 20% was about double that