Layoffs during periods of strong performance really raise an eyebrow to me.
You should have to prove some economic need to make those kind of layoffs similarly how you have to prove economic need for work visas.
You should have to prove some economic need to make those kind of layoffs similarly how you have to prove economic need for work visas.
"Bill Ackman warns economy will fall off a cliff if the Fed doesn't hurry and cut rates"
The Fed isn't going to cut rates for years. They're refusing to blink. These are Volcker-sized balls on JPow.
Any rallying now is squeezing blood from the stone. Any massive layoffs, sales, mergers, bankruptcies, or consolidations is hedging for the unavoidable cliff.
These are just smart, safe moves by corporations -- getting their affairs in order, per se.
And now the workers are going to suffer because they didn't organize labor when the economy was booming and they weren't feeling the pinch. Hopefully they learn this time and don't let the unions weaken if they want to avoid being battered and left for a cheaper workforce or replaced with automation.
No comment on the rest of your post, but I suspect this particular metric has more to do with the rise of online retailers and less to do with falling purchasing power.
Layoffs wouldn't be an issue of they were respectable. Some mix of either foresight or proper severance. In reality, it's rarely either unless you're in a sector that is likely already well compensated. I think thars more in the heart of what the GP was talking about.
>And now the workers are going to suffer because they didn't organize labor when the economy was booming and they weren't feeling the pinch.
If we had good government labor laws, unions wouldn't be necessary. I don't know why everyone feels collective bargaining is the only road here. Moreover, they aren't mutually exclusive; we can vye for both unions and better government regulation of jobs and how easily you can lay someone off on a profitable quarter.