Just in time employment
Started by spinnaker1
about 17 years ago
Posts: 1670
Member since: Jan 2008
Discussion about
I heard an interesting point on MSNBC today from non other than Christie Hefner who said that more than any other recession this recession saw for the first time a willingness to cut employees much faster than previous recessions. Whereas in the past, employers who had invested heavily in training and pensions and would also face large severances in the event of layoffs, the tendency was to hold on to employees through difficult times as long as possible. Now the priority is on the immediate bottom line and the logic that brought us just in time inventory now seems to be bringing us just in time employment. Could this be one explanation for the huge unemployment numbers we have seen? And will it result in better than expected bottom line numbers short term?
I think this bodes ill for the whole society. Businesses continue to offshore jobs with impunity; what happens when we're all selling drugs & stealing radios to make ends meet? As a society, we have to realize that success equals more than just the bottom line. We have responsibility for each other.
work force=commoditized capital good....cruel world
i tell my kids "dont end up a commodity"
drdrd, well put. for the CEO of a company nice if your company beats estimates. not so nice if we devolve to a society in which the wealthy are forced to live behind gates with security guards.
spin, the remaining employees are also being forced to take pay cuts, days off without pay, furloughs, reduced benefits. nobody can complain, because they feel the alternative is job loss. employers will increase the workload for existing employees before they hire again, generally, which means those out of work may have a long, dark winter ahead.
it's as though companies are seeing this huge window of opportunity amidst the disaster, cutting costs to the bone to promote the bottom line. but who will buy their products? sadly, i think they are turning their thoughts to the abundant potential of the emerging markets, where the people may not have our standard of living or our consumption habits, but they've certainly got volume in terms of population. but how many americans will those profits sustain? not very many.
At this point I don't see it as a long term "end of society as we know it" issue. This can just as quickly reverse itself. We won't go from a country of massive consumers of goods to paupers overnight. Might take a while to wind it all down...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aat.iwUe1RmQ
"The productivity of U.S. workers grew in the second quarter at the fastest pace in almost six years as employers squeezed more out of remaining staff to bolster profits."
...
"Labor costs fell by the most in eight years."
Of course futures immediately rose. The report goes on to note that such cost savings may reduce the need for future firings. IF sales firm up, a big if. But, even so, at what cost to the workforce and the economy generally? spin, we've been consuming on credit. we need to produce something other than services, which are ripe for outsourcing as well.
you're assuming that what is happening is not part of a longer term trend. i think it would be difficult if not impossible to find someone credible to make the case that running a business based on quarterly earnings is smart or will work in the long run.
yet, that is what has been going on for years and years. next quarters earnings are much more important than who will ultimately be left to buy your goods and services. sooner or later, that kind of thinking reaches its tipping point--which is precisely where I think we currently find ourselves.
we have sustained or endured (depending on your point of view) two bubbles in the last ten years that have kept the party going. now, the government has stepped in (and frankly i have no idea personally whether that was a good idea or not) to try to keep the balls up in the air.
but the rule by quarterly earnings continues and the results seem to me to be inevitable.
even more of a case against total reliance on employer provide health insurance (which is actually not health insurance) and more of a case for national health insurance.
being a corporate drone is not an option anymore.