[thow-58d4e8b]

This approach suffers from the same fundamental problem as the comparative advantage argument - that there is an infinite reservoir of companies that can immediately rehire the now laid-off talent at equal or better productivity

Real world doesn't work that way. Real world looks much more like the deindustrialized parts of the UK or the US, or the collapse of Soviet economy after switching to capitalism. Companies go bust, taking the whole supply chain with them, workers are laid off and disperse. After a few years, the skills atrophy and the experience vanishes - you cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. More often than not, the workers stay unemployed, underemployed, or just cheat disability. In high-end consolidated markets like semiconductors or aircraft manufacturing, we're not talking about an infinite reservoir, it's a handful of corporations per continent

[clairity]

bankruptcy saves more of those jobs than letting a company dissolve completely, because the company is allowed to shed debt (and equity) and reorganize. it’s also better than nationalizing, because it preserves the profit motive that is better at ensuring the company will stay/become competitive and survive in the long term without government support.

i’m totally good with throwing out the senior leadership and letting new leadership grow from within though. claw back their bonuses and golden parachutes too.