[whichfawkes]

Why would they keep employees through a downturn? They're profit-driven entities.

Of course they're going to dump externalities onto the public any chance they get, and we should strive to limit their capacity to do so... But in this case I'm not sure what you mean exactly? Nor do I understand what you mean about bringing antitrust because of layoffs? That sounds much more difficult to justify than most of the other reasons you might bring antitrust against these companies.

[ako]

There are alternative ways to deal with a downturn, in the past German companies have successfully introduced part-time employment for all employees to avoid having to layoff employees. This avoids employee knowledge and experience from leaving, making it easier to scale back up once economy picks up again.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277267537_Securing_...

[mhuffman]

>This avoids employee knowledge and experience from leaving,

Amazon is very specifically optimizing their company to get rid of the need for both of those things!

[s1artibartfast]

Not everything people don't like is an externality. It has a specific meaning. Fired workers are not an externality.

[patentatt]

But the unemployment that those workers receive is an externality. Now, the nature of UI does mean that it should wash out in the end, but in the near term laying off thousands of people simultaneously potentially puts a strain on the system.

[s1artibartfast]

No, unemployment costs is not a externality from the company. It is a public cost resulting from the layoff.

Externality has a specific meaning. It is a cost of production passed on to the customer or third party.

Not everything that has a consequence is an externality.

[oblio]

By your own logic, the government is a third party. Because the government aka the tax payer covers that public cost...

[s1artibartfast]

Let's say I'm a good neighbor and I take your trash to the curb. I decide to stop, you now have to take out your own trash or pay someone. That change brings a real cost to you, but it is not my externality.

If I put my trash in your bin, that would be an externality.

Not employing someone is neutral.

Laid off workers and the state are not harmed by the company that stops sending paychecks.

To think otherwise leads to absurd conclusions.

[iLoveOncall]

> Why would they keep employees through a downturn? They're profit-driven entities.

Because keeping people paid for a year during a downturn is cheaper than firing them and then rehiring and retraining someone else a year later?

[s1artibartfast]

Under what reasoning is it cheaper to keep them?

[iLoveOncall]

Under the reasoning that hiring is expensive and training is extremely expensive?

1. The salary of a current employee will always be lower than the salary of a new hire, even a year later,

2. The hiring process itself costs tens of thousands of dollars,

3. A new joiner is useless for 2 months, needs to be babysat for 4 more and will ask constant questions for 6 more (if not 18). This costs the company a lot in terms of support that has to be provided from more senior (in tenure) employees.

[koheripbal]

This comment is unnecessarily cynical.

The unemployment benefits system is indeed designed to buffer against unemployment which is why both employees and employers pay into it.

[kritiko]

What's unnecessarily cynical? They have a duty to shareholders.

[ClumsyPilot]

I like how the word greed not got replaced with duty.

This is like how in medieval times it was your duty to serve the lord and make him rich.