[missedthecue]

Well I understand it, but the analogy I was trying to illustrate is that in theory, 10% of a workforce produces something, and while it costs something to employ them, it also costs something to lose their employment. In theory. Otherwise, why were they hired to begin with?

[paxys]

There are inefficiencies in every organization. It's not like 100% of the workforce is 100% productive and critical to operations. You can cut a lot more than 10% before it starts to affect the business in a meaningful way.

[missedthecue]

Makes one wonder why they were ever employed if they don't impact the business in a meaningful way