>Keep the headcount as high as possible while still turning a profit
Opportunity cost is a thing. Just because you're not in the red doesn't mean the decision is costless. Think about it from the opposite perspective. Suppose you're a company with the right number of employees (neither too much nor too little) but you see demand is dropping. Would you go on a hiring spree so you could "react on demand going up again in a short notice"?
Specifically, people forget that there always options to deploy limited capital.
- Spend it on labor
- Spend it on sales
- Spend it on R&D
- Fund capital improvements
- Save it in bonds
Which is better for Maersk in a softening demand environment? To retain headcount or invest in capital improvements on their ships/facilities?
Their CFO office has definitely modeled relative ROI.
And, from a more socially conscious perspective, let's not forget the shipping industry is trying to budget massive capital expenditures to reduce their carbon footprint by reworking their ship powerplants.
Anything done to keep headcount above necessary levels would have caused slower hiring and in turn caused the demand shock to go on even longer.
I'm curious about your solution though. How many people do they need to keep on staff that are not doing anything? How much profit are they allowed? Do they have to lose money before they are allowed to trim the workforce? Do they need to be prepared for another COVID-level demand surge?
Opportunity cost is a thing. Just because you're not in the red doesn't mean the decision is costless. Think about it from the opposite perspective. Suppose you're a company with the right number of employees (neither too much nor too little) but you see demand is dropping. Would you go on a hiring spree so you could "react on demand going up again in a short notice"?