[simonh]

>>I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened. > >You're not owed either of these things.

They're in my contract, and protected under UK employment law.

>You don't really seem like someone who needs to work for a living, but you're trying to portray yourself as labor and not capital in your posts.

You're hallucinating.

>Or you are against your own self-interests, which is illogical.

What are our interests? I have interests as an employee, but I also have interests as a customer of other companies, as a tax payer, and as a citizen generally.

A lot of the products I buy here in the UK, or inputs to them are probably transported by Maersk. I have an interest in Maersk being a well run efficient company that does a good job cheaply and reliably transporting those goods. If they have insufficient employees or investment, that jeopardises supply. If they have increased costs, that makes the goods I depend on more expensive.

It's in my interests that companies I buy products and services from are efficient and are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Also if they see an increase in demand, that they can respond to that without worrying about being locked into near-permanent employment contracts. I even have that interest as an employee, because if my company becomes ossified employing people that are under-utilised that saps their ability to invest, grow, compensate me better, or even for the company to survive.

It's also in my interests as tax payer that there is an affordable social safety net, but as an employee that there is an adequate one. Both factors are important to me.

[interactivecode]

The whole point is that they could have changed nothing and still prices would have stayed the same because they made a lot of profit in the years before.

They could have paid by having less profit. Instead employees are paying by losing their jobs.

This would have been a totally different discussion if they were making a loss. If you ask me a good business keeps a safety net when times a good and uses their safety net when times are bad. Only when those savings run out they should consider letting people go.

[simonh]

They are responding to changes in demand. Do you think they have an obligation to make a loss in future if they made a profit in the past? What effect do you think this would have on their ability to attract investment, the interest rates they have to pay on loans, the costs of insurance?

Even beyond the business itself, profits mater. They are the surplus a business generates that gets plowed back into the economy outside the business. That money gets invested in other businesses, spent on other goods and activities. It's the fuel that goes into other beneficial economic activities.

Leaving it sunk in an unproductive business that's paying people to do less, and generating fewer outputs is a tax on the whole rest of the economy. It's invisible because it's investment and spending that never happens, but it's a real effect. It's true that those unproductive workers still get paid and that money goes into the economy, but if they were working in another job at a productive company or retraining, that's a net gain. That's can't happen if they're stuck in an unproductive job.

>If you ask me a good business keeps a safety net when times a good and uses their safety net when times are bad.

Any good business does this, but they need to take acton on foreseeable headwinds in order to maintain that safety net against unforeseeable ones. When it looks like times are uncertain and getting worse, possibly in unpredictable ways, is not time to give up your safety net. That's how businesses fail and the whole company goes under. How does that benefit anyone?