• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandatory severance pay from companies for laid off workers

Rickeroo said:
6 months savings, 5 years in simple index mutual funds. Financial planners assume that we drive an hour to get to work, pay unholy daycare fees, and have a mortgage for over twice household income. Doing these things is financial suicide. If we spend too much time giving our money away to other people, then yes, a paltry buffer of 6 months might be expected.
Click to expand...

Purple: That would certainly make a lot more sense than 5 years of savings, but I stand by my claim that nearly everyone with a portfolio that large is independently wealthy.

Orange: Many, if not most, people who call themselves financial planners are really nothing more than commissioned salespeople who are pushing their employers' own investment vehicles. Those types don't figure into my discussion of what real financial planners do and don't do.

Black: You can give all your money away in a few hours online, so I'm not sure what the point of that last bit was supposed to be. (shrug)
 
Bullseye said:
Seems counterproductive to me. If a company has come to the point it needs to layoff employees why should they need to continue PAYING THEM? Isn't that the point of the layoff - to reduce costs? I'm not in favor of it.
Click to expand...

More companies will go into bankruptcy!
 
DifferentDrummr said:
If companies can’t figure out how to plan for it, they deserve to go bankrupt.
Click to expand...

That would be a fair assumption if government regulations didn't take effect until 10 years after passage.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Purple: That would certainly make a lot more sense than 5 years of savings, but I stand by my claim that nearly everyone with a portfolio that large is independently wealthy.

Orange: Many, if not most, people who call themselves financial planners are really nothing more than commissioned salespeople who are pushing their employers' own investment vehicles. Those types don't figure into my discussion of what real financial planners do and don't do.

Black: You can give all your money away in a few hours online, so I'm not sure what the point of that last bit was supposed to be. (shrug)
Click to expand...

These people in financial straights - it would be interesting what financial choices they've made. We allow our employer to make draconian decisions as to their expenses (employees), but don't allow ourselves that same freedom. Indeed, the less intelligent I am about my finances, the more vulnerable I become to politicians saying that they can fix things for me.
 
Rickeroo said:
These people in financial straights - it would be interesting what financial choices they've made.
Click to expand...
No doubt some of them screwed up, maybe even a few screwed up spectacularly. And no doubt some of them didn't make any choice that was especially unwise, but simply had bad luck.

So yeah, those stories would be interesting. But without percentages, they wouldn't be persuasive either way.
We allow our employer to make draconian decisions as to their expenses (employees), but don't allow ourselves that same freedom.
Click to expand...
For most people, I would guess that it's not that they don't ALLOW themselves, but that they simply lack the financial education to know how to.

Indeed, the less intelligent I am about my finances, the more vulnerable I become to politicians saying that they can fix things for me.
Click to expand...
And the more you're worth financially, the more vulnerable you become to politicians who say they can cut your taxes! :)
 
DifferentDrummr said:
If companies can’t figure out how to plan for it, they deserve to go bankrupt.
Click to expand...

So then less jobs for people overall? How is that a benefit for society, or is that irrelevant?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
If I were writing my PhD dissertation for Professor Lursa, I would be plugging all the holes and dealing with all the 'angles' until everything fit together properly.

In reality, the payoff I would get from doing so is basically nonexistent. I have real-world responsibilities and additional things I do for entertainment in my life. That you find this so objectionable is your problem, not mine.

Bye for now.
Click to expand...

So once again, you post completely unable to defend a very salient hole in your argument. Perhaps the most egregious hole: what motivates people to look for other employment while being paid full salary for months, up to a year, at the time?

Noted...at least own that your 'proposal' is only meant as a non-constructive punishment to employers and fulfills no real constructive purpose.
 
Lursa said:
So once again, you post completely unable to defend a very salient hole in your argument. Perhaps the most egregious hole: what motivates people to look for other employment while being paid full salary for months, up to a year, at the time?

Noted...at least own that your 'proposal' is only meant as a non-constructive punishment to employers and fulfills no real constructive purpose.
Click to expand...

Believe what you like.

The second paragraph is bait: I’m not taking it.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You know very well that workers are routinely hired by a bankrupt company’s former competitors.
Click to expand...

I dont know that, altho you imply that all employees are of such value that they hold highly valuable proprietary information

As a contractor, I can go from employer to employer within my industry with no issues. I sign Non-compete docs and of course adhere to them but it's common practice.

Employees are hired away, period, from companies in their same industries. And of course people laid off or who leave for any reason, including choice, frequently find work in their same industries.

Sorry, I see just as many reasons why your unsupported claim makes a difference. If you want it to weigh properly in your argument, you need to show sources that support it.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Believe what you like.

The second paragraph is bait: I’m not taking it.
Click to expand...

It's fact. It's a waste of space in a forum where people make civil and constructive responses to an OP and then the OP just starts attacking them personally because they cannot engage in honest discussion.
 
Lursa said:
It's fact. It's a waste of space in a forum where people make civil and constructive responses to an OP and then the OP just starts attacking them personally because they cannot engage in honest discussion.
Click to expand...

You’re one of the last members who has any business complaining about other’s wasting forum space.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You’re one of the last members who has any business complaining about other’s wasting forum space.
Click to expand...

Why do you characterize my civil and on-topic posts a waste of space? I have continually attempted a cogent and polite discussion and you continually fail to provide anything of substance to support your arguments, to answer my questions, with anything but 'because you said so' or personal attacks.

This, for instance, is not a coherent answer to a direct question:

DifferentDrummr said:
You know very well that workers are routinely hired by a bankrupt company’s former competitors.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Why do you characterize my civil and on-topic posts a waste of space? I have continually attempted a cogent and polite discussion and you continually fail to provide anything of substance to support your arguments, to answer my questions, with anything but 'because you said so' or personal attacks.

This, for instance, is not a coherent answer to a direct question:
Click to expand...

Because they're always a foregone conclusion.

Whether you start a thread or start replying to someone, you insist that the situation is always the same: you claim to be 100% accurate in every detail, all while claiming the moral high ground. No matter how many dozens of posts it takes, that's where you always end up: you never once consider the possibility of a mistake or a flaw in a conclusion on your part.

By contrast, most other members (myself included) see this forum as not much more than a source of entertainment. If someone comes up with a good idea and people start to run with it, all the better, but we're certainly not on a mission from a higher power to change the world through this site.

If you relaxed and acknowledged that you're only human, you wouldn't alienate so many other people around here.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Because they're always a foregone conclusion.

Whether you start a thread or start replying to someone, you insist that the situation is always the same: you claim to be 100% accurate in every detail, all while claiming the moral high ground. No matter how many dozens of posts it takes, that's where you always end up: you never once consider the possibility of a mistake or a flaw in a conclusion on your part.

By contrast, most other members (myself included) see this forum as not much more than a source of entertainment. If someone comes up with a good idea and people start to run with it, all the better, but we're certainly not on a mission from a higher power to change the world through this site.

If you relaxed and acknowledged that you're only human, you wouldn't alienate so many other people around here.
Click to expand...

I have only created about 5 threads in the entire years I've been here. Strike one.

This forum is a source of entertainment for me. Strike two

I never claimed anywhere in this thread to be 100% right nor anything referring to morality. All I did was ask you to answer questions to prove you were right *at all.* Strike three

You have not even posted accurately here. Completely struck out.

My questions, esp. regarding incentive for people to look for work when they are being paid a full salary for months or even a year still stand.
 
Lursa said:
I have only created about 5 threads in the entire years I've been here. Strike one.

This forum is a source of entertainment for me. Strike two

I never claimed anywhere in this thread to be 100% right nor anything referring to morality. All I did was ask you to answer questions to prove you were right *at all.* Strike three

You have not even posted accurately here. Completely struck out.

My questions, esp. regarding incentive for people to look for work when they are being paid a full salary for months or even a year still stand.
Click to expand...

And there you go again. Thanks for making my case about your denying any and all of your arguments' imperfections.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And there you go again. Thanks for making my case about your denying any and all of your arguments' imperfections.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to make 'perfect' anything. I have made civil and constructive posts here with many questions that you have been unable to support and you are mad about it. So you attack me instead of supporting your arguments with anything of substance.

My questions, pointed and on-focus, still go unanswered...such those regarding incentives for people to look for work when they are being paid a full salary for months or even a full year. A giant hole in your OP. Still unanswered.

Feel free to show where I denied any 'imperfections' in the post you responded to:

Lursa said:
I have only created about 5 threads in the entire years I've been here. Strike one.

This forum is a source of entertainment for me. Strike two

I never claimed anywhere in this thread to be 100% right nor anything referring to morality. All I did was ask you to answer questions to prove you were right *at all.* Strike three

You have not even posted accurately here. Completely struck out.

My questions, esp. regarding incentive for people to look for work when they are being paid a full salary for months or even a year still stand.
Click to expand...

?? Anywhere? Seems like you arent even posting truthfully at all.
 
Lursa said:
I never claimed to make 'perfect' anything. I have made civil and constructive posts here with many questions that you have been unable to support and you are mad about it. So you attack me instead of supporting your arguments with anything of substance.

My questions, pointed and on-focus, still go unanswered...such those regarding incentives for people to look for work when they are being paid a full salary for months or even a full year. A giant hole in your OP. Still unanswered.

Feel free to show where I denied any 'imperfections' in the post you responded to:



?? Anywhere? Seems like you arent even posting truthfully at all.
Click to expand...

You've made it loudly obvious that nothing I post by way of argument is ever going to satisfy you. So you'll understand if I abandon your sanctimony (again) due to boredom.

And if you don't, too bad: I'm abandoning it anyway.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You've made it loudly obvious that nothing I post by way of argument is ever going to satisfy you. So you'll understand if I abandon your sanctimony (again) due to boredom.

And if you don't, too bad: I'm abandoning it anyway.
Click to expand...

The bold is unfounded and dishonest.

You have provided no sources to support the premise that I have mentioned several times...the incentive to find work when you are already being paid a full salary for months or even a year. It's not my failure...it's a huge hole in your OP that you cannot fix. If so, I'm still here, politely waiting to see it.
 
Would this replace unemployment insurance?

I think most companies would adjust by going fully (if possible) to temp and contract labor. A school district near me replaced all of their district custodians with a contract cleaning service. None of the headaches of union contracts, benefits or retirement. They saved a bundle. And if the contractor doesn't do a good job, they can hire someone else.

Having to pay 2 years severance pay would really boost the automation industry.
 
Waddy said:
Would this replace unemployment insurance?
Click to expand...
Sort of: if someone is receiving severance pay, they shouldn't be getting unemployment insurance at the same time.

I think most companies would adjust by going fully (if possible) to temp and contract labor. A school district near me replaced all of their district custodians with a contract cleaning service. None of the headaches of union contracts, benefits or retirement. They saved a bundle. And if the contractor doesn't do a good job, they can hire someone else.
Click to expand...
Most companies are already doing that as much as they can. Of course, a contract service company that hires its employers would have to pay them severance, too.

Having to pay 2 years severance pay would really boost the automation industry.
Click to expand...
Are Japanese manufacturing plants more automated than ours? (Just asking; I haven't looked into that.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom