Easy questions have easy answers, right?

  • 3DMVR@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    17 hours ago

    yeah thats a wild assumption, maybe ppl just have enough money to survive for a while and dont want to work while they pursue hobbies, why is that not allowed, nah mustve been in jail

    • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      maybe ppl just have enough money to survive for a while and dont want to work while they pursue hobbies

      The issue is that this is exactly what employers are trying to avoid. They want a good little worker bee who will show up every day and complete their tasks as assigned for 25 years straight. They don’t want someone who will just randomly decide to quit and focus on their hobbies. They want stability and predictability, because hiring new workers is a massive expense.

      • 3DMVR@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I thought it was worse to retain ppl long term and thats why they are constsntly firing ppl?

        • b000rg@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 hours ago

          It’s almost never actually a good business decision in the long-term to lose an employee, unless that employee is actually causing losses. All the layoffs of the past 50ish years from corporate downsizing is thanks to the business philosophy of Jack Welch. When you stop paying a large group of people, it looks good in the next quarterly meeting because you can point at the money you’re saving. The bad part is that now the business A) has lost that productivity, and B) will likely need to spend more money hiring a replacement worker who won’t be as competent.