this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
575 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59232 readers
2984 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hence why acquisitions need more scrutiny. It literally kills jobs.
In this case, it kills unproductive jobs. Payroll people are necessary but at the end of the day, they don't produce anything you would want to buy. This means that if you keep more administrative jobds than you need, there will be fewer actuall things to go around. Hence everyone will be poorer on average (or realistically speaking, the rich will be poorer in the current system, but that is a different issue).
Anyway, keeping unproductive jobds to reduce unenployment is a dumb idea and is one of the main reason why communism sucked so much.
I have a better idea. Fire the whole payroll division and hire just one accountant. Since clearly, clearly, any number of payroll employees can sustain any company size, this is the most cost efficient way to go.
Oh you say one staff in payroll is not enough? Oh then I miss your point.
How about you take your strawman argument somewhere else? I never said you need just one. But the company clearly did not need as many, if they were able to let them go. Economy of scale I guess.