No you get the government (ie the people) to pay the £2 million to keep it going. Just like British Leyland, RBS, Lloyds,etc.

You know that makes sense - it helps keep the masses poor (but keeps a handful of workers at said factory better off).

Why expect anyone to ever show a shred of moral behaviour and responsibility?




Much better to put people on the dole – and then you can slag them off for being workshy scroungers etc.

Nice example of answering a question with a question because the only reasonable answer isn't the one you want to give.

Should a business feel obligated to keep employing people at a site if doing so is losing them substantial sums of money?

So in this case, it was the labour costs of 50 staff that made the difference between it being a successful site or not? Hence the company wanting to cut 50 jobs.

Did the productivity of those staff add nothing to the overall output of the site? If not, obviously there's a problem. If so, then how does removing that productivity help?

But on the wider question – why not? We seem to consider it entirely reasonable for the taxpayer to subsidise very successful, large companies by paying in-work benefits when they won't pay staff a living wage, so why shouldn't large companies be expected to keep a site open if the overall company is doing well?

Or is it acceptable that there is such a lack of give and take?

I'm sure it will have added something to the overall output of the site. The question is, did it add enough to cover the costs of having them work there?

Clearly the owners have decided - on the basis of the facts in front of them, which aren't in the public domain - that the answer to that question is no.

And on the wider question?

Let's look at your view in a relatively extreme case, to highlight how ridiculous it is.

Assume full employment and just two companies A and B each employing 50% of the workforce and all workers are paid equally (I assume you may consider that ideal!). Let's say company A exports everything it produces and company B sells to the home market. Company A's export market disappears overnight (some local catastrophe in the area it sells to) and the company has no reserves. Let's say there are then just two options:

1. Company A closes and its staff are laid off.
2. Company A is propped up by the State.

Option 2 simply does not work because the state could not afford to pay the workforce their wages as to do so would involve taxing the workers of Company B at 100% (so then they would have no income!) in order to pay the workers at Company A to produce something no one wants.

Much better that company A closes and its staff are redeployed into more profitable economic activities (maybe Company B cannot satisfy demand for its products due to labour shortage?). In the short-term it is even better to pay benefits (being a fraction of A's workers pay) out the tax take from B.

Nope. That's a totally nonsensical analogy that doesn't work because it does not compare to the situation in this case as far as we know – ie the market has not collapsed and the company is not going titties up.

But then, you seem to 'think' that I believe in everyone being on the same pay for some reasons. I don't – and never have.

agreed,the analogy is silly

but why should any company keep a loss making branch open just to keep people in employment ?

any company looking to maximise profits don't have any alternative but to close the non profitmaking areas and restructure their other facilities accordingly

good business sense doesn't allow the bosses to be sentimental i'm afraid

unfortunately it's dog eat dog, end of.

Why should taxpayers subsidise big, successful businesses?

It's not even a case of maximising profits, in the long term it's survival. Soon enough, a rival will make those same efficiency improvements and out-price the first company, taking their business.

Which, taken to its logical conclusion, will see almost nobody employed in any job in a few years.

And what will we do then - whinge even more about benefit scroungers?

Not sure what kind of logic you're using there Minty. Not one I recognise.

nah, we wait for the far eastern bubble to burst (explode) and try to become competitive again

maybe europe needs to show some solidarity and restrict imports of foriegn rubbish and work more amongst ourselves - I know it goes against all british principles to actually participate in a forward looking europe but hey, why not give it a try ?

Sorry but that's the polar opposite of forward looking. It's the sort of protectionism that ultimately leads to conflict

I agree with you. Which means it must be time for me to shut the laptop lid and go outside!

so you're happy to see the chinese economy boom and the european version collapse ?

why don't WE look after ourselves ?

one mans protectionism is another mans prosperity

Technology means that companies can reduce staff - see the use of self-service scanners in shops reducing till staff in many stores as just one example.

And all in the name of "efficiency".

Would have been pure sci-fi 20 years ago. So where will we be in another 20 years?

And where are the new jobs taking up the slack?

And both the US and UK built their respective economies on the basis of protectionism ...

more like exploitation and rape of the third world...

... and protectionism.

Unless people have the wealth to buy goods / services then companies won't exist. So, there will always need to be incomes for people if there are to be businesses. I wouldn't get too depressed if I were you.

So, a little bit off track of where we were, closing (or outsourcing or off shoring!) the non profitable parts of the business?

As to automation, in an area like self checkout: self checkout is still seeing slow acceptance by customers, but brings a number of advantages along with the cost saving the reduced space means more checkouts and less queuing. As most shoppers shop on the basis of price and convenience (and whether we agree they should is a separate matter) the shop that makes those improvements will take business from the one that doesn't. So, even putting profit aside and prioritising delivering what their customers want, what should they do? Perhaps there is the difference in philosophy: is a business customer or employee orientated?

it's not in the name of 'efficiency' that jobs have ben cut - it's called 'progress' it's always been the case and didn't just start a few years ago
companies have streamlined their staff according to technological developments at the time,whether it be this one year or a hundred years ago
we could help ourselves by not allowing multinationals making billions in profits like HSBC or whoever transferring call centres to Bangalore for example
we could redevelop our own manufacturing base if we didn't insist on buying cheap far eastern imports...

in a nutshell - WE are not helping ourselves

What then happens to the profitability of these companies (and the concomitant UK tax-take), when the people they used to employ, no longer have any spare money to spend with them?