Quote:
|
I did have an agenda, and a point to make but I was open to go with the flow of the discussion and learn. I did go with the flow, and I have participated in responding to what you and others presented.
|
Despite your protests to the contrary, you didn't start this thread to
learn. I've read about 15 different "solutions" that didn't involve cutting labor, but that's not acceptable.
You didn't post your solution because you WANTED to bait people into avoiding labor reduction. "Look at those silly liberals.. they won't even fire people to save the sinking ship."
If you really wanted to "learn," you'd deign that your presentation is flawed and that forcing labor reductions is an artifical construction. But you won't -- we're just denying your perfect little situation, huh?
Is it possible to reduce costs without laying off people? Yes.
In a way, you've had your point backfire in your face. You hoped to prove that corporations weren't "bad" simply because they fired people, and constructed a situation where you thought it was the only option. Unfortunately, people came with ways to avoid laying people off - liberals, nonetheless. Wait, wouldn't that mean that laying people off wasn't the only solution? OH NOES!~