Question for the opposition: why is it better (or at least ethical) to lay off thousands of low and mid level workers as opposed to having some few on the topmost levels retain their jobs but take temporary pay or bonus cuts?
It would seem to me that any action that takes money away from a large group of active consumers (minimum wage earners and those still within a low or middle income bracket) and thus out of the economic picture, does more harm than good. While on the flip side, taking money from those on top (who I may argue are usually more responsible for a companies short comings than hourly workers in these situations) will likely see little to no impact on the economy as a whole as doing so is not likely to put that upper echelon executive into such dire straights. Granted this may just be a "trickle-down" vs "trickle-up" economic theory debate, but why is Socialized failure acceptible, when Socializing everything else is demonized?
PS. I'm serious about this. Can any one give me a reasoned debate on this?
Posted from my iPhone @ Quack's