1 More thing - while companies that fire people perform worse than ones that don't, surely amongs them there are some that actually perform better? There should be some studies about that too, right?
There is definitely a distribution - some firms perform better, some worse. The issue is how to systematically differentiate as to why one company did better than the other. Right now - it's just assumed to be noise/randomness. And the variables for which they control for do not appear to predict why a certain company would do better than another one. This could actually be an interesting question for a machine learning algorithm that could at least highlight what variables could be important to look at.
Is there a notion of non-quantifiable variables in economics (for example how proactive are employees in saving their employer)? Or are they just considered noise?:D
I think this is a very interesting topic. I wonder if (heh, as if management would ever take science into account) there could be a switch to companies not downsizing when they should, and going bankrupt, caused by people thinking that firing people is bad for it's financial performance.
Also, in giant tech companies there were really a lot of superfluous positions as far as I know. And somehow never enough testers and quality assurance people xD
There could be a signalling issue - if firing people would tell investors that the company isn't doing well, then by firing workers, you would end up bringing your company down. That could be a danger (a bit with what just happened with the Silicon Valley Bank run)
That was very informative and interesting! Thank you
1 More thing - while companies that fire people perform worse than ones that don't, surely amongs them there are some that actually perform better? There should be some studies about that too, right?
There is definitely a distribution - some firms perform better, some worse. The issue is how to systematically differentiate as to why one company did better than the other. Right now - it's just assumed to be noise/randomness. And the variables for which they control for do not appear to predict why a certain company would do better than another one. This could actually be an interesting question for a machine learning algorithm that could at least highlight what variables could be important to look at.
Is there a notion of non-quantifiable variables in economics (for example how proactive are employees in saving their employer)? Or are they just considered noise?:D
I think this is a very interesting topic. I wonder if (heh, as if management would ever take science into account) there could be a switch to companies not downsizing when they should, and going bankrupt, caused by people thinking that firing people is bad for it's financial performance.
Also, in giant tech companies there were really a lot of superfluous positions as far as I know. And somehow never enough testers and quality assurance people xD
There could be a signalling issue - if firing people would tell investors that the company isn't doing well, then by firing workers, you would end up bringing your company down. That could be a danger (a bit with what just happened with the Silicon Valley Bank run)