Downsizing
DownsizingThe economy was strong, inflation was falling, and real GNP was growing at a steady, confident pace. Corporate profits had reached historically high
levels, and investors were on a buying spree in the stock market, pushing it from one record close to the next. Unemployment had fallen to a level that
many economists felt was consistent with non-accelerating inflation. Expectations of inflation were abated, and the boom seemed to be poised to last
for a long time, with no economic downturn in sight. At the same time, the major corporations in the US appeared to be firing workers by the
hundreds of thousands, and job insecurity had risen to a surprisingly high level. Regardless of seniority, the company’s profitability, or the surging
demand for the firm’s outputs, the threat to an employee of finding a pink slip in the next pay envelope was real and widespread. No job seemed safe.
The above statements, describing the US economy in the mid 1990s, seem inconsistent not only with a standard textbook characterization of an
economic boom, but also with any historically observable relationship between the labor market and other economic arenas, such as the financial market
or the goods market. Politicians and unions pointed to the greed of corporate America, and the insensitivity of management to the contributions and
value of workers. Standard microeconomics was at a complete loss to explain the phenomenon. If strong firms were anticipating a greater demand for
their products during the economic boom, and labor costs were not rising excessively relative to productivity, why were firms firing workers? The term
“downsizing” was coined to describe the action of dismissing a large portion of a firm’s workforce in a very short period of time, particularly when the
firm was highly profitable.
In a standard downsizing story, a profitable firm well-poised for growth would announce that it was firing a large percentage of its workforce. The
equity market would get excited, and initiate a buying frenzy of the firm’s stock. This goes counter to a standard micro-economic analysis, in which a
weak firm anticipates a slump in the demand for its products, and lays off workers, while a strong firm foresees a jump in the demand for its products,
and hires more workers to increase production.
Investors care about downsizing, since it contains severe implications for the short-term profitability and even the long-term growth of a company. A
downsizing is quite unlike a traditional layoff: in a layoff, a worker is asked to temporarily leave during periods of weak demand, but will be asked back
when business picks up. In a downsizing, the separation between a worker and a firm is permanent. A downsizing is also not a dismissal for individual
incompetence, but rather a decision on the part of management to reduce the overall work force.
Through a downsizing, the management inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately) signals to investors what the future economic health of the firm is. In
the 1980s, the largest layoffs were executed by weak companies, who were losing market share to foreign firms, or had large...
To view the complete essay, you be registered.