Does a policy of “Protecting existing jobs” often stymie or stifle progress?
What if railroad worker unions had lobbied for the aviation industry to be banned in the early 1900s, on the basis that an airline industry would result in fewer passengers riding trains, thus putting railroad workers out of business?
Aren't there times when it's worth it to lose jobs, for the sake of progress - especially jobs that are outdated or unnecessary? Do we let sentimentality get in the way? Shouldn't laid off workers just move on to something new? You can't keep the status quo forever.
More Questions From This User See All
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
A better example would be school teachers. Poor teachers with tenure cannot be removed to make your for better qualified teachers. You can have a whole school staffed with poor quality teachers and none can be removed due to union contracts that "protect existing jobs."
Yes, of course.
If an old industry is threatened, there are lots of employees in the industryand rich managers in the industry who know they will be hurt. It's harder to knowwhowill be helped by the rise of a nw industry.
Remember, there was a bailout for the financial sector, there was no bailout for the dot.coms during the bubble.
you have have been given it backwards--Obama's rules at the instant are not working using fact they stifle corporation, that's the only source of financial develop. in the previous few years the government has churned out an obscene style of ineffective, burdensome rules. that's why agencies could waste time, money and workers to guy an entire time "compliance" workplace.