Rolls-Royce To Cut 9,000 Jobs Amid Virus Crisis

[naomi24]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52723107

And so the fallout begins.

[Deskdiary]

The cause of the lockdown is the virus NickorWan, so I don’t see how it makes a difference .

[NickorWan]

Don't you, Deskdiary? To me there would be a difference between RR having to shed 9,000 jobs because of measures the Government has taken, which not all agree with, and losing those jobs because of a virus, which nobody could have done anything about.

[jno]

"About half Sweden’s GDP comes from exports, and some of its best known companies, such as Volvo Cars and Electrolux, have had to cut thousands of jobs as demand dries up."

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/sweden-in-deep-economic-crisis-as-per-capita-deaths-rise-despite-soft-lockdown

[naomi24]

Thanks jno. So it can be assumed that lockdown elsewhere has created that situation. Still at least their bars, restaurants, hairdressers and other small businesses are still trading.

[New Judge]

//Those that feel so strongly that the lockdown must continue (and that it hasn't been strict enough anyway) are those who are retired and haven't been impacted.//

There are lots who haven't been particularly impacted that much but who are not retired, Prudie. There are people round my way positively loving it, especially now the warm weather is here. Some have been "furloughed" but are continuing to work on the side. There are some who have been told to stay at home but are receiving full pay - local Council wallahs and some working for housing associations. Some of them are also doing a little bit of "private work". Full pay, stay at home, nice weather, bit of work for cash in hand when you fancy it. Why would you want that to change?

[237SJ]

NJ I am furloughed (on 80 % of pay) Do I like being furloughed? I did to start with but then I realised that after furlough started that I am probably going to lose my job. "Loving it?" I don't *** think so!

[Prudie]

To be fair NJ I did premise that with my perception of ABers, many of whom don't want to come out of lockdown and I think they are in the main retired. There are of course exceptions but I reckon the majority of working people want to get back to work.

[Neveracrossword]

Naomi, the Swedish restaurants, bars and so on are still trading, but I read today that many of the top-end restaurants rely very heavily on visitors, tourists. With travel so heavily curtailed, that's affected business greatly. One chef-owner said that his bookings are down 80% at present.

[jim360]

I don't think there's any doubt that the majority of working people want to get back to work, but -- from what little it's possible to tell from polling -- the majority of people of all ages would also rather wait until they were confident it was safe to do so. It's a difficult question as to how "safe" things need to be in order to return back to some semblance of normal, and it should go without saying that perfect safety is impossible anyway, so there is clearly a difficult balance to strike.

What I was, perhaps unfairly, bristling at was the suggestion that those who want to wait a while are (mostly) relatively unaffected by the loss of work. It's a bit misleading anyway, because work isn't the only way in which our lives have changed for the worse in the last months -- although I accept that, for many, losing work and the money that goes with it will be more significant than losing other freedoms. But it still seems uncharitable to assume that those who want this to go on for longer have little to lose from that. Actually it's also misleading to suggest that anyone "wants" this to continue. "Accepts that it's necessary" is a better way of putting it. Lesser of two evils, and all that. If we hadn't gone into lockdown the human death toll would almost certainly have been much worse, and it also follows from that assessment that exiting lockdown prematurely would be too damaging and too deadly to be worth the benefits.

[tomus42]

The elephant in the room is that if the economy gets back up and running as we would like it to, more people will die because the economy revolves around everyone interacting in one way or another.

All countries are trying to pussyfoot around that situation at the moment and not quite knowing how to do it. The economy is winning though because as I saw someone on the news say earlier, there's no point everyone surviving the virus if they all subsequently die of starvation.

[New Judge]

//Actually it's also misleading to suggest that anyone "wants" this to continue. "Accepts that it's necessary" is a better way of putting it.//

I spoke to an acquaintance yesterday who is enjoying the best time of his working life. He is receiving £2,500 a month furlough pay. He is taking on enough "private" work for cash to make up his income to more than his usual salary. He has plenty of time to do work around the house which he never had time for before. For him, working normally is the lesser of two evils.

//there's no point everyone surviving the virus if they all subsequently die of starvation.//

Exactly. There comes a point in all of this where the cure causes more damage than the disease. I doubt anybody will starve here in the UK but the economy is being ravaged to an unprecedented level and that will cause damage to the entire population for years, if not decades to come.

[Hymie]

When the dust finally settles on the Covid 19 pandemic (which will be many years from now) – people will look back and say an opportunity was missed, that was cheaper than providing free sky-diving lessons for the over 65s.

In a hundred years or so from now, when the next similar pandemic hits, maybe the human race will have technologically advanced to the point where furloughed staff will be given a seat on the ‘Ark Fleet Ship B’ – to populate a new world.