the world is still entrenched in the supply-and-demand mindset. if demand is reduced then supply should be reduced. which can imply layoffs.
Nestle uses slavery in Africa to produce chocolate. I think penalizing them for that is a far bigger concern than a worker losing their job because I refuse to buy Nestle products.
deleted by creator
I have heard of companies offering “less pay” quite often. Usually smaller companies threatened with insolvency, usually trying to stave off absolute failure or perhaps to keep more people employed longer. That said, the example almost makes the case that wages are sticky since it happens uncommonly and not-at-all smoothly.
deleted by creator
Probably, in the short term. But there should be a long term goal when boycotting. Companies don’t want there bottom line affected long term and they are more inclined to wait things out in the short term.
Layoffs hurt the company long term when the company should hope a boycott is short term.
I have never heard of a company of any sort that thinks in a mindset which reasonable people would consider “long term”. I have read numerous articles about this over the years, all whining and lamentations about how company X or corporation Y fail to think in the short term… their corporate structures tend to discourage that, as they are run by CEOs who only wish to cash out on the stock options they get as the larger part of their compensation.
If this translates to your scenario at all, then they might well ignore the long-term implications of layoffs.
Well the supply demand workset… when one company fails… another rises up… yes people will be laid off, and where we buy from instead will need to hire people to make up for their increase in business.
Some companies shouldn’t be supported in any way, neither with money nor time (labor)
