I’m so annoyed at coverage of these issues and the economy as a whole. Journalists have to use the biggest numbers they can to make people think it’s important.
Ok a 64% reduction in profits is not good. But that also means that the company is still profitable and wants to fire the thousands of people, and in so doing harm the local economy, that gave it massive profits for decades.
A 64% reduction in profits cannot be the company making a loss. Yet the article claims that BMW and Mercedes are “also making similar large losses”.
Shareholders have been robbing employees blind for decades, and the second it gets a little bit less profitable we have to fire thousands of people?
And yes, I understand there must be some consideration of future proofing costs against a shrinking consumer base, but such drastic measures are solely aimed at preservation of shareholder dividends and value (see Boeing).
I think the only time martial law can be seen as reasonable is in an outright state of war. And even then, only when it’s existential.
It’s kind of inherently the antithesis of democratic values.