Semi-serious question, what if instead of inflation, there was a cap on how much money one person/entity could have? (Don’t ask me how we’d manage that though, just go with it)
It would encourage people to spend when they’re at or near the cap since they won’t be able to get any more. It would also discourage excessive saving for the same reason.
This was inspired by me wondering why Link can only have a certain amount of rupees at a time, depending on the size of his wallet
“If it ain’t broke, we’ll break it”
I’d say it’s better. I don’t know the actual difference but I always thought about it as redundancy is your employer saying that they don’t need people doing your job anymore, or they don’t need as many people doing it. In other words, it’s the role itself that’s being eliminated.
Being laid off sounds to me like you’re fired but for no real reason, but they don’t want to call it a firing. Like in an at will state in the US. It’s not a thing where I am though, if they want to fire you they need a good reason and there’s a process to follow.
That’s just what I think though, so might not be accurate
the document says they are “permanently eliminating” my position.
That sounds more like you were made redundant than laid off
Are they going to take the same approach to ending racism and simply not allow non-white people outside?