Remembering to Preserve Jobs Going into Recessions

Getting back to some semblance of full employment continues to be an issue with everyone focusing on job creation.

At this point job creation should be emphasized, of course, but a prior focus on job preservation going into recessions would have been a big help. Despite retraining programs, etc. -- it is the transition cost that hurts the economy (job loss, loss of confidence, loss of productivity, ramp up time at new position, lingering reduced spending with uncertainty).

The countries that figured out ways to keep its people employed -- even if it meant reduced compensation and job sharing -- are the ones that best recovered.

CEO's are not rewarded by the capital markets for "milking the company" going into recessions in order to maintain profits with broad layoffs. The answer seems to lie in CEO compensation schemes -- where profit/ROE targets are emphasized in the short-term and where "one time" charges works to the CEOs advantage in the longer term.

Regulations, laws, subsidies, thought leaders, boards, and managers would need to try to keep people employed going into recessions (perhaps with reduced compensation) in order to be able to quickly bounce back. This may seem anti-capitalist in the short-term, but in the longer-term it would achieve the prime directive for the economy (full employment).

It would seem that we easily forget that full employment is what the economy is all about.  The economy, the national/global production has its foundations on fully employing people (and allowing them to make and spend [money]).  Capital employed and productivity measures are really secondary if full employment is not regularly maintained.