Critics of downsizing argue that not only are the effects on the bottom line seldom as rosy as management expects, but that job loss has profound negative consequences for the displaced employees and their families, consequences that add to the social costs of downsizing. They cite research showing that unemployment and job loss are related empirically not only to long-term wage loss and employment insecurity, but also to a wide range of other outcomes, including criminality, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence (of spouses and children), separation and divorce, declines in objective and subjective health, depression, suicide, and children's well-being (e.g., self-esteem, mental health, and school performance). There obviously are also quite massive potential economic effects on communities and the public at large.
Those who defend downsizing argue that the social impacts are primarily positive, at least in the long run. For instance, layoffs promote superior matching of workers to jobs and increased dynamism and risk taking in the economy, thereby fueling economic growth. Moreover, defenders of downsizing argue that new job creation has more than compensated for the jobs lost through layoffs and outsourcing. And they argue that in the competitive global environment, if domestic firms (be they in the United States, Western Europe, Southeast Asia or wherever) don't "wake up and smell the coffee," those firms will not remain competitive. The government will then have to choose between protection-an economic and social disaster in the long run-or letting the firms sink, causing even more massive layoffs and dislocations. leia todo o artigo
