A few thoughts on unintended consequences.
A certain percentage of the population is willing to quit their jobs rather than submit to jab mandates.
https://www.audacy.com/news/5-of-adu...ation-mandates
Many in power, whether it be employers or government, shrug this off and consider it an acceptable loss.
They consider this percentage replaceable, but there is a fundamental error they’re making in their logic.
They are assuming that employees are fungible.
The reality: not all employees are equal in their productivity.
There is an idea called Price’s Law which proposes that half the productivity comes from the square root of the number of people in an organization.
Example: for a group of 100, half the productivity comes from 10 people.
It is debatable as to the exact math, but there is some general truth to it.
A certain number of employees are hyper productive.
Why this idea matters to the jab mandate:
-Just who are the employees that are willing and able to quit?
I propose that the employees who are willing and able to quit primarily come from that subset of hyper productive employees.
(This is not to imply that those who did get the jab can’t also be from among the hyper productive).
If they have the skills and/or resources to be able to quit they are probably highly competent.
The same competence that gives you such options tends to be the same competence that makes you good at your job.
The loss in productivity is likely to be far greater than the attrition rate would indicate.
Furthermore, employers and jurisdictions which resist the mandates are likely to benefit from an influx of these highly productive employees.
People aren’t interchangeable pawns.
I suspect government and some businesses are about to learn this the hard way.