[Arguendo]

LOL, what? It's "business socialism" for a private company to lay off workers because they're pushing the "burden" of those employees on the government? You seem to be assuming Macy's somehow had responsiblity to pay for the "burden" of those people in the first place, which is a bizarre idea, particularly from someone claiming to be a conservative.

You're the one advocating what could be described as "business socialism"--the idea that businesses somehow have a responsiblity take care of employees, even when those employees are no longer profitable to keep, rather than make money.

And Macy's is not losing money. Why do you post incorrect information here?

[keepitreal]

And taking it to its logical conclusion, Macy’s should never let anyone go, even those who barely work for the pay they receive. After all those lazy folks will just go on welfare.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

First...Macy’s is a “public” company...not private. They sell stock and have shareholders. Learn the differences in those before criticizing my post.

Obviously Macy’s did not make a profit, or much of one...if they had to lay off 7000 people...cut benefits of the remaining...and compensate executives for bonuses not really earned.

Too many on here glorify failed executives....who do not make money for their companies. CEOs and executives of public companies are still “employees”....management (not labor) but “employees”

Would you prefer underperforming non-management employees to get a bonus too?

Of course, you wont address the tax burden put on the rest of us for the 7000 now-unemployed Macy’s executives....is that kind of Socialism OK with you?