Suppose you're someone who needs their car for their job--a traveling salesman, for example. Your predecessor has run up ridiculous debts and left the scene. It wasn't your fault, but you're now left holding the bag and you must deal with the situation. One of the changes your predecessor made was to cut your hours worked, hence your income. The credit company has been on your case for months, and now they've announced that they'll send out the collection agency to take your car on August 2nd.
You've got a number of people giving you advice:
Nancy and Harry say you need to buckle down and work more hours, and do what you can to pay off at least part of the debt.
Michelle says the collection agency thing is an empty threat that you can safely ignore.
Eric and John, who incidentally were a big part of the spending spree, and have been whispering that it was you who really caused the problem even though you weren't even with the company when most of it happened, say you need to cut way back on spending, including maintenance of the car, your advertising budget, and canceling your health care. You must not work more hours--in fact, you should work fewer. This is so important to them that they'll willingly bankrupt the company to keep their mid-day tee times.
Barry says you need to both cut back on spending (but not anything that affects income or long term sustainability) and work more hours.
Which advice should you take?
No comments:
Post a Comment