And this some kind of surprise? If I was working for Motorola when Google announced the purchase, I would have polished up my resume that night and started sending off applications.

Marcus Aurelius: Large corporations are net job destroyers.

*blows whistle, holds up Wikipedia yellow card*

"Citation needed."

Subby Fail.

You really think a large corporation can move that fast to cut jobs from something that hasn't even been legally acquired yet?

Googles jobs cuts will come in 18-24 months.

St_Francis_P: The company didn't outline which divisions had been affected. It stressed that the cuts weren't related to Google's proposed acquisition of the company and were just to trim expenses.

Proposed acquisition? Meaning, they don't own it yet?

Yeah, Google somehow fired people from a company they don't own yet. Their evil knows no bounds!

Great, now Moto will know how it feels.

/Next Level

doncha love it when a Fark headline is instantly refuted by the very first paragraph of the article?

$99 Xoom tablets in time for Christmas?

Hopefully it was the entire DroidX2 team.

//what a p.o.s. this phone is!

DanInKansas: Marcus Aurelius: Large corporations are net job destroyers.

*blows whistle, holds up Wikipedia yellow card*

"Citation needed."

Large companies become more profitable by reducing the number of employees and increasing production.

But... a company is it's people. Getting rid of people devalues Google's purchase. Motorola can't innovate without the people that made it go.

Did subby just use a Dane Cook reference?

Link (new window)

//For shame

I see people have already pointed out the derp in the headline

That said, i hope it was the blur division.

HempHead: DanInKansas: Marcus Aurelius: Large corporations are net job destroyers.

*blows whistle, holds up Wikipedia yellow card*

"Citation needed."

Large companies become more profitable by reducing the number of employees and increasing production.

[blog.american.com image 547x412]

If only that graph trended in the opposite direction. Then all our economic problems would be solved! Think of how wonderful things would be if we still used 100% human-powered machines!

/not every single corporate action which hurts your feelings is done out of a desire to harvest souls for some dark deity
//nothing is simple

HempHead: All Large companies become more profitable by reducing the number of employees and increasing production.


FTFY. Profitability requires that you maximize the results of your spending and payroll+benefits+payroll taxes+compliance costs+training are always going to be one of your company's largest budget items.

Incidentally, the graph you show merely demonstrates why the US economy has been remarkably robust given that there have been some quite hard times in the time period covered by that graph. Are you arguing that there are fewer people employed in 2010 than 1975?

But seriously -- if GM is a net jobs destroyer, how does that work? Would more people be employed if GM didn't exist and the auto industry was 100+ little boutique car makers across the US?

Full disclosure: I will never work at a big company. I think any company big enough to need a "Human Resources Department" is going to be sufficiently sclerotic and bureaucratic that it would not be a good match for me. I just don't buy the argument that Target, for example, destroys more jobs than it creates.

Number of jobs = 800
Number of Motorola employees = 60,000 (new window)

That's basically rounding error.

Just outsource production to some Chinese company. Works fine for other companies.

/the Moto Triumph is just a rebadged Huawei product...

DanInKansas: Marcus Aurelius: Large corporations are net job destroyers.

*blows whistle, holds up Wikipedia yellow card*

"Citation needed."

Citation?
Sure.
We call it "The United States of America".

DanInKansas: Are you arguing that there are fewer people employed in 2010 than 1975

He might have a case for "fewer percentage of men employed".

It will be interesting to see how Google manages the major culture clash that is about to occur.

/doubt they will manage it well
//been through many of an acquisition - first step - fire everyone and send in your own people

tomcatadam: We call it "The United States of America".

I call it "making shiat up"

DanInKansas: Marcus Aurelius: Large corporations are net job destroyers.

*blows whistle, holds up Wikipedia yellow card*

"Citation needed."

Can't research right now but wondering if you are serious.

Many companies main strategy is not organic growth but acquisition. Usually one of the first steps in an acquisition is to cut all the redundancies (i.e. no need for 2 HR departments, etc.)

I am betting if I looked into it, I could find tons of evidence where large corporations are putting more people out of work through acquisition than through hiring for growth.

bravian: It will be interesting to see how Google manages the major culture clash that is about to occur.

/doubt they will manage it well
//been through many of an acquisition - first step - fire everyone and send in your own people

Shouldn't be too bad. This isn't the merger of two competing companies - like AT&T and T-Mobile will be. Very few people at Google know much about actually designing hardware and such. Motorola will essentially become a division of Google - with most of the executives still in place. If I was working on Motoblur I might be worrying about my job though. Managers would have the biggest problems. Google will root out past laziness, poor decisions and failures and replace those responsible. Google has pretty high standards and I imagine due to Motorola's age their might be more than a few layabouts walking their halls.

/note - not a good time to be home buying in Schaumberg

Pink slips? Wooo, cars for ever-- oh.

That kind of pink slip. :(

Nem Wan: But... a company is it's people. Getting rid of people devalues Google's purchase. Motorola can't innovate without the people that made it go.

I thought the Motorola purchase was basically a patent grab, they didn't care about any of Motorola's products. Or is that not a true thing?

I don't understand the Oprah reference. Is her network working with Google or something?

Good, i hope they keep they keep the hardware guys and toss the software guys out the door.

DanInKansas: But seriously -- if GM is a net jobs destroyer, how does that work? Would more people be employed if GM didn't exist and the auto industry was 100+ little boutique car makers across the US?

Yes, GM has very few employees in the US now.


Unfortunately, those new jobs would most likely be in China.

DROOOOOOOOID

Wasn't the rumor that they were just purchasing them for their patents? So it's unsurprising

winterwhile: so is Obama going to bail them out????

...what?

HempHead: Yes, GM has very few employees in the US now.

But that's not the question. GM's self-destruction through its inability to adapt to changing market conditions is well-known. It would be quite surprising if GM was increasing its payroll while losing money and market share.

The question is: how exactly are "big companies" net job destroyers? If a company grows from 100 to 1,000 to 10,000 employees, how is that subtracting jobs from the overall workforce? At what point does the company cross the line into "beneficial job adding small business" to "evil job destroying big corporation?" At the 40 employee mark? The 1,000? The 10,000?

JustHereForThePics: Hopefully it was the entire DroidX2 team.

//what a p.o.s. this phone is!

I really like mine, and with the 2.3.4 update the infrequent but random restarts are totally over with (which was damn annoying).

/sent from my Droid X2

Barakku: St_Francis_P: The company didn't outline which divisions had been affected. It stressed that the cuts weren't related to Google's proposed acquisition of the company and were just to trim expenses.

Proposed acquisition? Meaning, they don't own it yet?

Yeah, Google somehow fired people from a company they don't own yet. Their evil knows no bounds!

I can't go any further with them. They've crossed the line to fiendish SUPER-villainy!

HempHead: DanInKansas: But seriously -- if GM is a net jobs destroyer, how does that work? Would more people be employed if GM didn't exist and the auto industry was 100+ little boutique car makers across the US?

Yes, GM has very few employees in the US now.
[msnbcmedia4.msn.com image 240x506]

Unfortunately, those new jobs would most likely be in China.

Actually, the Big 3 have brought a lot of jobs back to the U.S. The most recent deals with the UAW have been a lost less adversarial. Your chart only goes through 2006.

/Those new jobs would most likely be in Southeastern Michigan.
/Why not complain about Apple, HP, and other California companies who put a lot of their manufacturing way outside of California?

If there was a way to harvest souls, corporations would already be doing it.

Its the American way.

HempHead: DanInKansas: Marcus Aurelius: Large corporations are net job destroyers.

*blows whistle, holds up Wikipedia yellow card*

"Citation needed."

Large companies become more profitable by reducing the number of employees and increasing production.

[blog.american.com image 547x412]


But worker productivity has been increased by technology and automation so they don't need so many workers. The worker is not necessarily working harder he just has more tools that make him more productive.If you can be replaced by a machine you will be replaced by a machine. It does not take as many people to put on hubcaps or make a ton of steel as it did 40 years ago. It is not just large corporations that are dong this.

Are American workers in a race against the machine? (new window)

I was about to buy a Bionic (Or possibly a Droid RAZR) at the end of the month. Should I not, then? I wonder if this heralds things to come. I'd hate to crank out that much money on a phone and then have the support and updates crap out a year or so later.

/Will be my first Smartphone...

Was it this guy handing out the pink slips?

DanInKansas: HempHead: Yes, GM has very few employees in the US now.

But that's not the question. GM's self-destruction through its inability to adapt to changing market conditions is well-known. It would be quite surprising if GM was increasing its payroll while losing money and market share.

The question is: how exactly are "big companies" net job destroyers? If a company grows from 100 to 1,000 to 10,000 employees, how is that subtracting jobs from the overall workforce? At what point does the company cross the line into "beneficial job adding small business" to "evil job destroying big corporation?" At the 40 employee mark? The 1,000? The 10,000?

It depends: did the 1,000 employee company become a 10,000 employee company through growth? Or did it get there by buying 10 other 1,000 employee companies?

The latter is, unfortunately, more common today, which make the larger company a net job loss.

/yes, 10
//the other 1,000 were eliminated due to redundancy.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: JasonOfOrillia: Number of jobs = 800
Number of Motorola employees = 60,000 (new window)


That's not correct. Motorola - prior to splitting into Motorola Solutions and Motorola Mobility - had about 60,000 employees. Now that they've split Mobility has about 19,000 and Solutions has about 32,000.

Mobility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility
Solutions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Solutions

madgonad: bravian: It will be interesting to see how Google manages the major culture clash that is about to occur. ... ...

/note - not a good time to be home buying in Schaumberg

Except that this division is in Libertyville, 20 miles North of Schaumburg.

corridor: I was about to buy a Bionic (Or possibly a Droid RAZR) at the end of the month. Should I not, then? I wonder if this heralds things to come. I'd hate to crank out that much money on a phone and then have the support and updates crap out a year or so later.

/Will be my first Smartphone...

Either are a good choice in my opinion, but I like the RAZR because it has the better screen. Plus there's something cool about having a kevlar coated phone. And the RAZR is a known name, hell, it was the one that brought Motorola's phone division out of the crapper. I think it is one of the first phones with LTE on the SoC as well... so battery life should be significantly faster.

corridor: I was about to buy a Bionic (Or possibly a Droid RAZR) at the end of the month. Should I not, then? I wonder if this heralds things to come. I'd hate to crank out that much money on a phone and then have the support and updates crap out a year or so later.

/Will be my first Smartphone...

In general, the phone companies drop support for your phone 6 months to a year after you get it regardless of model (and tend to be really, really slow in pushing the updates. Gingerbread was released in December 2010. I got the update last week. Most people haven't gotten it at all, and never will). Therefore, the two features you should look for in an Android smartphone are:

1) Do you like the phone to begin with?
2) In 6 months to a year, when your phone is 3 versions behind, can you put Cyanogenmod (or other major ROM, but Cyanogenmod is pretty much the agreed-upon "best") on it, and use that ROM to continue getting major upgrades? (Seems to be equivalent to "Does this NOT have a locked bootloader?", but don't quote me on that).

HempHead: DanInKansas: But seriously -- if GM is a net jobs destroyer, how does that work? Would more people be employed if GM didn't exist and the auto industry was 100+ little boutique car makers across the US?

Yes, GM has very few employees in the US now.


Unfortunately, those new jobs would most likely be in China.

Do Chinese people not deserve jobs?