If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Disney to lay off 175 employees across its entire television group, including Disney-owned ABC affiliates. Will KABC's hardest-working, best-looking reporter be axed for arbitrary cost-cutting reasons? More at 11   (latimes.com) divider line 171
    More: Obvious, ABC News, Disney, Disney/ABC Television Group, media proprietor, organizational structure, layoffs, open positions  
•       •       •

8061 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2013 at 9:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



171 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-22 08:31:50 AM
Not Ric! Anyone but Ric!
 
2013-08-22 09:22:58 AM
And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.
 
2013-08-22 09:29:18 AM
it's incumbent upon us to stay ahead of the curve. To that end, we've undergone a review of our organizational structures and processes, and have re-imagined and realigned certain areas and functions to gain efficiencies and better position us for future growth

How about you increase your core competencies and make go farking yourself a primary action item with an eye toward productivity and connectivity. That would be great.
 
2013-08-22 09:41:53 AM

Mugato: it's incumbent upon us to stay ahead of the curve. To that end, we've undergone a review of our organizational structures and processes, and have re-imagined and realigned certain areas and functions to gain efficiencies and better position us for future growth

How about you increase your core competencies and make go farking yourself a primary action item with an eye toward productivity and connectivity. That would be great.


They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

The vast majority of big business isn't about revenue growth or reinvestment or R&D anymore, it's about profit margins. When your market share solidifies, which happens in just about every business, you cut costs to gain as much profit margin as possible. Why? It's about earnings per share and using those earnings (cash) to buy back shares of stock. And it's ONLY about stock price for those assholes at the top. And only short term stock price.

If you cut too many people and people begin hating you and everything starts to erode, you can just hand the company off early to some other CEO and then blame them when things start to go south (bonus points if the new CEO is a woman, like Ginny Rometty.) Or if the company goes under while you're still CEO, just take your golden parachute because you've got dirt on how many prostitutes the board of directors has buried in his backyard.

The sh*ttiest, most irresponsible thing about this stuff is that most of these 1% clowns with their 20 million dollar paychecks don't even know how to reinvest their own money into other ventures. They just float around on a f*cking cushion of cash.

But I'm sure it's good for the yacht industry. I'm sure whatever CEO has the foresight and money to start a yacht company will come out gangbusters.
 
2013-08-22 09:49:07 AM
Another corporation reporting record profit, revenue, and EPS laying off workers.

All hail the job creators.
 
2013-08-22 09:52:22 AM

bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.


not just the big ones.

the online retailer Fab.com just celebrated a new $150 million funding round (and a $1 billion valuation) by laying off 15% of its workforce.
 
2013-08-22 09:52:23 AM

bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.


The peasants were starting to get uppity. They had to be put in their place.
 
2013-08-22 09:53:45 AM

AngryDragon: Another corporation reporting record profit, revenue, and EPS laying off workers.

All hail the job creators.


Please retire that same old rhetoric.  We all know the Job Creators don't perform layoffs, that's delegated to the evil middle classes, they only hire new employees.  Esepcially when their profit post-tax is higher.
 
2013-08-22 09:54:36 AM

Lost Thought 00: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

The peasants were starting to get uppity. They had to be put in their place.


Namely, not their house, which now belongs to Bank of America Holding Corporation.
 
2013-08-22 09:59:24 AM
Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.
 
2013-08-22 09:59:24 AM
Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!
 
2013-08-22 10:00:38 AM

ikanreed: AngryDragon: Another corporation reporting record profit, revenue, and EPS laying off workers.

All hail the job creators.

Please retire that same old rhetoric.  We all know the Job Creators don't perform layoffs, that's delegated to the evil middle classes, they only hire new employees.  Esepcially when their profit post-tax is higher.


I think I heard on NPR yesterday that for the bottom 70% wage inequality is getting worse. So I guess you need the middle/upper middle class to do your dirty work for you and you keep their wages increasing to maintain the status quo so they don't realize they are slowly being f*cked over. Once you piss off the upper middle class, it's game over.

/or you could, you know, keep the peasants preoccupied with Megachurches. I'm pretty sure the recent abortion laws in certain states is the equivalent of giving a ball of yarn to a group of cats.
 
2013-08-22 10:02:06 AM
blah blah blah small business blah blah blah job creators
 
2013-08-22 10:03:22 AM

bdub77: /or you could, you know, keep the peasants preoccupied with Megachurches. I'm pretty sure the recent abortion laws in certain states is the equivalent of giving a ball of yarn to a group of cats.


And gay marriage, the ACA, and evolution in schools.  Gotta keep the serfs distracted.
 
2013-08-22 10:04:28 AM
BREAKING: Corporate financial officers look upon employees as a reducible cost. We go now to our exclusive report.

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-08-22 10:07:49 AM
Obamacare strikes again.
 
2013-08-22 10:08:18 AM

Mugato: it's incumbent upon us to stay ahead of the curve. To that end, we've undergone a review of our organizational structures and processes, and have re-imagined and realigned certain areas and functions to gain efficiencies and better position us for future growth

How about you increase your core competencies and make go farking yourself a primary action item with an eye toward productivity and connectivity. That would be great.


Ben Murphy?
 
2013-08-22 10:09:05 AM
FTFA:

ALSO:

Disney profit up slightly

Walt Disney Co. extends Bob Iger's deal

Bob Iger promises to build 'China's Disneyland' in Shanghai
 
2013-08-22 10:09:46 AM
But the insipid Disney program content will stay as stupid as possible for as long as possible.
Why?
Step Three: Profit!
 
2013-08-22 10:10:31 AM

RockofAges: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

"Job creators" is a joke. Demand creates jobs. Not arbitrary or artificial supply.

Please do tell us more about what is wrong about what the farkistanis are saying ITT.


Too serious, dude. Way too serious.
 
2013-08-22 10:11:20 AM

misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!


Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.
 
2013-08-22 10:13:23 AM

RockofAges: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

"Job creators" is a joke. Demand creates jobs. Not arbitrary or artificial supply.

Please do tell us more about what is wrong about what the farkistanis are saying ITT.


Record earnings, profits, and revenues seems to be a pretty good indicator of increased demand to me.  Just saying.
 
2013-08-22 10:13:38 AM
Yet for some reason, their broadcasts will have a 12 minute weather segment where I angrily clutch the sofa because I just want to know tomorrow's weather and the past 11 minutes were spent telling me what already happened today.  Solar Flares!  Goddammit, if you're going to make me watch this crap for 12 minutes, at least put on a shorter skirt, Mike!
 
2013-08-22 10:14:11 AM

Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.


Well, political influence doesn't pay for itself. The top earners all have to budget for the 2014 election.
 
2013-08-22 10:14:33 AM

bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.


Yeah, I think I'll cancel those plans to go to Disney World now, then, and the plans to get Disney Halloween costumes, or to buy their movies.  They don't need me.
 
2013-08-22 10:15:33 AM

bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.


Well someone should punish them! Didnt we vote for someone who said he would do just that?
 
2013-08-22 10:15:47 AM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


Brick-House: Obamacare strikes again.


Pretty much this. Companies are cutting people because of

bdub77: ...you cut costs to gain as much profit margin as possible. .... It's about earnings per share ....

That. The ACA increases costs on companies and companies are finding ways to tread water instead of just eating the cost increase. Some are going to part-time only for their labor. Some are going to a permanent temp staffing for their crappier positions. Some are just laying off $X worth of labor. This is all so that their Operating Expense hits a magic number that was decided years ago as part of their reporting and accounting processes.
 
2013-08-22 10:16:37 AM

theMightyRegeya: bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

Yeah, I think I'll cancel those plans to go to Disney World now, then, and the plans to get Disney Halloween costumes, or to buy their movies.  They don't need me.


This really is the right answer.  The only thing the masses have left to vote with is their wallets.  Stop buying the crap and using the services of the companies screwing you over.  It may not feel like much, but if enough of us do it, they WILL feel it.
 
2013-08-22 10:17:14 AM

theMightyRegeya: bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

Yeah, I think I'll cancel those plans to go to Disney World now, then, and the plans to get Disney Halloween costumes, or to buy their movies.  They don't need me.


At least that's a start.
 
2013-08-22 10:17:17 AM
Tax Cuts! Subsidies! We need to shovel more Social Security money to the Billionaires so they keep creating jobs!


For Lobbyists.
 
2013-08-22 10:17:37 AM

Onkel Buck: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

Well someone should punish them! Didnt we vote for someone who said he would do just that?


cache.ohinternet.com
 
2013-08-22 10:20:57 AM
Hold on, I feel that wealth trickling down right now.

/It's supposed to be yellow, right?
 
2013-08-22 10:21:43 AM

Arsten: skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.

Brick-House: Obamacare strikes again.

Pretty much this. Companies are cutting people because of

bdub77: ...you cut costs to gain as much profit margin as possible. .... It's about earnings per share ....

That. The ACA increases costs on companies and companies are finding ways to tread water instead of just eating the cost increase. Some are going to part-time only for their labor. Some are going to a permanent temp staffing for their crappier positions. Some are just laying off $X worth of labor. This is all so that their Operating Expense hits a magic number that was decided years ago as part of their reporting and accounting processes.


For Disney? Unlikely. They probably already provide healthcare through insurance. The ACA doesn't affect people as bad as people are making it out. Large companies with existing healthcare like Disney won't be impacted much except for insurance costs.

Companies that treat their employees terribly (Disney probably isn't one on the whole, other than the regular restructuring thing) will probably be impacted in some way but they will probably find ways around it - see Walmart, fast food joints, Darden. (Oh and you don't have any responsibility to pay these companies for things either - that's how capitalism works.)
 
2013-08-22 10:23:15 AM
Can't wait until disney has started doing to local news what clear channel has done to local radio.

\Then again would anything of value really be lost?
 
2013-08-22 10:23:49 AM

AngryDragon: theMightyRegeya: bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

Yeah, I think I'll cancel those plans to go to Disney World now, then, and the plans to get Disney Halloween costumes, or to buy their movies.  They don't need me.

This really is the right answer.  The only thing the masses have left to vote with is their wallets.  Stop buying the crap and using the services of the companies screwing you over.  It may not feel like much, but if enough of us do it, they WILL feel it.


Yeah I gotta agree with this - you make choices every day. If you hate a company yet you consistently pay them - you're doing it wrong. And plenty of us are hypocrites, including myself. It's about doing the best you can to take personal responsibility for your actions.
 
2013-08-22 10:23:59 AM
This is not news tv production has become so automated that one person can do what it took 7 people to do just a few years ago

/ got replaced by a robot camera 2 weeks before x-miss in 2008 so not getting a kick
 
2013-08-22 10:24:13 AM

AngryDragon: Onkel Buck: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

Well someone should punish them! Didnt we vote for someone who said he would do just that?

[cache.ohinternet.com image 562x437]


C'mon now, the poor and the enabled believed it wholeheartedly.
 
2013-08-22 10:25:46 AM

Onkel Buck: AngryDragon: Onkel Buck: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

Well someone should punish them! Didnt we vote for someone who said he would do just that?

[cache.ohinternet.com image 562x437]

C'mon now, the poor and the enabled believed it wholeheartedly.


You simply give them two 'options': evil corporatists or corporatists
 
2013-08-22 10:29:05 AM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


Partially confirmation bias, partially under-the-radar.

Layoffs happen all at once; hiring happens one person at a time.
 
2013-08-22 10:29:25 AM

RockofAges: AngryDragon: RockofAges: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

"Job creators" is a joke. Demand creates jobs. Not arbitrary or artificial supply.

Please do tell us more about what is wrong about what the farkistanis are saying ITT.

Record earnings, profits, and revenues seems to be a pretty good indicator of increased demand to me.  Just saying.

Right, but that doesn't invalidate anything I've said. Increased demand should mean increased hiring, not reduced staffing. Further, the increase in demand is what creates the additional revenue, not the other way around.

The fact that people forget that economics is far less a "chicken / egg" situation and far more a "people spending money in a certain direction should cause economic growth via "sharing" (ie. employment) of the demand revenue". 

Or, they just decide to keep more of the demand revenue for themselves, cutting hiring until they realize their business cycle is shortened due to lack of foresight / short term capitalization.


I think we're agreeing.  Aren't we?
 
2013-08-22 10:32:22 AM

misanthropologist: RockofAges: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

"Job creators" is a joke. Demand creates jobs. Not arbitrary or artificial supply.

Please do tell us more about what is wrong about what the farkistanis are saying ITT.

Too serious, dude. Way too serious.


Well, they are rich people and therefore are by nature very demanding. So they do create demand.
 
2013-08-22 10:34:21 AM
Best looking / hardest working?
You mean Dr George is back doing the weather ????
 
2013-08-22 10:35:58 AM
Got to pay for ObamaCare.  It's happening all over the country.  Demand creates jobs.  Expenses kills them
 
2013-08-22 10:36:12 AM

Nana's Vibrator: Yet for some reason, their broadcasts will have a 12 minute weather segment where I angrily clutch the sofa because I just want to know tomorrow's weather and the past 11 minutes were spent telling me what already happened today.  Solar Flares!  Goddammit, if you're going to make me watch this crap for 12 minutes, at least put on a shorter skirt, Mike!


Which is useless on so many levels.  For being 12 minutes.  And for being a condensed version of something you can see online in 15 seconds... or may well be on the lock screen on your smartphone and you see 35 times per day.  If you're going to waste time on it, bring on the Univision gratuitous gals.
 
2013-08-22 10:37:54 AM

FrancoFile: skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.

Partially confirmation bias, partially under-the-radar.

Layoffs happen all at once; hiring happens one person at a time.


So I just imagined this one person was laid off, and it wasn't really a layoff. Gotcha.
 
2013-08-22 10:38:06 AM

bdub77: For Disney? Unlikely. They probably already provide healthcare through insurance. The ACA doesn't affect people as bad as people are making it out. Large companies with existing healthcare like Disney won't be impacted much except for insurance costs.

Companies that treat their employees terribly (Disney probably isn't one on the whole, other than the regular restructuring thing) will probably be impacted in some way but they will probably find ways around it - see Walmart, fast food joints, Darden. (Oh and you don't have any responsibility to pay these companies for things either - that's how capitalism works.)


I disagree only because I've seen how accounting departments stick hard lines into everything they can. As a simple example, if you are allowed a budget of $100 for labor and benefits, and your L&Bs go to $105, they generally require you to cut that $5 some how some way. If you are in a segment of the business that is actively growing (or a protected labor pool, such as a favorite department of the CEO or an executive) you can usually get a pass, but if you are simply a money-maker that's not growing, there's no reason that this year you can't get more efficient.

Because of that, I can totally see how these minor re-shufflings inside the massive corporations like Disney being a part of that process. I didn't mean to imply that companies growing by billions in revenue and cutting 15,000 of their staff are somehow ACA-related, but these kind of piece-meal and small layoffs I can totally expect stemming from ACA from massive, large, and medium sized companies. Smaller companies tend to look at their staff as a commodity and not an expense, so I expect less of an issue in that segment.
 
2013-08-22 10:39:09 AM
Disney reportedly has spent $2b on this rfid shiat at Disney world that, besides making paranoid people outraged, is rolling out so far as a massive fail. Unrelated to these layoffs, although I wonder what effect this will have on them as a company.

/ESPN is a cash cow
 
2013-08-22 10:47:55 AM

skinink: FrancoFile: skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.

Partially confirmation bias, partially under-the-radar.

Layoffs happen all at once; hiring happens one person at a time.

So I just imagined this one person was laid off, and it wasn't really a layoff. Gotcha.


Sorry, I'm not talking about that one particular person you know.

I'm talking about the "I see news reports" part of your statement.
 
2013-08-22 10:47:58 AM

bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.


We're going to be in trouble when the American peasant realizes he doesn't need any money to say "fark you." If he wasn't such an unlikely combination of stupidity and docility, we might already be a nightmare like Canada.
 
2013-08-22 10:49:01 AM

Lawnchair: Nana's Vibrator: Yet for some reason, their broadcasts will have a 12 minute weather segment where I angrily clutch the sofa because I just want to know tomorrow's weather and the past 11 minutes were spent telling me what already happened today.  Solar Flares!  Goddammit, if you're going to make me watch this crap for 12 minutes, at least put on a shorter skirt, Mike!

Which is useless on so many levels.  For being 12 minutes.  And for being a condensed version of something you can see online in 15 seconds... or may well be on the lock screen on your smartphone and you see 35 times per day.  If you're going to waste time on it, bring on the Univision gratuitous gals.


Exactly!  Jackie Guerrido is the only reason I learned how to tolerate long weathercasts.  And the entire Spanish language.
 
2013-08-22 10:49:11 AM
The over 50 year olds will go first.

Then Disney/ABC will hire a bunch of fresh out of college people at half the salary and brag about creating jobs.
 
2013-08-22 10:55:23 AM
It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."

Problem is, unlimited and sustained growth is impossible in nature unless you're Marlon Brando.
 
2013-08-22 10:55:58 AM

camelclub: The over 50 year olds will go first.

Then Disney/ABC will hire a bunch of fresh out of college people at half the salary and brag about creating jobs.


Not trolling or snarking, but consider this as a thought experiment.

Why would a 50-year-old newsperson be inherently and obviously more productive or more valuable than a 25-year-old person?

50-year-old advantages:
experience
emotional maturity
connections to newsmakers (maybe a favor bank)
connections to/trusted by audience
appeal to demographic >50

25-year-old advantages:
lower salary
ability to multitask
familiarity with newer technology
familiarity with current culture and language trends
looks
appeals to demographic <50

Now consider your particular market and your competition, and make some decisions.  It's not easy.
 
2013-08-22 10:56:22 AM

llevrok: Got to pay for ObamaCare.  It's happening all over the country.  Demand creates jobs.  Expenses kills them


Expenses like that $200 million worth of bonuses to the Board of Directors and the CEO.
 
2013-08-22 10:56:43 AM
i.qkme.me
/appropriate
 
2013-08-22 11:00:51 AM

rumpelstiltskin: bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

We're going to be in trouble when the American peasant realizes he doesn't need any money to say "fark you." If he wasn't such an unlikely combination of stupidity and docility, we might already be a nightmare like Canada.


Businesses have moved on, many of them don't even need the average American to consume anymore. They have the whole globe, they are selling durable goods in BRIC and other developing countries now. Even on the food front the government automatically subsidizes the majority of it anyway through corn subsidies and food stamps.

Kill education, increase religion. You've got a dumb docile public now, put the firehose in its mouth. Hyperinflate the dollar, kill wages, increase unemployment, exploit the workforce, and turn the US into a third world country. What are you gonna do about it, peasant?
 
2013-08-22 11:02:09 AM
I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-08-22 11:05:12 AM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


It's because those are the stories people want to read.  The fourth estate is a for-profit institution.
 
2013-08-22 11:05:18 AM
Dear ABC

Don't touch Ric.

Sincerely
Fark
 
2013-08-22 11:06:14 AM

bdub77: Mugato: it's incumbent upon us to stay ahead of the curve. To that end, we've undergone a review of our organizational structures and processes, and have re-imagined and realigned certain areas and functions to gain efficiencies and better position us for future growth

How about you increase your core competencies and make go farking yourself a primary action item with an eye toward productivity and connectivity. That would be great.

They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

The vast majority of big business isn't about revenue growth or reinvestment or R&D anymore, it's about profit margins. When your market share solidifies, which happens in just about every business, you cut costs to gain as much profit margin as possible. Why? It's about earnings per share and using those earnings (cash) to buy back shares of stock. And it's ONLY about stock price for those assholes at the top. And only short term stock price.

If you cut too many people and people begin hating you and everything starts to erode, you can just hand the company off early to some other CEO and then blame them when things start to go south (bonus points if the new CEO is a woman, like Ginny Rometty.) Or if the company goes under while you're still CEO, just take your golden parachute because you've got dirt on how many prostitutes the board of directors has buried in his backyard.

The sh*ttiest, most irresponsible thing about this stuff is that most of these 1% clowns with their 20 million dollar paychecks don't even know how to reinvest their own money into other ventures. They just float around on a f*cking cushion of cash.

But I'm sure it's good for the yacht industry. I'm sure whatever CEO has the foresight and money to start a yacht company will come out gangbusters.


Pretty concise appraisal.

Some of it IS technological.  A computer handles jobs the 2nd Assistant Line Producer used to do, for example.  So you don't need that slot.

So, how do you revinest the cash in a media enviorment?  Good question.  But the Pigs at the top don't care.  They will just eat it.
 
2013-08-22 11:07:23 AM

RockofAges: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

"Job creators" is a joke. Demand creates jobs. Not arbitrary or artificial supply.

Please do tell us more about what is wrong about what the farkistanis are saying ITT.


My last job working for demand was a lot of fun.  Demand writes its checks with a silly straw that it turned into a pen.

I wish demand could create jobs, but it's illegal to do business without a license.
 
2013-08-22 11:07:37 AM
www.stencilrevolution.com
 
2013-08-22 11:10:36 AM

bdub77: Once you piss off the upper middle class, it's game over.


See, here is the thing.  You can screw over everybody else, because they lack the charisma, intelligence and/or drive to stage a revolt. They might have one of the traits, but usually not any of the others.  If they had such things, they would be in upper middle class

Now, the upper middle class, they might not have the numbers, but they have the intelligence and drive to round up the lower classes and take down the top.  They also might have more charisma as well, which would make them better leaders and, if it came to it, martyrs.  If Joe Sixpack gets gunned down due to rebellious talk, it can be covered up pretty easy and be wrote off as a "lunatic" or "terrorist".  But if say a college professor or a local small business man get gunned down, well, now we have something, because why would somebody, who lives a pretty comfortable life, want to risk their way of life and change things unless things were really, really bad.

/my 2 cents
 
2013-08-22 11:13:26 AM

Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.


That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is profitable.  That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable.  I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like.  If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it, it's losing money.
 
2013-08-22 11:14:04 AM
175 people?  Really?  That's not even a hiccup for them, not a layoff.
 
2013-08-22 11:14:42 AM

Two16: [www.stencilrevolution.com image 560x373]


BOO!  VERY poor taste.  Dude, that middle girl is the napalm burned kid running down the street in Vietnam with skin sloughing off her.

BOO!
 
2013-08-22 11:16:50 AM

jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."



The funny thing here is I used to work for a company that had a specifically written mission that essentially ranked their priorities: 1. Customers 2. Employees 3. Shareholders
Then they thought it was a good idea to audit themselves on this , then they were shocked when they were hammered by their emplyees.  It's always the shareholders first.  There's likely not a fortune 500 company in the world that wouldn't lay off employees or raise customer prices before going in front of shareholders to tell them their profits were compromised on behalf of customers or employees.  I'd be interested in hearing abnout it if I were wrong, though.
 
2013-08-22 11:19:53 AM

jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."

Problem is, unlimited and sustained growth is impossible in nature unless you're Marlon Brando.


Seems to me Disney keeps getting bigger even though they've been doing this since the 80s.  Are you just mad because it hurts middle class people?  I'm okay with that, I'm just pointing out that this isn't "bad business" from a long-term business perspective if it's making them one of the world's most successful megacorps.
 
2013-08-22 11:21:41 AM

mike_d85: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is (as) profitable. That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable. I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like. If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it,it's losing money

not as profitable as the other divisions.

FTFY
Any division not making money is axed. No corporation will sustain any loss of profit from other divisions. Any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible. Thats why the pharmaceutical companies insist on mass-manufacturing chemotherapy drugs and maintaining their research divisions along those lines instead of doing any research into actually curing cancer.
 
2013-08-22 11:22:03 AM
Business as usual in America? Blame Obamacare!

Idiots
 
2013-08-22 11:24:00 AM

Mugato: How about you increase your core competencies and make go farking yourself a primary action item with an eye toward productivity and connectivity. That would be great.


"There's a fine line between participation and mockery".

--Wally
 
2013-08-22 11:24:39 AM
farm4.staticflickr.com
"In a sluggish economy, businesses conduct what is known as "down sizing"."
 
2013-08-22 11:24:40 AM

blatz514: I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?


Back in my day, looks did not matter ..only the news

www.pupntaco.com
 
2013-08-22 11:25:15 AM

bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.


Anyone but the execs who f*cked up, obviously.
 
2013-08-22 11:26:53 AM

Nana's Vibrator: jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."


The funny thing here is I used to work for a company that had a specifically written mission that essentially ranked their priorities: 1. Customers 2. Employees 3. Shareholders
Then they thought it was a good idea to audit themselves on this , then they were shocked when they were hammered by their emplyees.  It's always the shareholders first.  There's likely not a fortune 500 company in the world that wouldn't lay off employees or raise customer prices before going in front of shareholders to tell them their profits were compromised on behalf of customers or employees.  I'd be interested in hearing abnout it if I were wrong, though.


Bang on.   The REAL money is at the top.  CEO, COO, executives.

They want to keep their jobs so badly that if they need to cut costs they will gleefully throw loyal hardworking employees to the lions so their End-of-quarter speech goes over better with investors .

/laid off twice by profitable companies
/was laid off at one after three years but my work neighbor was too, after 14 years and while his wife was pregnant with twins
/NEVER be too loyal to your employer, know you're a useless cog compared to The Suits
 
2013-08-22 11:28:15 AM
Deathfrogg:
That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is (as) profitable. That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable. I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like. If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it,it's losing money not as profitable as the other divisions.

FTFY
Any division not making money is axed. No corporation will sustain any loss of profit from other divisions. Any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible. Thats why the pharmaceutical companies insist on mass-manufacturing chemotherapy drugs and maintaining their research divisions along those lines instead of doing any research into actually curing cancer.


I agree with your change of wording, but disagree with "any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible."  Especially in this case.  Disney's television platform allows for an amazing amount of cross-promotion that could keep television alive while not actually turning a profit.  Even outside of the blatant film and game advertising on Disney channel, the ABC family's teen hour (Pretty Little Liars, Vampire Diaries, etc) is used to promote music on the disney record label, as are the TV movies.  It is also used to promote DVD and blue-ray releases for home video sales.  Not just with commercials, but playing the films being released.

In general, a company may not be able to get rit of a slightly un-profitable business unit, or may expect losses for a few years while restructuring or changing strategy.  It does happen, but only for short periods of time.
 
2013-08-22 11:29:02 AM

Deathfrogg: mike_d85: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is (as) profitable. That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable. I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like. If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it,it's losing money not as profitable as the other divisions.

FTFY
Any division not making money is axed. No corporation will sustain any loss of profit from other divisions. Any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible. Thats why the pharmaceutical companies insist on mass-manufacturing chemotherapy drugs and maintaining their research divisions along those lines instead of doing any research into actually curing cancer.


Subsidizing unprofitable divisions happens all the time.  Don't be ignorant.
 
2013-08-22 11:32:23 AM

jakomo002: Nana's Vibrator: jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."


The funny thing here is I used to work for a company that had a specifically written mission that essentially ranked their priorities: 1. Customers 2. Employees 3. Shareholders
Then they thought it was a good idea to audit themselves on this , then they were shocked when they were hammered by their emplyees.  It's always the shareholders first.  There's likely not a fortune 500 company in the world that wouldn't lay off employees or raise customer prices before going in front of shareholders to tell them their profits were compromised on behalf of customers or employees.  I'd be interested in hearing abnout it if I were wrong, though.

Bang on.   The REAL money is at the top.  CEO, COO, executives.

They want to keep their jobs so badly that if they need to cut costs they will gleefully throw loyal hardworking employees to the lions so their End-of-quarter speech goes over better with investors .

/laid off twice by profitable companies
/was laid off at one after three years but my work neighbor was too, after 14 years and while his wife was pregnant with twins
/NEVER be too loyal to your employer, know you're a useless cog compared to The Suits


Truth.
 
2013-08-22 11:32:49 AM

TV's Vinnie: In a sluggish economy


Recession, depression
Hits the land of the free
Standing in unemployment lines
Blame the government for hard times
 
2013-08-22 11:34:10 AM

Spend $2b on a boondoggle rfid implementation (one of many examples): $200 million in bonuses for management.

TV division doesn't make enough money: Immediately fire people, preferably older more experienced employees causing a tailspin in the division which will cause it to be sold off. More bonuses for savvy management.

 
2013-08-22 11:34:21 AM

Wangiss: Seems to me Disney keeps getting bigger even though they've been doing this since the 80s.  Are you just mad because it hurts middle class people?  I'm okay with that, I'm just pointing out that this isn't "bad business" from a long-term business perspective if it's making them one of the world's most successful megacorps.


Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  Disney's longterm sustainability looks forward maximum two quarters.  If one segment does poorly they axe it immediately.

Their spreadsheets have a section called Labor Costs and that's how they see their employees.  Not as an INVESTMENT but a cost that cuts into profit and might negatively impact stock price.
 
2013-08-22 11:35:08 AM
In a perfect world you should just be able to wish upon a star for your dreams to come true
 
2013-08-22 11:35:18 AM

Wangiss: Deathfrogg: mike_d85: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is (as) profitable. That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable. I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like. If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it,it's losing money not as profitable as the other divisions.

FTFY
Any division not making money is axed. No corporation will sustain any loss of profit from other divisions. Any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible. Thats why the pharmaceutical companies insist on mass-manufacturing chemotherapy drugs and maintaining their research divisions along those lines instead of doing any research into actually curing cancer.

Subsidizing unprofitable divisions happens all the time.  Don't be ignorant.


Excuse me, I should have written what mike_d85 wrote.  I apologize for being rude.
 
2013-08-22 11:35:24 AM

bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.


Pixar is in the process of restructuring too. From what I hear, it's typical misguided attempts at outsourcing to "reduce costs" but in reality are going to make things more complicated, add delays, and not meet quality standards and thus even more expensive.

The must have hired some Boeing execs.
 
2013-08-22 11:37:17 AM

mike_d85: I agree with your change of wording, but disagree with "any division losing money is disposed of as quickly as possible."  Especially in this case.  Disney's television platform allows for an amazing amount of cross-promotion that could keep television alive while not actually turning a profit.  Even outside of the blatant film and game advertising on Disney channel, the ABC family's teen hour (Pretty Little Liars, Vampire Diaries, etc) is used to promote music on the disney record label, as are the TV movies.  It is also used to promote DVD and blue-ray releases for home video sales.  Not just with commercials, but playing the films being released.

In general, a company may not be able to get rit of a slightly un-profitable business unit, or may expect losses for a few years while restructuring or changing strategy.  It does happen, but only for short periods of time.


But Disney can only do this because it's a behemoth.  A giant media presence owning a substantial part of ALL US media, so they can crossmarket.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-22 11:37:56 AM

Wangiss: Subsidizing unprofitable divisions happens all the time. Don't be ignorant.


This used to be how television news worked.
 
2013-08-22 11:38:05 AM

jakomo002: Wangiss: Seems to me Disney keeps getting bigger even though they've been doing this since the 80s.  Are you just mad because it hurts middle class people?  I'm okay with that, I'm just pointing out that this isn't "bad business" from a long-term business perspective if it's making them one of the world's most successful megacorps.

Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  Disney's longterm sustainability looks forward maximum two quarters.  If one segment does poorly they axe it immediately.

Their spreadsheets have a section called Labor Costs and that's how they see their employees.  Not as an INVESTMENT but a cost that cuts into profit and might negatively impact stock price.


They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-22 11:40:08 AM
Wangiss:

They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?

I'm sorry... this marks you as an idiot or a corporate sycophant.  There is no dogma to that belief.  It's mathematical.  Eventually you outgrow the world.
 
2013-08-22 11:41:04 AM
"The Happiest Place On Earth!"
 
2013-08-22 11:44:09 AM
Breaking News: Corporations like Disney are run by heartless, greedy bastards who look at nothing more than money figures to influence their business decisions. This will eventually lead to an economy where we will have to literally lick the boots of our corporate masters in order to be able to get a meal to eat.

img.fark.net

This Just In: I have just been fired from ABC for reporting this story. Of all the obvious, sometimes mindless stories I report on, THIS IS THE ONE THAT GETS ME FIRED YOU FARKS!
 
2013-08-22 11:47:58 AM

Wangiss: They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?


They've "restructured" countless times precisely to increase bottomline profit.

We live in a actual world with natural laws.  Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  The economic models can disagree, but it'll be their downfall.  I mean, MORE MORE MORE is hardly a realistic longterm model for survival of anything anywhere EVER.
 
2013-08-22 11:49:16 AM

mike_d85: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

That doesn't meant Disney TELEVISION is profitable.  That means between the stable of television, film, cruise lines, amusement parks, clothing, toys, books, video games and online content, they are profitable.  I'm not going to read the annual report for a division breakdown, but you can check if you like.  If they don't mention TV at all in the report, or only mention restructuring it, it's losing money.


FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a Disney stockholder. I don't think that creates a conflict of interest, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

From the Annual Report: "For the second year in a row Disney achieved record net income, revenue, and earnings per share. In fiscal 2012, net income for our shareholders was a record $5.7 billion, an increase of 18% over last year, and revenue was a record $42.3 billion, up 3% from last year. Diluted earnings per share increased 24% to a record $3.13."

So, the company as a whole is doing OK. Let's break down the numbers a little more. All dollars in millions.
Revenue: Media Networks $ 19,436
Expense: Media Networks $ 6,619
Net: $ 12,817

That's $12,817,000,000. I could go even deeper and pull more numbers, but I think you get the picture. Broadcasting is the most profitable thing Disney does, in terms of net income. The parks brought in about 12 billion vs. a billion and change in expenses, for comparison.

TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".
 
2013-08-22 11:52:47 AM
I hope whatever Vice President in charge of Hoo-Hah who refused to pay Regis Philbin what he asked for is the first out the door.

/I figure Regis is going to last a month on his new Fox sports show. Maybe you've heard of it--Regis Philbin and His Days at Notre Dame.
 
2013-08-22 11:53:07 AM
175 people is not a lot of people to Disney.  This is likely either (A) eliminating the poorest performers or (B) getting rid of some small part of the business.  Maybe they're getting rid of go.com or something.

But seriously... you all think that there's some moral responsibility that employers have to keep people employed when they're not needed?
 
2013-08-22 11:53:19 AM

jakomo002: Wangiss: They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?

They've "restructured" countless times precisely to increase bottomline profit.

We live in a actual world with natural laws.  Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  The economic models can disagree, but it'll be their downfall.  I mean, MORE MORE MORE is hardly a realistic longterm model for survival of anything anywhere EVER.


In general, I agree with you.  But your argument doesn't work when you consider that the 'closed system' you are considering isn't static.  Disney can keep growing if we colonize Mars and have another 2 billion people there.  And Disney can sell their movies and license their theme parks over interstellar radio when we discover a technological species inhabiting a star 8 light years from here.  If you're talking about the ultimate heat death of the universe, then you're absolutely right.  But that's a loooooong way away.

(Your argument can get confused very easily with the "evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics" whackos, too.  Be cautious with your wording.)
 
2013-08-22 11:54:10 AM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


Even in vibrant economies some of the hundreds of thousands of businesses that exist in this country will be decreasing headcount at any given time.

Romero.jpg

What you would hope for is that more businesses are hiring than firing. Which is basically what has been happening since late 2009, although slowly.
 
2013-08-22 11:54:20 AM

lohphat: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

Pixar is in the process of restructuring too. From what I hear, it's typical misguided attempts at outsourcing to "reduce costs" but in reality are going to make things more complicated, add delays, and not meet quality standards and thus even more expensive.

The must have hired some Boeing execs.


Hey, Boeng doesn't outsource.  They move to a right-to-work state where the inexperienced, undeducated and unspecialized workforce doesn't know how to handle volitile parts correctly.
 
2013-08-22 11:54:30 AM

Gonz: TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".


Which is corpspeak for "increase profit for shareholders".  Not saying it's evil or wrong, but that's the only purpose Disney has.  Growth, quarter by quarter, year by year.

/Mickey wants your money AND your love but don't make him choose
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-22 11:55:36 AM

Gonz: TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".


I how people on Fark and other places (not the the person I am quoting, BTW) will talk about "serving the stockholders" and "maximizing profit" was sent down on stone tablets by God.  It wasn't... the where we are in the U.S. in terms of corporate law and it's something that can be changed by legislative process.  The corporation needs a legal state to run (they don't like it, but it's true) and they can be regulated by laws.  They can even be *gasp* liquidated and their charters taken away.

Of course none of this will happen any time soon as our congresscritters are basically corporate controlled... but that is the way it is supposed to work.
 
2013-08-22 11:56:17 AM

geopb: 175 people is not a lot of people to Disney.  This is likely either (A) eliminating the poorest performers or (B) getting rid of some small part of the business.  Maybe they're getting rid of go.com or something.

But seriously... you all think that there's some moral responsibility that employers have to keep people employed when they're not needed?


That's exactly what many of them misguidedly think. They can't get it in their heads that it isnt in the best interests of companies to axe people whose efforts are worth what they are being paid.
 
2013-08-22 11:56:22 AM

d23: Wangiss:

They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?

I'm sorry... this marks you as an idiot or a corporate sycophant.  There is no dogma to that belief.  It's mathematical.  Eventually you outgrow the world.


*facepalm*  That doesn't make Disney's short-term firing a short-sighted business practice.  That's what I'm talking about.  Your point is like citing the energy limit of the universe.  It's pointless Malthusianism.
 
2013-08-22 11:58:34 AM

Gonz: TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".


That would make it seem like they only have a part of their plan in place.  "Future growth" is a very curious phrase, especially with Disney.  It could just be an empty statement, or it could mean they're launching a new media strategy. Removing 175 jobs saves them, at best, what? Between $8.75 and $17.5 million?  What does that pay for?

/Also, dammit if their park costs are 1/10th of their revenue, why do they keep raising prices?!!!
 
2013-08-22 11:58:43 AM
Damn companies always firing people. Once you get hired you are entitled to stay forever because your company makes money. They should never be able to fire you.
 
2013-08-22 11:59:13 AM

FrancoFile: But your argument doesn't work when you consider that the 'closed system' you are considering isn't static.  Disney can keep growing if we colonize Mars and have another 2 billion people there.  And Disney can sell their movies and license their theme parks over interstellar radio when we discover a technological species inhabiting a star 8 light years from here.  If you're talking about the ultimate heat death of the universe, then you're absolutely right.  But that's a loooooong way away.



I see your point but again, hardly unlimited.   And again, their focus is NOW and next quarter, not in 100 years in the Orion Nebula.
 
2013-08-22 11:59:43 AM

d23: Gonz: TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".

I how people on Fark and other places (not the the person I am quoting, BTW) will talk about "serving the stockholders" and "maximizing profit" was sent down on stone tablets by God.  It wasn't... the where we are in the U.S. in terms of corporate law and it's something that can be changed by legislative process.  The corporation needs a legal state to run (they don't like it, but it's true) and they can be regulated by laws.  They can even be *gasp* liquidated and their charters taken away.

Of course none of this will happen any time soon as our congresscritters are basically corporate controlled... but that is the way it is supposed to work.


You are correct that it won't happen, but are wrong regarding the reason.

It won't happen because congresspeople are smart enough to realize that forcing companies to change their mission from serving stockholders to something like "maintaining employment" would be detrimental to the economy, doing more harm than good for ordinary Americans as a whole.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-22 12:01:30 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: It won't happen because congresspeople are smart enough to realize that forcing companies to change their mission from serving stockholders to something like "maintaining employment" would be detrimental to the economy, doing more harm than good for ordinary Americans as a whole.


hahaha.. you're actually serious, aren't you?

That's crap, and plus it's a strawman of my position.
 
2013-08-22 12:03:26 PM

d23: Gonz: TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".

I how people on Fark and other places (not the the person I am quoting, BTW) will talk about "serving the stockholders" and "maximizing profit" was sent down on stone tablets by God.  It wasn't... the where we are in the U.S. in terms of corporate law and it's something that can be changed by legislative process.  The corporation needs a legal state to run (they don't like it, but it's true) and they can be regulated by laws.  They can even be *gasp* liquidated and their charters taken away.

Of course none of this will happen any time soon as our congresscritters are basically corporate controlled... but that is the way it is supposed to work.


This is dead accurate.  A corporation is a legal fiction we agree to.  If it doesn't suit us, we can eliminate it.  We probably won't, but (for example) the LLC is a relatively new construct, proving we can change the way things work.
 
2013-08-22 12:04:50 PM

js34603: Damn companies always firing people. Once you get hired you are entitled to stay forever because your company makes money. They should never be able to fire you.


No but there's a lot between Right To Work and socialist-leaning economies like in Europe.

It's hard to fire somebody in France and yet they have better employment numbers than the US and a strong middle class, comparatively.  Better healthcare too.

Not black and white
 
2013-08-22 12:05:59 PM
Didn't they get rid of 175 people when the closed Mr.Toads wild ride?
 
2013-08-22 12:06:49 PM

d23: I how people on Fark and other places (not the the person I am quoting, BTW) will talk about "serving the stockholders" and "maximizing profit" was sent down on stone tablets by God. It wasn't... the where we are in the U.S. in terms of corporate law and it's something that can be changed by legislative process. The corporation needs a legal state to run (they don't like it, but it's true) and they can be regulated by laws. They can even be *gasp* liquidated and their charters taken away.


I absolutely hate when people trot out the "must maximize shareholder value or they can go to jail!!"chesnut. I would love to know who the first person was to print that on a forum that monkeys just keep repeating so I can cockpunch him. There is no such thing. Otherwise, why not just sell the company right off.  The CEO and board have a responsibility to promote the success of the company. That's it. This is why they can buy a fleet of jets and give themselves bonuses and make terrible business decisions and not get fired or go to jail.
 
2013-08-22 12:07:06 PM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


It was a shame they let Professor Xavier Hank go:

disabilitymovies.com

/Why yes, not being able to find larger images IS a disability
//Don't judge me
 
2013-08-22 12:08:55 PM

bdub77: But I'm sure it's good for the yacht industry. I'm sure whatever CEO has the foresight and money to start a yacht company will come out gangbusters.


One of ABC's competitors is already a yacht company: Chris-Craft is the 'C' in CW. They're privately held, too.
 
2013-08-22 12:11:09 PM
Those Disney Execs need their regular shipments of precision ice cubes. Imagine, having the maids put common tap-water ice in the dog dish. The nerve of such a thing.
 
2013-08-22 12:11:21 PM

jakomo002: Wangiss: Seems to me Disney keeps getting bigger even though they've been doing this since the 80s.  Are you just mad because it hurts middle class people?  I'm okay with that, I'm just pointing out that this isn't "bad business" from a long-term business perspective if it's making them one of the world's most successful megacorps.

Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  Disney's longterm sustainability looks forward maximum two quarters.  If one segment does poorly they axe it immediately.

Their spreadsheets have a section called Labor Costs and that's how they see their employees.  Not as an INVESTMENT but a cost that cuts into profit and might negatively impact stock price.


Citation?
 
2013-08-22 12:11:52 PM

jakomo002: FrancoFile: But your argument doesn't work when you consider that the 'closed system' you are considering isn't static.  Disney can keep growing if we colonize Mars and have another 2 billion people there.  And Disney can sell their movies and license their theme parks over interstellar radio when we discover a technological species inhabiting a star 8 light years from here.  If you're talking about the ultimate heat death of the universe, then you're absolutely right.  But that's a loooooong way away.


I see your point but again, hardly unlimited.   And again, their focus is NOW and next quarter, not in 100 years in the Orion Nebula.


Well you just undercut your own argument.

They don't have an issue with growth in the next quarter.  And then 3 months from now they re-assess and see what to do then.
They are a mature company in a mature industry; they can cover future investments with a small portion of current cash flow.  New companies, and companies in new markets, run losses for a long time while they develop their products, their processes, their brands, and their distribution systems.

You can't make the CFO of Disney responsible for the ultimate future of the human race...
 
2013-08-22 12:12:46 PM
Not completely relevant to the article, but this is one of the reasons why I am mystified and baffled toward adults who go to Disneyworld and love it year after year even if they don't have kids.

It isn't real and it isn't magical. It's a monster that needs to be fed and shiats out what it can't use. Fark that place.
 
2013-08-22 12:14:47 PM
175 employees? That doesn't sound like a lot for a company like Disney. Trim the worst 10%, it's a good policy for a large company.
 
2013-08-22 12:18:16 PM
But I thought torrenting was helping Disney by giving them all that exposure!
 
2013-08-22 12:19:48 PM

AgentBang: Not completely relevant to the article, but this is one of the reasons why I am mystified and baffled toward adults who go to Disneyworld and love it year after year even if they don't have kids.

It isn't real and it isn't magical. It's a monster that needs to be fed and shiats out what it can't use. Fark that place.


Booking your next vacation to a Detroit ghetto?  That place is as real as it gets. Probably a lot cheaper than Disney, too.
 
2013-08-22 12:20:41 PM

misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!


The unemployed and generally worthless slackers at work populate FARK during the day, what did you expect?
 
2013-08-22 12:25:58 PM

Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.


Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.
 
2013-08-22 12:29:39 PM

Nana's Vibrator: jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."


The funny thing here is I used to work for a company that had a specifically written mission that essentially ranked their priorities: 1. Customers 2. Employees 3. Shareholders
Then they thought it was a good idea to audit themselves on this , then they were shocked when they were hammered by their emplyees.  It's always the shareholders first.  There's likely not a fortune 500 company in the world that wouldn't lay off employees or raise customer prices before going in front of shareholders to tell them their profits were compromised on behalf of customers or employees.  I'd be interested in hearing abnout it if I were wrong, though.


Apple Retail? That sounds like what happened when Apple Retail finally decided to get some internal morale numbers.
 
2013-08-22 12:31:32 PM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
 
2013-08-22 12:35:36 PM

MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.


Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question
 
2013-08-22 12:38:20 PM

jst3p: skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator.


People have given up trying to find a job so the numbers are eschewed. Think of it this way. You have 20 people in a class. On test day 18 take the test and 12 pass it. Instead of saying that 60% passed, they are saying that 66% passed, or 2/3 of the test takers.
 
2013-08-22 12:39:59 PM

Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question


Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?
 
2013-08-22 12:40:47 PM

geopb: 175 people is not a lot of people to Disney.  This is likely either (A) eliminating the poorest performers or (B) getting rid of some small part of the business.  Maybe they're getting rid of go.com or something.

But seriously... you all think that there's some moral responsibility that employers have to keep people employed when they're not needed?


And thats how unions are born
 
2013-08-22 12:47:04 PM

AgentBang: Not completely relevant to the article, but this is one of the reasons why I am mystified and baffled toward adults who go to Disneyworld and love it year after year even if they don't have kids.

It isn't real and it isn't magical. It's a monster that needs to be fed and shiats out what it can't use. Fark that place.


Show us where Mickey touched you on this Minnie doll.
 
2013-08-22 12:47:04 PM

jakomo002: Gonz: TV's not losing money for Disney. TV's making them astronomical sums of money. But they felt the need to lay off people, to "better position themselves for future growth".

Which is corpspeak for "increase profit for shareholders".  Not saying it's evil or wrong, but that's the only purpose Disney has.  Growth, quarter by quarter, year by year.

/Mickey wants your money AND your love but don't make him choose


Mickey is a 12" pianist with a whip and dog collar.
 
2013-08-22 12:54:01 PM

FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?


Its purpose must be enabled by its amended powers.  It's not okay for the US Gov't to just do whatever its executives opine to be beneficial.  Any acts it commits outside of its clearly delineated powers are unconstitutional, illegal, and by definition tyrannical because ours is a constitutional republic.  The government needs to follow the rules, not make arbitrary decisions "for the good."  Not saying you think their powers are arbitrary, but the General Welfare clause is abused like a 15-year-old meth whore.
 
2013-08-22 12:59:53 PM

FrancoFile: They don't have an issue with growth in the next quarter.  And then 3 months from now they re-assess and see what to do then.
They are a mature company in a mature industry; they can cover future investments with a small portion of current cash flow.  New companies, and companies in new markets, run losses for a long time while they develop their products, their processes, their brands, and their distribution systems.


False.  They are ALWAYS focused narrowly on this quarter, and a bit of next.  Technology companies sometimes focus longterm when they are developing new gizmos, but not most companies.  I've been in meetings like this (not Disney), and the only forward looking they do, mostly, is come up with estimates about how much they will make next quarter, and then scramble to the very last day of the quarter to hit it.

You can't grow every 3 months unless you're fixated on growing every 3 months.

Carousel Beast: Citation?


I've never seen a Disney EOQ spreadsheet but every public company uses labor costs as an element of their earnings report.
 
2013-08-22 01:00:27 PM

Wangiss: FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

Its purpose must be enabled by its amended powers.  It's not okay for the US Gov't to just do whatever its executives opine to be beneficial.  Any acts it commits outside of its clearly delineated powers are unconstitutional, illegal, and by definition tyrannical because ours is a constitutional republic.  The government needs to follow the rules, not make arbitrary decisions "for the good."  Not saying you think their powers are arbitrary, but the General Welfare clause is abused like a 15-year-old meth whore.


Not arguing with you.

But you can't write and implement enabling legislation without settling the philosophical point - at least for some period of time.  We did better at settling those philosophical points in the era of Teddy Roosevelt.  We've done it a little bit from the New Deal up through the Clinton-Gingrich grand bargain on welfare reform.

But a large number of the political issues that are in the mix today are philosophical, not technocratic.  If there's a social consensus, and therefore a political consensus, that we need to do X, then the arguments about how to do X are not generally acrimonious.  But we can't, for the most part, decide on what X is right now.
 
2013-08-22 01:01:06 PM

Wangiss: FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

Its purpose must be enabled by its amended powers.  It's not okay for the US Gov't to just do whatever its executives opine to be beneficial.  Any acts it commits outside of its clearly delineated powers are unconstitutional, illegal, and by definition tyrannical because ours is a constitutional republic.  The government needs to follow the rules, not make arbitrary decisions "for the good."  Not saying you think their powers are arbitrary, but the General Welfare clause is abused like a 15-year-old meth whore.


The General Welfare Clause was never intended to apply to Corporations. Corporations, for the first 90 years of this Country's existence, as spelled out by the men who wrote the Constitution, were only allowed to engage on one task or purpose, then dissolve after that was completed. It wasn't until the 1890s that they were allowed to become immortal and immune to most civil and criminal law, and it was only after the 1980s that they were almost totally indemnified from criminal law.
 
2013-08-22 01:01:15 PM

AngryDragon: Another corporation reporting record profit, revenue, and EPS laying off workers.

All hail the job creators.


This is every corporation in a nutshell.

Trying to make sure revenues for the year are in the green? Lay off a shiatload of people in Q4!
 
2013-08-22 01:04:23 PM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount. eliminate pension costs.

 
2013-08-22 01:04:50 PM

Deathfrogg: Wangiss: FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

Its purpose must be enabled by its amended powers.  It's not okay for the US Gov't to just do whatever its executives opine to be beneficial.  Any acts it commits outside of its clearly delineated powers are unconstitutional, illegal, and by definition tyrannical because ours is a constitutional republic.  The government needs to follow the rules, not make arbitrary decisions "for the good."  Not saying you think their powers are arbitrary, but the General Welfare clause is abused like a 15-year-old meth whore.

The General Welfare Clause was never intended to apply to Corporations. Corporations, for the first 90 years of this Country's existence, as s ...


The General Welfare Clause is applicable to only one body, which is a corporation in the broad sense.
 
2013-08-22 01:05:55 PM

farkingatwork: Trying to make sure revenues for the year are in the green? Lay off a shiatload of people in Q4!


Except it's profit not revenue.  They can have the same revenue (or less) than last quarter, but by cutting costs they increase profit and thus share price.  Though LESS revenue might mean less increase in share price.
 
2013-08-22 01:09:20 PM
Except for some sales companies like Apple. A dip in revenue after a big product launch can be disastrous.

See: Blackberry
 
2013-08-22 01:27:08 PM

FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?


I was referring to the general welfare (10%+ unemployment).  The point there was to (philosophically/hypothetically) say the general welfare of 10%+ of the working population and their dependents are poor and suffering, where the root cause (offending resource) was the elimination of jobs by the private market.  Maybe I'm ignorant, but my point was that watching citizens suffer while reaping record benefits is unethical and irresponsible.  Perhaps others call it harsh or tough luck, I see it otherwise.

I use 10% unemployment as an imaginary threshold, maybe it's higher, but there's certainly a breaking point where if a government finds that it simply can't sustain the well-being of its population with the current budget and it's not getting any help from the private sector, they simply need to seek other means*.  The obvious solution would seem to be to tap into the root cause who also conveniently have the resources.  And while I do believe in that as a value, I was being facetious, as it seems absurd to thnk with all of the lobbying and corporate political contributions that our government wouldn't simply place the burden on its citizens instead.
 
2013-08-22 01:35:00 PM

jakomo002: js34603: Damn companies always firing people. Once you get hired you are entitled to stay forever because your company makes money. They should never be able to fire you.

No but there's a lot between Right To Work and socialist-leaning economies like in Europe.

It's hard to fire somebody in France and yet they have better employment numbers than the US and a strong middle class, comparatively.  Better healthcare too.

Not black and white


A quick Google search shows that you are quite incorrect.
 
2013-08-22 01:36:15 PM

blatz514: I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x313]


Thank you.  I was afraid that, with all the financial debate, no one would take the time to post photos of aesthetically-pleasing on-air personalities that we should all then band together to support and stress that their jobs should be saved.

Carry on, if you please...
 
2013-08-22 01:52:41 PM

ikanreed: AngryDragon: Another corporation reporting record profit, revenue, and EPS laying off workers.

All hail the job creators.

Please retire that same old rhetoric.  We all know the Job Creators don't perform layoffs, that's delegated to the evil middle classes, they only hire new employees.  Esepcially when their profit post-tax is higher.



Username found to be appropriate in conjunction with statement made.
 
2013-08-22 01:53:18 PM

Burr: bdub77: Once you piss off the upper middle class, it's game over.

See, here is the thing.  You can screw over everybody else, because they lack the charisma, intelligence and/or drive to stage a revolt. They might have one of the traits, but usually not any of the others.  If they had such things, they would be in upper middle class

Now, the upper middle class, they might not have the numbers, but they have the intelligence and drive to round up the lower classes and take down the top.  They also might have more charisma as well, which would make them better leaders and, if it came to it, martyrs.  If Joe Sixpack gets gunned down due to rebellious talk, it can be covered up pretty easy and be wrote off as a "lunatic" or "terrorist".  But if say a college professor or a local small business man get gunned down, well, now we have something, because why would somebody, who lives a pretty comfortable life, want to risk their way of life and change things unless things were really, really bad.

/my 2 cents


Absolutely correct.

The Homestead riot in the late 1800's was fermented by the Scotch-Irish skilled tradesmen.

They riled up the lower immigrant steel workers while they sat in their offices and watch the festivities.
 
2013-08-22 01:58:14 PM

Nana's Vibrator: FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

I was referring to the general welfare (10%+ unemployment).  The point there was to (philosophically/hypothetically) say the general welfare of 10%+ of the working population and their dependents are poor and suffering, where the root cause (offending resource) was the elimination of jobs by the private market.  Maybe I'm ignorant, but my point was that watching citizens suffer while reaping record benefits is unethical and irresponsible.  Perhaps others call it harsh or tough luck, I see it otherwise.

I use 10% unemployment as an imaginary threshold, maybe it's higher, but there's certainly a breaking point where if a government finds that it simply can't sus ...


Their purpose is not to sustain well-being.  It is to promote well-being through the even-handed rule of law within strictly delineated powers.  The government cannot and should not provide the entire nation's well-being.  That system has been tried in many, many places and it does not work.
 
2013-08-22 02:04:21 PM

Nana's Vibrator: AgentBang: Not completely relevant to the article, but this is one of the reasons why I am mystified and baffled toward adults who go to Disneyworld and love it year after year even if they don't have kids.

It isn't real and it isn't magical. It's a monster that needs to be fed and shiats out what it can't use. Fark that place.

Booking your next vacation to a Detroit ghetto?  That place is as real as it gets. Probably a lot cheaper than Disney, too.


Best. Paintball course.  EVER.
 
2013-08-22 02:10:05 PM

DubtodaIll: 175 employees? That doesn't sound like a lot for a company like Disney. Trim the worst 10%, it's a good policy for a large company.


And what would happen if every company did the same thing simultanteously? No company is an island.
 
2013-08-22 02:12:04 PM
Worst of all, they've cancelled "Good Luck, Charlie" after only 4 seasons. Coulda been a dynasty. We coulda seen P.J. with children of his own.
 
2013-08-22 02:14:13 PM
I hope everybody here realizes that "shareholders" aren't a bunch of Daddy Warbucks sitting around a big table smoking cigars and drinking cognac.

Some of the largest shareholders are pension funds (ironically, a lot of them are for unionized funds such as the NEA) and, if a company doesn't deliver as well as they want, they are free to move that money into other investments leaving the company short.

If you have a 401K it is mostly stock in large corporations.
 
2013-08-22 02:14:22 PM

jakomo002: Two16: [www.stencilrevolution.com image 560x373]

BOO!  VERY poor taste.  Dude, that middle girl is the napalm burned kid running down the street in Vietnam with skin sloughing off her.

BOO!



Funny stuff, coming from a muslim.
 
2013-08-22 02:43:39 PM
Wangiss:
Their purpose is not to sustain well-being.  It is to promote well-being through the even-handed rule of law within strictly delineated powers.  The government cannot and should not provide the entire nation's well-being.  That system has been tried in many, many places and it does not work

I'm writing strictly about the well-being of the compromised portion of the population.  (Again philisophical,linear, shortsighted, whatever)  Just or not, the current government system of taxation is, among other things, a means of redistribution.  They would have no other choice but to redistribute from a hoarding private business sector if faced with an unacceptable level of population that can not sustain itself.  The key there is "hoarding" private sector, that writen or unwritten, certainly has an obligation to the population that lives within the same borders in which they operate.
/no idea how I got here after a story about only 175 out of probably tens of thousands being laid off.
 
2013-08-22 02:48:44 PM

Cubicle Jockey: DubtodaIll: 175 employees? That doesn't sound like a lot for a company like Disney. Trim the worst 10%, it's a good policy for a large company.

And what would happen if every company did the same thing simultanteously? No company is an island.


I don't know I'm not a wizard but the likelihood of that actually happening are incredibly slim. But keeping people on the payroll just for the sake of keeping them there is unhealthy.
 
2013-08-22 03:00:44 PM

FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?


The preamble does not authorize any actions to the government. None. The enumerated powers are the actionable clauses. Stop this misreading of the constitution. The preamble authorizes nothing.
 
2013-08-22 03:06:46 PM
We need a graphic of the Disney characters in the unemployment line, or at the soup kitchen, or sleeping on the streets. Somebody please help.
 
2013-08-22 03:14:06 PM

Nana's Vibrator: Wangiss:
Their purpose is not to sustain well-being.  It is to promote well-being through the even-handed rule of law within strictly delineated powers.  The government cannot and should not provide the entire nation's well-being.  That system has been tried in many, many places and it does not work

I'm writing strictly about the well-being of the compromised portion of the population.  (Again philisophical,linear, shortsighted, whatever)  Just or not, the current government system of taxation is, among other things, a means of redistribution.  They would have no other choice but to redistribute from a hoarding private business sector if faced with an unacceptable level of population that can not sustain itself.  The key there is "hoarding" private sector, that writen or unwritten, certainly has an obligation to the population that lives within the same borders in which they operate.
/no idea how I got here after a story about only 175 out of probably tens of thousands being laid off.


Might want a longer kilt, there, sonny.  Your propaganda is showing.

Furthermore, you are arguing for promotion of something explicitly different from "the general welfare" when you talk about promoting "strictly about the well-being of the compromised portion of the population" to the obvious detriment of another group.  Government isn't supposed to play favorites.  It's "the general welfare" for a reason, and "the welfare of poor people, mainly" is as reprehensible as the current state of "the welfare of rich people, mainly."  Equal protection and biased protection are mutually exclusive.  You don't create justice with more injustice.
 
2013-08-22 03:14:10 PM
The division has 7600 positions and is eliminating 175 of them. Many of the positions being cut aren't even staffed, and lay offs who they want to keep will all apply for other open positions.  This isn't the economy, this is management consultants..
 
2013-08-22 03:27:35 PM
I have a meeting with the Bobs in five minutes.
Can this wait?
 
2013-08-22 03:28:18 PM

mike_d85: lohphat: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

Pixar is in the process of restructuring too. From what I hear, it's typical misguided attempts at outsourcing to "reduce costs" but in reality are going to make things more complicated, add delays, and not meet quality standards and thus even more expensive.

The must have hired some Boeing execs.

Hey, Boeng doesn't outsource.  They move to a right-to-work state where the inexperienced, undeducated and unspecialized workforce doesn't know how to handle volitile parts correctly.


Explain the 787 Charlie Foxtrox.

The not ounly outsourced manufacture like the 777 they outsourced *design* as well.

The reason this country had a healthy middle-class in the aerospace sector was due to a highly educated workforce hired out of university which then kept the tax-base healthy. By outsoucing and NAFTA what's left of the middle class is competing with 3rd world shiathole labor rates. Shrinking tax-base and then infrastructure collapses due to underfunding since there's not enough money because people are earning less. The rich just shelter their tax burden and get away with the infrastructure supporting the industries generating their profits but don't want to pay for it.

Randian paradise.
 
2013-08-22 03:47:08 PM
Nana's Vibrator:

Am I the only person reading this thread that finds the concept of my grandmothers vibrator posting online to be both confusing and arousing in equal measure?

/Cool name dude.
 
2013-08-22 03:48:48 PM

MeSoHomely: blatz514: I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x313]

Thank you.  I was afraid that, with all the financial debate, no one would take the time to post photos of aesthetically-pleasing on-air personalities that we should all then band together to support and stress that their jobs should be saved.

Carry on, if you please...


Sorry, work got busy.  If you happen to come across Primer Impacto on Univision, you should check out this chick...

www.aolcdn.com
 
2013-08-22 04:13:47 PM
Wangiss:
Might want a longer kilt, there, sonny.  Your propaganda is showing.

Furthermore, you are arguing for promotion of something explicitly different from "the general welfare" when you talk about promoting "strictly about the well-being of the compromised portion of the population" to the obvious detriment of another group.  Government isn't supposed to play favorites.  It's "the general welfare" for a reason, and "the welfare of poor people, mainly" is as reprehensible as the current state of "the welfare of rich people, mainly."  Equal protection and biased protection are mutually exclusive.  You don't create justice with more injustice.


Takes one to know one?
Is the survival of a segment poor people truly reprehensible to you?  You do have a basic understanding that there are people who are alive and unable to work and support themselves or their familes, yes?  There's absolutely no way I can fathom that you truly believe what you wrote.  None.  I understand you're arguing that by a process derived from the words specifically written in the constitution that our government can't logically intervene, in particular by taking resources from someone else.  Otherwise, you purely just posted that you're perfectly comfortable not caring for others.  I'm almost confused as to why you believe we have a government in the first place.

Furthermore, the foundation of your assertion would be that we live in an idealistic and just world where the spirit of the constitution is followed by corporate entities rather than these entities benefiting from the flaws in the 'as written' principles you're defending.  Yes, the government already plays favorites. The government allows the big parts of the private sector to get away with ethically repulsive behavior at the expense of citizens, assumedly because 1) while portions of the economy are ethically repulsive and while there have been some misjudgements in processes, by and large our economy has been very good and has worked well 2) our country's wealth is at a world power level 3) citizen outrage doesn't match or exceed the government's benefit from the economy 4) private corporations have the resources to pay for better legal representation than the US Government can afford.
 
2013-08-22 04:25:58 PM

MyRandomName: FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

The preamble does not authorize any actions to the government. None. The enumerated powers are the actionable clauses. Stop this misreading of the constitution. The preamble authorizes nothing.


Put down your GED in law.

I'm not talking about legislation or regulation.

I'm talking about philosophy.  Someone brought up a philosophical point (Nana's Vibrator, I think), without explicitly stating that it was a matter of philosophy.  I'm attempting to bring that out into the open as an explicit discussion.  That's all.  Nothing else.  But I apparently didn't do a good job, because this thread has largely devolved into a shouting match between the "hurr-libertarians-are-derpy-why-don't-you-have-compassion-look-at-the -evil-corporate-overlords", the "liberals-are-ignorant-thieves-why-don't-you-go-burn-a-flag-you-hippie s", and the normal people who are too riled up to even see my point.

Once we've decided what we'd like to do, then we go about finding an appropriate, effective, and legal means of doing it.  If there isn't a means under the Constitution as it presently stands, then people will advocate for an amendment.  Since there is no social or political consensus about this issue (even to the point of whether it's a problem, let alone whether the government should do anything about it), then discussing ways and means is pointless.
 
2013-08-22 04:29:29 PM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


Maybe he spent more time on Fark than you did.
 
2013-08-22 04:42:23 PM
FrancoFile:
FWIW, I read and understood your response.  Without getting any more wordy, I still believe that as a whole, as the private sector benefits from the US population, they have a responsibility to it.  That's not only an ethical issue, it's a 'balance and sustain' issue.  Again, it's a philosophy - the US economy has repeatedly shown the ability to adapt and shift and keep employment levels at a good level.
 
2013-08-22 05:40:00 PM

AngryDragon: theMightyRegeya: bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

Yeah, I think I'll cancel those plans to go to Disney World now, then, and the plans to get Disney Halloween costumes, or to buy their movies.  They don't need me.

This really is the right answer.  The only thing the masses have left to vote with is their wallets.  Stop buying the crap and using the services of the companies screwing you over.  It may not feel like much, but if enough of us do it, they WILL feel it.


Yes I'm just gonna stop buying food. my house payments and my car...think again genuis
 
2013-08-22 06:25:59 PM

blatz514: MeSoHomely: blatz514: I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x313]

Thank you.  I was afraid that, with all the financial debate, no one would take the time to post photos of aesthetically-pleasing on-air personalities that we should all then band together to support and stress that their jobs should be saved.

Carry on, if you please...

Sorry, work got busy.  If you happen to come across Primer Impacto on Univision, you should check out this chick...

[www.aolcdn.com image 713x940]


Who?

FARK no longer allows pictures to have their own filenames.

/ID your pictures people
 
2013-08-22 08:38:53 PM

bdub77: The sh*ttiest, most irresponsible thing about this stuff is that most of these 1% clowns with their 20 million dollar paychecks don't even know how to reinvest their own money into other ventures. They just float around on a f*cking cushion of cash.


But then how would private industry provide the absic necessities of life for a nation?
 
2013-08-22 08:53:49 PM
Nana's Vibrator,

I don't know how much you read into my post that want there, but I believe in helping the poor, which is why I do it.
I've been desperately poor much of my life, but I don't believe in stealing and I don't believe the federal government should be involved in taking money forcibly to give to me. I'm happy it doesn't have the authority to do that and sad that it happens anyway.
It's fine with me if states want to have as much state charity as they like because I can move away if it seems unjust. But I don't have the authority to impose my presence on some other country, so I don't believe in "America: Love It Or Leave It."
We should correct the system to make it just, not equally unjust.
And the federal government sells votes because they are corrupt, not because corporations are corrupt. Corporations certainly can, and in some cases should, be limited. That's no excuse for levying de facto fines in the form of taxes as a makeshift ex post facto punishment for behavior that is legal but "reprehensible."
 
2013-08-22 10:48:56 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: Hold on, I feel that wealth trickling down right now.

/It's supposed to be yellow, right?


I got a drip, but mine was a bit brown.
 
2013-08-22 10:50:26 PM

Enemabag Jones: Can't wait until disney has started doing to local news what clear channel has done to local radio.


You misspelled Sinclair.

/Anyone who lives in a market with a TV station owned by Sinclair knows what I'm talking about.
 
2013-08-23 08:13:18 AM

alice_600: AngryDragon: theMightyRegeya: bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

Yeah, I think I'll cancel those plans to go to Disney World now, then, and the plans to get Disney Halloween costumes, or to buy their movies.  They don't need me.

This really is the right answer.  The only thing the masses have left to vote with is their wallets.  Stop buying the crap and using the services of the companies screwing you over.  It may not feel like much, but if enough of us do it, they WILL feel it.

Yes I'm just gonna stop buying food. my house payments and my car...think again genuis


Hunh.  I wasn't aware that Disney diversified into agriculture, mortgages, and auto financing.  Thanks for the tip.

Revenue is like oxygen to a company.  Start choking it off and they will change their approach. You do have choices.  Shop at local stores and farmers markets for food.  Most of them even support local farmers and your money goes back into your local economy.  Get your mortgage from a credit union.  They still pay "shareholders" but call them members.  The bonus is that you BECOME the shareholder.  Same goes with auto financing, investments, retirement, and almost any other financial service.  Insurance is a little harder, but there are regional companies that provide good packages.

Does this all cost a little more?  Of course.  If you really want to take action that directly impacts the company you're biatching about, this is how you do it though.  Look at what's happening with Google Fiber and the carriers.  They're changing because there is a threat to losing business.  Years of biatching has done nothing.  A few months of threats to their sales projections has them actually doing something.  On a large scale, real change can be affected.
 
2013-08-23 09:44:04 AM

peterthx: blatz514: MeSoHomely: blatz514: I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x313]

Thank you.  I was afraid that, with all the financial debate, no one would take the time to post photos of aesthetically-pleasing on-air personalities that we should all then band together to support and stress that their jobs should be saved.

Carry on, if you please...

Sorry, work got busy.  If you happen to come across Primer Impacto on Univision, you should check out this chick...

[www.aolcdn.com image 713x940]

Who?

FARK no longer allows pictures to have their own filenames.

/ID your pictures people


Sorry it took so long
 
Displayed 171 of 171 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report