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.

(RealClear)   Employees, thank you for helping us achieve $511,000,000 in profit last quarter. We need 1,100 of you to pack up your things and leave   (realclear.com) divider line 358
    More: Obvious, Texas Instruments  
•       •       •

23030 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:59 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



358 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-22 12:34:20 PM  

TheOtherGuy: I know this is somewhat of an oversimplification, but how can we continue to live in a world where the math of this is not criminal in some way?  That profit is enough to pay those workers almost a half-million dollars each for the next year.  Or, much more realistically, $40k each would kill about 10% of that profit, and put each of these workers at or above median pay for most regions of the US.

So, literally, this company refuses to take a 10% profit (not revenue; their expenses and reinvestment are covered) cut in order to not endanger the livelihoods of the people who made the profit possible.  Yes, I'm equating unemployment with criminal negligence here.  Making someone unemployed in this economy (in the US anyway) amounts to endangerment at this point, it's gotten that bad.

We need to find a way to criminalize this greedy, sociopathic behavior, immediately.  Profit itself isn't criminal, no.  But when "enough is never, ever enough", you can justify everything and anything you want, sooner or later.  Just because an extra dollar can be made, does not meet it  should be made, or we should allow it to be made in that manner.


1) TI is a *huge* company and has annual turnover much greater than 1100 employees.  Eliminating 1100 jobs is mostly just a matter of not filling positions via external hiring when someone leaves and maybe managing out some low performers.

2) The average engineer at TI probably costs the company somewhere in the neighborhood of $200K per year, fully loaded (figure $120K salary/payroll taxes, $50K stock/bonus/benefits, $30K real estate/equipment/support), so eliminating 1100 positions should save something north of $200M per year.

3) TI has been gradually extracting themselves from some of their unprofitable businesses for nearly a decade now.  This is likely just a continuation of that.  Anyone still working those lines has likely been bonused out the wazoo for a while in order to keep them on staff to maintain ongoing customer support while things are wound down.
 
2014-01-22 12:34:31 PM  

Ritley: but companies absolutely do not look at the long term when making decisions. CEOs move the company in a direction that will maximize profit over the next few years, then leave with the obscene amount of money they made while the company flounders due to the unsustainable direction it took.


Is that why GE can trace its roots to the 1880s and has payed a dividend for over 100 years?  Yep, no looking at the long term here.
 
2014-01-22 12:34:55 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: The employees need to get ready with those bootstraps!


They need to find that cheese!
 
2014-01-22 12:36:44 PM  

oh_please: It sounds to me like TI is being a smart company, ditching declining products before they become unprofitable and concentrating on long-term growth.

But that's no fun, so OH NOES EBIL CORPORATIONS REPUBLICANS TRICKLE DOWN PROLETARIAT DYSTOPIA!


Well, it shows that management was too farking stupid to utilize the skills of 1100 people to create money, so there's that.
 
2014-01-22 12:36:47 PM  

Beerguy: [www.quickmeme.com image 625x418]
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 264x400]


i183.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-22 12:36:55 PM  
When I think of Texas Instruments, I think of:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-22 12:39:18 PM  
I thought all they made was calculators.
 
2014-01-22 12:39:50 PM  

m00: Market capitalization has become more important than net worth when determining future outlook.


Another that did not read TFA.  For the 3rd time, per TFA: "The company is not exiting any markets or discontinuing any existing products but will reduce investments in markets that do not offer sustainable growth and returns,"

They are doing this exactly to maintain their net worth by reduce their exposure to underperforming segments.
 
2014-01-22 12:40:59 PM  
Dont they have unions over there to protect the deadwood?
 
2014-01-22 12:43:18 PM  

HeadLever: Companies are not there to only hire and employ folks. They are there to make money.


Yeah, we need to get out of this mindset. It is absolutely poisonous to capitalism and it is threatening to human life, and I like to think that we can build a better economic system than something that is so utterly amoral and inhumane. We are not sociopaths. Why do we want to live in a system that makes us act like them?

The purpose of a company is to provide a useful product, service or benefit to humanity. Of course it must make money doing it, but when it pulls in $500 million profit and it thinks the best way to serve its employees and humanity at large is to cut jobs so it can clear more profit, there is something seriously broken there.
 
2014-01-22 12:43:19 PM  
I work in the DFW area.

TI has a horrible reputation around here as an employer. One thing that is typical of their behavior is right before you hit 20 years you suddenly get hit with a bunch of negative job reviews and are laid off.
 
2014-01-22 12:43:25 PM  

tricycleracer: Well, it shows that management was too farking stupid to utilize the skills of 1100 people to create money, so there's that.


Yep, because those managers in the buggy whip sector were too stupid to manage the employee skills in a way to create money.
 
2014-01-22 12:44:08 PM  
So only about 8% of the workforce.  Nice troll subby.
 
2014-01-22 12:44:50 PM  

Ritley: Not saying it's the case with TI, but companies absolutely do not look at the long term when making decisions. CEOs move the company in a direction that will maximize profit over the next few

quartersyears, then leave with the obscene amount of money they made while the company flounders due to the unsustainable direction it took.

FTFY
 
2014-01-22 12:45:26 PM  
The issue a lot of people here fail to grasp is that not one single company is in the business of giving you a job or maintaining a job unless it is profitable to the company.  Under capitalism you have no guarantee or right to a job.

/Yes, I am  aware that it sucks.
 
2014-01-22 12:47:58 PM  

Stoker: So where are the job creators? All I see are profit hungry rich corporations making some record profits who pay less to their employees (or don't give raises) and laying off some of them despite the earnings.


TI "created" 34,759 jobs as of 2012 according to Wikipedia. Even after firing 1,100 people who's departments and jobs aren't predicted to have good futures, that's still 33,659 people TI employs, and whose jobs are now more secure because TI is shedding some dead weight.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to look at the future and say "huh, this department is going to drag us all down, let's get rid of it before it does."
 
2014-01-22 12:48:17 PM  

Null Pointer: I work in the DFW area.

TI has a horrible reputation around here as an employer. One thing that is typical of their behavior is right before you hit 20 years you suddenly get hit with a bunch of negative job reviews and are laid off.


I thought they shipped them off to Sherman
 
2014-01-22 12:48:23 PM  

Onkel Buck: oh_please: It sounds to me like TI is being a smart company, ditching declining products before they become unprofitable and concentrating on long-term growth.

But that's no fun, so OH NOES EBIL CORPORATIONS REPUBLICANS TRICKLE DOWN PROLETARIAT DYSTOPIA!

profit = greed to a lot people around here. They think you should just do things out of the goodness of your heart until your money runs out then someone else can return the favor to you unitl their money runs out and so on.


I watched my boss at an old job pocket TENS of MILLS after he sold the company, then turn around and fire 4 of his longest term employees. You know, the people who helped him build the company. No bonuses, no thanks, just "later dudes". So tell me again how it is that we who don't make big piles of cash feel, I love hearing it. We're just worthless crybabies right?
 
2014-01-22 12:48:37 PM  

Ishkur: We are not sociopaths


i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-22 12:48:41 PM  

Ishkur: HeadLever: Companies are not there to only hire and employ folks. They are there to make money.

Yeah, we need to get out of this mindset. It is absolutely poisonous to capitalism and it is threatening to human life, and I like to think that we can build a better economic system than something that is so utterly amoral and inhumane. We are not sociopaths. Why do we want to live in a system that makes us act like them?

The purpose of a company is to provide a useful product, service or benefit to humanity. Of course it must make money doing it, but when it pulls in $500 million profit and it thinks the best way to serve its employees and humanity at large is to cut jobs so it can clear more profit, there is something seriously broken there.


I beg to differ,
 
2014-01-22 12:49:57 PM  

HeadLever: tricycleracer: Well, it shows that management was too farking stupid to utilize the skills of 1100 people to create money, so there's that.

Yep, because those managers in the buggy whip sector were too stupid to manage the employee skills in a way to create money.


They had poor product development.  That's a management failure.
 
2014-01-22 12:50:23 PM  

Ishkur: Yeah, we need to get out of this mindset.


So if we are not going to work for money, what are we going to work for?

The purpose of a company is to provide a useful product, service or benefit to humanity.

wrong.  The purpose of a company is to make a living for its owner and-by extension-its employees.  They typically do that by filling a niche of providing goods and services to those that want it.

Of course it must make money doing it, but when it pulls in $500 million profit and it thinks the best way to serve its employees and humanity at large is to cut jobs so it can clear more profit, there is something seriously broken there.

When you only look at profit and ignore the rest of the business, you are not going to be in business very long.To be a successful company, you are going to need to be able to discern where you company is doing good and where it is lacking.  That analysis is independent of current profit.
 
2014-01-22 12:50:34 PM  

Lollipop165: I work for a small company (5 people) that recently made a huge profit. I was promised, promised, promised that once the deal was done I'd be getting a huge bonus after 6 years of stagnant wages. I literally waited the deal out before looking for a new job thinking I'd come into a big bonus.

Yep, nothing.

The owner now wants to sell the company and needs my help and says "well, this time we will get it in writing" regarding the bonus. But then when he talks to me about my future with the company, he makes threats like "No one is hiring", and "If you leave, you can never come back",  and "I pay you so much, you can't make more at another job" and yada yada. SO he can't let me leave (which I know since I basically keep the ground work running) but you don't want to give me more money even though you, personally, just made millions of dollars.

I have no idea WHY he thinks I'll stay. I mean, I like the guy personally. But there's no reason for me to stay.


So how's the job search going?
 
2014-01-22 12:53:01 PM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: Well, they're looking for a Zamboni driver in Ottawa if that appeals to anyone:

http://hockeyjobs.m.teamworkonline.co m/Jobdetail.aspx?j=63547


And the Browns are still looking for a head coach, if you can't drive a Zamboni
 
2014-01-22 12:53:28 PM  

tricycleracer: They had poor product development.  That's a management failure.


So the buggy whips should have had GPS?  Sorry dude, they are still buggy whips.  If you are in a dying sector, no matter what bells and whistles you design on your buggy whip, you are still headed for the trash bin of history.
 
2014-01-22 12:54:13 PM  

Ishkur: The purpose of a company is to provide a useful product, service or benefit to humanity. Of course it must make money doing it, but when it pulls in $500 million profit and it thinks the best way to serve its employees and humanity at large is to cut jobs so it can clear more profit, there is something seriously broken there.


You're so cute.
 
2014-01-22 12:54:50 PM  

HeadLever: tricycleracer: They had poor product development.  That's a management failure.

So the buggy whips should have had GPS?  Sorry dude, they are still buggy whips.  If you are in a dying sector, no matter what bells and whistles you design on your buggy whip, you are still headed for the trash bin of history.


A buggy whip manufacturer has the supply chain and manufacturing facilities to produce other leather goods.

TI has the supply chain and manufacturing facilities to produce other electronics.

An employee can't build things he's not told to.
 
2014-01-22 12:58:12 PM  
Let's play with some numbers.  Let's pull a number out for executive compensation oh I dunno $100 million for a company that big and let's say that's split among 10 uber execs.  Let's also assume that the people who were laid off on the whole were paid a fairly good wage on average, oh I dunno $80K loaded rate.  1100 x 80K = $88Million.  Now, 9 execs get $1million except the CEO who is special who gets $3million.  9 + 3 + 88 == 100 million.  Tada, we just saved the same in labor, still didn't touch profit, and nobody got laid off.  Oh and the lowest paid exec still makes over 100 times what the average shlub does.
 
2014-01-22 12:58:25 PM  

tricycleracer: TI has the supply chain and manufacturing facilities to produce other electronics.



So you mean that they should get out of underperforming markets and into new growth markets?  Well, I guess they took your advice.  Sounds like you would agree that they are making good market based decisions based upon the information in the article.
 
2014-01-22 12:59:11 PM  

wxboy: When I think of Texas Instruments, I think of:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x480]


I would imagine sales of the TI-85 are way down.
 
2014-01-22 12:59:32 PM  
The problem here is not the workers.  The problem here is the overall capitalistic nature of work.  Workers are becoming too specialized.  For instance from the conception of a product to the completion of the product capitalism and the capitalist has promoted the division of labor and divorced the worker from the product by having the worker maybe only turn 2 screws before handing it off to the next person in line to tighten a bolt (for example).  In this quest for efficiency, the capitalist has dumbed down the workforce.  The worker has no interest in the final product, the worker may not even know or understand what the final product is.

Now, I'm not saying that one worker should create one product.  I am saying the worker should have a basic understanding of what he/she creates.  I believe the worker should create a product in the spirit of cooperation rather than in the spirit of I just need a pay check (this is a much deeper subject)....
 
2014-01-22 01:00:55 PM  

Ritley: Not saying it's the case with TI, but companies absolutely do not look at the long term when making decisions. CEOs move the company in a direction that will maximize profit over the next few years, then leave with the obscene amount of money they made while the company flounders due to the unsustainable direction it took.


Actually this looks like they ARE looking forward to the future
 
2014-01-22 01:01:45 PM  
HeadLever:

I see that you did not read TFA.    The jobs are being cut in areas where they are not making a profit or that are unsustainable.  Companies are not there to only hire and employ folks.  They are there to make money.  Maybe these folks can move to a part of the company that is making profits.

What's the point in allowing enormous, all-devouring multinational corporations to exist if they can't re-home some of these people to divisions that are making a profit and need help?  We're not talking about closing a slow sandwich shop here.  TI can't find any other more profitable projects for these skilled folks to work on?  Retraining?  Moving expenses?  You can't tell me they can't afford it, there's just no human compassion there.  Profit is too often an excuse.  If a venture, large or small, requires human beings to provide skill, labor, or both in order to create profit, then it needs to consider real human needs, not pretend people are inanimate resources.

As far as the supposition that this loss represents a lack of hiring, for the first part we can't know if that's really the case, however likely it may be.  Second, it's only slightly better; they've effectively cut the salaries of everyone involved by increasing their workload without compensation.  Not endangerment like I said, but still exploitative behavior where the owners foist all the risk and fallout onto workers while they profit on top of profit.
 
2014-01-22 01:02:27 PM  
Disclosure:  I work the company.  I will not discuss any details. But I will weigh in on a couple minor things.

CeroX:  I guess i should expand... They are cutting in departments that aren't doing anything productive. [...]  If those departments are all sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and pulling $30k a year for it, then the fat is going to get trimmed.

Not quite.  Reducing investment in a product line is not an indictment of the engineers making the product, but rather management deciding they don't need to add to that product line any longer, or at least not as quickly.  The market can absorb new products only so quickly.  Don't confuse productivity with profitability.

If I'm a car company and I make 1,000,000 cars when the market only wants 500,000, I was incredibly productive and yet quite unprofitable.

brandent:  Probably just not hiring for the next few months and nobody really getting 'laid off'.

No, it's an actual lay off.  There's no reason to tell the world when we have a hiring freeze.
 
2014-01-22 01:02:30 PM  

Carn: Tada, we just saved the same in labor, still didn't touch profit, and nobody got laid off.  Oh and the lowest paid exec still makes over 100 times what the average shlub does.


Except for the part where you ignore that they are in a sector that is unsustainable and will continue to cause income erosion to the company as a whole.  Can you come up with a good reason why the company should continue to pay for employees in a sector that will cause them to lose money for the foreseeable future?
 
2014-01-22 01:04:29 PM  

DubyaHater: Clearly we need to lower corporate taxes and elect more republicans.


I look forward to the day when you buy a convenience store and have to hire additional unneeded employees simply because the town council thinks it would be a good idea.
 
2014-01-22 01:04:31 PM  

HeadLever: Ishkur: Yeah, we need to get out of this mindset.
...
wrong.  The purpose of a company is to make a living for its owner and-by extension-its employees.  They typically do that by filling a niche of providing goods and services to those that want it.

...


Nope. Just the owners.

If you could do it with no employees you would
 
2014-01-22 01:06:00 PM  

TheOtherGuy: What's the point in allowing enormous, all-devouring multinational corporations to exist if they can't re-home some of these people to divisions that are making a profit and need help?


How do you know that is not happening now?  Maybe these folks here are well equipped to be candidates for jobs that TI continues to invest in. However, they very well may be ill suited as well.

Generally companies have a vested interest to first fill positions with their own employees as they know about work history, work ethic, knowledge, etc.  However, that can depend upon how similar the jobs are and how close they are/employee's willingness to move.
 
2014-01-22 01:07:41 PM  

CujoQuarrel: If you could do it with no employees you would


If employees couldn't make a living working for the company, there would be no incentive for them to be employed.
 
2014-01-22 01:07:42 PM  
Subby could only dream about being able to make $511,000,000 in profit

weaker outlook

Must be that virulent Obama economy we have been hearing about.

Look, 1,100 isn't that sizable of a % of their work force.  And maybe those jobs get switched to other positions within the company.

jobs worldwide

and those jobs are worldwide.  they may not even be in this country.
 
2014-01-22 01:08:25 PM  

Ishkur: HeadLever: Companies are not there to only hire and employ folks. They are there to make money.

Yeah, we need to get out of this mindset. It is absolutely poisonous to capitalism and it is threatening to human life, and I like to think that we can build a better economic system than something that is so utterly amoral and inhumane. We are not sociopaths. Why do we want to live in a system that makes us act like them?

The purpose of a company is to provide a useful product, service or benefit to humanity. Of course it must make money doing it, but when it pulls in $500 million profit and it thinks the best way to serve its employees and humanity at large is to cut jobs so it can clear more profit, there is something seriously broken there.


I would disagree. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize utility for it's owners, just like the purpose of a union. In the field of capital, utility is profit for risk. A corporation trying to maximize it's profit is exactly what it is supposed to be doing. Where society comes in is the point where corporate utility infringes upon collective need (like dumping toxic waste, not paying workers enough to survive, or actively encouraging workplace accidents to kill off the sick).

If Coca-Cola thought they could exit the soft drink industry and produce cruise liners for a greater return, they would do so. If they could get away with paying workers a dollar an hour, they would do so. And if they thought that throwing small woodland creatures into a giant shredder would increase net utility, they would do so.

A corporation is a soulless legal entity that should have limited civil rights in exchange for diminished liability of ownership - just like a union. Expecting them to act like sociopaths would be a step in the right direction as far as regulation is concerned.
 
2014-01-22 01:10:00 PM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:

You... yes you! You know what you did!

Thanks homie!
 
2014-01-22 01:10:33 PM  

r1niceboy: Diogenes: I blame regulations and taxes.

My dog shat in the hallway yesterday, I obviously blamed Obama. He might have been responsible for me losing my keys last week, but I'm more inclined to think it was either aliens or the Knights Templar.


and the Jews, don't forget the Jews!

ibetthejewsdidthis.jpg
 
2014-01-22 01:11:22 PM  

Girl Sailor: Onkel Buck: oh_please: It sounds to me like TI is being a smart company, ditching declining products before they become unprofitable and concentrating on long-term growth.

But that's no fun, so OH NOES EBIL CORPORATIONS REPUBLICANS TRICKLE DOWN PROLETARIAT DYSTOPIA!

profit = greed to a lot people around here. They think you should just do things out of the goodness of your heart until your money runs out then someone else can return the favor to you unitl their money runs out and so on.

I watched my boss at an old job pocket TENS of MILLS after he sold the company, then turn around and fire 4 of his longest term employees. You know, the people who helped him build the company. No bonuses, no thanks, just "later dudes". So tell me again how it is that we who don't make big piles of cash feel, I love hearing it. We're just worthless crybabies right?


You said it I didnt. You are not owed or entitled to anything and neither am I. You need to stop thinking you're special, your mother lied to you.
 
2014-01-22 01:12:24 PM  

TheOtherGuy: I know this is somewhat of an oversimplification, but how can we continue to live in a world where the math of this is not criminal in some way?  That profit is enough to pay those workers almost a half-million dollars each for the next year.  Or, much more realistically, $40k each would kill about 10% of that profit, and put each of these workers at or above median pay for most regions of the US.

So, literally, this company refuses to take a 10% profit (not revenue; their expenses and reinvestment are covered) cut in order to not endanger the livelihoods of the people who made the profit possible.  Yes, I'm equating unemployment with criminal negligence here.  Making someone unemployed in this economy (in the US anyway) amounts to endangerment at this point, it's gotten that bad.

We need to find a way to criminalize this greedy, sociopathic behavior, immediately.  Profit itself isn't criminal, no.  But when "enough is never, ever enough", you can justify everything and anything you want, sooner or later.  Just because an extra dollar can be made, does not meet it  should be made, or we should allow it to be made in that manner.


These numbers are thrown out there to please Wall Street (lots of times they don't actually cut as many as announced).  In any case, they are (in theory) cutting 1,100 positions in divisions that aren't profitable.  They will probably hire at least that many in other divisions that are, and I'm sure that some of the people from group A will end up in group B when all is said and done.  However, some might have skills that don't transfer to the profitable divisions or are in other countries (they seem to be scaling back in Japan, for instance).

That is, let's say you are a company that has two divisions.  One makes video games in Canada, and one makes shoes in Brazil.  The shoe portion of the company is losing money and the video game portion of the company is making lots of money.  So, they shut down the shoe division.  Obviously, people who make shoes aren't the best video game programmers, not to mention the geographic problem.
 
2014-01-22 01:14:24 PM  

HeadLever: Carn: Tada, we just saved the same in labor, still didn't touch profit, and nobody got laid off.  Oh and the lowest paid exec still makes over 100 times what the average shlub does.

Except for the part where you ignore that they are in a sector that is unsustainable and will continue to cause income erosion to the company as a whole.  Can you come up with a good reason why the company should continue to pay for employees in a sector that will cause them to lose money for the foreseeable future?


Fine, eliminate the 1100 but we still cut executive compensation as I've suggested.  After all, that is also unsustainable and will increase shareholder returns just as much so it must be right!
 
2014-01-22 01:15:06 PM  

TheOtherGuy: You can't tell me they can't afford it, there's just no human compassion there.


Sure there is.  In this case, the 'needs' of the many (all the company's current employees) outweigh the 'needs' of the few (those being let go).  In order to maintain employment (compassion) for the many, it is within the company's best interest to say as fiscally healthy as possible by divesting of ill-performing sectors and investing in growth sectors.

If employment is the metric we are using for 'compassion' then TI today would be much more compassionate than the TI of the 50s, 60, 70, 80 and 90s.
 
2014-01-22 01:15:09 PM  

HeadLever: tricycleracer: TI has the supply chain and manufacturing facilities to produce other electronics.


So you mean that they should get out of underperforming markets and into new growth markets?  Well, I guess they took your advice.  Sounds like you would agree that they are making good market based decisions based upon the information in the article.


Cutting workforce to "enter new markets" isn't a good sign.
 
2014-01-22 01:18:28 PM  

HeadLever: wrong. The purpose of a company is to make a living for its owner


You misread my argument. I know what a company's purpose is, I'm arguing from an ought imperative, not an is.

HeadLever: When you only look at profit and ignore the rest of the business, you are not going to be in business very long


That does seem to be the modus operandi of most business owners these days (especially publicly traded corps). No one's interested in long term sustainable growth. fark that -- ain't nobody got time for dat. It's all about the quick payoff now. Get in, spike the punch bowl, rev up indexes for a few quarters, then cash out. Leave a crater of unemployment and human misery where ever you go, use your profits to raid the next corp. Rinse. Repeat.

I call this behavior Vampire Capitalism, for obvious reasons.
 
2014-01-22 01:18:41 PM  

r1niceboy: Diogenes: I blame regulations and taxes.

My dog shat in the hallway yesterday, I obviously blamed Obama. He might have been responsible for me losing my keys last week, but I'm more inclined to think it was either aliens or the Knights Templar.


I'm responsible for both. Obama, however, is responsible for your flat tire.

/You don't know about your flat tire yet, do you?
 
Displayed 50 of 358 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report