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  
•       •       •

23023 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:59 AM (34 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 02:45:17 PM

Girl Sailor: So the ones who worked miserable hours through blizzards, who worked for a start up for less than ideal cash, who took the professional risk to work at a underling company instead of the Wall St.Journal? Those are the ones who didn't risk anything?

And the one who died from cancer, bankrupt from the cost of her treatments?


They had a choice of where to work; sounds like their choices did not work out well.  At least they didn't live in the world you advocate, where individuals don't have a choice of where to apply their talents, time, and resources.
 
2014-01-22 02:46:15 PM

JackieRabbit: Magorn, TI builds these hand-heald programmable technical calculators because there is a high demand for them by scientists, engineers, and architects. The HS and college kiddies wouldn't generate enough revenue to make them feasible. They do one thing and one thing very well: advanced mathematics. THey don't need to serve up the WSJ or Fark. And smart phone don't have calculator programs that would even come close. The calculator has so few resources because that is all it needs. But the programming has to be perfect and isn't written by script kiddies with a CS degree from the local community college.

But calculators is only a tiny part of TI's business. They make far more money building components for defense and space programs, industrial engineering, transportation, energy, and research.


I have a free  graphing calculator App on my Nexus that crushes the TI-84 16 ways to Sunday.  and TI hasn't updated it's hardware since 04.  What specs did the PC you were willing to pay $1K for in 2004 have?   I am honestly surprised TI can even FIND memory chips denoted in Kilobytes anymore
 
2014-01-22 02:46:20 PM

Pharmdawg: With that 20 percent increased profit, I would think it would be feasible to retain and retrain quite a few loyal employees, or even top off the retirement funds of the less productive senior people to get them to retire. TI still retains a ton of profit, gets rid of dead weight, and loyal hardworking people keep working, paying taxes, eating out, taking vacations, etc., which moves the economy along. The government needs to find a way to incentivize retention and increased employment and benefits fast, or this country is going to 3rd world status in 20 years, and there's too many Americans with guns to let that happen quietly.


img.fark.net
 
2014-01-22 02:47:12 PM

HeadLever: You are cherry picking a bad year for them.


2.3%?

Your link doesn't exactly vindicate your argument.
 
2014-01-22 02:47:12 PM

MayoSlather: HeadLever: real_headhoncho: These are PEOPLE.  They worked for the company, they helped make that profit

Actually, they didn't as they are employed in underperforming sectors of this company.

Great then I'm sure in turn they won't mind massively increasing the wages for employees in the profitable areas. Oh, that's not happening? Huh.


lol. Nice!
 
2014-01-22 02:48:13 PM

HeadLever: While they don't pay much, they do pay. And again, if you don't like it, advocate for a change in tax policy. I'll be there with you.


I'm Canadian. It's your problem, not mine.
 
2014-01-22 02:49:09 PM

mangeybear: Girl Sailor: So the ones who worked miserable hours through blizzards, who worked for a start up for less than ideal cash, who took the professional risk to work at a underling company instead of the Wall St.Journal? Those are the ones who didn't risk anything?

And the one who died from cancer, bankrupt from the cost of her treatments?

They had a choice of where to work; sounds like their choices did not work out well.  At least they didn't live in the world you advocate, where individuals don't have a choice of where to apply their talents, time, and resources.



Spoken like someone who has never lived pay cheque to pay cheque.

And in the world of capitalism, those individual talents can be used, abused and abandoned even though they may make their employer rich.

There's a balance somewhere in the middle amirite?
 
2014-01-22 02:49:47 PM

jxb465: r1niceboy:

/You don't know about your flat tire yet, do you?


http://palin.appspot.com/ -->

/SARAH PALIN IS YOUR NEW BICYCLE'S FLAT TIRE
//SARAH PALIN THREW AWAY YOUR MAGIC CARDS
///SARAH PALIN DOUBLE CLICKED A HYPERLINK
 
2014-01-22 02:49:55 PM
Holy crap, just about every post on this thread should end with "YEAHHH, MAAAANNN"
 
2014-01-22 02:51:05 PM

jayphat: What if, and I have no data to back this, these people worked in unprofitable divisions and cost the company profit? Because, that's what TI is saying.


If the divisions are required to run the company, or help the company function, then they are a necessary expense.  If they are just weeaboo, well then...
 
2014-01-22 02:51:23 PM

OgreMagi: Magorn: so how the fark do they get away with charging that outrageous price for the calculator?

Some math teachers demand the students get exactly the model calculator they like.  So even though TI calculators are generally shiat (and always have been), they have a captive market.  TI just needs to target their marketing drones at the math professors.  No need to spend money marketing towards students.

/HP all the way, biatch


Sounds like the government should bring down the antitrust hammer on the teachers who do this
 
2014-01-22 02:51:41 PM

WhyKnot: um...i hope people realize that the executive don't put the profits in their pockets...they pay shareholders and reinvest the money.   Shareholders are me and you...our 401Ks...essentially when corporations do good, your retirement increases...why don't people understand that?


You should stop talking, and probably stop investing without professional guidance. The shareholders only get money if the company pays dividends. Most don't. The shareholders can see an increase in stock value by many means, but they don't come from the profits the company makes.

In addition, executive compensation continues to trend upward. The executives are putting the profits in their pockets. Your post couldn't have been more wrong if it were written by an electronic wrong machine on national wrong day by a person who holds a PhD in wrong.
 
2014-01-22 02:52:51 PM

FarkedOver: WhyKnot: um...i hope people realize that the executive don't put the profits in their pockets...they pay shareholders and reinvest the money.   Shareholders are me and you...our 401Ks...essentially when corporations do good, your retirement increases...why don't people understand that?

You think they invest 100% of what they make back to the shareholders and into R&D?


they will pay some bonuses...they may invest...and they may stash some for a rainy day...but yeah, in theory the dollars are either paid out or reinvested into the company...corporations have rules for cash, the executives don't get a clean sweet and get to keep the profits.
 
2014-01-22 02:55:47 PM

Ishkur: HeadLever: You are cherry picking a bad year for them.

2.3%?

Your link doesn't exactly vindicate your argument.


And that rate's only on profit.

Could you imagine if we proles only paid 2.3% taxes, let alone 2.3% on what's left over after housing, food, transportation, utilities, etc.?
 
2014-01-22 02:58:06 PM

WhyKnot: um...i hope people realize that the executive don't put the profits in their pockets...they pay shareholders and reinvest the money.   Shareholders are me and you...our 401Ks...essentially when corporations do good, your retirement increases...why don't people understand that?


Uh, because my 401k lost 20% through 2012 (as in, it was up above $20k total, and then dropped to less than $16k in a year...) and then I had to cash it in to survive while job-hunting when the merger resulted in my being fired with no severance, denied unemployment, only to now have a lower-paying job as a contractor with no paid vacation, barely any insurance, and no 401k?  All while the cost of living has increased?
 
2014-01-22 02:58:28 PM

mangeybear: Girl Sailor: So the ones who worked miserable hours through blizzards, who worked for a start up for less than ideal cash, who took the professional risk to work at a underling company instead of the Wall St.Journal? Those are the ones who didn't risk anything?

And the one who died from cancer, bankrupt from the cost of her treatments?

They had a choice of where to work; sounds like their choices did not work out well.  At least they didn't live in the world you advocate, where individuals don't have a choice of where to apply their talents, time, and resources.


The right to choose a different employer is even being infringed by corporations when they start suing people for violating non compete clauses which in a sane world would be illegal
 
2014-01-22 02:58:50 PM

Newfiesnowman: As for the whole Layoffs with profits bit, if the mantra is tax increases reduce profits and profits create jobs. Then how can profits lead to layoffs?


Profits can't lead to layoffs.  There is no line of causation between profit and layoffs.

Do you believe that TI would have kept these people in dead or dying lines of business if they had lost money?
 
2014-01-22 02:58:53 PM

Newfiesnowman: I'd consider the Fiesta a buggy whip.


The fiesta is a buggy whip that is 14 pounds.  Still a buggy whip, but not a very good one.

As for the whole Layoffs with profits bit, if the mantra is tax increases reduce profits and profits create jobs. Then how can profits lead to layoffs? That's how trickle down economics is supposed to work.

First of all you have to understand that profits listed is yesterday's news.  It provides them with cash in hand in which they can bank, invest, hire more employees, or perform capex.  That is important, but what is even more important to a company is the outlook on where they are headed.  In TI's case, the outlook is not very good.  Because of this, they will tend to stash some of that money to help bolster their ability to make it through the rough patch and they will chop out underperforming sectors.

Taxes are part of the cost of doing business and can vary hugely depending upon how many tax breaks they are eligible for.  If you have a small tax liability tweaks to the tax rate is not going to be very important to you.  Changes to tax policy that impacts what deductions you are eligible for however......
 
2014-01-22 03:00:24 PM

Ishkur: Your link doesn't exactly vindicate your argument.


Now you are cherry picking my post.  Did you read past that sentence?
 
2014-01-22 03:01:33 PM

oh_please: Holy crap, just about every post on this thread should end with "YEAHHH, MAAAANNN"


Yeah, well you know dissent should be automatically labeled and associated with something fatuous so everyone can readily dismiss it as nonsense.
 
2014-01-22 03:01:33 PM

HeadLever: BS. You argument was in response to my assertion of "The Company" (meaning TI) did have a profit company-wide but wanted to cut underperforming sectors. My context here was never about businesses in general.


Oh for farks sakes, are you even paying attention in this thread?

YOU SAID: "If you allow the sectors that are losing you money to thrive and flourish and incorporate that as you business model only because your corporate headquarters is showing an overall company wide profit, you are doing all of your employees that are engaged in profitable parts a disservice.
A willingness to tolerate underperformance is never a good thing in a business model."

I RESPONDED: "It's more common, in fact, for very profitable companies to use the income from one sector to pay off the losses in another."

I wasn't addressing TFA, I was addressing your appeal to some sort of wacked out sense of sociopathic moral absolute that you apply to business decision making (the hi-lighted is the part I found offensive). Hell, even in this thread people have pointed out that entire departments within companies -- customer service, IT, etc. -- don't help the company make any money at all, are usually lost leaders, and are always the first to get the axe if the company needs to increase profits.

So what is this shiat about doing a disservice to your employees if you don't lay off other employees? That's complete horseshiat. Generally speaking, most employees don't care how much profit a company makes. They never get to see it anyway, so what does it mean to them? They want the company to profit (because that means job security), but whether the company clears $10 million or $100 million is irrelevant. Their jobs, and by extension their livelihoods, is always at the mercy of someone elses greed anyway.
 
2014-01-22 03:01:42 PM

Ishkur: I'm Canadian. It's your problem, not mine.


Then what are you complaining about?
 
2014-01-22 03:01:53 PM
....

Ah, the pleasures of working in a right-to-work state.  Needless to say, I pulled the ejection lever on that fail bus so hard I probably broke the farking thing in half on the way out.


What does the fact that you aren't forced to give money to a union as a condition of employment have anything to do with anything?
 
2014-01-22 03:05:23 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.


IMHO the concept of business organizations having personified interests and economic transactions between citizens and these buisnesses collectively being referred to as some tangible yet independent entity, the economy, is the big hurdle to taking steps in our North American society towards innovating and evolving our societal structure to adapt in ways that would benefit everyone.

"The Economy" is not the sacred cow being protected purely by the self interest of some quasi citizen/businesses managing consumer casholes for the good of the system.

The current way of doing things is not the best, or worst, but it is very entrenched and misguidigly defended as though any other approach is a slight against capitalism and America in general.

We do not have a good environment for positive change ensuring a sustainable and healthy balance of social and fiscal values. We do however have a society with values that currently tip in the balance of profit over people.

/end rant
 
2014-01-22 03:06:07 PM

Newfiesnowman: mangeybear: Girl Sailor: So the ones who worked miserable hours through blizzards, who worked for a start up for less than ideal cash, who took the professional risk to work at a underling company instead of the Wall St.Journal? Those are the ones who didn't risk anything?

And the one who died from cancer, bankrupt from the cost of her treatments?

They had a choice of where to work; sounds like their choices did not work out well.  At least they didn't live in the world you advocate, where individuals don't have a choice of where to apply their talents, time, and resources.


Spoken like someone who has never lived pay cheque to pay cheque.

And in the world of capitalism, those individual talents can be used, abused and abandoned even though they may make their employer rich.

There's a balance somewhere in the middle amirite?


We're already "in the middle" right?  We have laws that govern the workplace, I'm not opposed if you think we need more to protect the safety or healthcare of workers.  However, we should not deny the free will of two parties to engage in a contract.  If someone is "making their employer rich" and they don't feel they are fairly compensated for that, then they should seek other employment.  If they cannot find a position that compensates better, then they were wrong; they were fairly compensated.
 
2014-01-22 03:06:52 PM

Newfiesnowman: What they did do which IMO has turned them around since 2007ish is focus on aesthetics. Somewhere along the line they realized people now a days don't really care so much if it's a reliable vehicle as long as it looks nice, has a touch screen and blue tooth.


Camrys, Accords, Corollas, Civics, and Altimas (boring, boring, boring, boring, and boring) each outsell anything Ford makes besides the F-150.  Ford found there was (and always has been) a market of people who want geegaws and touchscreens, but it's not particularly reflecting any great cultural trend.
 
2014-01-22 03:07:00 PM
Uh, because my 401k lost 20% through 2012 (as in, it was up above $20k total, and then dropped to less than $16k in a year...) and then I had to cash it in to survive while job-hunting when the merger resulted in my being fired with no severance, denied unemployment, only to now have a lower-paying job as a contractor with no paid vacation, barely any insurance, and no 401k?  All while the cost of living has increased?

You were laid off after a merger and they denied unemployment?
 
2014-01-22 03:07:02 PM

Ishkur: Oh for farks sakes, are you even paying attention in this thread?


Lol, you did not respond to my 'YOU SAID' post.  You responded my post of "The company as a whole yes. However, not the sectors that are being cut. If you allow the sectors that are losing you money"  I noticed you conveniently excluded the top few lines of the 'I RESPONDED' reference.

If you cannot respond to the correct post, then that is your issue, not mine.
 
2014-01-22 03:07:11 PM

HeadLever: Now you are cherry picking my post. Did you read past that sentence?


I did. I'm not cherry picking, I just truncate posts for ease of reading.
 
2014-01-22 03:08:10 PM

HeadLever: Then what are you complaining about?


How broken and stupid your system is! Jeez, pay attention here. This is what we Canadians do for fun.
 
2014-01-22 03:08:44 PM
I don't think you can really monday morning quarterback the company's decision to lay people off. But companies aren't some demigod that needs to be pleased by sacrificing your own earning potential with increased taxes and decreased services just so they can get a tax break and make the ground fertile..er I mean hire people. Middle class people should never be swayed by those kind of bullshiat arguments, look out for numero uno and make jobs with your spending.
 
2014-01-22 03:09:59 PM

Onkel Buck: 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.


It's not about being special or not, or even who took the bigger risk - the boss in this example didn't work alone, and owes his business success to his employees. This just highlights inherent unfairness of capitalism, where those who are owners make all the money while those who aren't owners do the majority of the labor, and are compensated, but at the lowest wage possible (as determined by the market) so the owner can maximize his take-home. The boss was not legally responsible to pay the employees more than their salary, but to say that someone is not owned or entitled to anything denies even the fundamental rights in the constitution. Outside of the constitution, some would say that the boss was ethically responsible to share his wealth with those who helped him earn it, and that receiving a fair, equal portion of the return from your work is an inalienable right. Saying otherwise means that there is no inherent value in work, only in the capital gained, which is another way of saying the ends justify the means. A criticism of capitalism is that the means - the work put in by people, and their subsequent quality of life - are much more important than the ends - increased returns for the owners.
 
2014-01-22 03:11:44 PM

jst3p: WhyKnot: um...i hope people realize that the executive don't put the profits in their pockets...they pay shareholders and reinvest the money.   Shareholders are me and you...our 401Ks...essentially when corporations do good, your retirement increases...why don't people understand that?

You should stop talking, and probably stop investing without professional guidance. The shareholders only get money if the company pays dividends. Most don't. The shareholders can see an increase in stock value by many means, but they don't come from the profits the company makes.

In addition, executive compensation continues to trend upward. The executives are putting the profits in their pockets. Your post couldn't have been more wrong if it were written by an electronic wrong machine on national wrong day by a person who holds a PhD in wrong.


boy...you sure served me.

do me a favor, you invest in a company that doesn't make profits, and I will invest in a company that does....let's see how we each did at the end of the year.

Companies that make profits and don't pass them along to the shareholders and/or reinvestment them properly likely won't be around too long.   Money makes the world go round...investors see how much the profits are...if not shared and/or properly invested that is when shareholders get angry and/or file lawsuits.   when shareholders get angry they sell and/or complain to the board...the board has the ability to change the direction of the company.  of course maybe I heard that on national wrong day   :-/
 
2014-01-22 03:12:42 PM

HeadLever: Lol, you did not respond to my 'YOU SAID' post.


I did. That's why I linked them.

HeadLever: You responded my post of "The company as a whole yes. However, not the sectors that are being cut. If you allow the sectors that are losing you money" I noticed you conveniently excluded the top few lines of the 'I RESPONDED' reference.


It's the same post, dumbass. Go back and look. I truncate posts for ease of reading. I already explained this to you.
 
2014-01-22 03:13:20 PM

mangeybear: Newfiesnowman: mangeybear: Girl Sailor: So the ones who worked miserable hours through blizzards, who worked for a start up for less than ideal cash, who took the professional risk to work at a underling company instead of the Wall St.Journal? Those are the ones who didn't risk anything?

And the one who died from cancer, bankrupt from the cost of her treatments?

They had a choice of where to work; sounds like their choices did not work out well.  At least they didn't live in the world you advocate, where individuals don't have a choice of where to apply their talents, time, and resources.


Spoken like someone who has never lived pay cheque to pay cheque.

And in the world of capitalism, those individual talents can be used, abused and abandoned even though they may make their employer rich.

There's a balance somewhere in the middle amirite?

We're already "in the middle" right?  We have laws that govern the workplace, I'm not opposed if you think we need more to protect the safety or healthcare of workers.  However, we should not deny the free will of two parties to engage in a contract.  If someone is "making their employer rich" and they don't feel they are fairly compensated for that, then they should seek other employment.  If they cannot find a position that compensates better, then they were wrong; they were fairly compensated.


This assumes labor and corporate have equal leverage. In many industries they may, when it comes to unskilled labor it is very lopsided.
 
2014-01-22 03:13:22 PM
So long as they keep sellin` those Launchpads. . .
 
2014-01-22 03:14:32 PM

JackieRabbit: Magorn, TI builds these hand-held programmable technical calculators because there is a high demand for them by scientists, engineers, and architects. The HS and college kiddies wouldn't generate enough revenue to make them feasible. They do one thing and one thing very well: advanced mathematics. THey don't need to serve up the WSJ or Fark.


I haven't seen a single person using a discrete calculator on a regular basis since college, and I've been in engineering for almost 20 years now.  All the real math gets done on a computer.  And if they do have one, they're probably using the same calculator they had since high school or college.

And smart phone don't have calculator programs that would even come close. The calculator has so few resources because that is all it needs. But the programming has to be perfect and isn't written by script kiddies with a CS degree from the local community college.

Huh?  You could emulate a TI-84 in a tablet's little pinkie.  You could literally take the ROM image out of the calculator, slap a Z80 emulation under it and a display + keypad emulation over it and have the full calculator experience on your tablet, PLUS all the things the tablet does.  Your argument makes no sense.  When both cost the same price, you know something's up.

The only reason the calculator can justify its price is that it's essentially a captive market among high schoolers.  You have a new crop of high schoolers every year that "need" them.  The fraction of them that become scientists and engineers will probably just hold onto the calculator they had in high school or college, if they end up using it at all.  (I have my HP48 SX and HP48 GX still, but I used them maybe a dozen times since I graduated.)


But calculators is only a tiny part of TI's business. They make far more money building components for defense and space programs, industrial engineering, transportation, energy, and research.

According to an article I read, as of 2007 is was about 5%.  I honestly don't know what it is now.
 
2014-01-22 03:14:45 PM
I remember buying a TI calculator in the 70's for around $150.00
 
2014-01-22 03:14:47 PM

Ishkur: I did. I'm not cherry picking, I just truncate posts for ease of reading.


So you asked a question where I already explained my position just for the ease of reading?
 
2014-01-22 03:15:11 PM

WhyKnot: jst3p: WhyKnot: um...i hope people realize that the executive don't put the profits in their pockets...they pay shareholders and reinvest the money.   Shareholders are me and you...our 401Ks...essentially when corporations do good, your retirement increases...why don't people understand that?

You should stop talking, and probably stop investing without professional guidance. The shareholders only get money if the company pays dividends. Most don't. The shareholders can see an increase in stock value by many means, but they don't come from the profits the company makes.

In addition, executive compensation continues to trend upward. The executives are putting the profits in their pockets. Your post couldn't have been more wrong if it were written by an electronic wrong machine on national wrong day by a person who holds a PhD in wrong.

boy...you sure served me.

do me a favor, you invest in a company that doesn't make profits, and I will invest in a company that does....let's see how we each did at the end of the year.

Companies that make profits and don't pass them along to the shareholders and/or reinvestment them properly likely won't be around too long.   Money makes the world go round...investors see how much the profits are...if not shared and/or properly invested that is when shareholders get angry and/or file lawsuits.   when shareholders get angry they sell and/or complain to the board...the board has the ability to change the direction of the company.  of course maybe I heard that on national wrong day   :-/


The problem is that giving executives bonuses is seen as reinvestment. Your assertion that execs don't pocket profits is still wrong.
 
2014-01-22 03:17:37 PM

GoldDude: Subby sounds like a union worker.
The company is profitable, they should be paying all the profits to their workers!
(And keep paying them even if the profit evaporates)

Successful companies look forward, not backwards at past results.
Just because the division producing iPads is doing well doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of the division producing buggy whips (or Zunes).


You're on Fark . . .
 
2014-01-22 03:21:10 PM
No you did not.  Here is that post in its entirety.

Ishkur:
HeadLever: The company as a whole yes. However, not the sectors that are being cut. If you allow the sectors that are losing you money

Do you know this for certain or are you just guessing? Because you're wrong.

It's more common, in fact, for very profitable companies to use the income from one sector to pay off the losses in another. And they don't feel the need to close down the other sector because even though it's losing money, it still provides a valuable service or product to a very important demographic. The entertainment and transportation industries live by this model. There are a lot of bus routes that don't make any money at all. Hell, most movie studios only make money on one or two films a year, but they make enough to compensate for all the losses from their smaller, independent and limited run releases.

If profit was truly the only reason for running a company, we wouldn't have so much diversity in food, music, cars, sports, television, software, etc... there'd be no point to creating a specific product for a niche audience. And yet here we are, because the people who start companies have a genuine passion for their fields and they want to be useful, they want to add value to society, they want to provide a worthy need for consumers and they want to make their customers happy and satisfied with their business. They would not get into it if they did not love what they're doing.

But as soon as a privately owned company becomes a publicly owned corporation, that care and quality is removed from the business mandate. The new owners are anonymous investors who, by and large, have no interest in what the company does, no sense of its history or philosophy, and are not interested in what utility it provides for society. They are only interested in the bottom line: Profits, black ink, dividends, and share values. To maximize these ends, they employ a wing of accountants, consultants, financial advisors and business keeners (let's call them "beancounters") to reorganize the company's objectives into a more profit-centric one.

This new class of beancounters come straight from the business sector and often treat the founders who built the company with contempt. They slash departments, cut corners, lay off employees, and stretch expenses and payroll tighter than a drum, all in the name of pleasing quarterly reports (which drives share values). As a result, the quality of the company declines, its service decreases, its products get worse, its customer support is marginalized, and everything else decays from within. But profits skyrocket for about two fiscal quarters (or more) and the beancounters are given hefty raises, bonuses, and pats on the back for strategically squeezing everything they can out of the company's infrastructure.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you own/run a business, there has to be a purpose to it. And no, I vehemently reject "making money" as a purpose, because it's not. Making money is a means, not an end.


//pay attention to the bolded words.
 
2014-01-22 03:22:15 PM

HeadLever: So you asked a question where I already explained my position just for the ease of reading?


It was a rhetorical question meant to hi-light your own dumbassery ("are you sure about that?") because what you had just posted was so uproariously stupid.
 
2014-01-22 03:22:28 PM

jst3p: The problem is that giving executives bonuses is seen as reinvestment. Your assertion that execs don't pocket profits is still wrong.


See the word "properly".  Just like every other employee, a company should strive to get the best person they can for the least money.

Any professional investor worth a damn will take executive compensation into account when deciding what a company is worth.  Overpaid CEOs are great for shorting.
 
2014-01-22 03:23:21 PM
From reading their quarterly results, a few things jumped out

- Revenue and revenue guidance continue to trend down
- Share buybacks for the almighty "stockholder" (aka management). The CEO at the press conference talked about delivering value to the shareholder. $2.9 billion was spent on stock repurchases. At an average 52 week price of $38, this would decrease the stock outstanding by 75 million shares. In reality, the outstanding stock decreased by only 26 million shares. So 50 million shares went towards executive compensation and acquisitions. Not surprising anymore, but it deserves to be pointed out.

Texas Instruments is not the company it once was, plain and simple. What's surprising is that investors still expect the company to develop groundbreaking tech that will deliver high margins for years to come.
 
2014-01-22 03:24:56 PM

Rex Kramer - Danger Seeker: Uh, because my 401k lost 20% through 2012 (as in, it was up above $20k total, and then dropped to less than $16k in a year...) and then I had to cash it in to survive while job-hunting when the merger resulted in my being fired with no severance, denied unemployment, only to now have a lower-paying job as a contractor with no paid vacation, barely any insurance, and no 401k?  All while the cost of living has increased?

You were laid off after a merger and they denied unemployment?


I survived the lay-off, then they tripled my work-load and began harping on me for every little thing until able to fire me some 6 months after the main lay-offs.  Then they denied unemployment and I had to cash in my life's savings.

All this after 10 years as, per my bosses - not my words - been "an example and model for all other support personnel."

Note that the company is involved in the for-profit prison BS and had gone from family-owned and a few million dollars annual income around 2004 to completely corporate and 1.2 billion annual by 2012.
 
2014-01-22 03:26:18 PM

CeroX: I was actually going to use the term profitable...


Gotcha.

 
2014-01-22 03:27:52 PM

jst3p: WhyKnot: jst3p: WhyKnot: um...i hope people realize that the executive don't put the profits in their pockets...they pay shareholders and reinvest the money.   Shareholders are me and you...our 401Ks...essentially when corporations do good, your retirement increases...why don't people understand that?

You should stop talking, and probably stop investing without professional guidance. The shareholders only get money if the company pays dividends. Most don't. The shareholders can see an increase in stock value by many means, but they don't come from the profits the company makes.

In addition, executive compensation continues to trend upward. The executives are putting the profits in their pockets. Your post couldn't have been more wrong if it were written by an electronic wrong machine on national wrong day by a person who holds a PhD in wrong.

boy...you sure served me.

do me a favor, you invest in a company that doesn't make profits, and I will invest in a company that does....let's see how we each did at the end of the year.

Companies that make profits and don't pass them along to the shareholders and/or reinvestment them properly likely won't be around too long.   Money makes the world go round...investors see how much the profits are...if not shared and/or properly invested that is when shareholders get angry and/or file lawsuits.   when shareholders get angry they sell and/or complain to the board...the board has the ability to change the direction of the company.  of course maybe I heard that on national wrong day   :-/

The problem is that giving executives bonuses is seen as reinvestment. Your assertion that execs don't pocket profits is still wrong.


profits are after expenses...executive compensations are expenses...EXECUTIVES ARE NOT POCKETING PROFITS.
 
2014-01-22 03:29:34 PM

MayoSlather: oh_please: Holy crap, just about every post on this thread should end with "YEAHHH, MAAAANNN"

Yeah, well you know dissent should be automatically labeled and associated with something fatuous so everyone can readily dismiss it as nonsense.


I'm all for dissent when it's warranted, but a corp that is laying off .03% of it's workforce to cut unprofitable divisions...well, all the outrage here just seems like a circlejerk.

YEAHHH, MAAAAAAANNN!
 
2014-01-22 03:30:48 PM

Ishkur: It was a rhetorical question


a retroactive rhetorical question?  Sure thing, sparky.
 
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 »






Report