Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, Texas Instruments  
•       •       •

23051 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:59 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



358 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-22 12:01:29 PM  
So, what, you want them to spend money on businesses that lose money?
 
2014-01-22 12:01:31 PM  
I blame regulations and taxes.
 
2014-01-22 12:02:36 PM  
The employees need to get ready with those bootstraps!
 
2014-01-22 12:03:00 PM  
In a way those 1,100 employees will now be partially responsible for the 1,000,000,000 mark so they should feel good about that.

/team players all of them
 
2014-01-22 12:03:08 PM  
Clearly we need to lower corporate taxes and elect more republicans.
 
2014-01-22 12:03:17 PM  
Free market nirvana
 
2014-01-22 12:04:03 PM  
But I thought corporations were a magical machine that turned profit into jobs. You mean to say that businesses somtimes don't automatically hire new people when they make money? What kind of socialist country is this!
 
2014-01-22 12:04:05 PM  
In TI's defense, my TI-35 galaxy solar calc is still going strong 29 years later. Not that that helps Jacky McJobless...
 
2014-01-22 12:04:37 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-22 12:05:16 PM  
Greedheads.
 
2014-01-22 12:05:19 PM  
I hope my goodbye funeral fark thread goes this well
 
2014-01-22 12:05:52 PM  
Meh... I'm normally anti-corporation, but it's 1,100 jobs world wide. It's not like when my previous employer turned into a sinking ship and they were eliminating 1,000 jobs every other week at 1 location until they sank a year later and went under.
 
2014-01-22 12:05:56 PM  
5318008

.
 
2014-01-22 12:06:19 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com
I hope crappy-calculator-guy isn't one of those 1,100.
 
2014-01-22 12:06:24 PM  
Serves them right. $511,000,000 in profit is not enough. You have to downsize a lot of employees or else the fickle stock market and speculators will bury you.
 
2014-01-22 12:06:28 PM  
www.quickmeme.com
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-22 12:07:46 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: So, what, you want them to spend money on businesses that lose money?


Oh, I dunno.  Hows about they take a little of the 2.2 BILLION DOLLAR PROFIT and invest it in some new growth areas, instead of paying out humongous CEO bonuses and sucking Wall Street's balls.

But that's not what Jesus would do, so no.
 
2014-01-22 12:08:27 PM  
We had the home office fire nearly all the software developers to "increase the profits."   This was the same management that said they liked software sales because they made $4MM on one product and it wasn't costing them anything.   I pointed out that I had spent $600K two years earlier developing that product but they don't have any concept of things that go beyond the quarterly report.
 
2014-01-22 12:08:39 PM  
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).
 
2014-01-22 12:09:23 PM  
Why would they get out of mobile phone chipsets?  You can sell the same (or similar) chips every 2 years to the same people.
 
2014-01-22 12:09:42 PM  
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.

Now the reality probably is that those 1100 terminations will be the longer employed folks who are at a higher pay rate than the newbies who will be replacing them.

/The only company I've good things about that I can recall is Costco.
 
2014-01-22 12:10:53 PM  
Clearly since the CEO bears the most responsibility and risk, he was the first to go?
 
2014-01-22 12:10:57 PM  

CeroX: Meh... I'm normally anti-corporation, but it's 1,100 jobs world wide. It's not like when my previous employer turned into a sinking ship and they were eliminating 1,000 jobs every other week at 1 location until they sank a year later and went under.


I guess i should expand... They are cutting in departments that aren't doing anything productive. A company shouldn't just hire people, or keep people employed JUST because they made a bunch of money. 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.
 
2014-01-22 12:12:08 PM  
Meh, athletes get cut after helping win championships too. Im sure this will disolve into one of those threads where some of you tell people what they should be doing with their own money.
 
2014-01-22 12:13:27 PM  

CeroX: CeroX: Meh... I'm normally anti-corporation, but it's 1,100 jobs world wide. It's not like when my previous employer turned into a sinking ship and they were eliminating 1,000 jobs every other week at 1 location until they sank a year later and went under.

I guess i should expand... They are cutting in departments that aren't doing anything productive. A company shouldn't just hire people, or keep people employed JUST because they made a bunch of money. 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.


Probably just not hiring for the next few months and nobody really getting 'laid off'.
 
2014-01-22 12:14:48 PM  
What's the percentage? For a global company that big maybe that size profit is missing the mark.
 
2014-01-22 12:16:03 PM  
I wish TI nothing but pain and failure.  I have my reasons beyond a cheap watch or calculator.  They owe me a quarter century of my life back.
 
2014-01-22 12:16:05 PM  
SNAP still accepting applications. Jump on the bandwagon. Fartbongo is passing out the freebies!

/dumpster diving is a great profession!
 
2014-01-22 12:17:58 PM  

John the Magnificent: Oh, I dunno.  Hows about they take a little of the 2.2 BILLION DOLLAR PROFIT and invest it in some new growth areas, instead of paying out humongous CEO bonuses and sucking Wall Street's balls.


That is what they are doing.  The jobs that are being cut are in sectors/areas where there is trouble.  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,"

If you can't make a positive rate of return or if you know the growth in said area is unsustainable, then it makes sense to let these go.  That does not mean that they will stop looking for investment in new growth areas.
 
2014-01-22 12:19:30 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-22 12:19:56 PM  
Were these folks told "If you like your job you can keep it, period?"
 
2014-01-22 12:20:05 PM  
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!
 
2014-01-22 12:20:20 PM  
So you would prefer they expend money on employees they don't need, so they can run out of money faster and take down the company so EVERYBODY loses their job...

I swear Libtards are like spoiled children. "I wanna pony!" "We don't have any place to keep it"

"I DON'T CARE! I WANNA PONY!!"
 
2014-01-22 12:20:26 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-22 12:20:27 PM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: What's the percentage? For a global company that big maybe that size profit is missing the mark.


HP has a pretty decent profit margin, currently.  It sounds like the issue with them is a somewhat bleak outlook for income in 2014.
 
2014-01-22 12:21:10 PM  
Maybe they can get hooked up over there at Initech.
 
2014-01-22 12:22:13 PM  
That seriously sucks, but the consequences of saving those employees vs. reducing profitability (and pissing off the stockholders) are not pretty.
 
2014-01-22 12:22:48 PM  

HeadLever: The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: What's the percentage? For a global company that big maybe that size profit is missing the mark.

HP has a pretty decent profit margin, currently.  It sounds like the issue with them is a somewhat bleak outlook for income in 2014.


Which has nothing to do with Texas Instruments.
 
2014-01-22 12:22:57 PM  

H31N0US: Maybe they can get hooked up over there at Initech.


yyyeeeaaahhhh....
 
2014-01-22 12:23:33 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!


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.
 
2014-01-22 12:25:09 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.


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.
 
2014-01-22 12:25:32 PM  

MeSoHomely: That seriously sucks, but the consequences of saving those employees vs. reducing profitability (and pissing off the stockholders) are not pretty.


Or maybe getting rid of crappy divisions before they drag your company down and put everyone out of work once the IPad stuff stops generating insane revenue
 
2014-01-22 12:26:09 PM  
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
 
2014-01-22 12:27:47 PM  

oh_please: Which has nothing to do with Texas Instruments.


Oops, got the name wrong, but my point is the same.  TI's Profit margin is about 16%.  The area of concern that they have is sales and income growth is decreasing.
 
2014-01-22 12:28:35 PM  
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

Seeing as how the layoffs are in Japan, I'm sure they can get lucrative jobs in the WTF and HOLY SHIAT industries.
 
2014-01-22 12:30:13 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-22 12:30:23 PM  
So what. You want a cookie? You're all servants
 
2014-01-22 12:30:44 PM  
Just last week, my company announced we made 700,000$ profit in December.  The same day we got an email saying to stop working overtime (we are hourly) but keep doing the same amount of work.
 
m00
2014-01-22 12:31:29 PM  
This sort of thing is the systemic failure of Wall Street.

Large corporations cut workers amidst profits to boost revenue lines on graphs so investors value the stock. Market capitalization has become more important than net worth when determining future outlook. The problem is that Wall Street gets to decide who wins and who loses in the market (as opposed to consumers), and they do it with share price, so that has become the only important thing. Because all businesses have some outstanding debt (you're not maximizing your profits unless you do), and the debt-holders which typically are on Wall Street care more about share price than earnings.
 
2014-01-22 12:33:10 PM  

HeadLever: oh_please: Which has nothing to do with Texas Instruments.

Oops, got the name wrong, but my point is the same.  TI's Profit margin is about 16%.  The area of concern that they have is sales and income growth is decreasing.


I know you goofed, just had to call it.

According to the limited info in TFA, they're actually trying to look forward for the long term. If they didn't and subsequently went under, these same Farkers who are wringing their hands over this would be smugly saying, "dumbass company, kept betting on buggy whips ha ha"
 
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?
 
2014-01-22 01:18:51 PM  

CujoQuarrel: 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


They are, robots for automation are on the rise, there are going to be less and and less jobs. Learn math and electronics kids if you want eat because they will need people to fix the robots and those people will be the only humans in the factories. You will probably also need a robot body guard, to protect you from being eaten by the poors on your way home from work.
 
2014-01-22 01:19:36 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.


You misspelled "quarter".
 
2014-01-22 01:22:44 PM  
Well just make sure on your way out you get enough office and cleaning supplies.
 
2014-01-22 01:23:03 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.


Leave.  This trust will kill again.  The two times I've been laid off, they've gone on and on about what a great guy I was but this was just business.  He's not a nice guy and they don't care what a great person you are.  Find a new job while you work there, write your resignation letter.  Twenty bucks says he'll offer you something to not leave that you should be getting in the first place.  Leave anyways.
 
2014-01-22 01:23:17 PM  
Onkel Buck:

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.


Wha... where does this attitude come from?  "All's fair in love and war", "Nature red in tooth and claw", "It's always been this way".  Why does that make cruelty, greed, disdain, and inhumanity somehow tolerable?  Why is it considered weakness to want individuals and our species as a whole to treat ourselves better, to hold ourselves to a higher standard than "Fark you, I've got mine"?  If you and another man are alone in a room, and he shoots you, is it somehow just "ok" because he has a gun and you do not?

I doubt you're inclined, but I'd love to hear why you think that a lack of "fairness" in nature excuses and in fact justifies any form of cruelty or exploitation of innocent people, as the absurdly one-sided contract we call "employment" in the predominantly-pseudo-capitalist West seems to be lately.
 
2014-01-22 01:23:18 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I would disagree. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize utility for it's owners


As I previously explained, I was arguing from an ought imperative, not an is. I wrote it poorly and people are misinterpreting it.
 
2014-01-22 01:24:20 PM  

Onkel Buck: They are, robots for automation are on the rise, there are going to be less and and less jobs. Learn math and electronics kids if you want eat because they will need people to fix the robots and those people will be the only humans in the factories. You will probably also need a robot body guard, to protect you from being eaten by the poors on your way home from work.


This is the problem I have with automation and robotics.  I am no Luddite, but the way we utilize our technological prowess should be for easing the workload for all and not for maximizing the profits of a few (which is what we deal with on a day to day basis).  There needs to be a radical shift in the thinking of the working class.  Change will not come until they demand it and fight for it.
 
2014-01-22 01:24:29 PM  

Ishkur: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I would disagree. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize utility for it's owners

As I previously explained, I was arguing from an ought imperative, not an is. I wrote it poorly and people are misinterpreting it.


Well, I'm lazy at work and refuse to read the entire thread... so there!

/Refreshed the page and found it, my mistake
 
2014-01-22 01:25:11 PM  
So these people are losing their jobs because Wall Street analysts are bad guessers?
 
2014-01-22 01:25:20 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.


There is a difference between profit and greed. There was a story a few days ago about a company that was upset it ONLY made 2 billion dollars in profit. Not income but profit. And they weren't happy with it
 
2014-01-22 01:25:51 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: Why would they get out of mobile phone chipsets?  You can sell the same (or similar) chips every 2 years to the same people.


There are a lot of Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Nexus owners that think TI can go DIAF.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/31/google-galaxy-nexus-kitkat/
 
2014-01-22 01:26:23 PM  
Thank for getting us here! Now fark off.
 
2014-01-22 01:26:58 PM  
Stupid bloody infantile filter.
 
2014-01-22 01:27:07 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.


We had nothing to do with your keys.
The shiat though....that was us.

The Knights
 
2014-01-22 01:27:13 PM  
The company's fourth quarter profit rose 94 percent from a year ago to $511 million. Its full-year profit was $2.2 billion, up 23 percent.

/yes, i can see why you can't afford not to fark over those 1,100 people that have worked so hard for you. You poor, poor, penniless dears. What will you do to survive? Oh, yes....fark over your employees and reap more profit for yourselves. Guess i wont be buying anything from this company antime soon. If ever.
 
2014-01-22 01:27:37 PM  

TheOtherGuy: 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


Maybe you are maybe you arent.  If you have a slow sandwich shop, you might be able to move some workers, if they are not saying 'no I will not commute to the shop that needs workers, open another shop where I live' or they say
'no, I only slice eggs, not pickles'

You are welcome to start up your own company that will pay people to lose money.  Let us know how it goes.
 
2014-01-22 01:29:18 PM  

HeadLever: 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.


Only that's not what's happening here.

Your argument only applies if the company is losing money or is fiscally treading water. But it's not. It's making money. It's making A LOT of money. It's making money hand over fist. So if a company is making tons of money, is fiscally sound and solvent, has no debts or creditors banging down its door and has no problems finding money for bonuses, pensions, payroll or expenses, by what metric can you claim it needs to fire its workforce?
 
2014-01-22 01:29:43 PM  
Everyone knows if your company makes money you're not allowed to lay people off. They're given permanent lifetime contracts and you have to employ them forever.
 
2014-01-22 01:29:56 PM  

surewewang: 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.

Leave.  This trust will kill again.  The two times I've been laid off, they've gone on and on about what a great guy I was but this was just business.  He's not a nice guy and they don't care what a great person you are.  Find a new job while you work there, write your resignation letter.  Twenty bucks says he'll offer you something to not leave that you should be getting in the first place.  Leave anyways.


Another vote for getting out.

He's screwed you over in the past.

What makes you think he won't screw you over in the future?

The way business works, you've got to look out for yourself. Loyalty to a company is for suckers.
 
2014-01-22 01:30:16 PM  

Carn: 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!


Yeah, I am not going to argue against the issues inherent with excessive CEO pay.  But when you have Fed Policy that feeds 'free' cash into these corporations and possible trouble on the horizon with respect to pensions healthcare, and general demographic trends, what do you expect?

Here is a pretty good article on some of these issues
 
2014-01-22 01:30:35 PM  

Dellirium: 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.

We had nothing to do with your keys.
The shiat though....that was us.

The Knights


At the very least, they didn't set it on fire.
 
2014-01-22 01:31:57 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.


We once taxed them - both the big corps, their wealthy owners and their CEOs.  But some bright spark thought taxing the rich was bad and that corporates should pay minimal taxes, oh and never forget that captial gains receive less tax and losses are tax deductable ... etc, etc.  Every dollar you earn over (say) $500k should be taxed at 50%, every dollar you earn over $1mil should be taxed at 60%, every dollar over $10 mil well lets make it 80%, and you can feel proud that every few days your tax pays for another teacher...
 
2014-01-22 01:32:24 PM  
Here's an idea.... any company that make a HUGE FARKING PROFIT but lays off hundreds of workers get that profit taxed to cover the amount of social assistance those workers will now from government programs from having no job.

In fact, make it DOUBLE the amount in taxes.

And on the flipside, if a company make a lot or even a little profit, and they hire a buttload of workers, then the company gets a TAX BREAK, with the exception they didn't fire a buttload of workers beforehand.

More people working in the economy, more money for people to buy stuff, more profits for company, less money needed to support unemployed, money better spent on other things to make country better.... see where this is going?
 
2014-01-22 01:32:58 PM  
A business headline next fiscal quarter: "TI announces new Chinese factory that will employ 5000 workers."

Suck it Americans!
 
2014-01-22 01:33:06 PM  
Relax - they won't fire the 1.1k that were awesome at their job and helped the company make money.  They'll fire the 1.1k that suck.
 
2014-01-22 01:33:11 PM  

tricycleracer: Cutting workforce to "enter new markets" isn't a good sign.


I thought that was your suggested path for the buggy whip manager.  You cut the workforce for the old market and hopefully you can rehire them for the new one.  Sometimes you can, sometimes the fit is not good.

Of course it is not a good sign as it is a sector that is in trouble.  However, do you want to go down with the sinking ship or enter the new one that is still afloat?  Pretty simple choice really.
 
2014-01-22 01:34:23 PM  

Ishkur: No one's interested in long term sustainable growth.


I have already referenced GE's history above.  Pretty sure they are 'someone'.
 
2014-01-22 01:34:33 PM  

oukewldave: Just last week, my company announced we made 700,000$ profit in December.  The same day we got an email saying to stop working overtime (we are hourly) but keep doing the same amount of work.


Over the holidays, my company announced that we were turning a huge profit, and all the new schemes and products they picked up last year are doing well, much better than anticipated. But, not better ENOUGH. So in this customer service-driven industry they told all managers to immediately make massive cuts to labor hours, which were already stretched thin. Put everything on sale, get rid of as much product as possible before end of quarter. Oh, but do all of this while meeting the same sales goals and customer quotas, which are already ridiculously high. People who run businesses aren't paid to make smart business decisions, theyre paid to print out papers with fancy happy numbers on it.
 
2014-01-22 01:34:43 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?


Those are people who worked for him.  If they wanted part of that payout, then they needed to get a mortgage on their house just like the owner did.   Oh wait, they didn't risk anything?
When times were tight, did they take ZERO salary until the company righted itself?  No?  You mean they wanted to be paid for doing work?
 
2014-01-22 01:36:26 PM  

HeadLever: John the Magnificent: Oh, I dunno.  Hows about they take a little of the 2.2 BILLION DOLLAR PROFIT and invest it in some new growth areas, instead of paying out humongous CEO bonuses and sucking Wall Street's balls.

That is what they are doing.  The jobs that are being cut are in sectors/areas where there is trouble.  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,"

If you can't make a positive rate of return or if you know the growth in said area is unsustainable, then it makes sense to let these go.  That does not mean that they will stop looking for investment in new growth areas.


So, why is a profitable company laying off workers that could be easily and cheaply re-trained to work in other sectors that ARE profitable? Could it be that the company does give a shiat about its workers, and will simply hire new, inexperienced people for half the average wage of the fired workers? Or maybe evne hire back the SAME people, but at reduced wages.

My brother-in-law worked for a company that did that. They laid-off the entire shop, then 1 week later, offered everyone their old jobs back, to work in the SAME SHOP, for half their previous pay. Anyone that refused the job offer was reported to the Unemployment Office, and lost their benefits.

This is the true face of Corporate America.
 
2014-01-22 01:36:32 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: 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.



Even if we clean up your garbled words ("utility is profit for risk"- hahahahahaha), and say something along the lines of what you want to say, that is, a company should be interested in maximizing shareholder value, even if we did that you would be wrong. That's just a simplifying assumption (an assumption that didn't really take off until the 70s) economists make so that they can develop mathematical models of firms. The absurdity of flipping that over, and saying that real firms should behave like the model firms is mind boggling.
 
2014-01-22 01:36:34 PM  
Companies do not exist in a bubble. They exist in a society that allows them to exist. If society gets no benefit from it then society has no reason to allow them to continue to exist
 
2014-01-22 01:38:40 PM  

Ishkur: Your argument only applies if the company is losing money or is fiscally treading water. But it's not. It's making money.


The company as a whole yes.  However, not the sectors that are being cut.  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.
 
2014-01-22 01:39:18 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.


Thank you for your insightful analysis.
 
2014-01-22 01:39:39 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Relax - they won't fire the 1.1k that were awesome at their job and helped the company make money.  They'll fire the 1.1k that suck.


Layoffs are the new way to get rid of deadwood, while not opening yourself up to litigation.  Why fire someone only to have them turn around and accuse you of not helping them get help with their drug/alcohol problem?
 
2014-01-22 01:40:17 PM  

real_headhoncho: Here's an idea.... any company that make a HUGE FARKING PROFIT but lays off hundreds of workers get that profit taxed to cover the amount of social assistance those workers will now from government programs from having no job.

In fact, make it DOUBLE the amount in taxes.

And on the flipside, if a company make a lot or even a little profit, and they hire a buttload of workers, then the company gets a TAX BREAK, with the exception they didn't fire a buttload of workers beforehand.

More people working in the economy, more money for people to buy stuff, more profits for company, less money needed to support unemployed, money better spent on other things to make country better.... see where this is going?


So, as an employee, all I need to do is get hired at some large corporation and spend my days surfing Fark knowing that unless I demonstrate gross incompetence I won't be fired.

I'm already amazed at how hard it is for companies to get rid of people.  I don't see it as a good thing.

If the company you work for believes it can make more money by firing you; they should be able to.  If you believe you can make more money by quitting, you should be able to.
 
2014-01-22 01:42:41 PM  

Semper IvXx: Everyone knows if your company makes money you're not allowed to lay people off. They're given permanent lifetime contracts and you have to employ them forever.


I know you're being sarcastic, and I can't speak of labor laws in other places, but in British Columbia it's actually illegal to lay off any workforce exceeding more than 50 employees per 90 days. The penalty is usually heavy fines commensurate with the EI windfall the government has to pay out to an entire division of newly unemployed workers (It hates doing that).
 
2014-01-22 01:43:16 PM  

Loreweaver: So, why is a profitable company laying off workers that could be easily and cheaply re-trained to work in other sectors that ARE profitable?


They very well could be.  Per TFA: "The savings will reflect the elimination of about 1,100 jobs worldwide."

This does not mean that the employees will necessarily be eliminated, but only the current jobs.  They very well may be retrained or transferred to other sectors.  However, for a company like this, the sectors that have additional jobs could be thousands of miles away or they may have a completely different skillset.  As I mentioned earlier, it is typically within a company's best interest to hire internally, but there are circumstances where this is really not feasible.
 
2014-01-22 01:45:04 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?


Buggy Whips.

/Seems to work for you, it's all you've been saying this thread.
 
2014-01-22 01:45:46 PM  

HeadLever: I have already referenced GE's history above. Pretty sure they are 'someone'.


The exception doesn't prove the rule.

Besides, GE isn't going anywhere so long as they don't pay any taxes.
 
2014-01-22 01:45:46 PM  

real_headhoncho: Here's an idea.... any company that make a HUGE FARKING PROFIT but lays off hundreds of workers get that profit taxed to cover the amount of social assistance those workers will now from government programs from having no job.

In fact, make it DOUBLE the amount in taxes.


I know you know this and all, because I can feel the business knowledge emanating from your login name, and you are just posting retarded statements in an effort to troll others,
but when a business lays people off, the company taxes go up, simply because it sends more employees to unemployment lines.

That is how it works.  Companies that pay employees have low rates.  Companies that let workers go have to pay higher rates.
 
2014-01-22 01:47:24 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: real_headhoncho: Here's an idea.... any company that make a HUGE FARKING PROFIT but lays off hundreds of workers get that profit taxed to cover the amount of social assistance those workers will now from government programs from having no job.

In fact, make it DOUBLE the amount in taxes.

And on the flipside, if a company make a lot or even a little profit, and they hire a buttload of workers, then the company gets a TAX BREAK, with the exception they didn't fire a buttload of workers beforehand.

More people working in the economy, more money for people to buy stuff, more profits for company, less money needed to support unemployed, money better spent on other things to make country better.... see where this is going?

So, as an employee, all I need to do is get hired at some large corporation and spend my days surfing Fark knowing that unless I demonstrate gross incompetence I won't be fired.

I'm already amazed at how hard it is for companies to get rid of people.  I don't see it as a good thing.

If the company you work for believes it can make more money by firing you; they should be able to.  If you believe you can make more money by quitting, you should be able to.


I agree. Non compete agreements should be illegal. If an employee feels they can get a better deal at another company their current company shouldn't be able to interfere

Your philosophy works both ways. The employee should have rights to seek employment from anyone willing to hire them
 
2014-01-22 01:47:35 PM  
Laying people off...in Japan.

Glad I'm not over there right now.  1,100 people jumping in front of JR trains over the next few months = nobody getting to work on time.

/What?  You farkers thought they could just get another job?
 
2014-01-22 01:48:45 PM  

Loreweaver: My brother-in-law worked for a company that did that. They laid-off the entire shop, then 1 week later, offered everyone their old jobs back, to work in the SAME SHOP, for half their previous pay. Anyone that refused the job offer was reported to the Unemployment Office, and lost their benefits.


That is not the 'true face of corporate america' as companies that do this typically does not stay in business very long.  Screwing employees over may be good in the short term if conditions are just right, but they typically don't work out very well in the long run. Your business model is typically most effective when you have motivated employees that want to do a good job.
 
2014-01-22 01:49:41 PM  
"Fire one million."

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-22 01:49:49 PM  

MajorTubeSteak: Dellirium: 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.

We had nothing to do with your keys.
The shiat though....that was us.

The Knights

At the very least, they didn't set it on fire.


Obscure?
s28.postimg.org
 
2014-01-22 01:50:08 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: So, as an employee, all I need to do is get hired at some large corporation and spend my days surfing Fark knowing that unless I demonstrate gross incompetence I won't be fired.

I'm already amazed at how hard it is for companies to get rid of people. I don't see it as a good thing.

If the company you work for believes it can make more money by firing you; they should be able to. If you believe you can make more money by quitting, you should be able to.


Lay off ≠ being fired for gross incompetence.

If your company is failing and you need to lay off people to survive, then that is understandable.  If your company is thriving and you lay off people to make even more money, then the government should adjust the taxes of that company to reflect the loss of income taxes from those fired employees, and the burden on society (usually paid for by taxes) those now unemployed people will place on it.
 
2014-01-22 01:52:35 PM  
I had a job a few years back... working for a corporate level ISP.  Not a big name.  Anyways, every year, we'd all pile into a conference room, fire up the conference phone, and company wide there'd be an all-hands meetings.   Well, the last year I was there, the meeting went like this:

(CEO):  "Great job, people.  Our sales have never been higher.  Our stock price is up, and we've beaten every income goal we've had this year.  A banner year for our company.  Oh, by the way.... no raises or bonuses for anyone this year.  Times are hard."

The same CEO that got a 200k a year raise that year.  Needless to say, everyone was outraged.  After the conference call, we all started arguing with the office manager.  We told him, "You haven't hired people to fill the empty seats, all of us are wearing three or four different hats, and just why are we out there, killing ourselves, when you're not willing to give us so much as the ten cent raises we got last year?"  "At least you get the satisfaction of a job well done."   A couple of people noted that satisfaction didn't pay bills.  And he wrapped it up by saying, "If you don't like it?  Leave."

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.
 
2014-01-22 01:53:00 PM  

Ishkur: The exception doesn't prove the rule.


So GE is the only one?  How about Ford, PG, Remington, Citigroup, Hartford, Colgate, DuPont, Jim Bean, (this list could go on for miles) .......?  Are they all exceptions as well?

If you business model is to stay in business and make money over an extended period of time, why would you want to sabotage that by short term thinking?  That really does not make sense.
 
2014-01-22 01:54:05 PM  

HeadLever: Loreweaver: My brother-in-law worked for a company that did that. They laid-off the entire shop, then 1 week later, offered everyone their old jobs back, to work in the SAME SHOP, for half their previous pay. Anyone that refused the job offer was reported to the Unemployment Office, and lost their benefits.

That is not the 'true face of corporate america' as companies that do this typically does not stay in business very long.  Screwing employees over may be good in the short term if conditions are just right, but they typically don't work out very well in the long run. Your business model is typically most effective when you have motivated employees that want to do a good job.


Doesnt matter the CEO is going to be out of there with the increased profits his shares have given him before the thing collapses. Then the companies issues are some other guys problem. This is the issue with our current economic system
 
2014-01-22 01:54:22 PM  

Loreweaver: So, why is a profitable company laying off workers that could be easily and cheaply re-trained to work in other sectors that ARE profitable?


That's what it is.  Company are laying people off and going to the expense of hiring new people, when they could just retrain existing workers.

Do you have such a hatred for companies that you think this really happens?  It is extremely expensive to hire people.  There is a buttload of new paperwork to file
as will as paperwork for the old employee to continue to file.  The new worker isn't going to really be effective for 6 months while he learns the intricacies of the job.
Then add in the gamble that you might find out the worker isn't really skilled enough to do the job, or is a drunk and needs to be replaced and you have to
start off searching for an employee AGAIN.
 
2014-01-22 01:57:48 PM  

Carn: 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.


Haven't you heard? Four years of partying at an expensive school entitles you to a lifetime of exorbitant salaries, regardless of how well you actually do your job.
 
2014-01-22 02:01:21 PM  

Ishkur: Besides, GE isn't going anywhere so long as they don't pay any taxes.


They pay some taxes, albeit a very small amount compared to their income.  If you want to change that, then get rid of the deductions they are eligible for.  However, be aware that tax policy is one of the government's favorite social engineering tools.  You give them tax breaks in exchange for them doing stuff you want.  You eliminate those tax breaks, you eliminate your control over them.
 
2014-01-22 02:02:21 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: real_headhoncho: Here's an idea.... any company that make a HUGE FARKING PROFIT but lays off hundreds of workers get that profit taxed to cover the amount of social assistance those workers will now from government programs from having no job.

In fact, make it DOUBLE the amount in taxes.

I know you know this and all, because I can feel the business knowledge emanating from your login name, and you are just posting retarded statements in an effort to troll others,
but when a business lays people off, the company taxes go up, simply because it sends more employees to unemployment lines.

That is how it works.  Companies that pay employees have low rates.  Companies that let workers go have to pay higher rates.


Is it enough to offset the loss of income taxes from the employees AND the cost of the social assistance (UI, Welfare) the people laid off will now have to draw on until they get another job... which is easy as tapping someone on the shoulder and asking if they have a job available, which of course they will [sarcasm].

"Companies" and "Corporations" have been getting too much of a free ride lately.  They know they can pay the lowest rates and reap the highest profits by keeping a high unemployment rate or just threatening to leave a go to a country where they can just pay slave-wages.  This short-term money grab is going to lead to a long-term economic disaster and even a social and political revolution.  Look at Iran when the Shah was in charge and what happened there!  And you can blame that squarely on Capitalism and BP.
 
2014-01-22 02:02:43 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).



The contradiction being pointed at is this: the slide to zero taxes is justified by arguments like, "companies need to be more profitable so they can hire more workers."  Well in this case the company is profitable but they expect revenues to fall off (read: revenues haven't even fallen off yet) so they're firing workers.

So the idea that decreasing taxes will increase employment, in the face of this instance, doesn't hold up.  That's what everyone is getting at.
 
2014-01-22 02:03:21 PM  

HeadLever: Ishkur: Besides, GE isn't going anywhere so long as they don't pay any taxes.

They pay some taxes, albeit a very small amount compared to their income.  If you want to change that, then get rid of the deductions they are eligible for.  However, be aware that tax policy is one of the government's favorite social engineering tools.  You give them tax breaks in exchange for them doing stuff you want.  You eliminate those tax breaks, you eliminate your control over them.


The government has an army and police with guns. Tax breaks aren't the only way to fix poor corporate behavior
 
2014-01-22 02:04:10 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-22 02:04:38 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Doesnt matter the CEO is going to be out of there with the increased profits his shares have given him before the thing collapses.


If he would sacrifice short term profits for a long term success business, that is ultimately his decision, even if it makes little sense.  The dissatisfaction of the employees will likely hasten this process.

Sorry to hear that your BIL has to deal with such a crappy situation.  Hopefully, he can find something better and more sustainable soon.
 
2014-01-22 02:05:13 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: 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?

Those are people who worked for him.  If they wanted part of that payout, then they needed to get a mortgage on their house just like the owner did.   Oh wait, they didn't risk anything?
When times were tight, did they take ZERO salary until the company righted itself?  No?  You mean they wanted to be paid for doing work?


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?
 
2014-01-22 02:05:33 PM  
I'm guessing that a company like TI can lose 1100 people worldwide through retirements and normal attrition.  What they'll be doing is not so much laying off workers as they'll not be hiring new blood.  Long term, that's a horribly stupid idea that most smart business leaders are quickly learning to abandon.

Where I work there are a whole lot of 50-something engineers counting the days down to retirement, a slew of fresh-faced college graduates, and not a whole lot in between.  In another five years the organization is going to be royally screwed, and the company is just now starting to figure that out.

A productive and loyal workforce is not something you can go out and buy when labor is cheap, rather It is something that grows slowly and requires a fair amount of careful nuturing.  Some companies figure it out (Mullaly at Ford, for example) and others don't (the dopes at TI, apparently).
 
2014-01-22 02:06:40 PM  

Cpl.D: I had a job a few years back... working for a corporate level ISP.  Not a big name.  Anyways, every year, we'd all pile into a conference room, fire up the conference phone, and company wide there'd be an all-hands meetings.   Well, the last year I was there, the meeting went like this:

(CEO):  "Great job, people.  Our sales have never been higher.  Our stock price is up, and we've beaten every income goal we've had this year.  A banner year for our company.  Oh, by the way.... no raises or bonuses for anyone this year.  Times are hard."

The same CEO that got a 200k a year raise that year.  Needless to say, everyone was outraged.  After the conference call, we all started arguing with the office manager.  We told him, "You haven't hired people to fill the empty seats, all of us are wearing three or four different hats, and just why are we out there, killing ourselves, when you're not willing to give us so much as the ten cent raises we got last year?"  "At least you get the satisfaction of a job well done."   A couple of people noted that satisfaction didn't pay bills.  And he wrapped it up by saying, "If you don't like it?  Leave."

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.


Did you ever think of just ganging up on him, tying him to his chair with a electrical cord and then pushing him out a window?

I'm not advocating it, just asking if the thought ever crossed your mind....
 
gja
2014-01-22 02:06:41 PM  

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


I live with my mom, too obvious
 
2014-01-22 02:07:16 PM  
here's why Texas Instruments needs to crawl in a hole and die:

2020science.org
This is the TI-84 , it costs $115  it boasts
16-character, 8-line display
480KB flash memory, 24KB RAM
 and no those are not typos

It was introduced in 2004 and is a minor update on a calculator introduced in 1996 at which time it was ALSO about $120

By Contrast this is also about $115 bucks:
www.computershopper.com
but it has:
 a 1920 x 1280 ( 256 ppi )
16 GB of memory
Andrioid 4.2 OS running on a dual core, 1.5 ghz processor (ironically also made by TI)


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

Well, see its the only  one allowed to be used by HS students on AP exam requiring calculators so Ti has a captive market that they mercilessly exploit giving zero shiats that the thing probably costs them less than $1/unit to make these days and they are pricing many poor kids out of participation in STEM career with that dick move
 
2014-01-22 02:08:35 PM  

bigdanc: 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).


The contradiction being pointed at is this: the slide to zero taxes is justified by arguments like, "companies need to be more profitable so they can hire more workers."  Well in this case the company is profitable but they expect revenues to fall off (read: revenues haven't even fallen off yet) so they're firing workers.

So the idea that decreasing taxes will increase employment, in the face of this instance, doesn't hold up.  That's what everyone is getting at.


You're banging your head against the wall with this one.
 
2014-01-22 02:09:09 PM  

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


Did you read TFA?

Damn, dude.  If you are going to say that I am wrong, you may-at a minimum-want to read the article to make sure that it is not explicitly stated.

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," he said.

"The savings will reflect the elimination of about 1,100 jobs worldwide."
 
kab
2014-01-22 02:09:25 PM  

brantgoose: Serves them right. $511,000,000 in profit is not enough. You have to downsize a lot of employees or else the fickle stock market and speculators will bury you.


Shareholders being far more important than employees is a glaring flaw of capitalism.   Expect little different unless this behavior is changed.
 
2014-01-22 02:09:55 PM  
Good to see people show up to irrationally white knight these actions.

It's like a slave getting beaten for not being productive enough, and the other slaves are quick to lament, well what's a slave owner to do, not beat the slaves?
 
2014-01-22 02:10:56 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.



False, after all... Ford managed to recover with the aide of bells and whistles


Nice try though
 
2014-01-22 02:11:19 PM  

im14u2c: 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.


I was actually going to use the term profitable... But i work in IT, and IT is not a "profitable" division in any company. Most CFO's i've met hate the IT department because in their eyes the IT Dept is a black hole of money that they never see back on paper. I've been on the chopping block several times because companies want to raise the bottom line and the first place they make cuts is in IT.

But yes there is a difference between production and profit, I just didn't want to sound like the same CFO assholes I've had the displeasure of meeting. Mostly because when we meet with the CFO it means there's cuts to be made, either in budget or staffing, never the opposite.
 
2014-01-22 02:14:27 PM  

Warlordtrooper: The government has an army and police with guns. Tax breaks aren't the only way to fix poor corporate behavior


The issue here is that what GE is doing is perfectly legal.  Or would you rather stop certain companies from taking advantage of tax breaks that you specifically added to the tax code?  Again, if so, you are losing your control over them.

I am assuming that you are not dumb enough to actually advocate militarily forcing a company to do you will as you see fit outside the boundaries of any legal requirements.
 
2014-01-22 02:15:01 PM  

real_headhoncho: Fark_Guy_Rob: So, as an employee, all I need to do is get hired at some large corporation and spend my days surfing Fark knowing that unless I demonstrate gross incompetence I won't be fired.

I'm already amazed at how hard it is for companies to get rid of people. I don't see it as a good thing.

If the company you work for believes it can make more money by firing you; they should be able to. If you believe you can make more money by quitting, you should be able to.

Lay off ≠ being fired for gross incompetence.

If your company is failing and you need to lay off people to survive, then that is understandable.  If your company is thriving and you lay off people to make even more money, then the government should adjust the taxes of that company to reflect the loss of income taxes from those fired employees, and the burden on society (usually paid for by taxes) those now unemployed people will place on it.


Dead weight is dead weight.  Whether or not the company is making money is irrelevant.

The company wouldn't layoff employees that were producing more value than they cost.

Imagine you own 5 stocks A,B,C,D and E.  Over the last year your returns are
A: 5%
B: 1%
C: 7%
D: -2%
E: 4%

Let's assume you want to make money and you believe the previous returns are likely to continue.  What do you do?  You sell stock D because it's a loser.  You aren't going to sell stock C because it makes you money.  If you though C were going to do good and you didn't mind additional risk you might sell D and B - so you can buy more C.  Even though B made money, it's not a lot of money and you think you can make more elsewhere.

I don't see why people should be any different.
 
2014-01-22 02:15:36 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: If the company you work for believes it can make more money by firing you; they should be able to.


First of all, you can't fire someone for no reason. Firing means the employee did something wrong which is grounds for termination. It is worse than being laid off, which is the company terminating employment for any reason it wants to make up (usually because the labor is no longer required). Employees don't collect UI when they are fired. They do when they are laid off. But the point is the employee should not be punished with no job or pay if they've done nothing wrong.

Now, if the company lays off an entire division of workers, that pisses the government right off because it has to pay out all that UI. So the government has a vested interest in keeping people employed which is why there are regulations against that sort of thing. The company can not just lay off everyone with no repercussions. And it's certainly not permitted to profit at the expense of society at large.
 
2014-01-22 02:15:41 PM  

Lollipop165: 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.


Because you  have stayed, here to date.

Trust me, I'm in the same boat as you. I'm theoretically half-time, but constantly have X, Y, & Z to do, "why isn't this done", "you could be doing this from home" and guilt-trip city.  And, like you, I 'like the guy' personally (and my co-workers, etc).  But, at some point, 'like the guy' is Stockholm Syndrome, and just because I should have quit 5 years ago doesn't mean I shouldn't quit today.

/ maybe tomorrow
 
2014-01-22 02:17:38 PM  

HeadLever: So GE is the only one? How about Ford, PG, Remington, Citigroup, Hartford, Colgate, DuPont, Jim Bean, (this list could go on for miles) .......? Are they all exceptions as well?


How many of those companies are recent?
 
2014-01-22 02:18:05 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-22 02:19:02 PM  

Newfiesnowman: False, after all... Ford managed to recover with the aide of bells and whistles


Ford is not currently engaged in a dying sector (nor were they engaged in making buggy whips).  If they ever find themselves in that position, they will either adapt or be relegated to said dustbin.
 
2014-01-22 02:20:07 PM  

HeadLever: They pay some taxes


no they don't. In fact, they actually get MORE money through subsidies so their tax rate is actually negative 76.6%
 
2014-01-22 02:23:13 PM  

Ishkur: How many of those companies are recent?


Outside of GE (1889), Ford (1903), PG (1837) and Remington (1818), they are all 200 years and older.
 
2014-01-22 02:23:52 PM  
I have a sink-full of dirty dishes to do when I get home.

Should I hire a full-time employee?
 
2014-01-22 02:25:01 PM  

HeadLever: Did you read TFA?


We're no longer talking about the TFA, we're talking about what businesses do vs what they ought to do.
 
2014-01-22 02:25:16 PM  

CeroX: I was actually going to use the term profitable... But i work in IT, and IT is not a "profitable" division in any company. Most CFO's i've met hate the IT department because in their eyes the IT Dept is a black hole of money that they never see back on paper. I've been on the chopping block several times because companies want to raise the bottom line and the first place they make cuts is in IT.

But yes there is a difference between production and profit, I just didn't want to sound like the same CFO assholes I've had the displeasure of meeting. Mostly because when we meet with the CFO it means there's cuts to be made, either in budget or staffing, never the opposite.


If your company has a substantial IT department that they lean on considerably, congratulations, you are an IT company.  To think that the IT dept is some necessary black hole of money is complete shortsightedness on the part of upper mgmt to properly integrate IT with overall company operations.

img.fark.net
 
2014-01-22 02:26:45 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Dead weight is dead weight.  Whether or not the company is making money is irrelevant.


Nah, it's pretty relevant. People dedicate their time and lives to these companies and only a small few take the bulk of the rewards for their success. Then the minute they're deemed not profitable they are discarded, coldly and cruelly.

Stop buying into these ideals of a world that doesn't work for the people. Try think beyond the status quo of the BS rhetoric of capitalism. Humanity is able to produce goods and services at a level unprecedented in history, meanwhile wealth inequality is also at all time highs while poverty grows, wages stay stagnant relative to inflation, and the social safety net is being chipped away.

F that noise. What this company did was shiatty, plain and simple.
 
2014-01-22 02:27:30 PM  

CeroX: I was actually going to use the term profitable... But i work in IT, and IT is not a "profitable" division in any company. Most CFO's i've met hate the IT department because in their eyes the IT Dept is a black hole of money that they never see back on paper. I've been on the chopping block several times because companies want to raise the bottom line and the first place they make cuts is in IT.


Well, Customer Support first. Then IT. They at least recognize that the computer network needs to keep humming, but usually if they don't understand your job, they think you are useless.
 
2014-01-22 02:30:19 PM  

Ishkur: no they don't. In fact, they actually get MORE money through subsidies so their tax rate is actually negative 76.6%


You are cherry picking a bad year for them.  Here is a more in depth look

But according to an analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice, the company's 2011 effective tax rate was just 11.3 percent. Even worse, over a 10-year period from 2002-2011, the company paid $1.9 billion in taxes on $81.2 billion in profits, giving it and effective tax rate of 2.3% for the decade.

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.
 
2014-01-22 02:30:20 PM  
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?
 
2014-01-22 02:31:27 PM  
I'm glad that I work for an ngo. I don't think my conscience would let me work for a company that made life changes for employees based upon profit.
 
2014-01-22 02:33:47 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-22 02:34:52 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 think they invest 100% of what they make back to the shareholders and into R&D?
 
2014-01-22 02:35:47 PM  

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
 
2014-01-22 02:35:54 PM  

Lawnchair: Lollipop165: 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.

Because you  have stayed, here to date.

Trust me, I'm in the same boat as you. I'm theoretically half-time, but constantly have X, Y, & Z to do, "why isn't this done", "you could be doing this from home" and guilt-trip city.  And, like you, I 'like the guy' personally (and my co-workers, etc).  But, at some point, 'like the guy' is Stockholm Syndrome, and just because I should have quit 5 years ago doesn't mean I shouldn't quit today.

/ maybe tomorrow


This is the first time in 4 years I'm getting a raise. (Thanks, Obama! No, really, he's my boss a dozen layers removed)

But the deal I have is nice enough that I haven't found anything else that's better. That might be different if I want tied to a house, but as of yet, only one person I know has left during the pay freeze. So it's hard to argue that doing it was a bad idea. How much longer that is sustainable is another question.
 
2014-01-22 02:36:18 PM  

Ishkur: We're no longer talking about the TFA, we're talking about what businesses do vs what they ought to do.


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.

You got caught and are now moving the goalpost.
 
2014-01-22 02:36:53 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Imagine you own 5 stocks A,B,C,D and E. Over the last year your returns are


I'm going to stop you right there.  TI made HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN PROFIT!  Do not try to misdirect with a strawman argument about stocks.  These are PEOPLE.  They worked for the company, they helped make that profit, now they are getting the big FU because the company thinks it won't make that much profit the next quarter.  If anything, that company should be trying to use its resources to expand and improve instead of just squeezing more money out of itself.  And the people that they are laying off are their resources.

Corporate mentality is psychotic.
 
2014-01-22 02:38:22 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-22 02:38:40 PM  
Greedy employees, wanting pay?!? Don't they know the job creators need new leather seats in their jets?!?
 
2014-01-22 02:39:19 PM  

HeadLever: Newfiesnowman: False, after all... Ford managed to recover with the aide of bells and whistles

Ford is not currently engaged in a dying sector (nor were they engaged in making buggy whips).  If they ever find themselves in that position, they will either adapt or be relegated to said dustbin.



I'd consider the Fiesta a buggy whip. Couple that with the host of transmission issues they have been having with eco-boost and you would normally have a recipe for disaster. The automobile industry isn't dying by any means, but the sector which doesn't not include Bluetooth certainly will in the coming years.

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.

I guess they serve as a point for both arguments. The adapting and the bells and whistle's on a buggy whip.


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.

I heard that 2 years from now there's gonna be a wicked bad storm. I have a lot put aside but can't go on vacation this year because I need to build a kick arse shelter for a storm that may or may not come. Anyone care to give me a loan?
 
2014-01-22 02:40:11 PM  

real_headhoncho: Fark_Guy_Rob: Imagine you own 5 stocks A,B,C,D and E. Over the last year your returns are

I'm going to stop you right there.  TI made HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN PROFIT!  Do not try to misdirect with a strawman argument about stocks.  These are PEOPLE.  They worked for the company, they helped make that profit, now they are getting the big FU because the company thinks it won't make that much profit the next quarter.  If anything, that company should be trying to use its resources to expand and improve instead of just squeezing more money out of itself.  And the people that they are laying off are their resources.

Corporate mentality is psychotic.


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.
 
2014-01-22 02:40:17 PM  

surewewang: CeroX: I was actually going to use the term profitable... But i work in IT, and IT is not a "profitable" division in any company. Most CFO's i've met hate the IT department because in their eyes the IT Dept is a black hole of money that they never see back on paper. I've been on the chopping block several times because companies want to raise the bottom line and the first place they make cuts is in IT.

But yes there is a difference between production and profit, I just didn't want to sound like the same CFO assholes I've had the displeasure of meeting. Mostly because when we meet with the CFO it means there's cuts to be made, either in budget or staffing, never the opposite.

If your company has a substantial IT department that they lean on considerably, congratulations, you are an IT company.  To think that the IT dept is some necessary black hole of money is complete shortsightedness on the part of upper mgmt to properly integrate IT with overall company operations.

[img.fark.net image 300x369]


Preaching to the choir... But yes, I've stood before 3 CFO's while they drone on about cutting budgets and staffing in our dept. They seem to always show the company profitability, then go on to show the profitability of other departments, then shows IT at the bottom, usually below the "profitability line" and in the "negative". And there is no explaining to them that Windows XP is considered by the Dept of Homeland Security to be a risk to national security and the 3000 machines in the field need to be upgraded, for example, because to them all they see is "$100/license x 3000 machines = Less profit".

I'm glad i work for a company now that understands that IT is the grease that keeps the gears running smoothly...
 
2014-01-22 02:42:03 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?


They absolutely do, but you are still right.  Look for things like this:  http://investor.northropgrumman.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112386&p=irol-new s Article&ID=1821306&highlight= .  The company is planning buy back a ton of stock.  The upper management has a huge incentive to increase stock price because they are paid in stock performance.  They buy back a ton, layoff a ton of workers and the stock price increases because there is a lower bottom line.  They cash in WAY more than the average worker because they own something like a quarter million stocks as opposed to each employee owning maybe a few hundred through their 401k?

Anyways, correct point, but there is a dark side to it imho.
 
2014-01-22 02:43:20 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-22 02:43:44 PM  
And I guess subby's fortune 500 company is just constantly hiring?
 
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.
 
2014-01-22 03:32:51 PM  

mrhollywoodgates: 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 capi ...


did the employer bring a gun and force people to work?   Didn't think so.   The boss had the idea, the initiative to make it happen, and the risk associated with payroll if money ran out.   if the employer ran out of money, would the employee have forgone a paycheck, of course not, they would have sued the employer personally.   So essentially the employee got the bargin he/she was looking for; that was until said employee learned that the boss was going to make more, then everything became 'unfair'.   that being said, I am a moral creature, if the employer made millions slugging it out in the trenches with other employees, maybe he should have broken off a piece.   That being said, morality doesn't mean he was legally required (which I see you acknowledge).   Your argument about the Constitution is silly...maybe even completely backwards...in a free market where actors are free to act or not, if two people agree on certain services for a certain wage, well then that is each party's right.  To go back after the fact and try to require the employer to give more to the employees beyond the original agreement, well then that is being dishonest by the employee.
 
2014-01-22 03:38:25 PM  

oh_please: 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!


Yeah, the real problem with American tech companies is how to stay competitive globally.

This is the sort of thing you don't worry about if you believe that the government creates all jobs.
 
2014-01-22 03:42:26 PM  

WhyKnot: 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.


You managed to split hairs and move the goal posts at the same time. Impressive.
 
2014-01-22 03:43:24 PM  

BMFPitt: 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.


Fair point.
 
2014-01-22 03:46:29 PM  

Lollipop165: I like the guy personally


You like people who repeatedly lie to you?
 
2014-01-22 03:46:39 PM  
DarkSoulNoHope
2014-01-22 12:02:36 PM


The employees need to get ready with those bootstraps!
More taxes and shovel ready jobs.
 
2014-01-22 03:47:21 PM  

oh_please: 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!


Well, continue believing that if you enjoy watching the middle class erode. It's wonderful corporations get to act like cold machines when laying people off while collecting record profits as a whole, and subsequently like hippies when regulations are passed, decrying "Don't tread on us, mannnn!"
 
2014-01-22 03:48:31 PM  

justinguarini4ever: 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.


The picture in their quarterly report isn't much different than a lot of companies out there in the current economy.

Revenue is down.  Companies are missing their top line with alarming frequency.

Share buybacks are a great way to improve the bottom line as long as the stock is going up.  With all the money the fed has been putting into the economy, Wall Street is going gangbusters, in case no one noticed.  Bottom lines look good, even if top lines don't.

The top line weakness, however, highlights soft sales.  Soft sales will almost always result in lower employment.  Not as many people are needed to make less product.  While it seems nice to say that the company could take all those great profits and give it to employees; those employees must, in fact, pay for themselves in the line item called Cost of Goods Sold.

Companies will always pay as little as possible for labor.  When there is high unemployment (or low workforce participation), it's a buyer's market.  While companies pay as little as possible, they will also pay as much as it takes to maintain a profitable workforce.  Back in the mid 90s, unemployment in our area was below 2% for better than a year.  You had to actively avoid a job in order to not have one.  The local BK was paying $11/hour.  In spite of that, they were making money because everybody had a job, everybody had disposable income and they were always busy, as were other restaurants and businesses.

Now, with unemployment as high as it's been over the past 5 years, the local fast food joints are back to minimum wage.  And yet, each store's net is no more than it was they were paying $11.  Why?  There is a fraction of the business at these stores because fewer people have any discretionary funds.  At $11/hour, those burger flippers were working their butts off.  At $7.50, they're standing around half the day and there are fewer of them, especially during off-hours.

The problem with companies laying off workers during a time of huge profits has less to do with corporate greed than government-driven economic policies.
 
2014-01-22 03:48:58 PM  

MayoSlather: Fark_Guy_Rob: Dead weight is dead weight.  Whether or not the company is making money is irrelevant.

Nah, it's pretty relevant. People dedicate their time and lives to these companies and only a small few take the bulk of the rewards for their success. Then the minute they're deemed not profitable they are discarded, coldly and cruelly.

Stop buying into these ideals of a world that doesn't work for the people. Try think beyond the status quo of the BS rhetoric of capitalism. Humanity is able to produce goods and services at a level unprecedented in history, meanwhile wealth inequality is also at all time highs while poverty grows, wages stay stagnant relative to inflation, and the social safety net is being chipped away.

F that noise. What this company did was shiatty, plain and simple.


I totally disagree.  And I'm saying this as an employee.  I've worked in places with co-workers that I felt should not be employed.  In some cases, I've been around before/after lay-offs and I was always happier after.  The people I found most distracting were magically gone one day.

In one extreme case, I quit my job largely because the quality of our product was horrible and I was tired of hand-holding people who had no business being employed.  The CEO felt the company was a family and I don't think they ever fired anyone (at least, not to my knowledge).  They ended up losing several lawsuits and going bankrupt.  Ironically, they did lay-off 70% of their workforce, but at that point it was all too late.  Anyone who wasn't horrible had already moved on.  At their peak they were up to nearly 200 employees and I'd guess about 50 of them were underperforming.

Again, just my own experience here, but underperforming employees are the least likely to leave.  Because underperforming is the same as being overpaid.  People who are overpaid have no motivation to leave the company.  Without firing or layoffs the percentage of underperforming people will increase.  The only thing we're arguing about is at what point in time it's okay to get rid of them.  I'm saying, 'Whenever they want' and you are saying 'Once the company isn't making money'.

In 3-5 years, let's say they have an annual return of -2% instead of 10% - is it okay to lay off people then?  How much money do they need to lose?
 
2014-01-22 03:50:16 PM  

Beerguy[

derp-derp-derp.jpg
Reagan has been out of office since 88.

Care to compare the middle class under his admin vs your obamessiah?

Lets start by asking these 1,100 TI employees..
 
2014-01-22 03:52:42 PM  

Animatronik: oh_please: 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!

Yeah, the real problem with American tech companies is how to stay competitive globally.

This is the sort of thing you don't worry about if you believe that the government creates all jobs.



Awww, the poor companies. Yeah mate, we should probably all worry about how these corporations are going to scrape out a living.

And what do you worry about when you've realized you can only create a straw man to attack your opponent? Your next logical fallacy? Let's see you do an appeal to authority next.
 
2014-01-22 03:56:27 PM  

real_headhoncho: 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 image 590x450]


Isn't Warren Buffett the guy who fires the lowest-producing 10% of his companies in order to have them actually work a little harder for fear of being canned?
 
2014-01-22 03:56:55 PM  

WhyKnot: did the employer bring a gun and force people to work? Didn't think so. The boss had the idea, the initiative to make it happen, and the risk associated with payroll if money ran out. if the employer ran out of money, would the employee have forgone a paycheck, of course not, they would have sued the employer personally. So essentially the employee got the bargin he/she was looking for; that was until said employee learned that the boss was going to make more, then everything became 'unfair'. that being said, I am a moral creature, if the employer made millions slugging it out in the trenches with other employees, maybe he should have broken off a piece. That being said, morality doesn't mean he was legally required (which I see you acknowledge). Your argument about the Constitution is silly...maybe even completely backwards...in a free market where actors are free to act or not, if two people agree on certain services for a certain wage, well then that is each party's right. To go back after the fact and try to require the employer to give more to the employees beyond the original agreement, well then that is being dishonest by the employee.


This whole paragraph is based on the assumption that work is voluntary in a capitalist society.  This does not happen to be true.  In any society you can choose not to work.  If you do not work you will not eat unless you resort to crime or rely on charity.  This statement is true in a free market economy as well. 
Now this brings up the point that since there is no other real alternative to having to work, having the "choice" (barring many other factors, as we all know it is always not a matter of our choosing) is merely an illusion of freedom. The entire human condition is based on the labor of mankind.  Man is defined by how he labors to change nature to his will.  You will always work, paid or unpaid in any society capitalist or otherwise.
 
2014-01-22 03:57:40 PM  

real_headhoncho: 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 image 590x450]


You would somehow have to take the stock market out of the equation to do this.

My take is that this is utter failure on the part of the company to see this in their long range plans and start transitioning their people to areas of the company that had a better financial future.
 
2014-01-22 03:57:41 PM  

surewewang: 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.

Leave.  This trust will kill again.  The two times I've been laid off, they've gone on and on about what a great guy I was but this was just business.  He's not a nice guy and they don't care what a great person you are.  Find a new job while you work there, write your resignation letter.  Twenty bucks says he'll offer you something to not leave that you should be getting in the first place.  Leave anyways.


Bingo. He'll promise you the world when he finds out that you're leaving, but once he's convinced you to stay, he'll just pull the rug out from under you. Bide your time, look for another job, then walk out the door and tell your "friend" to go f*ck himself.
 
2014-01-22 04:04:17 PM  

Magorn: here's why Texas Instruments needs to crawl in a hole and die:

[2020science.org image 705x1500]
This is the TI-84 , it costs $115  it boasts
16-character, 8-line display
480KB flash memory, 24KB RAM
 and no those are not typos

It was introduced in 2004 and is a minor update on a calculator introduced in 1996 at which time it was ALSO about $120

By Contrast this is also about $115 bucks:
[www.computershopper.com image 363x550]
but it has:
 a 1920 x 1280 ( 256 ppi )
16 GB of memory
Andrioid 4.2 OS running on a dual core, 1.5 ghz processor (ironically also made by TI)


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

Well, see its the only  one allowed to be used by HS students on AP exam requiring calculators so Ti has a captive market that they mercilessly exploit giving zero shiats that the thing probably costs them less than $1/unit to make these days and they are pricing many poor kids out of participation in STEM career with that dick move


Sure, sure conspiracy freak. Or it could be that the TI calculator line barely breaks even and they only keep producing those things, because their engineers insist.
 
2014-01-22 04:04:21 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: 5318008


EIP ;-)

// No, not really.
 
2014-01-22 04:04:43 PM  

FarkedOver: WhyKnot: did the employer bring a gun and force people to work? Didn't think so. The boss had the idea, the initiative to make it happen, and the risk associated with payroll if money ran out. if the employer ran out of money, would the employee have forgone a paycheck, of course not, they would have sued the employer personally. So essentially the employee got the bargin he/she was looking for; that was until said employee learned that the boss was going to make more, then everything became 'unfair'. that being said, I am a moral creature, if the employer made millions slugging it out in the trenches with other employees, maybe he should have broken off a piece. That being said, morality doesn't mean he was legally required (which I see you acknowledge). Your argument about the Constitution is silly...maybe even completely backwards...in a free market where actors are free to act or not, if two people agree on certain services for a certain wage, well then that is each party's right. To go back after the fact and try to require the employer to give more to the employees beyond the original agreement, well then that is being dishonest by the employee.

This whole paragraph is based on the assumption that work is voluntary in a capitalist society.  This does not happen to be true.  In any society you can choose not to work.  If you do not work you will not eat unless you resort to crime or rely on charity.  This statement is true in a free market economy as well. 
Now this brings up the point that since there is no other real alternative to having to work, having the "choice" (barring many other factors, as we all know it is always not a matter of our choosing) is merely an illusion of freedom. The entire human condition is based on the labor of mankind.  Man is defined by how he labors to change nature to his will.  You will always work, paid or unpaid in any society capitalist or otherwise.


what are you talking about?  each of these employees could have been innovative and started their own business...right?   i mean, according to your logic the employer is no more responsible for his/her success than the employees...thus the employees can just as easy stop their current employment and become the employer.
 
2014-01-22 04:08:13 PM  

WhyKnot: what are you talking about?
each of these employees could have been innovative and started their own business...right?


The answer to this question is no.  There are many socio-economic reasons why this is not true.  The glaring reason why this is not true is that in a capitalist society not everyone can be capitalists.

i mean, according to your logic the employer is no more responsible for his/her success than the employees

This would be incorrect as well.  The employer owns the means of production, they own the capital.  This gives them a significant advantage over those who have to sell their labor in order to survive.

...thus the employees can just as easy stop their current employment and become the employer.

As described above, no.
 
2014-01-22 04:08:28 PM  

Cpl.D: I had a job a few years back... working for a corporate level ISP.  Not a big name.  Anyways, every year, we'd all pile into a conference room, fire up the conference phone, and company wide there'd be an all-hands meetings.   Well, the last year I was there, the meeting went like this:

(CEO):  "Great job, people.  Our sales have never been higher.  Our stock price is up, and we've beaten every income goal we've had this year.  A banner year for our company.  Oh, by the way.... no raises or bonuses for anyone this year.  Times are hard."

The same CEO that got a 200k a year raise that year.  Needless to say, everyone was outraged.  After the conference call, we all started arguing with the office manager.  We told him, "You haven't hired people to fill the empty seats, all of us are wearing three or four different hats, and just why are we out there, killing ourselves, when you're not willing to give us so much as the ten cent raises we got last year?"  "At least you get the satisfaction of a job well done."   A couple of people noted that satisfaction didn't pay bills.  And he wrapped it up by saying, "If you don't like it?  Leave."

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.


You ever try to get  IT workers to stage a walk out? A strike? I swear they are retarded. If everybody in the office has the same complaint, is feeling ripped off, what the fark would management do if they all went on strike? Fire them? Yeah right, because management can't get off their asses fast enough to replace IT workers before something fails, but will IT workers strike? Fark no, because Unions are corrupt.
 
2014-01-22 04:10:54 PM  

Animatronik: oh_please: 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!

Yeah, the real problem with American tech companies is how to stay competitive globally.

This is the sort of thing you don't worry about if you believe that the government creates all jobs.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but global markets are not a new challenge for tech companies and at this point it is hard to make an emotional argument based on "home grown" vs international tech capital no matter where you pitch your tent. Fear is not your friend.

A willingness to sell out your neighbor and preserve your lifestyle because times are tough is not the basis for an economic system, maaan!
 
2014-01-22 04:11:15 PM  

FarkedOver: In any society you can choose not to work.  If you do not work you will not eat unless you resort to crime or rely on charity.


Never heard of social welfare, I take it?
 
2014-01-22 04:12:10 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.


Got it. Job creator takes risk = hero. People who take similar career risks but not at CEO level can go fark themselves. Got it.
 
2014-01-22 04:13:26 PM  

FarkedOver: As described above, no


only if you assume that a worker has no ability to save up capital or has no access to credit.  Both of these assumptions are not correct in today's society.
 
2014-01-22 04:14:42 PM  

HeadLever: FarkedOver: In any society you can choose not to work.  If you do not work you will not eat unless you resort to crime or rely on charity.

Never heard of social welfare, I take it?


I have and conservatives are doing their best to destroy the social safety net.  There's actually an interesting study out there from the UK that says if you just give homeless people money they are actually a lot more productive than if they rely on the safety net.  I will try to find a link if you're interested :)
 
2014-01-22 04:14:48 PM  

HeadLever: 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.

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.


There is the shiat part.  Why don't they let them do this?  Instead they will shiat can them and use this as an opportunity to take advantage of a shiatty labor market to hire someone for scraps.  Those people will work there ass off, maybe get a few promotions, and make the company a bunch more profitable projects.  Then they too will get shiat canned and the process repeats.  Thank everyone for hating unions.  Just because you wear a button up shirt to work doesn't mean a company like TI doesn't have a farkton more information and leverage on you.
 
2014-01-22 04:15:24 PM  

Greylight: A willingness to sell out your neighbor and preserve your lifestyle because times are tough is not the basis for an economic system, maaan!


Who's selling out their neighbors in this scenario? I'm confused.
 
2014-01-22 04:15:46 PM  
www.upl.co

www.americanthinker.com

www.americanthinker.com

www.americanthinker.com

Reagan:
Unemployment was at 7.2% in 1980 (Thanks carter), and only 5.8% in 2008.
Inflation was 13.5% in 1980(Thanks carter). In 2008? 3.8%.

Obama:
Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013
Actual unemployment is 37.2%, 'misery index' worst in 40 years

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).

During this (Reagan's) seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany

How's zero's economic growth look? Lets ask these TI employees.

So please, bring up Reagan as a comparison to zero. It's fun pointing out zero is a complete failure.
 
2014-01-22 04:18:03 PM  

HeadLever: FarkedOver: As described above, no

only if you assume that a worker has no ability to save up capital or has no access to credit.  Both of these assumptions are not correct in today's society.


There is ability to do these things sure and they do happen too, it's just that most businesses fail, and most people have shiat for credit these days.  Pair all that with the growing incarceration rates we're going to be a nation of ex-cons that can't even qualify for a loan to buy a used car.

Do you believe it feasible to have a nation where everyone is an entrepreneur?
 
2014-01-22 04:20:09 PM  

Girl Sailor: Nutsac_Jim: 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?

Those are people who worked for him.  If they wanted part of that payout, then they needed to get a mortgage on their house just like the owner did.   Oh wait, they didn't risk anything?
When times were tight, did they take ZERO salary until the company righted itself?  No?  You mean they wanted to be paid for doing work?

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?


If anything, the employees take on more risk. If the company fails, they lose their livelihood. The CEOs will just bail with a sweet multi-million dollar golden parachute *coughEnroncough*
 
2014-01-22 04:20:15 PM  

WhyKnot: FarkedOver: WhyKnot: did the employer bring a gun and force people to work? Didn't think so. The boss had the idea, the initiative to make it happen, and the risk associated with payroll if money ran out. if the employer ran out of money, would the employee have forgone a paycheck, of course not, they would have sued the employer personally. So essentially the employee got the bargin he/she was looking for; that was until said employee learned that the boss was going to make more, then everything became 'unfair'. that being said, I am a moral creature, if the employer made millions slugging it out in the trenches with other employees, maybe he should have broken off a piece. That being said, morality doesn't mean he was legally required (which I see you acknowledge). Your argument about the Constitution is silly...maybe even completely backwards...in a free market where actors are free to act or not, if two people agree on certain services for a certain wage, well then that is each party's right. To go back after the fact and try to require the employer to give more to the employees beyond the original agreement, well then that is being dishonest by the employee.

This whole paragraph is based on the assumption that work is voluntary in a capitalist society.  This does not happen to be true.  In any society you can choose not to work.  If you do not work you will not eat unless you resort to crime or rely on charity.  This statement is true in a free market economy as well. 
Now this brings up the point that since there is no other real alternative to having to work, having the "choice" (barring many other factors, as we all know it is always not a matter of our choosing) is merely an illusion of freedom. The entire human condition is based on the labor of mankind.  Man is defined by how he labors to change nature to his will.  You will always work, paid or unpaid in any society capitalist or otherwise.

what are you talking about?  each of these employees could have been innovative and started their own business...right?   i mean, according to your logic the employer is no more responsible for his/her success than the employees...thus the employees can just as easy stop their current employment and become the employer.


Damn, dude.

I've read the entire thread and have yet to see you post anything remotely true, or display any shred of reason.

Think, man, think.

As for the topic at hand, the question comes down to a fundamental moral decision;

Should companies exist solely to make profit at the expense of employment and livelihood, or, should companies exist for the employment and livelihood of society, at the expense of profits.

I'm for the latter, and will simply not agree with the former, which is, unfortunately, what we currently live with.
 
2014-01-22 04:21:25 PM  

FarkedOver: I have and conservatives are doing their best to destroy the social safety net.


But that is not currently the case, is it.  Therefore, you assertion that you need to work to eat is bunk.

www.zerohedge.com
 
2014-01-22 04:21:49 PM  

FarkedOver: WhyKnot: what are you talking about?
each of these employees could have been innovative and started their own business...right?

The answer to this question is no.  There are many socio-economic reasons why this is not true.  The glaring reason why this is not true is that in a capitalist society not everyone can be capitalists.

i mean, according to your logic the employer is no more responsible for his/her success than the employees

This would be incorrect as well.  The employer owns the means of production, they own the capital.  This gives them a significant advantage over those who have to sell their labor in order to survive.

...thus the employees can just as easy stop their current employment and become the employer.

As described above, no.


my original response was directed at the individual that implied that the employer had no more rights to the profits associated with the sell of his company that the employees who helped build the company. ("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.")    So my apologies for reverting back to that line of thought.

I agree to a certain degree that it is harder to change jobs now than years ago...when everyone was hiring and salaries were constantly increasing.    that being said, in my eyes, my original position holds true, if you agree to perform a certain service for a certain price, then you have waived your ability to later complain about the price you were paid.

You are right that humans...heck free animals, have to work to survive...work to eat, work to find shelter, work to procreate, work to avoid danger, work to raise their young...the question then becomes how does one deploy his labor and his resources to maximize his returns.
 
2014-01-22 04:24:15 PM  

FarkedOver: Do you believe it feasible to have a nation where everyone is an entrepreneur?


No, but that was not the point.  The point is that a mechanism exists-contrary to your assertion- that allows employees transition to employers.

There is never a guarantee of success in these ventures.
 
2014-01-22 04:26:02 PM  

NickelP: Why don't they let them do this?


I have not seen any indication that this is not the case.  However, there can be issues with this including skills gap, location, security, etc.
 
2014-01-22 04:27:12 PM  

HeadLever: But that is not currently the case, is it. Therefore, you assertion that you need to work to eat is bunk.


That's a great graph.  But how many people do you know that do not work one single job and rely solely on the social safety net (let's leave off the disable, and others who really cannot work).  Show me that statistic, show me how many leeches we have on the dole. You still have to work.  The only people that have completely emancipated themselves from having to work is the capitalist class.

You're advocating for a society that benefits the exception, I advocate for a society that benefits the rule, i.e. the working class
 
2014-01-22 04:29:00 PM  

FarkedOver: Do you believe it feasible to have a nation where everyone is an entrepreneur?


That's the point.  The entire basis of your argument that business owners bring nothing to the table relies on ignoring this fact.

FuryOfFirestorm: If anything, the employees take on more risk. If the company fails, they lose their livelihood. The CEOs will just bail with a sweet multi-million dollar golden parachute


CEOs are employees.
 
2014-01-22 04:30:43 PM  

BMFPitt: That's the point. The entire basis of your argument that business owners bring nothing to the table relies on ignoring this fact.


My assertion is that the working class can survive and forge a new society without a capitalist class.  A capitalist class cannot survive without a working class.
 
2014-01-22 04:33:40 PM  

HeadLever: FarkedOver: I have and conservatives are doing their best to destroy the social safety net.

But that is not currently the case, is it.  Therefore, you assertion that you need to work to eat is bunk.

[www.zerohedge.com image 850x636]


on your chart what does "childcare" benefits mean?
 
2014-01-22 04:42:43 PM  

Testiclaw: Damn, dude.

I've read the entire thread and have yet to see you post anything remotely true, or display any shred of reason.


then you should go back to your economics teacher and sock him/her in the genitals.

if you have specifics, I am happy to comment directly on them.

As for your thought that corporations should exist to provide for the benefit of society, why have corporations at all?   why not just have an ever present government that determines what is best for everyone...who gets what, who does what...each according to their need...each according to their ability.   Seriously, that is the model you are supporting.

I would prefer to have a free society that rewards innovation, rewards hard work, rewards smart work, rewards risk...clearly we need regulations to stop bad actors (e.g. law breakers, cheaters, thieves, etc) ...it is through innovation and people pushing the envelop that we see advancements in medicine, technology, and arts.
 
2014-01-22 04:42:45 PM  
Has anyone mentioned that TI could you know find something new for the people to do? It's what companies used to do quite commonly. And when they didn't have anything for people to do, they came up with stuff. After all, you got them on your payroll, may as well give them something to do.
 
2014-01-22 04:44:02 PM  

Mr. Right: The picture in their quarterly report isn't much different than a lot of companies out there in the current economy.

Revenue is down.  Companies are missing their top line with alarming frequency.

Share buybacks are a great way to improve the bottom line as long as the stock is going up.  With all the money the fed has been putting into the economy, Wall Street is going gangbusters, in case no one noticed.  Bottom lines look good, even if top lines don't.


Share buybacks aren't really share buybacks if 70% of the shares being bought are just being recycled back into executive compensation and at excessive valuations. You are right that this is Fed driven, but how long will the Fed koolaid bowl be there? In any other environment, shares are grossly overvalued. At the end of Q3, the TI CFO Kevin March when asked if there would be any upcoming acquisitions, he said, "Given the valuations that we presently see with many companies out there that might be an attractive addition to our portfolio, it's difficult for us to look at what we might have to pay for some of those acquisitions and actually get a reasonable return on the investment for our shareholders."

So TI thinks the market is overpriced, but apparently this doesn't apply to their own stock.
 
2014-01-22 04:46:11 PM  

HeadLever: FarkedOver: I have and conservatives are doing their best to destroy the social safety net.

But that is not currently the case, is it.  Therefore, you assertion that you need to work to eat is bunk.

[www.zerohedge.com image 850x636]


You can look at that chart and say "welfare is too high" or you can say "wages are too low".
 
2014-01-22 04:47:50 PM  

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

Well, see its the only one allowed to be used by HS students on AP exam requiring calculators so Ti has a captive market that they mercilessly exploit giving zero shiats that the thing probably costs them less than $1/unit to make these days and they are pricing many poor kids out of participation in STEM career with that dick move


Sounds like the problem doesn't lie with Texas Instruments.
 
2014-01-22 04:50:52 PM  

FarkedOver: But how many people do you know that do not work one single job and rely solely on the social safety net


I know a few that have used it at certain times while they were out of work.

 Show me that statistic, show me how many leeches we have on the dole. You still have to work.

?  Why does it really matter how many?  that number changes ever day as some find themselves out of work and others find work.  And you don't have to work to have enough money to buy food.  It may not be a great living but you safety net is there to provide you with minimum subsistence.
 
2014-01-22 04:52:44 PM  

jst3p: This assumes labor and corporate have equal leverage. In many industries they may, when it comes to unskilled labor it is very lopsided.


What, I'm not allowed to negotiate with people who have less resources than me?

There are millions of "unbalanced" negotiations that happen every day.  What kind of process are you suggesting to remedy this "injustice"?
 
2014-01-22 04:53:35 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Has anyone mentioned that TI could you know find something new for the people to do? It's what companies used to do quite commonly. And when they didn't have anything for people to do, they came up with stuff. After all, you got them on your payroll, may as well give them something to do.


Wouldn't it be smarter to get rid of the people who do things that are less profitable and hire people who know how to do other things that are more profitable?
 
2014-01-22 04:54:12 PM  

Headso: on your chart what does "childcare" benefits mean?


This chart is constructed around the assumption of a single mother and two children.  As I understand, the Childcare portion is associated with this program
 
2014-01-22 04:54:41 PM  

oh_please: Greylight: A willingness to sell out your neighbor and preserve your lifestyle because times are tough is not the basis for an economic system, maaan!

Who's selling out their neighbors in this scenario? I'm confused.


Those who would treat buisness profit as a priority over a healthy and sustainable society. Not specifically pointing out any individual or even this article as an example, but contributing to the overall conversation about sustainable economic systems. To paraphrase, profit is neutral, putting the importance of profits at too high of a value looses sight of the goal of our social contract in the first place.

When buisnesses start their own countries, they can have their own social contracts. Until then they must always take a back seat to the interests of citizens, who alone are equals in our social contract.

/now hush before I get needlessly wordy some more
 
2014-01-22 04:55:02 PM  

mangeybear: jst3p: This assumes labor and corporate have equal leverage. In many industries they may, when it comes to unskilled labor it is very lopsided.

What, I'm not allowed to negotiate with people who have less resources than me?


The practice lead to the need for employment laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws...

There are millions of "unbalanced" negotiations that happen every day.  What kind of process are you suggesting to remedy this "injustice"?


All of the above, plus unions.


/not in a union
//not unskilled labor
 
2014-01-22 04:56:37 PM  

Carn: You can look at that chart and say "welfare is too high" or you can say "wages are too low".


The wages are accounted for on the X-axis and is the independent variable.  They can be whatever you want it to be.
 
2014-01-22 04:56:37 PM  

FarkedOver: My assertion is that the working class can survive and forge a new society without a capitalist class.


You certainly can.  And I'd love for you to try it for a few years and see how that goes.  Try out Somalia.  It's right up your alley.

A capitalist class cannot survive without a working class.

What does that even mean?  Are you just asserting that we don't have a robot workforce yet, or did you intended to have a point?
 
2014-01-22 04:57:37 PM  

OnlyM3: Beerguy[

derp-derp-derp.jpg
Reagan has been out of office since 88.

Care to compare the middle class under his admin vs your obamessiah?

Lets start by asking these 1,100 TI employees..


www.quickmeme.com
d2ws0xxnnorfdo.cloudfront.net


There, does that make you feel better?

You shouldn't assume so much, it just makes you look like an ass.
 
2014-01-22 04:58:38 PM  

BMFPitt: What does that even mean?  Are you just asserting that we don't have a robot workforce yet, or did you intended to have a point?


He is a true Marxist (or at least thinks of himself as one).
 
2014-01-22 05:02:35 PM  

HeadLever: Headso: on your chart what does "childcare" benefits mean?

This chart is constructed around the assumption of a single mother and two children.  As I understand, the Childcare portion is associated with this program


Then they are lying because the slot and voucher child care program is a sliding scale so that payment should taper off and not show as a constant benefit, for family of two the max eligibility is quite a bit less than 45k.
 
2014-01-22 05:03:10 PM  

jst3p: mangeybear: jst3p: This assumes labor and corporate have equal leverage. In many industries they may, when it comes to unskilled labor it is very lopsided.

What, I'm not allowed to negotiate with people who have less resources than me?

The practice lead to the need for employment laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws...


Which we have, and by all means, if they are insufficient, we should enhance them.   But the Marxists on this thread are angry that a business is laying off employees, not that it's violating health, safety, or employment laws. 


All of the above, plus unions.

So you're suggesting that we unionize everyone, right?  Everyone, otherwise the problem you cite still exists.
 
2014-01-22 05:04:01 PM  
er I mean family of 3.. is quite a bit less than 45k
 
2014-01-22 05:04:27 PM  

mangeybear: So you're suggesting that we unionize everyone, right?


Is it easier to trying and counter points you pretended people said?
 
2014-01-22 05:07:00 PM  
I don't come to the business tab that often, but has anyone bothered to dissect 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

Most of the arguments upthread are about the elimination of jobs in markets that are causing losses.  That's not what this statement says at all.  It says they plan on making and selling the same amount of product with fewer people and anticipate that they will stagnate in the future.  Production and sales won't reduce - but they just won't continue to grow either.  (can't piss of those investors, you know)

I guess the point there is if they think they can let 1100 people go but still make and sell a modestly increasing amount of product until it levels off, I'd love to see what quantity of employees they're keeping in those markets and under what function.  I'd assume if the number isn't somewhere around 11,000 or more, they're unabashedly full of sh*t - not that it would surprise anyone.
 
2014-01-22 05:07:53 PM  

HeadLever: Carn: You can look at that chart and say "welfare is too high" or you can say "wages are too low".

The wages are accounted for on the X-axis and is the independent variable.  They can be whatever you want it to be.


I'm talking about wage suppression and raising the minimum wage to a living wage.  If you think that there are people who think about things in terms of "well I can earn this much or I can earn a lot less and get lots of tasty welfare and thus earn more in total" then you can very easily encourage people to work by providing better wages in general.
 
2014-01-22 05:10:14 PM  

jst3p: mangeybear: So you're suggesting that we unionize everyone, right?

Is it easier to trying and counter points you pretended people said?


I'm just trying to get you to clarify:  if negotiations between parties with unequal resources is the "evil" that we we control with laws and unions (am I misrepresenting you?), then you have to apply laws and unions everywhere, right?
 
2014-01-22 05:14:39 PM  

mangeybear: jst3p: mangeybear: So you're suggesting that we unionize everyone, right?

Is it easier to trying and counter points you pretended people said?

I'm just trying to get you to clarify:  if negotiations between parties with unequal resources is the "evil" that we we control with laws and unions (am I misrepresenting you?), then you have to apply laws and unions everywhere, right?


Laws yes, unions not so much. I made it pretty clear that there is greater need for protection for unskilled labor. And I don't think they are a requirement but there are groups that discourage their existence and those people should stop.
 
2014-01-22 05:16:23 PM  

Headso: Then they are lying because the slot and voucher child care program is a sliding scale so that payment should taper off and not show as a constant benefit, for family of two the max eligibility is quite a bit less than 45k.


This is a family of 3 (cuttoff show to be 39K in the linked site).  The graph shows that cutoff at 44K but that was done a few years ago so that table may have been adjusted a bit.
 
2014-01-22 05:19:21 PM  

Carn: I'm talking about wage suppression and raising the minimum wage to a living wage.  If you think that there are people who think about things in terms of "well I can earn this much or I can earn a lot less and get lots of tasty welfare and thus earn more in total" then you can very easily encourage people to work by providing better wages in general.


It must be wonderful to believe that a magic switch can be thrown that would make wages go up that would have no negative side effects.
 
2014-01-22 05:20:32 PM  

Carn: I'm talking about wage suppression and raising the minimum wage to a living wage.


That has nothing to do with the chart then.

then you can very easily encourage people to work by providing better wages in general.

Somewhat true.  However, you are also neglecting the cost of this policy to the employers.  To take this a hyperbolic level, why not just mandate that each employee receive 100K base salary from their employer?

Also don't forget the nature of part time jobs in this conversation.
 
2014-01-22 05:28:50 PM  

HeadLever: Headso: Then they are lying because the slot and voucher child care program is a sliding scale so that payment should taper off and not show as a constant benefit, for family of two the max eligibility is quite a bit less than 45k.

This is a family of 3 (cuttoff show to be 39K in the linked site).  The graph shows that cutoff at 44K but that was done a few years ago so that table may have been adjusted a bit.


it still doesn't explain why the believe the voucher system is not a sliding scale? Not to mention only certain day cares take vouchers and slots and not only that there are only a certain number to go around, everyone that qualifies doesn't automatically get one, they get put on a waiting list. It's just the right wing trying to push their rhetoric with fudged numbers.
 
2014-01-22 05:30:30 PM  

HeadLever: //pay attention to the bolded words.


Yeah? What about em? You're still wrong.
 
2014-01-22 05:35:04 PM  

HeadLever: a retroactive rhetorical question?


I have you farkied as "rightwing dumbass and wealth apologist", so I'm not surprised you don't understand stuff.
 
2014-01-22 05:36:37 PM  

Headso: t still doesn't explain why the believe the voucher system is not a sliding scale?


Where is this located at?  I don't a reference to the sliding benefit on the page I listed, but it could be buried there somewhere.

I would tend to think that the former Secretary of Public Welfare for the state should know what these amounts are, but there is always the possibility of him being in error.
 
2014-01-22 05:48:35 PM  

Ishkur: I have you farkied as "rightwing dumbass and wealth apologist",


So your arguments and points have regressed to the point that you have to tell me what insult you had to dream of for your farky coupled with a few ad hominems?  Is that all you have left?  Let me guess, ignore next?

Pathetic.
 
2014-01-22 05:59:27 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Loreweaver: So, why is a profitable company laying off workers that could be easily and cheaply re-trained to work in other sectors that ARE profitable?

That's what it is.  Company are laying people off and going to the expense of hiring new people, when they could just retrain existing workers.

Do you have such a hatred for companies that you think this really happens?  It is extremely expensive to hire people.  There is a buttload of new paperwork to file
as will as paperwork for the old employee to continue to file.  The new worker isn't going to really be effective for 6 months while he learns the intricacies of the job.
Then add in the gamble that you might find out the worker isn't really skilled enough to do the job, or is a drunk and needs to be replaced and you have to
start off searching for an employee AGAIN.


After having myself and my brother-in-law downsized from or jobs, only to find out we were immediately replaced by people working for a portion of our salaries, YES I DO have a hatred of corporations. I've already cited what happened to my BiL, so let me tell you what happened to me:

Back in 2001, I had been working in the IT department of a company for 5 years as a software developer (and DB admin, and Systems Integrator). My signature creation was a suite of self-recovering real-time business transaction software. It was basically designed so that it could recover from any kind of failure, without loss of data, and without needing human intervention. This software *had* to be bullet-proof, because it was responsible for handling and tracking $millions each month in sales, inventory and shipping control, and filling orders for their dealerships and contractors.

So good was this software at its job of self-maintenance, that they felt they no longer needed someone like me to maintain it. Spending $40k/yr to maintain and expand a system that flawlessly handled millions in sales each month, was just too pricey  for them. It was cheaper to hire some fresh-out-of-college kid, with no actual programming skills, to monitor the software for $7/hr.

I managed to get only a small amount of revenge on them, by charging them 5x my former hourly rate, whenever they needed me to come in as an "independent contractor" to add features to the software, or replace aging hardware.
 
2014-01-22 05:59:47 PM  

HeadLever: Ishkur: I have you farkied as "rightwing dumbass and wealth apologist",

So your arguments and points have regressed to the point that you have to tell me what insult you had to dream of for your farky coupled with a few ad hominems?  Is that all you have left?  Let me guess, ignore next?

Pathetic.


If Karl Marx had a Fark account, there would probably be half a dozen people who had him favorited as a right-wing nutjob.
 
2014-01-22 06:05:33 PM  
I tip at least a dollar a drink.

Good service
 
2014-01-22 06:11:32 PM  

OnlyM3: [www.upl.co image 660x513]

[www.americanthinker.com image 484x462]

[www.americanthinker.com image 484x462]

[www.americanthinker.com image 484x231]


i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-22 06:22:17 PM  

Loreweaver: Nutsac_Jim: Loreweaver: So, why is a profitable company laying off workers that could be easily and cheaply re-trained to work in other sectors that ARE profitable?

That's what it is.  Company are laying people off and going to the expense of hiring new people, when they could just retrain existing workers.

Do you have such a hatred for companies that you think this really happens?  It is extremely expensive to hire people.  There is a buttload of new paperwork to file
as will as paperwork for the old employee to continue to file.  The new worker isn't going to really be effective for 6 months while he learns the intricacies of the job.
Then add in the gamble that you might find out the worker isn't really skilled enough to do the job, or is a drunk and needs to be replaced and you have to
start off searching for an employee AGAIN.

After having myself and my brother-in-law downsized from or jobs, only to find out we were immediately replaced by people working for a portion of our salaries, YES I DO have a hatred of corporations. I've already cited what happened to my BiL, so let me tell you what happened to me:

Back in 2001, I had been working in the IT department of a company for 5 years as a software developer (and DB admin, and Systems Integrator). My signature creation was a suite of self-recovering real-time business transaction software. It was basically designed so that it could recover from any kind of failure, without loss of data, and without needing human intervention. This software *had* to be bullet-proof, because it was responsible for handling and tracking $millions each month in sales, inventory and shipping control, and filling orders for their dealerships and contractors.

So good was this software at its job of self-maintenance, that they felt they no longer needed someone like me to maintain it. Spending $40k/yr to maintain and expand a system that flawlessly handled millions in sales each month, was just too pricey  for them. It was cheaper ...


even in right to work states, if you were down-sized and they immediately hire someone younger and cheaper, there are possible legal claims that can be made.

it is rather unfortunate how you were treated, instead of looking at the bad side, look at the good side...they have created a chance for you to be your own boss.   You already have consulting agreements with them...are there others that you could help?   not trying to be a dick, but you solution of charging them back 5x was perfect...trying to see if that can be expanded.
 
2014-01-22 06:24:12 PM  

Loreweaver: After having myself and my brother-in-law downsized from or jobs, only to find out we were immediately replaced by people working for a portion of our salaries, YES I DO have a hatred of corporations. I've already cited what happened to my BiL, so let me tell you what happened to me:


I used to have a job making cell phone interface and technical support software. We got a new VP who took one look at the balance sheet and laid off the entire department before I finished my morning coffee. We were sent out the door so fast I didn't have time to grab my lunch, still in the break room fridge. Sent the whole gig to Hungary, or so I was told by the survivors, a few luckless souls kept on as underpaid contractors to finish up the loose ends.

Turns out Hungary wasn't such a hot idea. The work started trickling back, but instead of full time positions, almost the entirety of the work was done by part-time interns making <$10/hr.

And I know I'm hardly unique. It may not happen all at once, but this shared experience is really going to bite the capitalist class/corporations in the ass. Look at what it's done here. Even if this was a legitimate business decision done with the best possible intentions for employees and the company, WE WON'T BELIEVE IT. We've been getting burned so many farking times it's all we're expecting out of the fire, and the corporate class just keeps turning up the heat. If it's anything Millenials are guilty of, it's not laziness, it's apathy. Why continue working hard when every experience you've ever had has told you that extra effort is going straight into someone else's pocket, you will be discarded afterwards, and replaced with someone cheaper who hasn't gotten the message yet?
 
2014-01-22 06:26:41 PM  

surewewang: 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.

Leave.  This trust will kill again.  The two times I've been laid off, they've gone on and on about what a great guy I was but this was just business.  He's not a nice guy and they don't care what a great person you are.  Find a new job while you work there, write your resignation letter.  Twenty bucks says he'll offer you something to not leave that you should be getting in the first place.  Leave anyways.


Furthermore, if you can replicate the process and/or the package (and it's not patented,) go to the prospective buyers and offer them your services for 15% less than the owner is selling for.  Then he is also out the money, and ultimately his business.  This is true capitalism.  How hard would it be to replicate a 6 person team?  If you're the nexus, teach that bastard a lesson about greed and broken promises.

\good luck!
 
2014-01-22 06:47:17 PM  

Loreweaver: Back in 2001, I had been working in the IT department of a company for 5 years as a software developer (and DB admin, and Systems Integrator). My signature creation was a suite of self-recovering real-time business transaction software. It was basically designed so that it could recover from any kind of failure, without loss of data, and without needing human intervention. This software *had* to be bullet-proof, because it was responsible for handling and tracking $millions each month in sales, inventory and shipping control, and filling orders for their dealerships and contractors.

So good was this software at its job of self-maintenance, that they felt they no longer needed someone like me to maintain it. Spending $40k/yr to maintain and expand a system that flawlessly handled millions in sales each month, was just too pricey  for them. It was cheaper to hire some fresh-out-of-college kid, with no actual programming skills, to monitor the software for $7/hr.

I managed to get only a small amount of revenge on them, by charging them 5x my former hourly rate, whenever they needed me to come in as an "independent contractor" to add features to the software, or replace aging hardware.


That seems absurdly low.  I was making 20% more than that fresh out of school in 2003, at the height of post-bubble unemployment.  And your "revenge" is to charge a below-market rate for occasional maintenance work?  This story doesn't quite add up.
 
2014-01-22 06:48:46 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.


Yes. All day, yes.
 
2014-01-22 06:48:57 PM  
I have no problem with companies making a profit because that's the reason you're in business to begin with but cutting jobs when their profit margin is in the realm theirs has been for awhile now reeks. Anything over 5-6% is a healthy margin and theirs has stayed well above that for awhile.
 
2014-01-22 07:15:17 PM  

HeadLever: 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......


So, profits aren't what business is after anymore... now it's about where your headed?!?! So, how well a company does is based entirely on how well they can predict the future?!

Ok, I trolled a little there. Seriously though, stashing for a rainy day is not new. Having hundreds of millions in profit yet still having to stash for a rain day is. It's nothing short of greed no matter how you want to slice it. Unless of course they give everyone of those now useless workers a nice even cloth parachute. Sadly I don't see this being the case.
 
2014-01-22 07:18:30 PM  

jst3p: Wouldn't it be smarter to get rid of the people who do things that are less profitable and hire people who know how to do other things that are more profitable?


Give the people you have who are doing something unprofitable something profitable to do instead.
 
2014-01-22 07:28:08 PM  

WhyteRaven74: jst3p: Wouldn't it be smarter to get rid of the people who do things that are less profitable and hire people who know how to do other things that are more profitable?

Give the people you have who are doing something unprofitable something profitable to do instead.


Your idea is "nice" but not realistic.
 
2014-01-22 07:46:26 PM  

BMFPitt: Loreweaver: Back in 2001, I had been working in the IT department of a company for 5 years as a software developer (and DB admin, and Systems Integrator). My signature creation was a suite of self-recovering real-time business transaction software. It was basically designed so that it could recover from any kind of failure, without loss of data, and without needing human intervention. This software *had* to be bullet-proof, because it was responsible for handling and tracking $millions each month in sales, inventory and shipping control, and filling orders for their dealerships and contractors.

So good was this software at its job of self-maintenance, that they felt they no longer needed someone like me to maintain it. Spending $40k/yr to maintain and expand a system that flawlessly handled millions in sales each month, was just too pricey  for them. It was cheaper to hire some fresh-out-of-college kid, with no actual programming skills, to monitor the software for $7/hr.

I managed to get only a small amount of revenge on them, by charging them 5x my former hourly rate, whenever they needed me to come in as an "independent contractor" to add features to the software, or replace aging hardware.

That seems absurdly low.  I was making 20% more than that fresh out of school in 2003, at the height of post-bubble unemployment.  And your "revenge" is to charge a below-market rate for occasional maintenance work?  This story doesn't quite add up.


My salary, and later contractor rate, was the average for software IT positions in this area. I don't exactly live near any tech industry hubs. I also put "revenge" in quotes for a reason. i still felt cheated, but I also took some satisfaction in knowing they still ended up paying just as much in the end (between my replacement's wages and my contractor work), as it would have cost them to simply keep me on. Only difference was, if they had kept me on, I could have worked on new projects that would have earned them even more money. But, hey, why plan for future profitability when there are managers' cost-cutting bonuses at stake!
 
2014-01-22 07:46:29 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Loreweaver: After having myself and my brother-in-law downsized from or jobs, only to find out we were immediately replaced by people working for a portion of our salaries, YES I DO have a hatred of corporations. I've already cited what happened to my BiL, so let me tell you what happened to me:

I used to have a job making cell phone interface and technical support software. We got a new VP who took one look at the balance sheet and laid off the entire department before I finished my morning coffee. We were sent out the door so fast I didn't have time to grab my lunch, still in the break room fridge. Sent the whole gig to Hungary, or so I was told by the survivors, a few luckless souls kept on as underpaid contractors to finish up the loose ends.

Turns out Hungary wasn't such a hot idea. The work started trickling back, but instead of full time positions, almost the entirety of the work was done by part-time interns making <$10/hr.

And I know I'm hardly unique. It may not happen all at once, but this shared experience is really going to bite the capitalist class/corporations in the ass. Look at what it's done here. Even if this was a legitimate business decision done with the best possible intentions for employees and the company, WE WON'T BELIEVE IT. We've been getting burned so many farking times it's all we're expecting out of the fire, and the corporate class just keeps turning up the heat. If it's anything Millenials are guilty of, it's not laziness, it's apathy. Why continue working hard when every experience you've ever had has told you that extra effort is going straight into someone else's pocket, you will be discarded afterwards, and replaced with someone cheaper who hasn't gotten the message yet?


I have to very much agree with the last paragraph.

Work just hard enough not to get fired. Working more than that is pointless, unless you get some extra benefit, like if you're the owner, or on commission.
 
2014-01-22 08:26:22 PM  

Lawnchair: 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.


I'd have to respectfully disagree. All of the above are now incorporating geegaws and touchscreens. Granted they are on the higher end models like ford, but even the base models are starting to come with standard bluetooth. It's them crazy kids and that crazy texting.

Though, the market that I live in is Booming! Ford is just killing it to the point they've passed the hump last year. That makes for 4 straight record sales years. The natural resource based economy doesn't hurt either but that's another story entirely.

What we have noticed here is the new models with the attractive outward appearance and fancy pants interior it giving them the edge over the quality built competition. Kinda like the option between farking Paris Hilton or the girl next door. You know Paris probably has Gonaherpasiphilaids but who cares, it's Paris farking Hilton. Whereas the girl next door would give you a better go then two fat kids fighting over the last twinkie ever!

What am I saying... it's Paris Farking Hilton!
 
2014-01-22 09:01:46 PM  

Newfiesnowman: What we have noticed here is the new models with the attractive outward appearance and fancy pants interior it giving them the edge over the quality built competition. Kinda like the option between farking Paris Hilton or the girl next door. You know Paris probably has Gonaherpasiphilaids but who cares, it's Paris farking Hilton. Whereas the girl next door would give you a better go then two fat kids fighting over the last twinkie ever!

What am I saying... it's Paris Farking Hilton!


I'm confused... am I supposed to be in favor of farking Paris Hilton in this scenario?
 
2014-01-22 09:36:50 PM  

Newfiesnowman: So, profits aren't what business is after anymore...


You can't do anything about yesterday's profits.  You can do something about tomorrow's profits.  Or do you really believe that they have access to Obama's time machine?
 
2014-01-22 09:55:04 PM  
T. I. will always be a shiatty company to work for.
 
2014-01-22 10:21:25 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.




And usually replaced by Asian H1-b...
 
2014-01-22 10:48:35 PM  

Mobutu: 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?


I went through something similar when the dot com boom went bust.  Lost my job along with a million other techies in the region.  Couldn't get anything but shiat jobs for over a year.  My (ex)wife biatching at me because I wasn't bringing home the big bucks.  So I cashed in my 401k, which got us more money than my wife made in a year, but she still biatched about me not making any money and I wasn't trying hard enough to find a job.  I at least got unemployment for a while.

On the other hand, I'm now making more money with excellent benefits and so much vacation time that I can't seem to use it fast enough.   Unloading that excess baggage of the biatch wife and her drug crazed daughter was a bonus.
 
2014-01-23 12:18:37 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I wish TI nothing but pain and failure.  I have my reasons beyond a cheap watch or calculator.  They owe me a quarter century of my life back.


Pretty much THIS.  Only it was Nortel and only 20 years....
 
2014-01-23 12:35:52 AM  
TI obviously needs a tax cut.
 
2014-01-23 04:24:29 AM  

Ishkur: 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.


They learned this behavior from the banksters that are plundering entire national economies at the moment.  Check out the new nuclear power plants being built in england...the chinese and french own em and the prices are being fixed to double the rate payer's bill so the french and chinese get the desired rate of return.  Meanwhile england gets in exchange...the ability to export pig jizz to china.  China also gets majority stakes in future power plant deals...they have a minority stake in the current one.

/banksters!
 
2014-01-23 05:21:37 AM  

HeadLever: So your arguments and points have regressed


No, you just aren't capable of paying attention.
 
2014-01-23 05:28:07 AM  
Suppose you have a business that has 1,000 employees and it's making a profit.  But an assessment is done and it's found that with some rearranging of how to do things, 900 employees can do the work that needs to be done without them being overworked.  Why should you have to keep 100 employees on the payroll that really aren't needed just because you're making a profit?
 
2014-01-23 06:13:52 AM  

TDBoedy: Ishkur: 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.

They learned this behavior from the banksters that are plundering entire national economies at the moment.  Check out the new nuclear power plants being built in england...the chinese and french own em and the prices are being fixed to double the rate payer's bill so the french and chinese get the desired rate of return.  Meanwhile england gets in exchange...the ability to export pig jizz to china.  China also gets majority stakes in future power plant deals...they have a minority stake in the current one.

/banksters!


Yeah the whole concept of "Free Trade" is full of shiat.  What is really is is "Free Capital Movement" for those that can and "Free Welfare Checks" for those who cannot.  Countries are not equal in their manufacturing, resource, people ... powers and the only peeps that benefit from it are the 1%, actually not even them the .01% (the embrionic Morlocks.)
 
2014-01-23 06:18:02 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Suppose you have a business that has 1,000 employees and it's making a profit.  But an assessment is done and it's found that with some rearranging of how to do things, 900 employees can do the work that needs to be done without them being overworked.  Why should you have to keep 100 employees on the payroll that really aren't needed just because you're making a profit?


You use the opportunity of having 100 trusted employees to move into a new field, even if that involves offering them the opportunity too retrain on the company's dime.  There was once this thing called loyalty and responsibility ... alas today neither have a row on a balance sheet.
 
2014-01-23 06:26:38 AM  

real_headhoncho: "Companies" and "Corporations" have been getting too much of a free ride lately.  They know they can pay the lowest rates and reap the highest profits by keeping a high unemployment rate or just threatening to leave a go to a country where they can just pay slave-wages.  This short-term money grab is going to lead to a long-term economic disaster and even a social and political revolution.  Look at Iran when the Shah was in charge and what happened there!  And you can blame that squarely on Capitalism and BP.


In Iran, that put religious fundamentalists in charge. If that happened here, the people running the GOP would probably be pissing-their-pants happy.
 
2014-01-23 11:10:57 AM  

Ishkur: No, you just aren't capable of paying attention.


To your ad hominems? Why would I?
 
2014-01-23 11:16:13 AM  

Langdon_777: You use the opportunity of having 100 trusted employees to move into a new field,


I see you made the leap of assuming these were trusted employees.  What if they are employees that spend all their time at work here on Fark and not being either productive or trusted.

If they were, maybe they would be making themselves employable.
 
2014-01-23 11:36:44 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Suppose you have a business that has 1,000 employees and it's making a profit.  But an assessment is done and it's found that with some rearranging of how to do things, 900 employees can do the work that needs to be done without them being overworked.  Why should you have to keep 100 employees on the payroll that really aren't needed just because you're making a profit?


Because I am a decent human being who would care about my employees, and would feel terrible for having to let anyone go that didn't deserve to be let go?

If I was still making profit (ie. did not need to cut costs to stay in the black / green) I'd find some way to not fire 10% of my workforce, or at the least ensure I was able to give sufficient severance packages and early retirements and such.
 
2014-01-23 11:38:05 AM  

HeadLever: To your ad hominems? Why would I?


No, to anything! And this is something of a recurring theme when it comes to you. And now you're just flailing about like an idiot.

Do you even know what an ad hominem is?
 
2014-01-23 11:55:28 AM  

Ishkur: No, to anything! And this is something of a recurring theme when it comes to you. And now you're just flailing about like an idiot.

Do you even know what an ad hominem is?


It is when you attack the person instead of addressing the issue.  kind of like your post here:

I have you farkied as "rightwing dumbass and wealth apologist",

Or don't you remember saying that?


Lastly before I quit this post for good - If anyone is flailing, it is you.  Especially when you have to change the context of the argument from what you actually quoted to another unrelated post just in order to make your responses seem reasonable. That kind of arguing is intellectually dishonest and you full well know it.
 
2014-01-23 11:59:59 AM  

HeadLever: Langdon_777: You use the opportunity of having 100 trusted employees to move into a new field,

I see you made the leap of assuming these were trusted employees.  What if they are employees that spend all their time at work here on Fark and not being either productive or trusted.

If they were, maybe they would be making themselves employable.


I am a trained manager.  I know that the secret is too set cleverly calculated targets.  If they complete them in the time I needed them too, then they can go home for all I care.  If they stayed at worked to check out Fark, I would likely be premoting them.
 
2014-01-23 12:26:01 PM  

HeadLever: Lastly before I quit this post for good


Before you do, can you post that CBO graph again? That's like your own personal "potato!" card. It really encapsulates, in visual poetry, how stubborn and resistant you are to any new information. That your ego is so entrenched that you cannot stand being challenged on any topic, and that your immediate reaction is to fall back on something you found a long time ago on a WeathNOW! economic endtimes blog.

HeadLever: Especially when you have to change the context of the argument from what you actually quoted to another unrelated post


I did not. I showed you this already.

Here is your post: #c88857367
Here is my reply, linking to it in the first line: http://www.fark.com/comments/8110851/88857367#c88857367

So you're wrong. Objectively and factually wrong. I've proven you wrong. Over and over again. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. I know you can't admit when you're wrong (unlike me. I have admitted when I'm wrong even in arguments with you), but you're going to have to eat this one. Relax. Lick your wounds move on with your life. No one's keeping score here. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things.
 
2014-01-23 12:32:45 PM  

Ishkur: HeadLever: Lastly before I quit this post for good

Before you do, can you post that CBO graph again? That's like your own personal "potato!" card. It really encapsulates, in visual poetry, how stubborn and resistant you are to any new information. That your ego is so entrenched that you cannot stand being challenged on any topic, and that your immediate reaction is to fall back on something you found a long time ago on a WeathNOW! economic endtimes blog.

HeadLever: Especially when you have to change the context of the argument from what you actually quoted to another unrelated post

I did not. I showed you this already.

Here is your post: #c88857367
Here is my reply, linking to it in the first line: http://www.fark.com/comments/8110851/88857367#c88857367

So you're wrong. Objectively and factually wrong. I've proven you wrong. Over and over again. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. I know you can't admit when you're wrong (unlike me. I have admitted when I'm wrong even in arguments with you), but you're going to have to eat this one. Relax. Lick your wounds move on with your life. No one's keeping score here. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things.


NO ONE IS KEEPING SCORE!!!

That could be a mantra for all of Live. LIVE IT!
 
2014-01-23 12:44:52 PM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Suppose you have a business that has 1,000 employees and it's making a profit.  But an assessment is done and it's found that with some rearranging of how to do things, 900 employees can do the work that needs to be done without them being overworked.  Why should you have to keep 100 employees on the payroll that really aren't needed just because you're making a profit?


They're not laying off 10% of their workforce, they're laying off .03%. Everyone wants to get outraged about this, but I'm not seeing it.
 
Displayed 358 of 358 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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