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 358
    More: Obvious, Texas Instruments  
•       •       •

23039 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 358 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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