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  
•       •       •

23037 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 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?
 
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