Diogenes: I blame regulations and taxes.
State_College_Arsonist: So, what, you want them to spend money on businesses that lose money?
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.
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.
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.
The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: What's the percentage? For a global company that big maybe that size profit is missing the mark.
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.
H31N0US: Maybe they can get hooked up over there at Initech.
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!
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.
MeSoHomely: That seriously sucks, but the consequences of saving those employees vs. reducing profitability (and pissing off the stockholders) are not pretty.
oh_please: Which has nothing to do with Texas Instruments.
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.
Want more news before we break it? Try
See what's behind the green doorand help keep the tap flowing
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 23 2018 14:38:57
Runtime: 0.753 sec (752 ms)