RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!!

RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SilverMark -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 4:44:25 AM)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/corporate-profits-q3-2010-_n_787573.html http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-corporate-profits-rise-most-in-25-years-2010-03-26 I understnad the premis of the post but, ceos are paid for producing profits....if these articles represent mediocrity ....Term, you'd better pucker up

Termyn8or -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 5:05:27 AM)
Before I waste my time here, which one of these messiahs actually did something ? Narrow it down for me please. Did any of them actaully do even one day's work ? Sorry but I don't have all day. Profits rose, this guy was boss. I don't buy that shit anymore. What did they DO ? Tell me in your own words, if you have the time. T^T

SilverMark -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 5:29:09 AM)
The first objective of a buiness is to make a profit. Nothing more, nothing less, most who rise to postions of great responsibilty show an ability to succeed in doing so. As my son used to tall me, don't hate the player hate the game. You know nothing of these people's prior jobs, struggles, where they came from or who they are, so who makes you the judge? Someone has a great deal of confidence in their abilities and those people sign the checks. Would you prefer they hire dockworkers to run corporations? WOuld you want your future vested in a man who was the janitor or the person who was a successful Vice-chair of a successful major corporation? I think your anger and derision comes from something aside from their performance.

cpK69 -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 6:42:31 AM)
My thoughts on the topic in general: I only took small business classes at the tech, so I’m not claiming great knowledge of the subject, but I was under the impression, the first objective of a buisness is to provide a product or service that is benificial to your target audience. Making a profit is about getting ahead; in the case of the op, claiming superiority over and, at times, at the expense of the rest the team. Run the business by yourself, then you can claim to be all that. edited to add the bolded part Kim

DarkSteven -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 7:00:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Your gripe is that theyre making money for themselves and their investors? Dont you invest? Its the unions and government regulations and red tape (environmental and otherwise) and taxes that make it unprofitable to keep plants open here, they have to go where their businesses can stay afloat. They do have to compete globally Luce, so they stay here and go under or they can relocate and turn a profit Its business. What do you propose as a solution, tax them more to punish them Will "The beatings will continue until morale is improved" ? Ah, there it is. Stock prices uber alles. In the good ol' days, companies were good for their employees, their customers, and their stockholders. Now, the stockholders (which the executives are) rule, at the expense of the customers and the employees. That's one of the reasons I opposed TARP, because it ushers in a new era where customers don;t need to like the company's products, as long as the government will bail it out.

SilverMark -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 7:01:43 AM)
The idea that a product or service that is beneficial to a market is a given, in the cases of most that was established long before these CEOs were hired. To the point of the thread, yes 47,850 jobs were cut but is it better to have 47,850 jobs cut and have a CEO with a vision for the company to survive that is paid well, or to lose these companies entirely. Winn Dixie still employes 49,000 people and Mr. Lynch restructured the comapny and brought it out of chapter 11 bankruptcy, no easy task. It is a dis-tasteful topic but, in our market economy, it is the way things work.

Sanity -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 7:16:05 AM)
Pay isnt the only factor as Ive pointed out before And you seem to be a real smart cookie, so I am sure that if I ask you for solutions you can do better than resort to childish ad hominem attacks, as certain others consistently do What would you do to make the United States a friendlier place to do business, if it were up to you? quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt quote: If someone is tossed out of a job somewhere, someone is getting that job somewhere else, if there is to be any production Yeah, ok.... but the someone getting a job in another country is being paid peanuts, while the person in this country tossed out of a job just lost all their disposable income, and therefore their purchasing power. People out of work don't generally buy new Harleys, you know. What good is production if the collective actions of companies that outsource destroy their own customer base in the process?

cpK69 -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 7:22:57 AM)
It seems to me, as DS points out, the focus has changed from providing quality service/product to making a profit; so much so, the heath of the business is no longer important. When the company’s objective is as I stated above; it is better to lose the company. Kim

pahunkboy -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 7:28:43 AM)
FR: Corporate charters at one time needed to be renewed to serve the public good. This changed. A corporation must legally enhance itself - even if they kill people and the civilization. Until we start pulling corporate charters, we get more of the same.

SilverMark -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 7:39:42 AM)
Providing a good product or service is the responsibility of others within the organization. The buyers, the merchandisers, the vendors of products sold. The job of the CEO is to see that those items and services are able to sustain the company. A company can be wonderful to it's employees, a great citizen of the communities it is involved in and environmentally sound and go broke very quickly. It can also be all of those things and in turn make a profit, if those who make the decisions are capable and and can sustain the business while doing so. No one is willing to risk capital just for the sake of risk or for altruistic purposes. If you have a 401K and it is heavily invested in stocks of Berkshire Hathaway or Microsoft, would you prefer they not make a profit so that they can keep more employees? If you are honest with yourself, the answer is no, you'd much prefer a return on your stake of your 401, and if it were larger you would be even happier! What we may wish and reality is somtimes greatly different.

cpK69 -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 8:29:47 AM)
I have a 401k; I don’t keep track of it. I would prefer not to have a need for money. I would prefer not to be ‘living’ to work. I have no interest in being 'good' at capitalism; which, seems to me, can be interpreted as ‘legalized theft’. I don’t mind working for what I have, I actually like working; however, I am tired of trying to do my job, while having to carry the incompetence trickling down from above. I do not understand how these large chunks of money being given to CEO’s do not have an effect on the situation I am referring to. What I wish for is that humanity to get ‘his’ shit together, but as long as we insist on keeping score; not likely to happen. (without outside help) Still, I feel a need to discuss it. : ) Kim

Termyn8or -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 9:26:13 AM)
"What would you do to make the United States a friendlier place to do business, if it were up to you?" There isn't really much to do. Big business already owns this country, but if you want an answer, I got one. First of all the taxation in the world will not work even if you could get it past the bribery artists, oops, lobbyists. Sorry, I meant disrespect. What we need, the ONLY thing that'll work are VERY VERY stiff tarriffs. Triple or quadruple the price of every last thing that comes into this country. And when other countries get pissed off who fucking cares ? They want bombs and jets, pay up or do without, and if you don't like it we'll do without your junk ass two grand plasma TVs that go into a landfill is two years, your ipads and all that other junk. Keep it. Eat it in fact. But that will NEVER happen until the revolution. Oh, no balls for the economic revolution ? Don't worry. We are going to break that addiction to the dollar that ain't worth a dime. There are no jobs, we are pushing the same pile of money around ad infinitum, and the purchasing power is evaporating. There can only be one end to this shit and you should be able to see it. Either that or your mindsight is worse than my eyesight. We are headed for that, the REAL crash and there will be no bailout that last time. It simply won't be possible. Then people will wish that we had kept the means of production, which is our sole means of recovery, here in this country. They will wish they bought the Ford instead of the Toyota back in 1980. They will wish for a time machine to go back and buy the Zenith instead of the Sanyo back in 1978. But it will be, no, it already is too late. T^T

hlen5 -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 9:58:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic the fact it goes over your head is not a big surprise. 17 million a year while cutting jobs is totally fair to you Thats ONE mans wages, not shareholders, not a dept expense account, that is a single person. this is fine with you I wish I could join in your joyful ignorance Im not playing with you tho today tom, you are beyond hope have fun No, it goes over your head. MAKING MAXIMUM PROFITS IS THEIR JOB. PEOPLE GET PAID FOR DOING A GOOD JOB. They're killing the goose for ALL the golden eggs.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 10:01:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Your gripe is that theyre making money for themselves and their investors? Dont you invest? Its the unions and government regulations and red tape (environmental and otherwise) and taxes that make it unprofitable to keep plants open here, they have to go where their businesses can stay afloat. They do have to compete globally Luce, so they stay here and go under or they can relocate and turn a profit Its business. What do you propose as a solution, tax them more to punish them Will "The beatings will continue until morale is improved" ? Ah, there it is. Stock prices uber alles. In the good ol' days, companies were good for their employees, their customers, and their stockholders. Now, the stockholders (which the executives are) rule, at the expense of the customers and the employees. That's one of the reasons I opposed TARP, because it ushers in a new era where customers don;t need to like the company's products, as long as the government will bail it out. Bullshit. If a company operates "at the expense of the employees" then they increase their labor costs. Recruiting and training are far more expensive than employee friendly policies. If a company operates "at the expense of its customers" it wont have customers.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 10:04:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic the fact it goes over your head is not a big surprise. 17 million a year while cutting jobs is totally fair to you Thats ONE mans wages, not shareholders, not a dept expense account, that is a single person. this is fine with you I wish I could join in your joyful ignorance Im not playing with you tho today tom, you are beyond hope have fun No, it goes over your head. MAKING MAXIMUM PROFITS IS THEIR JOB. PEOPLE GET PAID FOR DOING A GOOD JOB. They're killing the goose for ALL the golden eggs. If they are then they will pay for it. My bet is they aren't. That should be the bet of any thinking person as well...the alternative is far uglier.

samboct -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 10:33:56 AM)
Mark You've put the cart before the horse. "No one is willing to risk capital just for the sake of risk or for altruistic purposes. If you have a 401K and it is heavily invested in stocks of Berkshire Hathaway or Microsoft, would you prefer they not make a profit so that they can keep more employees? " I think you're old enough to remember the stink of this shit from years before. Remember "Chainsaw Al" Dunlop who did such a masterful job of running Sunbeam? We're seeing it in the pharma industry, where giants such as Merck, Pfizer, Glaxo etc have had to merge and buy up smaller firms at occasionally exorbitant prices because in the 80s and 90s- "Oh, we don't need to do research any more- we're a marketing company- as they fired their R+ D people." Bear in mind that it's about 15 years to develop a drug these days.... Sorry- but the notion that CEOs pay correlates to their performance is a sick joke. They're getting what the market will bear- and its not tied to their performance. It's if you want me- Joe Blow at Coke got $100M and I'm smarter than him so I have to get $125M. Like many business mantras- its a fad and will eventually be seen as the emperors new clothes. If a corporation is well run- then it hires employees to both satisfy current needs and to develop new products to stay competitive in the future. Its always easy to cut R+D and boost existing profits. The problem is that when the true cost of doing so becomes apparent- the CEO has already been paid. These guys cutting jobs should have to show that their predecessor made an error- and what it was. Simply responding to quarterly profits doesn't hack it in my book. So some solutions to improve business in the US- 1) Get off a quarterly tax system. Its fostered way too much short term thinking. 2) Make capital gains that aren't invested in the US taxable at normal income levels. I'm tired of companies making money in the US and investing it outside the US without paying taxes on it. It's probably one of the major reasons why in those articles you posted where corporate profits are up but jobs aren't- I think that's a big chunk of what's going on. The idea of the capital gains tax was to use it boost investment in this country- not elsewhere. We the taxpayer have subsidized the infrastructure in this country to build businesses- and these guys are using that infrastructure to take US R+D and sell it elsewhere- all the while making a buck at it. This sucks. 3) Uncle Sam needs to be a good first customer again- can't buy second rate weapons systems and spend so much money on them. We need fewer, but better toys for the military. 4) Reduce the self employment tax on small businesses- get rid of it for at least the first $25k in profit. This country doesn't do large corporations well- we need to play to our strengths which is creating new businesses. Right now, taxes are killing small businesses- they can't save enough to survive downturns. 5) Big businesses need to pay their share of taxes. I'm tired of giving out tax breaks to corporations holding gov'ts hostage by threatening to either leave or cut employees. If you're not where your customers/employees are- you should move. But I've seen very few corporations do well after moving to save a few bucks in taxes. Any corporation that threatens to fire employees if they don't get a tax break-offer incentives to create new competitive businesses- state and local contracts are a good idea- and barring companies that threaten layoffs from competing might change this goddamn hostage game. Sam

Termyn8or -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 10:34:47 AM)
"If they are then they will pay for it." Promise ? T^T

SilverMark -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 11:18:39 AM)
Unfortunately Sam, the system is as it is and unlikely to change for you or anyone else. The American companies within the last 3 years have been cut to the point that many are able to get more from less in the way of employees, I do it every day and have since the start of the economic downturn. Pay for the people listed, like most in executive positions, is not only a salary but also vested in stock options, and bonus based on profits. Yes it is indeed based on what the market will bear and in the case of the one's mentioned, the market is pretty good.(aren't all jobes based on the same thing?) In companies that are involved in phamecuticals you may very well be correct, but in companies where R&D is not as costly nor expected, as in the case of a major supermarket chain, market research and branding is by far more important and much less costly and oft-times outsourced to other companies entirely. As you look at case studies of a number of companies especailly those in retail, the numbers are indeed tied to performance or expectations of performance to come through cost cutting, re-branding and development of new markets, all employees are hired on the same basis. In hiring the standard is always, what have you done and this is what we expect from you in the future. One executive that was named is the current CEO of a supermarket chain that he was heavily invested in prior to becoming the CEO. When he took over, the company was about to go into bankruptcy, went into chapter 11, and from there was re-organized and actually became profitable prior to the recession. (by the way he did say his predesessor screwed up)http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-08-30/story/lynch-said-sales-didnt-support-winn-dixie-store-baymeadows-9 (just one of many mistakes in location selection) They are not all slight of hand artists, they are not all criminals nor are they all investors that are there to sell the assets and run after posting big numbers. (Sun Captol for instance) I am not a fan of the Merrill Lynch types with the $100,00.00 rugs or $500,000.00 office remodelings prior to total collapse but to heap them all onto that pile of people that are indeed crooks is incorrect! Retailing is my own area of expertise so I do follow it much closer and have a much better understanding of it than I do other areas, so it is much easier for me to address this than an insurance company or some service oriented company.

ClassIsInSession -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 11:23:18 AM)
What most often amazes me in the current climate is the staffing up of middle managers, the release of the actual production staff, and a seemingly persistent emphasis on keeping the least experienced or most unproductive members of a company. As a consultant I see a lot of companies who spend most of their time in unproductive meetings where simple emails could suffice for the information exchange. This process leads to a slow down of every other process in the company because the dissemination of intelligence about a particular product or aspect of the company is held up for days because the one person who knows the information is sitting in meetings all day.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 10 Ceos, have to cut 47,850 jobs!! (5/16/2011 11:36:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct So some solutions to improve business in the US- 1) Get off a quarterly tax system. Its fostered way too much short term thinking. There is no "quarterly tax system" other than estimated payments toward annual taxes. They have absolutely no influence over short medium or long term thinking. 2) Make capital gains that aren't invested in the US taxable at normal income levels. I'm tired of companies making money in the US and investing it outside the US without paying taxes on it. Im not sure what you are getting at here. Corporations dont pay taxes at "capital gains" rates. Their domestic income is taxed based on the corporate tax rate. Once they have paid their taxes on those domestic profits, how they invest the net is up to them. If offshore investments are expected to be more profitable then make the business environment here better. If you are talking about individuals paying the capital gains rate and then investing the net somewhere else, same thing. Its none of the governments business where and how people invest. Something good did happen in the Clinton Administration. It's probably one of the major reasons why in those articles you posted where corporate profits are up but jobs aren't- I think that's a big chunk of what's going on. The idea of the capital gains tax was to use it boost investment in this country- not elsewhere. We the taxpayer have subsidized the infrastructure in this country to build businesses- and these guys are using that infrastructure to take US R+D and sell it elsewhere- all the while making a buck at it. This sucks. 3) Uncle Sam needs to be a good first customer again- can't buy second rate weapons systems and spend so much money on them. We need fewer, but better toys for the military. Agreed. Something bad did happen in the Clinton Administration 4) Reduce the self employment tax on small businesses- get rid of it for at least the first $25k in profit. This country doesn't do large corporations well- we need to play to our strengths which is creating new businesses. Right now, taxes are killing small businesses- they can't save enough to survive downturns. Disagree. The funding of SS and Medicare should be from first $ for everyone, including small businesses. 5) Big businesses need to pay their share of taxes. Agreed. Of course the issue is then what is their fair share. I'm tired of giving out tax breaks to corporations holding gov'ts hostage by threatening to either leave or cut employees. Why? You dont think a business should be able to tell the government, their employees and shareholders WHY they cant be profitable in the current situation and give regulators/legislators the oppoprtunity to correct it? If you're not where your customers/employees are- you should move. Customers? No, Employees? All companies are where their employees are, this makes no sense. But I've seen very few corporations do well after moving to save a few bucks in taxes. ORLY. Why dont you cite some examples of those that didnt. Any corporation that threatens to fire employees if they don't get a tax break-offer incentives to create new competitive businesses- state and local contracts are a good idea- and barring companies that threaten layoffs from competing might change this goddamn hostage game. So subsidize an unproven startup with tax dollars to punish an existing and proven company because they pay too much in taxes. Very logical. Sam

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125