Microsoft makes $4.1 billion in profit, will layoff 5000 employees.

[endzone_dave]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Microsoft-to-slash-5000-jobs-apf-14127001.html

So a company can make 4 billion dollars in profit and still feels it should lay people off. It good to know that American companies have our backs :doh:

Just remember, if you work for a publically traded company, they will lay you off in an instant if they think it will make their stock price go higher.

[GibbsFactor]

It's the quiet before the storm.

[RedlightG20]

Maybe they know something you don't.

It's gonna get worse.

[Mad Mike]

I still consider it a badge of honor that Bill Gates knew my name and hated my guts. :D

[Old Bay]

I still consider it a badge of honor that Bill Gates knew my name and hated my guts. :D

Oh come on! No follow up? Just a drive by to leave us with questions?

Fearmongering is a problem, and if healthy companies lay off folks just for the hey of it then it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

[Zguy28]

Maybe they know something you don't.

It's gonna get worse.http://movies.infinitecoolness.com/19/antitrust15.jpg
Soon Windows....err Synapse will take over the world! Muahahahahahahahah!

[Califan007]

I didn't realize a company or corporation was obligated to create and/or keep jobs for no other reason than "they can afford to".

[Mad Mike]

Oh come on! No follow up? Just a drive by to leave us with questions?

I started breakupmicrosoft.org back when the monopoly trial was starting and I raised all kinds of hell for them. I was the monkey wrench in their PR/Marketing machine and I got a lot of press including this quote in TIme magazine. :D

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997379-2,00.html


Ellison insists that Oracle told I.G.I. not to break any laws. And he says he did not know in advance that investigators would pick through garbage. Apologize? Forget it. "What exactly did we do?" he asked at his news conference. "What is our corporate espionage? Our corporate espionage is to find out that Microsoft has hired all these companies, these front organizations, and while they pretend to be independent, publishing all sorts of things that are anti-Oracle and pro-Microsoft."

In tech circles, opinion on Dumpstergate is mixed. Microsoft's critics were forgiving. "While what Ellison did was distasteful, the facts that were exposed were despicable," says J. Michael Washe, founder of the website Breakupmicrosoft.org

I also learned a lot bout the real world press because I broke some of the information in the story about the Microsoft PR firms that were supposed to be independent yet shared the same address, before anyone else, but when I tried to get the info reported, no one would cary the story until it broke nationally because Ellisons boys got caught.

I know for a fact Gates knew who I was and what I was doing because I got a BBC interviewer to ask him about my website. :D

[TMK9973]

So you think Microsoft's job is to keep employees even if there is nothing for them to do?

Their job is to make money. They offer there employees good pay and great benefits.
There profit dropped last quarter and they have made a decision that their sales will drop, that companies probably won't be investing much over the next year or so, that they need to adjust.

[Kosher Ham]

To be expected in these days. You have to protect the company in the long run. Otherwise, you lose your job.

[Popeman38]

Excess profits!!! Excess profits!!!

Congress should investigate and see why they are gouging the Ameirican people!

Sarcasm detectors, people.

[Mad Mike]

http://movies.infinitecoolness.com/19/antitrust15.jpg
Soon Windows....err Synapse will take over the world! Muahahahahahahahah!

The movie inspired by me. :D

Seriously. I cant prove it but the same movie studio was visiting my breakupmicrosoft site while they were putting that thing together. Of course my story wouldn't sell any tickets so there had to be murders to create tension and danger for a movie, but In the final scene, the hero uses the Synapse program against the Gates figure. Which happens to be exactly how I started the breakupmicrosoft site... by telling Bill Gates in an open letter that I was going to use the internet that he wanted to control against him.

[da#1skinsfan]

I didn't realize a company or corporation was obligated to create and/or keep jobs for no other reason than "they can afford to".

*ding ding ding* we have a winner!

society today is centered around entitlement...everyone feels they are owed something.

FACT - a publicly traded companies JOB is to increase shareholder value. period. end of story. MS obviously feels their organization is too fat, and they needed to trim down. Guess what, theyre right. And if they dont do this they will continue to lose market share to other companies who have leaner, more efficient, and less complex organizational models.

5000 jobs to save 90000? 5000 jobs that the other 85000 may turn into 25000 more when the economy turns up? Aside from all the other decisions, even if you just look at the human approach - it makes sense.

[Old Bay]

Thanks for the follow up, MadMike. :cheers:

[Kosher Ham]

Side note - It seems that there is another thread about this. Just so we all know.

[Zguy28]

So you think Microsoft's job is to keep employees even if there is nothing for them to do?

Their job is to make money. They offer there employees good pay and great benefits.
There profit dropped last quarter and they have made a decision that their sales will drop, that companies probably won't be investing much over the next year or so, that they need to adjust.Well, you know they could take a portion of that 4 BILLION dollars and explore/expand into new areas. God forbid.

Maybe they could buy out Metrocast and improve my crappy cable internet. :mad:

[Major Harris]

i just got my 3rd red ring of death. after listening to a ***** session from me, microsoft has decided it can afford to forego the 94.00 repair charge. so i guess their profit now stands at 4 billion, 999, 906.00

[TMK9973]

Well, you know they could take a portion of that 4 BILLION dollars and explore/expand into new areas. God forbid.

Maybe they could buy out Metrocast and improve my crappy cable internet. :mad:

Out of EVERY arguement I have ever heard on Microsoft, the "expand to other markets" has never been one of them...

[Mad Mike]

Out of EVERY arguement I have ever heard on Microsoft, the "expand to other markets" has never been one of them...

LOL. So true. :cheers:

What I want to know is what the hell they are spending their billions in R&D on. Can anyone tell me any new technology that Microsoft invented?

[Burgundy Burner]

I started breakupmicrosoft.org back when the monopoly trial was starting and I raised all kinds of hell for them. I was the monkey wrench in their PR/Marketing machine and I got a lot of press including this quote in TIme magazine. :D

I also learned a lot bout the real world press because I broke some of the information in the story about the Microsoft PR firms that were supposed to be independent yet shared the same address, before anyone else, but when I tried to get the info reported, no one would cary the story until it broke nationally because Ellisons boys got caught.

I know for a fact Gates knew who I was and what I was doing because I got a BBC interviewer to ask him about my website. :D

So that was you. I had no idea, but visited the site often. Small world this internet. Small world indeed.

[Predicto]

LOL. So true. :cheers:

What I want to know is what the hell they are spending their billions in R&D on. Can anyone tell me any new technology that Microsoft invented?

Sure. They managed to create bulky, resource-hogging flaw-ridden operating systems and software that do the same things as other, better, operating systems and software, but slower and worse, while leveraging their bulk to force the entire world to pay for them.

If that's not a miracle of modern business technology I don't know what is. :)

[Predicto]

Damn MadMike. You continually amaze me.

How can you be so right about Microsoft (and conspiracy theories and lots of other things) yet remain so wrong about Iraq?



















:movefast:

[Enter Apotheosis]

Layoffs suck... but if a company anticipates business slowing down it can be advantageous to be proactive.

[ljs]

My company just layed off people in our programming dept, then gave the jobs to people in the Phllipines.

I know that the jobs of my 24 employees are on the line, cause they are moving much of our work to the Phillipines. My employees make $9.00/hr -$12/hr. But we can pay the Phillipino's about $2.00 to do the same work.

So while I don't agree w/ shipping our jobs overseas, I do understand capitalism and the companies goal of making money.

The only thing I am counting on as far as my job, is that I'm in corporate management, and I do a good job. Typically our company will offer you a position in another city or department if they feel you are worth keeping. Worst case scenario for me, moving to San Antonio...and you know my first thought is? I'd have to be closer to Dallas, and around more Dallas fans:doh:

[motorhead]

I missed up...........

[motorhead]

Damn How the hell did that happen. Sorry Mods and friends.

[Hailskinz1991]

I wonder how much of these layoffs have to do with Obama's plan to give tax credits to companies who hire employees this year? It makes sense to me, if you know you can layoff 5000, and rehire them later to get a huge tax break then you would be a fool not to!

[Mad Mike]

Damn MadMike. You continually amaze me.

How can you be so right about Microsoft (and conspiracy theories and lots of other things) yet remain so wrong about Iraq?


Ahhh grasshopper, but I am right about Iraq. You, just like everyone else, are simply behind the curve. :D

[Thiebear]

1million+ goes into 5000 how many times?
I've done pretty good off of them: Never worked directly but the jobs i've had have and are fantastic.

[justme]

I didn't realize a company or corporation was obligated to create and/or keep jobs for no other reason than "they can afford to".

kudos :applause:

[Alvin_Walton40]

I just don't think that there is enough cash a company can have right now. Every company has fat to trim even ones that make 4 billion. And every company on the planet is trimming fat right now.

[DeanCollins]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Microsoft-to-slash-5000-jobs-apf-14127001.html

So a company can make 4 billion dollars in profit and still feels it should lay people off. It good to know that American companies have our backs :doh:

Just remember, if you work for a publically traded company, they will lay you off in an instant if they think it will make their stock price go higher.

This is exactly what is wrong with America. Wall street needs to close. If you're working for a publically traded company, you're just a pawn in a ponzi scheme (a hoeur :laugh:)

[haithman]

This is exactly what is wrong with America. Wall street needs to close. If you're working for a publically traded company, you're just a pawn in a ponzi scheme (a hoeur :laugh:)

Where would we as a country be without capitalism and the power that stems from it? WallStreet is the engine of capitalism.

[zoony]

This is exactly what is wrong with America.


I disagree. I think what is wrong with America is the overwhelming sense of entitlement that so many people have. The audacity to tell a company that it cannot or should not cut expenses to increase profitability because it doesn't fit some arbitrary personal definition of morality.

Corporations do not exist to give as many people work as possible. They exist to make money for their shareholders. The companies that achieve this goal year after year are the companies that stick around the longest and, ironically enough, provide the most jobs over time.

Our way is still the best way, by far. Despite what you hear on msnbc.

[PleaseBlitz]

I disagree. I think what is wrong with America is the overwhelming sense of entitlement that so many people have. The audacity to tell a company that it cannot or should not cut expenses to increase profitability because it doesn't fit some arbitrary personal definition of morality.

Corporations do not exist to give as many people work as possible. They exist to make money for their shareholders. The companies that achieve this goal year after year are the companies that stick around the longest and, ironically enough, provide the most jobs over time.

Our way is still the best way, by far. Despite what you hear on msnbc.


:applause:

Wanna know WHY Microsoft can make $4.1 billion in a year where the economy is going downhill? Because they run their business better than almost everyone else.

Maybe they'd get more sympathy if they asked for a coupla billion dollar bailout and were beholden to a corrupt, inefficient union of moderately skilled workers.. :whoknows:

[endzone_dave]

I disagree. I think what is wrong with America is the overwhelming sense of entitlement that so many people have. The audacity to tell a company that it cannot or should not cut expenses to increase profitability because it doesn't fit some arbitrary personal definition of morality.

Corporations do not exist to give as many people work as possible. They exist to make money for their shareholders. The companies that achieve this goal year after year are the companies that stick around the longest and, ironically enough, provide the most jobs over time.

Our way is still the best way, by far. Despite what you hear on msnbc.

I'd argue that one issue this country has is there is no loyalty between companies and their employees. I know that to my company, I am just a resouce that can be thrown out at any time. Since I know this, I'll leave my company in a New York minute as soon as a better offer comes along.

This type of relashionship isn't good. Companies not truly caring for their employees and employees not truly caring for their companies as a lot of negative affects.

[zoony]

I'd argue that one issue this country has is there is no loyalty between companies and their employees. I know that to my company, I am just a resouce that can be thrown out at any time. Since I know this, I'll leave my company in a New York minute as soon as a better offer comes along.

This type of relashionship isn't good. Companies not truly caring for their employees and employees not truly caring for their companies as a lot of negative affects.


I think there's some truth to that with many companies. Mostly the bad ones though.

..

[FrFan]

So basically, Ferengis are ruling the USA ;)

[RedlightG20]

I'd argue that one issue this country has is there is no loyalty between companies and their employees. I know that to my company, I am just a resouce that can be thrown out at any time. Since I know this, I'll leave my company in a New York minute as soon as a better offer comes along.

This type of relashionship isn't good. Companies not truly caring for their employees and employees not truly caring for their companies as a lot of negative affects.

But where in the world would you find a land full of companies that treat employees well and are loyal to them? I'd have to say that this isn't just an American issue, but more of an issue of the style in which most modern companies are run. You say that you feel like a disposable resource to your company, but isn't it really our job as Americans (or better yet, just employees in general) to work to be the best at our respective positions, so as to not be seen simply as "disposable"?

I agree that this "love you today, hate you tomorrow" mindset that companies and their employees have of each other is most certainly negative, but there are steps in which we can all take to better our positions and make a case for ourselves when it comes time to downsize. And like zoony said, there is this sense of entitlement that many have, and those same people do not want to take responsibility for being canned. I'd agree with that and also say that the fate of our jobs is really in our own hands.

[Hailskinz1991]

Bad companies go out of business....(Ford, GM, Merrill Lynch, Enron, etc.) and should go out of business to make opportunities for better companies to pop up in their place. When the government gets in the way with a bailout or new law, it stops the natural process from solving the problem, and makes everything much more costly. Ultimately the consumers/taxpayers bear the burdens...

[Mad Mike]

Ballmer's e-mail to employees regarding layoffs


From: Steve Ballmer
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:07 AM
Subject: Realigning Resources and Reducing Costs

In response to the realities of a deteriorating economy, we're taking important steps to realign Microsoft's business. I want to tell you about what we're doing and why.

Today we announced second quarter revenue of $16.6 billion. This number is an increase of just 2 percent compared with the second quarter of last year and it is approximately $900 million below our earlier expectations.

The fact that we are growing at all during the worst recession in two generations reflects our strong business fundamentals and is a testament to your hard work. Our products provide great value to our customers. Our financial position is solid. We have made long-term investments that continue to pay off.
But it is also clear that we are not immune to the effects of the economy. Consumers and businesses have reined in spending, which is affecting PC shipments and IT expenditures.

Our response to this environment must combine a commitment to long-term investments in innovation with prompt action to reduce our costs.
During the second quarter we started down the right path. As the economy deteriorated, we acted quickly. As a result, we reduced operating expenses during the quarter by $600 million. I appreciate the agility you have shown in enabling us to achieve this result.

Now we need to do more. We must make adjustments to ensure that our investments are tightly aligned with current and future revenue opportunities. The current environment requires that we continue to increase our efficiency.

As part of the process of adjustments, we will eliminate up to 5,000 positions in R&D, marketing, sales, finance, LCA, HR, and IT over the next 18 months, of which 1,400 will occur today. We'll also open new positions to support key investment areas during this same period of time. Our net headcount in these functions will decline by 2,000 to 3,000 over the next 18 months. In addition, our workforce in support, consulting, operations, billing, manufacturing, and data center operations will continue to change in direct response to customer needs.

Our leaders all have specific goals to manage costs prudently and thoughtfully. They have the flexibility to adjust the size of their teams so they are appropriately matched to revenue potential, to add headcount where they need to increase investments in order to ensure future success, and to drive efficiency.

To increase efficiency, we're taking a series of aggressive steps. We'll cut travel expenditures 20 percent and make significant reductions in spending on vendors and contingent staff. We've scaled back Puget Sound campus expansion and reduced marketing budgets. We'll also reduce costs by eliminating merit increases for FY10 that would have taken effect in September of this calendar year.

Each of these steps will be difficult. Our priority remains doing right by our customers and our employees. For employees who are directly affected, I know this will be a difficult time for you and I want to assure you that we will provide help and support during this transition. We have established an outplacement center in the Puget Sound region and we'll provide outplacement services in many other locations to help you find new jobs. Some of you may find jobs internally. For those who don't, we will also offer severance pay and other benefits.

The decision to eliminate jobs is a very difficult one. Our people are the foundation of everything we have achieved and we place the highest value on the commitment and hard work that you have dedicated to building this company. But we believe these job eliminations are crucial to our ability to adjust the company's cost structure so that we have the resources to drive future profitable growth. I encourage you to attend tomorrow's Town Hall at 9am PST in Cafe 34 or watch the Webcast.

While this is the most challenging economic climate we have ever faced, I want to reiterate my confidence in the strength of our competitive position and soundness of our approach.

With these changes in place, I feel confident that we will have the resources we need to continue to invest in long-term computing trends that offer the greatest opportunity to deliver value to our customers and shareholders, benefit to society, and growth for Microsoft.

With our approach to investing for the long term and managing our expenses, I know Microsoft will emerge an even stronger industry leader than it is today.
Thank you for your continued commitment and hard work.
Steve

[Painkiller]

The problem with this country across the board is Greed with a capitol G. Greed has ruined our economy, is costing our people jobs, and will eventually eliminate the middle class so that all is left is those that have, and those that have not. This latest move by Microsoft is just further evidence of this. The good of the company, outweighs the good of the people that have helped make the company successful. It shouldn't always be about the bottom line.

[stoshuaj]

for all you folks that are complaining about the personnel decisions of a company, here's a novel idea.....go start you're own company and hire/keep as many people as you want. Hell, you can hire them all and then nobody would be without a job.

You and your company will be so nice. Probably won't last long but that's not what matters now is it?

[TMK9973]

The problem with this country across the board is Greed with a capitol G. Greed has ruined our economy, is costing our people jobs, and will eventually eliminate the middle class so that all is left is those that have, and those that have not. This latest move by Microsoft is just further evidence of this. The good of the company, outweighs the good of the people that have helped make the company successful. It shouldn't always be about the bottom line.


But the good of the people that made the company is the good of the company. 90,000 people.

3,000 will lose jobs (5,000 layoffs, but they expect only 3000 jobs lost). the other 87,000 will benefit from a stronger company. The millions that own stock will benefit.

[Alvin_Walton40]

Microsoft's worldwide workforce is 95000. 5000 represents a 5% layoff.

To out it into perspective a smaller company of 20 at 5% is laying off 1 person.

[Painkiller]

for all you folks that are complaining about the personnel decisions of a company, here's a novel idea.....go start you're own company and hire/keep as many people as you want. Hell, you can hire them all and then nobody would be without a job.

You and your company will be so nice. Probably won't last long but that's not what matters now is it?


What about looking out for your fellow man? Where has that gone? Maybe the upper 5% of Microsoft could do without those nice new summer homes in the south of france, so the poor bastard that mops the floors could keep his job, or that entry-level programmer. How much fortune does a man really need? When FIVE THOUSAND people lose their jobs, because a percentage of profits, 4 BILLION dollars wasn't high enough. There is something seriously wrong. GREED

[Painkiller]

But the good of the people that made the company is the good of the company. 90,000 people.

3,000 will lose jobs (5,000 layoffs, but they expect only 3000 jobs lost). the other 87,000 will benefit from a stronger company. The millions that own stock will benefit.


I understand the numbers, but these are people we are talking about here. Not widgets. These are people with kids, with homes, that need to keep the heat on, and pay the bills. I'm not talking about those that don't perform to standards. I'm talking about people who do what they have to do, but the company's percentage of profits isn't high enough, so they have to go. I'm sure Microsoft and some of these other companies like the big three could find a way to trim some fat, without laying people off. Why not hold management responsible for profits not being where they should be, and cut back some salaries? The guy that makes 100,000 a year. Maybe this year his salary is reduced to 95,000 a year. Isn't that better than somebody else losing their job? If a company is not making enough profits to stay on top of the competition in the long term, isn't that a failure of upper management as well? When do they get held accountable?

[Toe Jam]

I understand the numbers, but these are people we are talking about here. Not widgets. These are people with kids, with homes, that need to keep the heat on, and pay the bills. I'm not talking about those that don't perform to standards. I'm talking about people who do what they have to do, but the company's percentage of profits isn't high enough, so they have to go. I'm sure Microsoft and some of these other companies like the big three could find a way to trim some fat, without laying people off. Why not hold management responsible for profits not being where they should be, and cut back some salaries? The guy that makes 100,000 a year. Maybe this year his salary is reduced to 95,000 a year. Isn't that better than somebody else losing their job? If a company is not making enough profits to stay on top of the competition in the long term, isn't that a failure of upper management as well? When do they get held accountable?

This is what HSN has done so far. The only layoffs have been been higher ups that weren't performing like they were supposed to. Also, they let a couple of people that were a few years from retirement go ahead and retire early. They got a nice severance package for it.

I haven't seen any of the warehouse workers get the axe yet.

[TMK9973]

I understand the numbers, but these are people we are talking about here. Not widgets. These are people with kids, with homes, that need to keep the heat on, and pay the bills. I'm not talking about those that don't perform to standards. I'm talking about people who do what they have to do, but the company's percentage of profits isn't high enough, so they have to go. I'm sure Microsoft and some of these other companies like the big three could find a way to trim some fat, without laying people off. Why not hold management responsible for profits not being where they should be, and cut back some salaries? The guy that makes 100,000 a year. Maybe this year his salary is reduced to 95,000 a year. Isn't that better than somebody else losing their job? If a company is not making enough profits to stay on top of the competition in the long term, isn't that a failure of upper management as well? When do they get held accountable?


Because the guy making 100k a year probably worked his BUTT off to get there. And you want him to take a pay cut so that the guy who did the minimum keeps his jobs.

I will get heat for this, but companies of 90,000 - when they lay people off, the hard and good workers don't lose their jobs. They might get transferred, but they don't get laid off.

The ones that get laid off are the ones that someone wanted to fire, but the person did just enough not to warrant a firing.

Now - When a company of 30 people have to lay of 15, then good ones go. I have been through lay offs 4 times in 4 different companies. Once, my position was even eliminated (and the next day I started in a new position in the same company. A position that paid more to).

[Redskins Diehard]

What about looking out for your fellow man? Where has that gone? Maybe the upper 5% of Microsoft could do without those nice new summer homes in the south of france, so the poor bastard that mops the floors could keep his job, or that entry-level programmer. How much fortune does a man really need? When FIVE THOUSAND people lose their jobs, because a percentage of profits, 4 BILLION dollars wasn't high enough. There is something seriously wrong. GREED

GREED is why companies exist and why they make the products they do. Charities exist to take care of their fellow man....companies exist to make money.

[Painkiller]

Because the guy making 100k a year probably worked his BUTT off to get there. And you want him to take a pay cut so that the guy who did the minimum keeps his jobs.


and this is where I disagree. I don't believe that many of the people making 100k truly deserve that much money, or that they worked their BUTT off to get it. Simply being good at "playing the game," i.e. screwing everyone else over to get ahead should not be rewarded with a life of luxury. I have a problem with this, on principle.

[Painkiller]

GREED is why companies exist and why they make the products they do. Charities exist to take care of their fellow man....companies exist to make money.

so in essence, what you are saying is the ultimate goal of the company is to completely dominate the market, even to the detriment of the larger good, and no matter what the cost to everybody else. To keep the money in the hands of those that have it, at any cost.

[Redskins Diehard]

so in essence, what you are saying is the ultimate goal of the company is to completely dominate the market, even to the detriment of the larger good, and no matter what the cost to everybody else. To keep the money in the hands of those that have it, at any cost.

Quite a leap you took there. The ultimate goal of the company is to make money, in essence that is what I said. And at no time did I say they should keep the money in the hands of those that have it.

You seem to think that a company should keep someone on the payroll, based on the individual need, not the company need. You think they are "entitled" to a job well just because they need one. A guess our government can decide to give money to people that have done nothing to deserve it, but we can't expect private industry to do the same.

[da#1skinsfan]

I will get heat for this, but companies of 90,000 - when they lay people off, the hard and good workers don't lose their jobs. They might get transferred, but they don't get laid off.

The ones that get laid off are the ones that someone wanted to fire, but the person did just enough not to warrant a firing.


I dont agree with this - companies with that many people are ultra political and sometimes very good people choose not to play in the politics and get nipped because of it. Especially at the management level - its extremely important in any organization to be aligned politically, and in an org that size, if youre not, you can get caught. Gotta play the game or you get burnt, and sometimes it has nothing to do with performance. The asterisk on this is everyone is looking to add talented people, even in a down economy, so if you are the person that gets caught up, it shouldnt be as difficult for you to find work vs the millions of incompetent people out there.

To the guy who said execs should take a cut because they should be paid to forecast this - thats exactly what MS is doing. They see the economy continuing to decline in 09 so they are laying people off now. When the company was expanding in 04 05 06 07 to meet strong demand, they needed these people. Now that the market is contracting, they need to trim the fat and run lean in order to stay profitable and drive shareholder value - their #1 job over all else.

The execs are doing their jobs by making these layoffs now - they are forecasting demand and reacting to it. The idea of "4.1B in profit, how many $100k salaries can you pay" is like thinking hey just give me $1M of that...thats all, just $1M. Even though it makes no sense, and the only basis of my request is that its .00000001% of your profit but it would make such a huge impact to me.

Doesnt work in the real world.

[Redskins Diehard]

This is what HSN has done so far. The only layoffs have been been higher ups that weren't performing like they were supposed to. Also, they let a couple of people that were a few years from retirement go ahead and retire early. They got a nice severance package for it.

I haven't seen any of the warehouse workers get the axe yet.

People that aren't performing like they are supposed to are exactly the people that should go. Whether they are "higher ups" or "warehouse workers". Letting go of a "higher up" because they are not performing is one thing...letting them go because you feel sorry for the warehouse worker is stupid

[ACW]

Mike, the monopoly trial for Microsoft was :bsflag:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html

Now we come to Silicon Valley and Microsoft. I am not going to argue about the technical aspects of whether Microsoft is guilty or not under the antitrust laws. My own views about the antitrust laws have changed greatly over time. When I started in this business, as a believer in competition, I was a great supporter of antitrust laws; I thought enforcing them was one of the few desirable things that the government could do to promote more competition. But as I watched what actually happened, I saw that, instead of promoting competition, antitrust laws tended to do exactly the opposite, because they tended, like so many government activities, to be taken over by the people they were supposed to regulate and control. And so over time I have gradually come to the conclusion that antitrust laws do far more harm than good and that we would be better off if we didn’t have them at all, if we could get rid of them. But we do have them.

Under the circumstances, given that we do have antitrust laws, is it really in the self-interest of Silicon Valley to set the government on Microsoft? Your industry, the computer industry, moves so much more rapidly than the legal process, that by the time this suit is over, who knows what the shape of the industry will be. Never mind the fact that the human energy and the money that will be spent in hiring my fellow economists, as well as in other ways, would be much more productively employed in improving your products. It’s a waste! But beyond that, you will rue the day when you called in the government. From now on the computer industry, which has been very fortunate in that it has been relatively free of government intrusion, will experience a continuous increase in government regulation. Antitrust very quickly becomes regulation. Here again is a case that seems to me to illustrate the suicidal impulse of the business community. And my question: were the consumers complaining about Microsoft? Or just its competitors?

[stevenaa]

You will also note there will be no merit raises either. They are cutting expenses and trimming fat. No one knows with certainty just where we are headed. Being proactive is the sign of good stewardship. It's a harsh reality but expecting some sort of loyalty from your employer is unrealistic. You get paid for the job you do. That is all that you are owed.

[Painkiller]

You seem to think that a company should keep someone on the payroll, based on the individual need, not the company need. You think they are "entitled" to a job well just because they need one. A guess our government can decide to give money to people that have done nothing to deserve it, but we can't expect private industry to do the same.

I don't think the individual needs and the company needs should be interchangeable. The company is it's people. From top to bottom. I think people should be "entitled" to make a living. The company (which really means the shot callers at the top) should not treat everyone as though they are expendable. The absolute last resort for a company should be to lay anyone off, with the exception of those who do not perform. When a person accepts a job with a company, they have put their very lives into the the hands of the company. This should not be taken lightly. In Microsoft's case, we are talking about several thousands of PEOPLE, who now in a crap economy, (mostly created by the same type of persons who have laid them off) have to go out and try to start all over again.

Two questions. Who are people that have done nothing to "deserve" the money? What do you have to do to "deserve" the money?

[Painkiller]

You will also note there will be no merit raises either. They are cutting expenses and trimming fat. No one knows with certainty just where we are headed. Being proactive is the sign of good stewardship. It's a harsh reality but expecting some sort of loyalty from your employer is unrealistic. You get paid for the job you do. That is all that you are owed.


Would you still feel the same if you were laid off tommorow, because your employer that owes you nothing only made 4 billion in profits last year?

[stevenaa]

I don't think the individual needs and the company needs should be interchangeable. The company is it's people. From top to bottom. I think people should be "entitled" to make a living. The company (which really means the shot callers at the top) should not treat everyone as though they are expendable. The absolute last resort for a company should be to lay anyone off, with the exception of those who do not perform. When a person accepts a job with a company, they have put their very lives into the the hands of the company. This should not be taken lightly. In Microsoft's case, we are talking about several thousands of PEOPLE, who now in a crap economy, (mostly created by the same type of persons who have laid them off) have to go out and try to start all over again.

Two questions. Who are people that have done nothing to "deserve" the money? What do you have to do to "deserve" the money?


Nobody deserves money. That is a false premise which can only lead a society down the road to mediocrity. If you feel you deserve it, how hard will you be willing to work for it? What a goofy notion. Peolple who get laid off have only themselves to blame. If you work for someone else, your security is at their mercy. I am in the same position and could just as easily be laid off as others have. I won't blame the company, though. I understand there there is risk in every venture. The great majority of people will never experience a lay off. It is a calculated risk we take when we work for others. If you don't like that risk, go into business for yourself. Though you'll only be trading one risk for another.

[Painkiller]

Nobody deserves money. That is a false premise which can only lead a society down the road to mediocrity. If you feel you deserve it, how hard will you be willing to work for it? What a goofy notion. Peolple who get laid off have only themselves to blame. If you work for someone else, your security is at their mercy. I am in the same position and could just as easily be laid off as others have. I won't blame the company, though. I understand there there is risk in every venture. The great majority of people will never experience a lay off. It is a calculated risk we take when we work for others. If you don't like that risk, go into business for yourself. Though you'll only be trading one risk for another.

To sum up my point, all I am saying is that when we have created a situation where 5000 people can lose their jobs, because 4 billion dollars is not enough profits. There is something fundamentally and morally wrong here. It's called GREED plain and simple, and in the end it's going to destroy our country.

[Redskins Diehard]

I don't think the individual needs and the company needs should be interchangeable. The company is it's people. From top to bottom. I think people should be "entitled" to make a living. The company (which really means the shot callers at the top) should not treat everyone as though they are expendable. The absolute last resort for a company should be to lay anyone off, with the exception of those who do not perform. When a person accepts a job with a company, they have put their very lives into the the hands of the company. This should not be taken lightly. In Microsoft's case, we are talking about several thousands of PEOPLE, who now in a crap economy, (mostly created by the same type of persons who have laid them off) have to go out and try to start all over again.

Two questions. Who are people that have done nothing to "deserve" the money? What do you have to do to "deserve" the money?

People are entitled to an "opportunity" to earn a living. So let me get this straight....when you took your job with whatever company you work for you "put your very life in the hands of the company"? And if you are laid off you will "have to go out and start all over again"? Glad I am not in that position.

What do you have to do to deserve money? Really? Why do you think your employer "gives" you a paycheck every month?

[Painkiller]

What do you have to do to deserve money? Really? Why do you think your employer "gives" you a paycheck every month?

I think many of the people in this country who have the most money, are the least deserving of it. The more you get, the more you want, and you are willing to trample and screw over just about anyone and everyone to keep it.

[Redskins Diehard]

I think many of the people in this country who have the most money, are the least deserving of it. The more you get, the more you want, and you are willing to trample and screw over just about anyone and everyone to keep it.

I guess you aren't going to try and answer the question. Why do you think your employer "gives" you a check every payday?

This man that founded the company that is laying off these people. The man that has trampled on and screwed people to get where he is is also the founder of a 50 billion dollar charity...and has partnered with the richest man in America to do it.

[Painkiller]

Why do you think your employer "gives" you a check every payday?



Your employer isn't "giving" you a check. He is reimbursing you for services rendered. Services that have helped build "his" company into what it is.

[Redskins Diehard]

Your employer isn't "giving" you a check. He is reimbursing you for services rendered. Services that have helped build "his" company into what it is.
Exactly. Your paycheck is not a "lifetime achievement award". It is what you "earned" over the past 2 weeks or month, or whatever the pay cycle is. You are not "entitled" to continuous employment simply because a company is performing. Good companies will keep you around if you are contributing to that performance. If you are worth more than, or at least equal to, your cost.