pBills Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 If you have a problem with the way they conduct business, then I hate to tell ya, then you most likely have a problem with the way all multinationals handle their business. That is how it works, and in regards to her compensation, once again that is the way it works. But once again, I ask you, do you really believe that Boxer and Brown are more qualified to help stimulate the private sector over Fiorina and Brown? And if so, give me specifics in what they would do to achieve this. Then that is a BS way of doing business. I get so tired of hearing how thousands of people are laid off yet at the same time execs are making ridiculous bonuses. Seems to me that smart business would be removing those bonuses and keeping some workers employed. To be honest, I'm not to sure that they would have this great idea on how to stimulate business. I will never vote for someone who says cut these jobs first, then send the positions overseas. All that does is screw over this country.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) If (wait scratch that) When the state of California comes with their hands neatly opened and puppy dog eyes crying "woe is me, i'm the victim" to the federal government for a bailout, I very much hope the American people tell them to go swing on it and lay in the bed you made. Edited November 8, 2010 by drinkTHEkoolaid
Magox Posted November 8, 2010 Author Posted November 8, 2010 Then that is a BS way of doing business. I get so tired of hearing how thousands of people are laid off yet at the same time execs are making ridiculous bonuses. Seems to me that smart business would be removing those bonuses and keeping some workers employed. To be honest, I'm not to sure that they would have this great idea on how to stimulate business. I will never vote for someone who says cut these jobs first, then send the positions overseas. All that does is screw over this country. No, your job as CEO is first and foremost to provide the company maximum sustained profitablity. If you can hire Wang from the szechuan province for a third of the cost, then you move operations to where you can get cheaper labor. This is a globalized world and there is nothing wrong with the CEO of a company looking to maximize his or her profits by getting cheaper labor. It is called a choice, a free choice that we have to achieve this goal in a capitalist society.
IDBillzFan Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) Then that is a BS way of doing business. I get so tired of hearing how thousands of people are laid off yet at the same time execs are making ridiculous bonuses. Seems to me that smart business would be removing those bonuses and keeping some workers employed. I'm with you. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the MAIN REASON people like me start our own business is so we can forsake a return on our investment in order to keep people on the payroll who make our company less profitable. It's such simple math: less profit = less ridiculous bonuses, therefore keeping more people on payroll than is needed to profitably run your business is the right thing to do. I mean, yeah, when you have too many people on staff relative to your profitability, then your company goes belly up and the entire company ends up unemployed, but other than that, your thinking is completely right on. Edited November 8, 2010 by LABillzFan
Rob's House Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 Then that is a BS way of doing business. I get so tired of hearing how thousands of people are laid off yet at the same time execs are making ridiculous bonuses. Seems to me that smart business would be removing those bonuses and keeping some workers employed. To be honest, I'm not to sure that they would have this great idea on how to stimulate business. I will never vote for someone who says cut these jobs first, then send the positions overseas. All that does is screw over this country. I love how you guys tout economic illiteracy as a virtue. I'd really love to hear a reasonable explanation of how you run an inefficient business for the purpose of maintaining wages that exceed their natural value, yet remain solvent in a global market. on a side note: Ask yourself why the shareholders choose to pay execs what they do.
DC Tom Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 No, your job as CEO is first and foremost to provide the company maximum sustained profitablity. If you can hire Wang from the szechuan province for a third of the cost, then you move operations to where you can get cheaper labor. This is a globalized world and there is nothing wrong with the CEO of a company looking to maximize his or her profits by getting cheaper labor. It is called a choice, a free choice that we have to achieve this goal in a capitalist society. Plus, if you have no work for the workers to do, it makes no sense to keep them around. I got laid off in May because of lack of work at my company. I'm sure the officers and partners could have taken pay cuts and paid my salary...so I could sit on my ass eight hours a day and do nothing?
IDBillzFan Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 Plus, if you have no work for the workers to do, it makes no sense to keep them around. I got laid off in May because of lack of work at my company. I'm sure the officers and partners could have taken pay cuts and paid my salary...so I could sit on my ass eight hours a day and do nothing? They're obviously not a very smart business. Profitable, yes. But smart? No. Let me know when they keep staffing people who have nothing to do. Then we're talking smart. Broke and bankrupt, yes, but smart, dammit.
DC Tom Posted November 9, 2010 Posted November 9, 2010 They're obviously not a very smart business. Profitable, yes. But smart? No. Let me know when they keep staffing people who have nothing to do. Then we're talking smart. Broke and bankrupt, yes, but smart, dammit. Very stupid. You'd think they'd know that they get a tax credit for hiring people regardless of whether or not they have work for them. It's a tax credit, for cryin' out loud. That's why companies hire: for the tax breaks. You'd think they'd know that. on a side note: Ask yourself why the shareholders choose to pay execs what they do. Because shareholders are evil greedy bastards who watch too much Fox News. Unless they're the UAW, holding GM stock.
Recommended Posts