So what is the CEO of IBM really trying to say here: ""In the research we've done working with the transition team, we know that $30 billion could create 1 million jobs in the next 12 months," IBM CEO Sam Palmisano said in January." Seems to me he had other agendas: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/26/ibm.outsourcing/index.html ""We're outraged that jobs cuts are happening in the U.S. and the work is being shifted offshore," Conrad said. "This comes at the same time IBM has its hand out for stimulus money. This to us is totally unacceptable." " According to Business Week, IBM has indeed been shifting jobs. The magazine reported that the company's workforce went up from 386,558 at the end of 2007 to 398,000 at the end of 2008. But U.S. employment fell from 121,000 to 115,000 during the same time. "The problem here, though, is that these companies have an inordinate influence over the political process," he said. "They have a huge, disproportionate amount of power, political power, and can influence the process." For that reason, he said, "you really do need the American public to sort of stand up and say, 'Wait a second. This is just not right.' ... I certainly hope that there's a backlash, because there should be. This is bad for America." Maybe we should all just back off.....give these guys their billions and just trust they will do right by all Americans....... :lol: :roll:
Didn't Obama say that many of the jobs that went offshore were low paying and won't be coming back and that we don't really want them back?
This story came out back when US jobs were taken for granted: http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2008/10/22/x101279t91636n62.html So at the time... companies with headquarters in the US were responsible for a good majority of foreign job creation. That's all well and good and maybe the real issue here is that most of these companies today have significant foreign investors who really don't give a crap about American jobs....they rightfully only care about their own portfolios and what kind of return can they get today. It's a tangled web and underscores what I have long been saying in that we are playing in a different ball game in today's global economy. Old school financial axioms and antiquated strategies that were designed for a US manufacturing economy do not necessarily apply to the way business is being conducted today. The same applies to Wall Street because years ago Wall Street was not as rife with foreign investors trying to exert control or who had no vested interest in American's well being. Likewise, Wall Street years ago was not driven by the urgent mandate that profits were turned at all costs.....at the expense of future growth and overall company health and at the expense of the American workforce. Today's world on Wall Street has Enron, Worldcom, Madoff and AIG running amok....one rip-off right on top of the other. No wonder things are so fouled up.
Again your man Obama to quote: Jobs not coming back BTW This is essentially what JO'Co said when this whole deal about jobs going overseas started.
I agree with that but it doesn't mean these people who lost those jobs readily have something else to do instead. It's an ongoing problem because I don't see in the news where companies are begging for workers to fill their better paying jobs that are in such abundance.
One of those 5,000 to lose their job yesterday was my brother-in-law Grady. He makes/made, roughly 2 to 3 times a year what I do at this present time. And Terry is 100% correct... his was one of those jobs that was referred to by President Obama in that context. He wasn't a phone monkey, low-level tech, or customer service rep. (nothing wrong with any of those jobs btw) He was flat out that middle management position that Obama has vowed to protect. He worked out of their LA and SF offices, but managed the accounts in the Memphis (central-southern region) area accounts. People are still whining about AIG (wrongly I might add) bonuses, but they say not a word about things like this.. because they are ignorant...especially some of those "American first/Obama will bring back the days of Scoop Jackson democrats/the Dems represent the average man" kinda people. They, IBM, offered to relocate Grady and his family about a year ago to the Memphis office. I know Jenny and Grady seriously considered this. I wonder if that move could have saved him? My sister says no... I am not too sure.
Did they offer Grady any assistance with the huge losses he was bound to incur on the sale of his home if he moved? That is....if he could even sell his home. I want very much to relocate to Florida at present and my only positive in selling my home is that I have a reasonably priced home to begin with....one in which curb appeal is in a high ranking and also I have no home equity loans outstanding on it. Mind you I will still be fortunate to derive any significant equity amounts for repurchase because of the sour Michigan market but I am encouraged by the $8,000 credit given to first time buyers and by Feb. existing home sales numbers. In any event sorry about your b-n-law's job loss and I hope it works out soon for him.
yup, they offered to pay moving costs and the whole 9. they offered my sister job assistance, although she wouldn't need it as she could simply transfer offices working of ADP. He wouldn't have had as much trouble selling the home at all. Not everyone lives in Michigan... and mind you, that isn't a shot at you. Grady and Jenny live in a very desirable area in southern california in which homes are still in demand.. especially houses like theirs.. There aren't a lot of them out there for young families with you look at all the intangibles. But I digress, they offered him the world to move to Germantown, TN. I thought they were fools for not doing it... Anywho, companies don't offer all that for jobs that America won't miss.
An extraordinary display of a fertile imagination run amok.......you surely have captured the "true" essence of "Wall Street". :roll: Clearly there is nothing anyone can say or do to dispell those notions from your mind. But, for your own interest, you should at least have the knowledge for yourself that they are absurd......if that doesn't bother you, carry on.
Obviously my own opinions BT and when I venture them I always run the risk of you swooping in to dispel them but nonetheless....do you think the same economic rules apply in today's Wall Street environment as the rules of the game existed 50 years ago? I think there is much more complexity to it today. There is more unchecked greed and deception out there or at least what is out there is disseminated faster and impacts a much greater number of people because of the speed of the internet and global participation. If you don't think this is true.....why not?
What you reference as "Wall Street" is actually simply bad guys acting bad in a business environment.....Enron wasn't "Wall Street" it was an energy company HQ in Houston that ran afoul of the law almost a decade ago. Simlarly WorldCom.....that wasn't "Wall Street" that was a telecommunications company HQ in Jackson, MS again several years ago.....that has nothing to do with "Wall Street". Businesses are simply a reflection of the population as a whole.....there are bad guys in every walk of life. Why would we expect business to be any different? There have been corporate/business scandals in every era of history.....in relative terms, todays "scandals" pale in comparison and frequency to the wild west days of yore.....the Robber Barons, Jay Gould's, the massive trusts of Rockefellers Standard Oil and Morgans empire, the Hunt Bros trying to corner the silver market, ITT's machinations and duplicity in bringing down foreign governments, the payola scandals of the defense contractors, etc, etc, etc.....mankind will always produce bad actors, every corner of the globe in all sectors will have them acting bad and some of them will be businessmen......and for that we demonize "Wall Street". It is destructive and counter-productive to the very sector we need most to get us out of the ditch.....brilliant. It seems as if even the President has figured this one out judging by his most recent rhetoric......we'll see.
Once again I find myself aligned with MCG. Wall street has gotten to the point that it has abandoned business sense in pursuit of profits. Here's what I've seen over and over again. I represent a number of insurance companies defending their insureds. An insurance company is purchased by a large conglomerate. (they will own it for 2 or 3 years.) They undergo a program to make their purchase "lean and mean." To do that they fire many of the longtime insurance people in the company. They replace them with younger inexperienced employees who make less. They disregard the advice of their hired attorneys because they don't want to settle cases that they should because they care only about the bottom line. After showing bigger profits in their 2 years they sell the ins. company to another conclomerate which thinks that they can do even better. Eventually, the claims explode, insureds are hit with over limits judgements, and a totally inexperienced group of "executives" has no clue how to run the company. It's not a surprise that the company disregards the advice of their hired counsel. after all, they treat them the same way that they treat the company that supplies them with toilet paper, they're just a vendor. So when I watch the former head of Travelers Sandy Weil take it in the rear as he steered Citi into the ground, I can't help but smile. Corporate execs today can not have a 3 year plan to increase sales. If it doesn't impact their next quarterly earnings report, it doesn't fly.
Gip, Would you say that attitude is more symbolic of the overall 'me first. NOW' attitude that this country seems to be plagued with?
Do any of those type of execs even plan on sticking around a company more than 3-5 years? If it goes south after they depart.....who cares?
I think therein lies the issue.....those "type" of execs. In my view and based upon my experience, those "type" of execs are not the rule, but rather the exception. Surely there are mgt teams focusing on tomorrow and how best to cash out quick. Avoid their stock like the plague....it's not one you want to put in your portfolio and keep. However, the best executives and the best run companies have management teams who develop rigorous long-range plans using the companies best and brightest to develop and sustain relative competitive advantage designed to maximize shareholder wealth thereby providing shareholders superior long term returns on their investment. Organizational structures and compensation policies are designed to allow efficient and effective implementation of the plans and align managements interests with the shareholders over the long term......buy these stocks, put them away and enjoy. There are plenty of these companies and managment styles and cultures still around.....because at the end of the day, they will ourperfom their competitors over the long run......enriching their shareholders and their own net worth in the process....... Clearly not all companies are run by enlightened and gifted management teams, but nor are they all run by near-sighted, money grubbing fools.....to me it makes more sense to make money over many years than to attempt max it out in 2 or 3. I've not worked for any of those guys......I have worked for many with a longer term view of the company and its obligation to its shareholders and the communities it serves.
OK....so which way is it trending? In the last 5 years have you worked more or less for the "good" guys you describe?
.....the system works MCG. The bad ones tend to go away and be forgotten. The good ones tend to be in high demand, their lessons learned and we go forward. The rewards are greater and more sustainable for the good ones and human behavior being what it is, we tend to emulate that for which we are rewarded best for the longest period of time. The system works.....I didn't say the system was perfect, but it works and it has proven to be vastly superior to any known alternative.....especially the socialist one.
So the system works most of the time historically speaking but I am asking with your experience of the last 5 years do you see any trends upward or upticks in the profit now/pay later/sell out later mentality that seems to be more in practice today than ever before?