Slashing Jobs Pays Off...If You Are Sitting in the Executive Suite Vol. Trickle Down My $%^

[rashi]

Originally Posted by cguy610

So you think layoffs are a good thing?  Do you know what happens to laid off workers?  They end up on unemployment and possibly on welfare.  On one hand you bash the "government" or "welfare state" and then support layoffs, which further exacerbates the situation. 

If the CEO can avoid layoffs by taking a pay cut, should he?

Investors don't vote on CEO compensation.  The Board of Directors(the best friends of the CEO) vote on it.  You misunderstood the last sentence, that is cap the deductibility of executive pay, which means lower executive pay or higher taxes.  

Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

 

[ninjahood]

Wackness, but what can you do... :-/

 

[ninjahood]

Wackness, but what can you do... :-/

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by cguy610

So you think layoffs are a good thing?  Do you know what happens to laid off workers?  They end up on unemployment and possibly on welfare.  On one hand you bash the "government" or "welfare state" and then support layoffs, which further exacerbates the situation. 

If the CEO can avoid layoffs by taking a pay cut, should he?

Investors don't vote on CEO compensation.  The Board of Directors(the best friends of the CEO) vote on it.  You misunderstood the last sentence, that is cap the deductibility of executive pay, which means lower executive pay or higher taxes.  

Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by cguy610

So you think layoffs are a good thing?  Do you know what happens to laid off workers?  They end up on unemployment and possibly on welfare.  On one hand you bash the "government" or "welfare state" and then support layoffs, which further exacerbates the situation. 

If the CEO can avoid layoffs by taking a pay cut, should he?

Investors don't vote on CEO compensation.  The Board of Directors(the best friends of the CEO) vote on it.  You misunderstood the last sentence, that is cap the deductibility of executive pay, which means lower executive pay or higher taxes.  

Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

 

[finnns2003]

Rashi, you fail to touch on poor performing companies paying record salaries/bonuses to CEO's.

 

[finnns2003]

Rashi, you fail to touch on poor performing companies paying record salaries/bonuses to CEO's.

 

[yeezy st laurent]

Don't investors have a vote in the board of directors or not enough for them to count?
Isn't most of CEO pay usually in the form of stock? So it's not like they get paid the millions that get reported...
And I bet some of the same people who got laid off will still call Obama a socialist.

 

[yeezy st laurent]

Don't investors have a vote in the board of directors or not enough for them to count?
Isn't most of CEO pay usually in the form of stock? So it's not like they get paid the millions that get reported...
And I bet some of the same people who got laid off will still call Obama a socialist.

 

[bastitch]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by cguy610

So you think layoffs are a good thing?  Do you know what happens to laid off workers?  They end up on unemployment and possibly on welfare.  On one hand you bash the "government" or "welfare state" and then support layoffs, which further exacerbates the situation. 

If the CEO can avoid layoffs by taking a pay cut, should he?

Investors don't vote on CEO compensation.  The Board of Directors(the best friends of the CEO) vote on it.  You misunderstood the last sentence, that is cap the deductibility of executive pay, which means lower executive pay or higher taxes.  

Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

 

[bastitch]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by cguy610

So you think layoffs are a good thing?  Do you know what happens to laid off workers?  They end up on unemployment and possibly on welfare.  On one hand you bash the "government" or "welfare state" and then support layoffs, which further exacerbates the situation. 

If the CEO can avoid layoffs by taking a pay cut, should he?

Investors don't vote on CEO compensation.  The Board of Directors(the best friends of the CEO) vote on it.  You misunderstood the last sentence, that is cap the deductibility of executive pay, which means lower executive pay or higher taxes.  

Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

 

[rashi]

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

Too much logic for someone speaking with emotion can understand.

Rashi, you fail to touch on poor performing companies paying record salaries/bonuses to CEO's.

Yeah, sorry bro. I can't speak for the Mercantialist/Corportist policies of our voted representatives. There is no way possible a poor performing company exists with record salaries for CEOs without that

from the government.

 

[rashi]

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

Too much logic for someone speaking with emotion can understand.

Rashi, you fail to touch on poor performing companies paying record salaries/bonuses to CEO's.

Yeah, sorry bro. I can't speak for the Mercantialist/Corportist policies of our voted representatives. There is no way possible a poor performing company exists with record salaries for CEOs without that

from the government.

 

[essential1]

Trickle Down/Reaganomics/Supply Side has always been %!%%%%!$..

 

[essential1]

Trickle Down/Reaganomics/Supply Side has always been %!%%%%!$..

 

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by rashi

Rashi, you fail to touch on poor performing companies paying record salaries/bonuses to CEO's.

Yeah, sorry bro. I can't speak for the Mercantialist/Corportist policies of our voted representatives. There is no way possible a poor performing company exists with record salaries for CEOs without that

from the government.

Yeah that part is pretty troubling.

 

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by rashi

Rashi, you fail to touch on poor performing companies paying record salaries/bonuses to CEO's.

Yeah, sorry bro. I can't speak for the Mercantialist/Corportist policies of our voted representatives. There is no way possible a poor performing company exists with record salaries for CEOs without that

from the government.

Yeah that part is pretty troubling.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Bastitch

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi


Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

These companies are already "profitable and successful".  That is one of the main premises of the article.  These companies are already profitable, yet they are cutting jobs to increase profits in the short term or increase CEO bonuses. 

Another disconcerting finding of the report: 72 percent of layoff-leading firms announced mass layoffs while delivering positive earnings reports

Also, who said it was immoral?  Nobody.  I'm saying that contrary to rashi's opinion, the CEO's deserve blame for the current state of our economy.  I'm also pointing out the contradiction in his position that government is bad/evil but yet he supports CEO's laying off employees and putting them on the government(welfare) payroll. 

Did you read my posts or just skim through them?

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Bastitch

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi


Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

These companies are already "profitable and successful".  That is one of the main premises of the article.  These companies are already profitable, yet they are cutting jobs to increase profits in the short term or increase CEO bonuses. 

Another disconcerting finding of the report: 72 percent of layoff-leading firms announced mass layoffs while delivering positive earnings reports

Also, who said it was immoral?  Nobody.  I'm saying that contrary to rashi's opinion, the CEO's deserve blame for the current state of our economy.  I'm also pointing out the contradiction in his position that government is bad/evil but yet he supports CEO's laying off employees and putting them on the government(welfare) payroll. 

Did you read my posts or just skim through them?

 

[strawberry milkshakes]

Help me understand this then:

They dont need anymore workers so they can make more money with less workers. Makes sense. if you can make 100 dollars with 3 people, why hire 4 people

But then why are they claiming that if they get tax cuts, they can get the economy going?

They arent going to hire anyone if they get tax cuts, cause they dont need them. They're just going to take the extra money and spread it among themselves.

disgusting.

 

[strawberry milkshakes]

Help me understand this then:

They dont need anymore workers so they can make more money with less workers. Makes sense. if you can make 100 dollars with 3 people, why hire 4 people

But then why are they claiming that if they get tax cuts, they can get the economy going?

They arent going to hire anyone if they get tax cuts, cause they dont need them. They're just going to take the extra money and spread it among themselves.

disgusting.

 

[bastitch]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Bastitch

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi


Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

These companies are already "profitable and successful".  That is one of the main premises of the article.  These companies are already profitable, yet they are cutting jobs to increase profits in the short term or increase CEO bonuses. 

Another disconcerting finding of the report: 72 percent of layoff-leading firms announced mass layoffs while delivering positive earnings reports

Also, who said it was immoral?  Nobody.  I'm saying that contrary to rashi's opinion, the CEO's deserve blame for the current state of our economy.  I'm also pointing out the contradiction in his position that government is bad/evil but yet he supports CEO's laying off employees and putting them on the government(welfare) payroll. 

Did you read my posts or just skim through them?

I just skim through them.  Your posts are typically worthless.

 

[bastitch]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Bastitch

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi


Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

These companies are already "profitable and successful".  That is one of the main premises of the article.  These companies are already profitable, yet they are cutting jobs to increase profits in the short term or increase CEO bonuses. 

Another disconcerting finding of the report: 72 percent of layoff-leading firms announced mass layoffs while delivering positive earnings reports

Also, who said it was immoral?  Nobody.  I'm saying that contrary to rashi's opinion, the CEO's deserve blame for the current state of our economy.  I'm also pointing out the contradiction in his position that government is bad/evil but yet he supports CEO's laying off employees and putting them on the government(welfare) payroll. 

Did you read my posts or just skim through them?

I just skim through them.  Your posts are typically worthless.

 

[bastitch]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Bastitch

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi


Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

These companies are already "profitable and successful".  That is one of the main premises of the article.  These companies are already profitable, yet they are cutting jobs to increase profits in the short term or increase CEO bonuses. 

Another disconcerting finding of the report: 72 percent of layoff-leading firms announced mass layoffs while delivering positive earnings reports

Also, who said it was immoral?  Nobody.  I'm saying that contrary to rashi's opinion, the CEO's deserve blame for the current state of our economy.  I'm also pointing out the contradiction in his position that government is bad/evil but yet he supports CEO's laying off employees and putting them on the government(welfare) payroll. 

Did you read my posts or just skim through them?

I just skim through them.  Your posts are typically worthless.

 

[bastitch]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Bastitch

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by rashi


Layoffs aren't good for the employees obviously, but what is the benefit to the company if they are paying people to do nothing or create a surplus in inventory with low demand? It isn't good for the employer either because it doesnt allow for expansion and increased productivity with a depleted work force. If it was up to me, there wouldn't be unemployment insurance which the company itself is forced to pay into, not the employee. 

The BOD is voted on by the investors, so they are representitives that speak for the investors.
  

Well without unemployment insurance, they would be on welfare.  So you would rather them be on welfare?  And who pays for that?  Yet I'm sure you are one of the ones always complaining about government deficits and the government debt. 

Or let me guess, in your fantastic world, there is no welfare.  The people just starve.

 

I don't really see what you're getting at.

rashi is simply saying that cutting overhead to produce the same amount of revenue is what management is supposed to do in order to keep a company profitable and successful.  From a business standpoint, whether large corporation or small mom & pop shop, that's exactly what's supposed to happen. There isn't nothing wrong or immoral with that at all.

You're taking a very granular concept and making it THE reason why the whole system is messed up.  That's not very logical.

These companies are already "profitable and successful".  That is one of the main premises of the article.  These companies are already profitable, yet they are cutting jobs to increase profits in the short term or increase CEO bonuses. 

Another disconcerting finding of the report: 72 percent of layoff-leading firms announced mass layoffs while delivering positive earnings reports

Also, who said it was immoral?  Nobody.  I'm saying that contrary to rashi's opinion, the CEO's deserve blame for the current state of our economy.  I'm also pointing out the contradiction in his position that government is bad/evil but yet he supports CEO's laying off employees and putting them on the government(welfare) payroll. 

Did you read my posts or just skim through them?

I just skim through them.  Your posts are typically worthless.