Author Topic: Layoff announcements since election  (Read 15031 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #75 on: November 09, 2012, 03:35:02 PM »

Offline Rondo2287

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12997
  • Tommy Points: 815
Well first even you made the statement that it was surprising it hadn't happened sooner so there is one example.  Second they are the prominent supplier for more than just the US government, nobody has made the argument that they will only be operating their company on US governmental sales.  And even if it was just run on US government employees using their product their user base would not be shrinking with the rate that US Government employment will have to rise just to put obamacare into practice.
I am not playing this game.

This poster was accused of not following RIM, and it appears that the accuser was the one who was behind on the times. RIM is a mess, I have more than proved it with a fusillade of publicly-available information about the state of the company. Blaming any of RIM's woes on Obama, is utterly hilarious.

Im not sure what game you are referring to, but it looks to me like you made a strong statement without any justification and then proceeded to respond to arguments that nobody was making rather than backup your initial strong statement.  I would suggest not making those statements in the future if you cannot back them up.
CB Draft LA Lakers: Lamarcus Aldridge, Carmelo Anthony,Jrue Holiday, Wes Matthews  6.11, 7.16, 8.14, 8.15, 9.16, 11.5, 11.16

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #76 on: November 09, 2012, 03:44:45 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32555
  • Tommy Points: 5351
Does this really matter if the next few jobs reports show more growth?

Companies lay off people all the time but other companies are currently hiring simultaneously. What is important is, what is the total net effect, positive or negative?

I believe any month over the last 4 years anyone could have put together a list of companies showing their layoffs. But the cycle of net negative job growth has turned around. If over the next few months it continues this whole conspiracy that these private companies with held the info to help the President will look really, really more ridiculous than it already does.

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #77 on: November 09, 2012, 03:48:52 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
Im not sure what game you are referring to, but it looks to me like you made a strong statement without any justification and then proceeded to respond to arguments that nobody was making rather than backup your initial strong statement.  I would suggest not making those statements in the future if you cannot back them up.

I wish whoever started this thread would take that advice.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2012, 03:50:29 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23905
  • Tommy Points: 1037
  • What a Pub Should Be
Alright, knock it off with the shots at each other.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2012, 03:51:45 PM »

Online angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4284
  • Tommy Points: 371
Guess we didn't need the auto bailout or green energy incentives huh.
I'll interpret this abrupt change of the subject as you conceding the point.

Creative destruction is important for capitalism, and and happens even in recoveries. Nobody would ever argue that bad companies only exist during recessions, after all.

You didn't disagree with me, you said that I wasn't paying attention to the company.  I'm sorry that you made such a strong statement without any justification and then ignore the evidence to the contrary.
Once again:

Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

I don't see how you can consider this timing strange, unless you haven't been following how badly RIM has been doing. This is a company that is bleeding from every orifice. Layoffs should be obvious, not strange. If they are strange, it's only strange that they haven't happened sooner.

Hey, I'm just guessing what you believe based on your statements like this one

Quote
This is how capitalism works: failed companies fail. The capital goes into more productive uses

But I guess you can have it both ways.

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2012, 03:53:03 PM »

Offline action781

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4263
  • Tommy Points: 327
Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

Why is it strange? Some companies are hiring, some are firing, some are spending money on capital improvements, others are not.  When you net it all out, as we see from the monthly job numbers, companies are doing more hiring than firing. End of story.

really becuase the rate was at 7.8 in Oct(remember, it was a sign the economy was improving) and now it's at 7.9.  My math is a bit shaky, but if more jobs are being added, I don't think the rate would increase.

If the global temperature this month decreases by a tenth of a degree from last year, are you willing to throw out the notion of global warming?



I only looked up a few companies on the list before I got tired.

Westinghouse Anniston laid off 50 workers because they are ahead of schedule in closing down a chemical weapons incineration plant.

Lightyear Network Solutions informed workers on the day before the election that they were letting them go.

The Providence Journal's layoffs were because not enough workers took buyouts in Septeber.

At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.

Not saying it's just because he's been reelected, although that is a factor, but it's mainly a result of his failed policies.

If you're not saying it's just because he's been reelected, then why does the title specifically mention "since election"
2018 Mock Trade Deadline Philly 76ers

Guards:  A Bradley / Covington / Redick / Fultz / Bayless / Luwawu / Korkmaz
Forwards:  Saric / Simmons (point forward) / Trev Booker / J Anderson
Center:  Embiid / THE BOBAN / R Holmes

Picks: 2018 LAL 1st (if 1, 6-30), 2019 SAC 1st (if LAL 2-5), 2018 2nds from BKN, NYK, HOU, and 2019 SAC 2n

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #81 on: November 09, 2012, 03:58:59 PM »

Online angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4284
  • Tommy Points: 371
With all due respect to fellow conservative AngryGuy, this an argument we conservatives aren't going to win.

* Obama supporters will not blame any current layoffs on him, regardless of what he does or doesn't do.

* If the economy does recover, Obama supporters will give all credit to him.

* If the economy doesn't recover, Obama supporters will continue to blame Bush and insist on more time and patience.

Sounds like a win-win for O.

I realize this, but debating makes the day go by.

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #82 on: November 09, 2012, 04:03:23 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
it looks to me like you made a strong statement without any justification and then proceeded to respond to arguments that nobody was making rather than backup your initial strong statement.
Certainly not. I stand behind what I said. There is nothing "strange" about the timing of layoffs from a flailing company. You'd have to be ignorant of their performance for the last few years to be surprised by this news. An expected event at a coincidental moment is not "strange", it is a "coincidence". RIM has been staring down the barrel of this gun for quite some time.

It gets worse the further you drill down. They are losing government business, not expanding it. FIPS approval is no better than what they were already capable of with their old technology.

There's no defense of the notion that this is some "strange" event.

Hey, I'm just guessing what you believe
This is not a good idea.

Does this really matter if the next few jobs reports show more growth?

Companies lay off people all the time but other companies are currently hiring simultaneously. What is important is, what is the total net effect, positive or negative?

I believe any month over the last 4 years anyone could have put together a list of companies showing their layoffs. But the cycle of net negative job growth has turned around. If over the next few months it continues this whole conspiracy that these private companies with held the info to help the President will look really, really more ridiculous than it already does.
Companies laying off people is the foundation of efficient markets. Conservatives should be making this argument in advance, which makes lists like this especially absurd. Absolutely the net growth is what's important, not individual performances of particular struggling companies.

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #83 on: November 09, 2012, 04:14:04 PM »

Online angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4284
  • Tommy Points: 371
Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

Why is it strange? Some companies are hiring, some are firing, some are spending money on capital improvements, others are not.  When you net it all out, as we see from the monthly job numbers, companies are doing more hiring than firing. End of story.

really becuase the rate was at 7.8 in Oct(remember, it was a sign the economy was improving) and now it's at 7.9.  My math is a bit shaky, but if more jobs are being added, I don't think the rate would increase.

If the global temperature this month decreases by a tenth of a degree from last year, are you willing to throw out the notion of global warming?



I only looked up a few companies on the list before I got tired.

Westinghouse Anniston laid off 50 workers because they are ahead of schedule in closing down a chemical weapons incineration plant.

Lightyear Network Solutions informed workers on the day before the election that they were letting them go.

The Providence Journal's layoffs were because not enough workers took buyouts in Septeber.

At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.

Not saying it's just because he's been reelected, although that is a factor, but it's mainly a result of his failed policies.

If you're not saying it's just because he's been reelected, then why does the title specifically mention "since election"

Because I believe it has to do with the election and overall policy. With tax hikes coming, businesses are not going to have the confidence they would have under a more pro-business administration. I'm not going to argue which is the greater catalyst for the layoffs.

Businesses forecast and they know Obamacare isn't going anywhere and they will react-see Darden. They know the trend of lower wages will continue and have an impact on their profits. People are not grasping how much taxes are going to go up and what effect that will have on businesses.

Take this story for example

Quote

Boston Scientific anticipates $100 million in additional taxes next year, with layoffs to follow. Medtronic estimates a $175 million loss in 2013 and will cut 1,000 workers. Stryker plans 1,170 job cuts.

Other medical manufacturers will follow: Smith & Nephew, with 770 layoffs; Abbott Labs, 700; Covidien, 595; Kinetic Concepts, 427; St. Jude Medical, 300; Welch Allyn 275; and Hill Rom, 200.

In January, medical device manufacturers in the U.S. will be asked to take a 2.3 percent hit to their bottom line in the form of a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices, part of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

The 2.3 percent tax will be imposed on gross sales of products from elastic bandages to pacemakers to imaging systems. Although the tax is intended to raise $28.5 billion over 10 years to help cover the costs of Obamacare, opponents warn there will be unintended consequences.

Not all medical manufacturers are multinational, multibillion dollar conglomerates that won't feel a 2.3 percent pinch. It may sound like a small amount, but 2.3 percent of gross sales is equivalent to about 15 percent in gross profit. In a medium- or small-sized company, 15 percent of gross profit could be the entire budget of a product team. Some could be literally taxed out of business.

The industry won't stand idle to "pay their fair share" either. Corporations will simply move their operations where they can enjoy a lower tax burden. Since the U.S. currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, isn't the "fair share" burden already being met?

Medical companies are taking the hint. Cook Medical put plans for five new U.S. manufacturing facilities on hold and will likely redirect growth overseas. Boston Scientific recently announced a $150 million investment in China over the next five years for new manufacturing facilities and 1,000 employees.






Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #84 on: November 09, 2012, 04:37:04 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5766
  • Tommy Points: 0
Yeah, I was being a bit snarky, and I do apologize for that.

But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped," or something along those lines, and I've lost track of how many times he and his surrogates have stated some form of the phrase "All these problems are Bush's fault."

So I'm glad to hear a couple of you admit that Obama's plans haven't always been effective.

I really do want a serious conversation about these things—those of us here on CB and everyone across the country—but I've become a bit influenced, it seems, by the general snarkiness of the mainstream media and conservative talk radio. I realize that topics such as this involve some sensitive topics, personal ideologies, etc., but I really don't wish to worsen the conversation. Again, I apologize for my part in that.

A key problem, though, is that most people—and especially politicians (of every stripe)—don't want to admit when they've been wrong. It's all about scoring political points, and making sure your party stays in power. Unless that attitude changes, our problems will not be solved and the country will not advance.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #85 on: November 09, 2012, 04:40:59 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
Some guy posted on Reddit:

Quote
I worked at a coal mine that decided today to layoff over 40 employees and the only reason that was given was that "America has betrayed coal miners" by re-electing President Obama. Despite the fact that nothing has changed in the two days since the election they decide to lay off employees. I've seen how corrupt the company can be over the years and am fairly certain the layoffs are just a way to make the President look bad. I look forward to your questions and will do my best to answer them all.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #86 on: November 09, 2012, 04:58:40 PM »

Offline Bombastic Jones

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 359
  • Tommy Points: 53
Yeah, I was being a bit snarky, and I do apologize for that.

But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped," or something along those lines, and I've lost track of how many times he and his surrogates have stated some form of the phrase "All these problems are Bush's fault."

So I'm glad to hear a couple of you admit that Obama's plans haven't always been effective.

I really do want a serious conversation about these things—those of us here on CB and everyone across the country—but I've become a bit influenced, it seems, by the general snarkiness of the mainstream media and conservative talk radio. I realize that topics such as this involve some sensitive topics, personal ideologies, etc., but I really don't wish to worsen the conversation. Again, I apologize for my part in that.

A key problem, though, is that most people—and especially politicians (of every stripe)—don't want to admit when they've been wrong. It's all about scoring political points, and making sure your party stays in power. Unless that attitude changes, our problems will not be solved and the country will not advance.

Here you go:

“Now knowing how much worse the storm was, people look back and say, you guys undershot,” sighs Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “But we didn’t think we were undershooting at the time. We thought that the dominant strategy had to be massive, overwhelming force. There were political limits to what we could do, but we thought we were operating to expand the scope of those limits. I used to say to people, ‘Which mistake is harder to correct: doing too much, or doing too little?’ ”

I hope you can also step back and look at Obama's character through a different lens as well.  Maybe it wont change your mind, but at least give you a perspective on why people disagree with your characterization of him. 

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #87 on: November 09, 2012, 04:59:30 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped,"
If you stray outside the conservative blogosphere, you'd notice that liberals have been calling for Obama's head on this issue, Paul Krugman most famously.

Obama himself will attribute it to 1) the recession being worse than what was expected (which is defensible), or 2) not predicting the depths of Republican intransigence and supposing that he'd have a second bite at the apple if the first ARRA didn't do the trick (also defensible). "Off the record" comments are the only place where you'll hear the idea that the stimulus was not properly put together in the first place.

I don't know if that's because Obama actually doesn't believe it, or because he doesn't want to get beat up on it, but it is what it is: the administration is standing behind their decision.

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #88 on: November 09, 2012, 05:21:45 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5766
  • Tommy Points: 0
Yeah, I was being a bit snarky, and I do apologize for that.

But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped," or something along those lines, and I've lost track of how many times he and his surrogates have stated some form of the phrase "All these problems are Bush's fault."

So I'm glad to hear a couple of you admit that Obama's plans haven't always been effective.

I really do want a serious conversation about these things—those of us here on CB and everyone across the country—but I've become a bit influenced, it seems, by the general snarkiness of the mainstream media and conservative talk radio. I realize that topics such as this involve some sensitive topics, personal ideologies, etc., but I really don't wish to worsen the conversation. Again, I apologize for my part in that.

A key problem, though, is that most people—and especially politicians (of every stripe)—don't want to admit when they've been wrong. It's all about scoring political points, and making sure your party stays in power. Unless that attitude changes, our problems will not be solved and the country will not advance.

Here you go:

“Now knowing how much worse the storm was, people look back and say, you guys undershot,” sighs Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “But we didn’t think we were undershooting at the time. We thought that the dominant strategy had to be massive, overwhelming force. There were political limits to what we could do, but we thought we were operating to expand the scope of those limits. I used to say to people, ‘Which mistake is harder to correct: doing too much, or doing too little?’ ”

I hope you can also step back and look at Obama's character through a different lens as well.  Maybe it wont change your mind, but at least give you a perspective on why people disagree with your characterization of him.

That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.

As far as Mr. Obama's character, I look at it through the lens of his own history.

His prep grades were mediocre, yet with the help of affirmative action policies, he had no problem taking a more-deserving person's spot in two of the best universities in the country.

The man who hired him to be a community organizer asked him if he'd be willing to live among the people he was supposed to be helping, but Obama chose to remain in his nice Hyde Park home. To me, that shows a lack of commitment and genuine concern, and that he was more interested in padding his resume.

He took the job of Harvard Law Review editor despite never having written an article for it, and having almost no writing or editing experience. To me, this shows a lack of personal and professional integrity, and again makes it seem to me like he just wanted to pad his resume. Some people surmise that this appointment, too, was a result of affirmative action.

When Mr. Obama was still as unknown as you or I, he accepted a $125,000 advance to write a book about race relations. Despite his biracial heritage, he really had little experience in race relations, certainly not enough to write a book about it, nor did he have the writing and editing chops for it. But he took the publisher's money anyway—then proceeded to spend a good deal of it on a vacation for him and Michelle in Bali. When the publisher balked, Mr. Obama pleaded for another chance, the publisher gave him another advance—this time for $40,000—and he produced not a book on race relations but a memoir, which many linguistic experts claim was actually written by Mr. Obama's unrepentant-terrorist friend Bill Ayers. Lack of integrity and character all around, there.

To this very day, Mr. Obama continues to say that he was a constitutional law professor, when he was only a lecturer; I work at a university, so I know there's a big difference between the two. And according to many folks who knew him and worked with him at the time, he was a fairly poor lecturer, at that. So Mr. Obama is a liar.

Mr. Obama also attended the church of a black radical for nearly two decades, yet claimed that he never heard Jeremiah Wright make any inflammatory or racist statements. This, to me, is simply not believable.

So when I look at those things, as well as others, I see numerous evidence, a repeating pattern, of bad character. This is not what I want in a president, and it's sad and disappointing than anyone would support such a person being our leader.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Layoff announcements since election
« Reply #89 on: November 09, 2012, 05:25:28 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.
This is picking and choosing what you are willing to accept as evidence. Geithner said it, if you aren't willing to take it at face value, it's impossible to have a discussion about it.

Quote
Mr. Obama's character
Has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.