next »

[PierceMVP08]

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.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.

No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

I think the point is, you are throwing out a very short list  of companies who are laying people off since the election, then trying to say those layoffs are caused by 'bad policy'.  So first, there is absolutely no way to demonstrate causation - layoffs happen all the time.  Second, it ignores the thousands of other companies that make up the economy - as I mentioned before, many are hiring.

Mind you, this was just 48 hours after the election that these announcements were made. If these large businesses were feeling good about the economy and had a positive forecasts, they wouldn't be laying people off.


You can point to businesses hiring and I can point you to the unemployment rate and number of food stamp recipients.

No, it was 48 hours after the election that you cut and pasted this list.   Some - like RIM - havent even announced the alleged cuts.  Others - like Husqvarna - are foreign companies, so job cuts in Sweden probably arent indicative of Obama's failed policies.  Regardless, show me causation, show me the macro picture.

And if you can point to the unemployment rate to show that the business atmosphere is getting worse since the election I would be happy to look at it and acknowledge if it causes me to revise my opinion, or makes a good point.

It doesn't have to get worse, staying the same isn't exactly great is it.

The companies on that list(which make up a small percentage of the list) that are foreign generate a lot of sales here in the US. Demand has fallen, now why would that be? Could it be people don't have the money to buy their products because it's going to other places like increased energy and food costs?


The majority of employers like Energizer and Boeing on that list announced the cuts on the 7th or 8th. There were a few that did earlier, but they were the minority. It doesn't really matter because these people are out of jobs. I never said that it was only(but I do believe it played a part because these businesses are not seeing good things ahead)  due to Obama's reelection, but a culmination of his first term. Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

You mention Energizer and if you are familiar with the company and their strategies over the past years, you would know that they went all in, promoting the hell out of their products in an effort to grow market share.  That worked for a while and hopes were very high.  What they didn't see was that by giving away their products, they were growing on borrowed time.  It was only a matter of time before they would run out of money to continue to discount their products. It's caught up with them and now their bearing the brunt of it.  Without discounting their products they've suffered heavy losses.  Hence, poor management and strategy.

Now Boeing has a very limited market. Their market is heavily dominated by military spending and airlines, of course.  Everyone and their mother knows that airlines have been struggling mightily for years.  If they're not turning a profit, their likely not investing in new planes.  If they're not investing in new planes, Boeing is not selling.  If they're not selling, well you guessed it... layoffs must come.  How is that tied to the election of President Obama?

I have no understanding of what your corporate experience is, but layoffs are something that are considered in excruciating detail.  They are planned over the course of extended periods.  There is no responsible company that would announce massive layoffs after only considering it for a day.  The layoffs announced on the 7th and 8th were undoubtedly a long time in coming. 

[Brendan]

Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:


I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.

^^This.

Thanks Obama!

Need to take out gov't employment.

[Rondo2287]

Again, not the actual point the point is that it is surprising given the governmental sales that they will be doing, i don't know why you are responding to arguments that nobody here is making.

What government sales? You are conflating FIPS approval with purchases. Pentagon is expected to keep some significant number of BB's because of the security features, but other government agencies, contractors, and such are phasing out their Blackberry servers (ICE switched to iPhones, as an example). Outside government, private enterprise is flat-out running away from RIM at warp speed.

So how is it surprising that RIM makes layoffs when their userbase is evaporating? You can't run a company that size on a mere one million US government employees.

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.

[Interceptor]

Need to take out gov't employment.

.... which will only make the numbers look better, since government employment has been steadily falling since Obama took office. That 171,000 figure goes UP, for example, since government jobs went down by ~9k if I remember correctly.

[Fafnir]

Honestly any layoff announcements are probably just trying to do two things:

1. Dump the news when no one is paying attention (after the election)

2. Avoid becoming associated with the political fight and alienating a group of customers and/or investors.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

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.

[Cman]

Need to take out gov't employment.

.... which will only make the numbers look better, since government employment has been steadily falling since Obama took office.

Yep. One of the surprising things that one might not know if one only listened to certain talk show hosts.

[Bombastic Jones]

Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:


I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.

^^This.

Thanks Obama!

Need to take out gov't employment.

Govt employment has shrunk.

[Donoghus]

Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:


I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.

^^This.

Thanks Obama!

Need to take out gov't employment.

Govt employment has shrunk.

Much of that spike was Census, right?

[Cman]

Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:


I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.

^^This.

Thanks Obama!

Need to take out gov't employment.

Govt employment has shrunk.

Much of that spike was Census, right?

Yes, that was all the Census.

[Cman]

^^An amazing thing to see: Government employment rises under a Republican, and falls under a Democrat.

[foulweatherfan]

^^An amazing thing to see: Government employment rises under a Republican, and falls under a Democrat.

To be fair, that's government employment at all levels, not just federal.  But yeah, not the trend you'd expect.

What's really weird is that federal employment is lower today  - in total numbers, not just % - than it was 50 years ago.  Or at any point under Reagan.

[Interceptor]

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.

[Bombastic Jones]

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.

How about just having an honest conversation about it?  Maybe some Obama policies (like health care) have caused some layoffs.  Are the benefits of health care reform worth the costs?  Is the deficit spending worth the stimulus effect?  I would say yes to both, but am open to listening to the alternative and feel like there are some valid concerns on the other side.

When you start cut and pasting from Rush I think you are not really engaged in a real dialogue.  You are just trying to score some political points.

Does Obama deserve all the credit for the recovery?  No, but he deserves some.  He handled the crisis well.  Not outstanding, but we are on the right track.  Flipping your argument around

 ~"Obama detractors will blame all current layoffs on him, regardless of what he does or doesn't do. If the economy does recover, Obama detractors will give no credit to him.  If the economy doesn't recover, Obama detractors will ignore the impact of the financial crisis."

Any problem with that?

[Interceptor]

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

I blame the layoffs of state-level government employees on him. The ARRA was not equal to the task, which is ultimately his fault in part.