Corporate profit

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]
This topic was not limited to California corporations.

Here is a list of the states and how non-compete agreements are viewed in each state.

http://www.beckreedriden.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Noncompetes-50-State-Survey-Chart-20130814.pdf

As always, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.[/quote]

Yes, reading comprehension, the card you attempt to play right after your argument falls apart.

Since you are so good at reading comprehension, can you explain how “San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis” means that topics are not focused on California?

[CA renter]

Read the topic of the thread and the following comments, troll (with the reading comprehension problems).

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Read the topic of the thread and the following comments, troll (with the reading comprehension problems).[/quote]

Done.

No mention of the topic “not being limited to California.”

The Dilbert comic was still funny the second time around, and it still seems you’re wrong.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=outtamojo]Yeah but to lay off people because they aren’t worth their pay means at some point someone did feel they were worth their pay and the decisionmakers were wrong to think that. The people who were wrong need to pay the price for their error – as a shareholder/owner that is what I demand and I see too often only the rank and file suffering.[/quote]

You are assuming that business needs are static… They are not.

At one time thousand of people were employeed to build ICBMs… THe business need has changed. Is that the C-Levels fault?

Let’s look at it a different way. Your claim that CEO made a bad decision and needs to pay for their error is also incorrect. Those employees were given a job and paid for their time and efforts. Perhaps that is a job they would have not had at all. That actually seems like an error in favor of the employee and not the CEO as they are usually performance based compensations.

As far as your comment that it is the Rank and File that suffers… Maybe that’s true…

But anyone that feels that way is assuming that they are entitled to their job…

There are no guarntees in life and no one should ever position themselves to be wholely dependent on one thing.

CE

P.S.

I should have read the rest of this thread before posting now realizing that ppl have rebuted the same points over again. Sorry for the redundancy.[/quote]

What about the CEO who over-expanded his community hospital and bought overpriced commercial properties during the bubble and then had to slash and diveste who was still being rewarded with bonuses as he was doing so?
Yes those who lost their jobs were paid for a while but his empire building clearly hurt the hospital itself and after he finally abruptly resigned the board looked at selling us off to a stronger partner. Actually he didn’t abruptly resign, he did it after the Unions fought a media war with him over all his bonuses and special retirement packages he was receiving as he cut services via layoffs. Some were saying he deserves the extra pay for doing a necessary dirty job.
We on this blog otoh saw all the economic distress coming and would have hunkered down instead of expanding : )
I don’t view your post is redundant BTW.[/quote]

Well that is a different story… However in a lot of those types of situation the CEO was not acting independently and had the backing of a board. If he had been successful more jobs would have followed.

In general I don’t disagree with you. I have seen CEO use companies as their own little investment firm but again… The “little guy’ argument doesn’t hold with me. I am a little guy and never take my job for granted nor am I ever without a plan B.

The world just isn’t fair… and to wax on about these type of situations is futile. My grandfathers said the same things that my grandsons will complain about… Its just life.

CE

Ironically I am listen to “My favorite things…” ala Coltrane style… Makes life all the sweeter even when discussing these things…

[CA renter]

That’s because you can neither read nor reason.

(edited to add: That’s for pri/harvey)

[svelte]

[quote=moneymaker]When profitable companies layoff people is it basically corporate greed at work? [/quote]

If you replaced your grass with rock and tore out all the shrubbery, would you keep your gardener?

Why would anyone expect a company to keep someone on the payroll if the company felt they no longer needed their services?

[moneymaker]

“If I were a rich man” I would show off my wealth with well maintained grass. Isn’t that how the whole grass thing started anyway? During feudal times a land owner would plant grass instead of food plants just to show that he didn’t need to. When times are tough for a company then I totally understand it, it is just not a good thing to lay off people to maximize profits in my opinion. Replacing unions with contract labor and legal workers with illegal is just taking us one more step closer to “soylent green”.

[svelte]

[quote=moneymaker]”If I were a rich man” I would show off my wealth with well maintained grass. Isn’t that how the whole grass thing started anyway? During feudal times a land owner would plant grass instead of food plants just to show that he didn’t need to.
[/quote]

Grass was an analogy to give a concrete example of a similar situation. Not sure why you wandered into your like of grass and why grass came into existence?

[quote=moneymaker]
When times are tough for a company then I totally understand it, it is just not a good thing to lay off people to maximize profits in my opinion.
[/quote]

I have no idea why a company would keep an employee they don’t currently need and don’t expect to need in the future. Companies are not charities.

[quote=moneymaker]
Replacing unions with contract labor and legal workers with illegal is just taking us one more step closer to “soylent green”.[/quote]

That’s a totally different situation. Your original statement did not discuss hiring contract labor or illegal immigrants to replace laid off employees. The conversation just drifted.

[moneymaker]

I think the analogy is appropriate, perhaps too deep, in my thinking the order does not really matter. Wether the employer hired illegals to replace or hired them in the beginning makes no difference. Lets say the company that just layed off 6000 workers suddenly sees the economy improving don’t you think it might be prudent to hire contract labor in case the economy suddenly takes a nose dive again. So let’s say you’re significant other is no longer meeting your needs, do you just dump them? I’m currently employed but I can see the direction of the labor market and it’s not rosy, average job kept is like 4.4 years and among the younger workers it is much shorter.

[outtamojo]

Be like the Donald:
“Basically I’ve used the laws of the country to my advantage and to other people’s advantage just as Leon Black has, Carl Icahn, Henry Kravis has, just as many, many others on top of the business world have.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/
The premise has always been you deserve to be rewarded for risking your capital but where is the risk?

Workers of the world unite!

[CA renter]

[quote=outtamojo]Be like the Donald:
“Basically I’ve used the laws of the country to my advantage and to other people’s advantage just as Leon Black has, Carl Icahn, Henry Kravis has, just as many, many others on top of the business world have.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/
The premise has always been you deserve to be rewarded for risking your capital but where is the risk?

Workers of the world unite![/quote]

This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Lost in the capitalist propaganda of “risk and rewards” is the fact that most rich people take very few personal risks. More privatization of the profits and socialization of the losses…and it will always be this way until people start to wake up (which is finally starting to happen, but it’s a very slow process).

[no_such_reality]

That is what sleazy Donald is really good at. Taking a big gamble with other people’s money. He’s good at getting them to believe that it’s a good deal, they’ll get a good return if he succeeds, he gets the lion share. They lose everything they put in if he fails. He walks away.

It’s called dumb money. There’s lots of dumb money.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Lost in the capitalist propaganda of “risk and rewards” is the fact that most rich people take very few personal risks. More privatization of the profits and socialization of the losses…and it will always be this way until people start to wake up (which is finally starting to happen, but it’s a very slow process).[/quote]

It totally depends on how you got rich. The innovators of the world Jobs, Gates, etc probably deserve to have gotten rich. They all took significant risks. The problem is that eventually these people move on from their companies and you end up with Wharton grads running them. Most of these Grads don’t have the innovative skills of those they replaced so they start thinking in the short term and what’s good for the share price. Eventually most of them tend to run the company into the ground, but in the process they get rich. How many companies are still around from 50 years ago, 100 years ago? Not many.

Essentially you want to somehow prevent the well connected from going to Wharton and get the C-Level job because they don’t deserve to be rich in your mind. I don’t see how you can actually accomplish this though.

[Anonymous]

[quote=livinincali]How many companies are still around from 50 years ago, 100 years ago? Not many.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S%26P_500_companies

Not going to bother to count, but I’d say most of these have been around at least 50 years, with possible name changes, mergers, etc.

Companies that are a century old are a little less common but many of the biggest are: GE, Ford, …

And if a company doesn’t make it past 100 years, so what? That’s a helluva run for any investment.

The fact that there’s a mix of old and new on the large companies list really illustrates that the natural selection process in the capitalist system works. Well managed businesses rise to the top and stay there.

[spdrun]

Off the top of my head, in the US.
GE
Ford
Emerson Electric
Union Pacific
Westinghouse
Steinway & Sons (pianos)

[Author]

Posts