iheartmaytag
Well-known member
You know how badly the economy has tanked when demand for TVs have fallen in the midst of the DTV conversion.
Now it's Corning--When will the carnage end?
- Thread starter iheartmaytag
- Start date
Help Support :
I feel sorry
for the line employees, but not a bit sorry for "management."
I wonder if they would have been any better off if they hadn't sold Pyrex and Corningware to World Kitchen?
Oh, Sunday afternoon, I was at Bed Bath and Beyond, and the only "Corning" they had on the floor was the faux! stoneware s*&#.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
for the line employees, but not a bit sorry for "management."
I wonder if they would have been any better off if they hadn't sold Pyrex and Corningware to World Kitchen?
Oh, Sunday afternoon, I was at Bed Bath and Beyond, and the only "Corning" they had on the floor was the faux! stoneware s*&#.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
Being let go is never easy for anyone, but this litany of anger against "management" is becoming trying.
Manangers, CEOs and the lot are there to make decision, and like all mortals sometimes they are wrong. Everyone and their mother seems to have an idea they could have done this or that better. Well get yourself a spot in such position and see where it gets you.
Just as with the shares market, no one was complaining when their investments were going through the roof, but when things started to go the other way, it is time to start building tumbrils.
The simple fact of the matter for any business is that when demand falls for a product or service, there aren't too many choices.
You can keep everyone on the payroll, along with the associated costs, even if they are producing nothing, or goods that will go straight into inventory and sit there (which brings costs of it's own), or you can look for ways to decrease costs and keep the company alive.
For what it's worth, most American companies are pretty lean by historical standards. Productivity is up using fewer workers, and that trend is only growing as global competition makes it a pretty tough world out there for any business.
In case anyone bothers to look, "white collar" jobs, including all levels of management and such have been shrinking as well.
Manangers, CEOs and the lot are there to make decision, and like all mortals sometimes they are wrong. Everyone and their mother seems to have an idea they could have done this or that better. Well get yourself a spot in such position and see where it gets you.
Just as with the shares market, no one was complaining when their investments were going through the roof, but when things started to go the other way, it is time to start building tumbrils.
The simple fact of the matter for any business is that when demand falls for a product or service, there aren't too many choices.
You can keep everyone on the payroll, along with the associated costs, even if they are producing nothing, or goods that will go straight into inventory and sit there (which brings costs of it's own), or you can look for ways to decrease costs and keep the company alive.
For what it's worth, most American companies are pretty lean by historical standards. Productivity is up using fewer workers, and that trend is only growing as global competition makes it a pretty tough world out there for any business.
In case anyone bothers to look, "white collar" jobs, including all levels of management and such have been shrinking as well.
Well, one writes from one's own experience.
We have never been in management.
We have seen many friends, neighbors and family members penalized from ill-advised management decisions.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
We have never been in management.
We have seen many friends, neighbors and family members penalized from ill-advised management decisions.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
This anger is the result of outrageous greed, not "bad decisions". E.g. John Thain, the last president of Bank of America, gave out $4 billion in bonuses for the 4th quarter of 2008, right before he announced $15 billion in losses from Merrill-Lynch for that same quarter. This is the same man who received $83 million in salary for 2007, and the same financial institutions who received $125 billion in taxpayer money in Bush's bailout bill. Simply obscene, and IMO there should be far more than anger: people should be sent to jail for this grand theft.
"Average annual CEO pay at S&P 500 companies hit $10.54 million last year, or 344 times the pay of the average American worker. Thirty years ago, CEO pay was only 30 to 40 times the pay of the average worker."
"Average annual CEO pay at S&P 500 companies hit $10.54 million last year, or 344 times the pay of the average American worker. Thirty years ago, CEO pay was only 30 to 40 times the pay of the average worker."
So They Received "Vast" Amounts
In wages and benefits, what of it? Aside from whatever funds came later in terms of government aide, the rest came from the company itself.
Speaking of vast wages, where it s the outrage when sports players are awarded several millions or tens of millions and then fail to perform? Hmmm? When actors and actresses are given tens of millions per picture along with other benefits and said film in so many words, stinks and or otherwise does badly? Don't see anyone ready to lynch Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise or the lot.
Again, everyone wants to extract a pound of flesh from "bankers" and the lot, quickly forgetting that the boom set up by those same systems allowed many Americans to live beyond, well beyond their means.
Without credit markets developed to purchase debt backed by credit cards, mortgages and the lot, things would look more like the 1950's or so, that recent history.
Outside of the United States, credit as one knows it simply does not exsist. If one was in France, try using your debit card or credit card to purchase more than what was either in your bank account, or limit. The transaction simply will be declined, and there is no such thing as calling for an "authorization", or credit limit increase, or over draft. You spend what what you have, and that is that. Buying a home is the same. One comes up with a sizable down payment and one's mortgage is based upon what one can afford.
Yes, those bankers and credit markets took large risks, and to some were either justy compensated or over paid, depending upon which side of the fence one sits. However one thing is quite certian, without those risks and the "bubble" they created the United States would have been a poorer place these past several years.
What you don't hear Obama and his Clinton era gang speaking about is what is going to replace the above in terms of growth. The US hardly manufactures anything anymore, and protectionism is not a wise thing for a nation mired in debt, and printing money like mad to finance various schemes and programs.
In wages and benefits, what of it? Aside from whatever funds came later in terms of government aide, the rest came from the company itself.
Speaking of vast wages, where it s the outrage when sports players are awarded several millions or tens of millions and then fail to perform? Hmmm? When actors and actresses are given tens of millions per picture along with other benefits and said film in so many words, stinks and or otherwise does badly? Don't see anyone ready to lynch Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise or the lot.
Again, everyone wants to extract a pound of flesh from "bankers" and the lot, quickly forgetting that the boom set up by those same systems allowed many Americans to live beyond, well beyond their means.
Without credit markets developed to purchase debt backed by credit cards, mortgages and the lot, things would look more like the 1950's or so, that recent history.
Outside of the United States, credit as one knows it simply does not exsist. If one was in France, try using your debit card or credit card to purchase more than what was either in your bank account, or limit. The transaction simply will be declined, and there is no such thing as calling for an "authorization", or credit limit increase, or over draft. You spend what what you have, and that is that. Buying a home is the same. One comes up with a sizable down payment and one's mortgage is based upon what one can afford.
Yes, those bankers and credit markets took large risks, and to some were either justy compensated or over paid, depending upon which side of the fence one sits. However one thing is quite certian, without those risks and the "bubble" they created the United States would have been a poorer place these past several years.
What you don't hear Obama and his Clinton era gang speaking about is what is going to replace the above in terms of growth. The US hardly manufactures anything anymore, and protectionism is not a wise thing for a nation mired in debt, and printing money like mad to finance various schemes and programs.
A simple question for you, or anyone else reading this thread:
How is the U.S. supposed to compete with $2/hour labor, and corporations who do not pay benefits, or have to be concerned with destroying the environment?
I'll wait patiently for some kind of answer, other than a certain degree of protectionism.
How is the U.S. supposed to compete with $2/hour labor, and corporations who do not pay benefits, or have to be concerned with destroying the environment?
I'll wait patiently for some kind of answer, other than a certain degree of protectionism.
YAY LAUNDRESS!!!! Sing it!!. You are so wise!!!
Well, one assumes you are speaking of the China, and other Asian nations, along with India and other places, as the EU has labour and environmental laws that make the United State's efforts look puny.
There really isn't a way to compete on that scale, however what those nations have done is purchase vast amounts of US debt and dollars with their excess reserves. That has allowed the United States, again, to live well beyond it's means without raising interest rates, and taxes.
The above is why despite all the jaw-boning done by American officals of both parties, no one really wants to go toe to toe with China. All the later must do is stop, or even slow their purchase of US debt and that is the end of the world as we all know it. Such a trade war with the US would harm China as well, but just which population do you think would suffer the most?
There really isn't a way to compete on that scale, however what those nations have done is purchase vast amounts of US debt and dollars with their excess reserves. That has allowed the United States, again, to live well beyond it's means without raising interest rates, and taxes.
The above is why despite all the jaw-boning done by American officals of both parties, no one really wants to go toe to toe with China. All the later must do is stop, or even slow their purchase of US debt and that is the end of the world as we all know it. Such a trade war with the US would harm China as well, but just which population do you think would suffer the most?
As for athletes and other performers
it is rare for them to be directly responsible for the employment of people outside their own retinues.
Company executives, however, are another story entirely.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
it is rare for them to be directly responsible for the employment of people outside their own retinues.
Company executives, however, are another story entirely.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
If you look at countries outside the U.S. with the highest and fastest growing GNPs, they are either protectionist (e.g. Germany) or communist (e.g. Vietnam). These are the only two strategies that can compete with China, and given those two options I think nearly all Americans will prefer the first.
I also think if the U.S. were to close its borders tomorrow to all trade, in the short term we'd scramble to find shoes and TVs, but we'd survive. We've dealt with far worse in our history.
I also think if the U.S. were to close its borders tomorrow to all trade, in the short term we'd scramble to find shoes and TVs, but we'd survive. We've dealt with far worse in our history.
Err, Germany is having it's own set of economic problems at the moment, it's "protectionist" stance notwithstanding.
German governments live in dreaded fear of inflation,and rightly so given it's role within the recent history of that country. This over riding concern colours much if not most of German economic policy and governmental feelings.
As for the United States rolling up it's borders to trade, it's not possible anymore, WTO and other agreements aside. First of all many US companines are multi-national, just as other companies around the world are as well. A vast number of American companies are wholly owned or partially owned by companies away from these shores.
Next, there is the fact that jobs, plants, and so forth have been transferred out of this country, and to rebuild that capacity would cost vast sums. Sums neither the government nor priviate equity markets have nor are willing to fund.
German governments live in dreaded fear of inflation,and rightly so given it's role within the recent history of that country. This over riding concern colours much if not most of German economic policy and governmental feelings.
As for the United States rolling up it's borders to trade, it's not possible anymore, WTO and other agreements aside. First of all many US companines are multi-national, just as other companies around the world are as well. A vast number of American companies are wholly owned or partially owned by companies away from these shores.
Next, there is the fact that jobs, plants, and so forth have been transferred out of this country, and to rebuild that capacity would cost vast sums. Sums neither the government nor priviate equity markets have nor are willing to fund.
Are you kidding me? We've lost 12 TRILLION DOLLARS of national wealth under George W. Bush, and you're telling us reinvesting in our industrual base would cost too much? I've heard some astonishing claims but this has to take the cake.
As for multinationals, yes they would be among the first casualties of protectionism, and the sooner they die the better for America (I mean the American people, not Walmart).
As for multinationals, yes they would be among the first casualties of protectionism, and the sooner they die the better for America (I mean the American people, not Walmart).
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
Why don't we all yet understand that the majority of the problems this country and world markets are experiencing now are a direct result of individuals living well beyond their means. Not banks, not manufacturers, not realtors, not mortgage lenders. PEOPLE. CITIZENS. Whatever the hell you want to call them. Corporations responded to the demand as would members of any economic community. So why doesn't the public start taking some of the responsibility for the situation they helped create by leveraging credit they could not afford?? Buying $60,000 SUVs, boats, vacations, etc., on home equity and other lines of credit that they had no business using because they could not afford it. But it's easier to blame business than take responsibility for one's own actions. Decisions were made at management levels that were right for their time, but like anything else, hindsight is 20/20. When management has a crystal ball to foretell the future, then we can put the blame squarely on them. In the meantime, let's look at the folks who started the downward spirals...the consuming public....who consumed and consumed and consumed until they could no longer pay the piper. So because they screwed up, suddenly we should all be "forgiving" their debts?? Bullshit. Ain't no one paying my bills, and I have zero sympathy because, unfortunately, I know too many of these people myself. While there are certainly innocent victims of this fallout, they are the minority, but the true victims nonetheless.
Unless this country smartens up and takes back its industrial base and starts looking out for its own instead of every god damned third world and other nation on the planet, nothing is gonna change quickly. And yeah, we'll have to compete with low paying wage jobs in Mexico and China, but that's the way it is. Time to put our big girl panties on and just deal with it. It's time to make China man up to the fact that they've undervalued their currency for years to give them an unfair trade advantage with the rest of the world. Oh, and we'll need those banks and investment banking to provide the funding for most of this infrastructure buildup, so let's not shut them all down just yet.
Unless this country smartens up and takes back its industrial base and starts looking out for its own instead of every god damned third world and other nation on the planet, nothing is gonna change quickly. And yeah, we'll have to compete with low paying wage jobs in Mexico and China, but that's the way it is. Time to put our big girl panties on and just deal with it. It's time to make China man up to the fact that they've undervalued their currency for years to give them an unfair trade advantage with the rest of the world. Oh, and we'll need those banks and investment banking to provide the funding for most of this infrastructure buildup, so let's not shut them all down just yet.
Don't wish to get into a battle of economics, this is not the place.
However the point in your statement is National "wealth".
Wealth is not the same as cash. Much of that loss was in assets on paper(such as shares) or some such as real estate (commercial and residential), which many on both sides realised was in some cases very over valued.
If someone steals $500,000 out of a safe in your home, you have lost real money. If your home goes down in value by $50,000, you have lost nothing tangible, except what someone might have been willing to pay for your home. There was never any promise you would have gotten that amount. Maybe you would, maybe you would get less or more, but there was no way of telling.
What Amercians are going through now is a major readustment to their wealth. No longer able to use the perceived value of their homes as a piggy bank, nor able to continue running up debt based upon fantasy figures of future potential income.
If one looks at who benefitted the most from this last bubble, it is not just the "fat cats" everyone wishes to lynch. But our parents, and other elderly who did what they were taught by the lessions of the Great Depression; they worked hard, saved, purchased homes and stayed put for the most part, the market did the rest. Someone who paid $25,000 for their home in 1965, probably could have sold it up until recently for several hundred thousands. Combined with savings, a pension and the lot, these persons were sitting pretty (until the recent market upheavals).
The Baby Boom generation and those that are following are going to have a very hard time keeping up with their parents standard of living, much less passing it. This is not just a Republican or Democrat thing either, for decisions made when either party were in power are responsible. Problem is now all those chits are coming due and there is no money in the kitty. Obama and the Democrats are making all sorts of proposals, but not saying how or where the money is going to come from. On the other side, the Republicans probably aren't offering much assistance either. What is clear is taxes are going to have to rise sooner or later, and not just on the "rich", either.
What one must remember about wealth and the wealthy these days, is that it is portable. Tax certian persons to death, and they will leave one area of the country for another, if not the entire country all together. Ever wonder why so many UK residents, especially the rich and or famous end up on these shores? Well it has much to do with the fact the taxes in the United States are vastly lower than in Britian. Same reason Russians worth billions flee that country and live in Britian.
However the point in your statement is National "wealth".
Wealth is not the same as cash. Much of that loss was in assets on paper(such as shares) or some such as real estate (commercial and residential), which many on both sides realised was in some cases very over valued.
If someone steals $500,000 out of a safe in your home, you have lost real money. If your home goes down in value by $50,000, you have lost nothing tangible, except what someone might have been willing to pay for your home. There was never any promise you would have gotten that amount. Maybe you would, maybe you would get less or more, but there was no way of telling.
What Amercians are going through now is a major readustment to their wealth. No longer able to use the perceived value of their homes as a piggy bank, nor able to continue running up debt based upon fantasy figures of future potential income.
If one looks at who benefitted the most from this last bubble, it is not just the "fat cats" everyone wishes to lynch. But our parents, and other elderly who did what they were taught by the lessions of the Great Depression; they worked hard, saved, purchased homes and stayed put for the most part, the market did the rest. Someone who paid $25,000 for their home in 1965, probably could have sold it up until recently for several hundred thousands. Combined with savings, a pension and the lot, these persons were sitting pretty (until the recent market upheavals).
The Baby Boom generation and those that are following are going to have a very hard time keeping up with their parents standard of living, much less passing it. This is not just a Republican or Democrat thing either, for decisions made when either party were in power are responsible. Problem is now all those chits are coming due and there is no money in the kitty. Obama and the Democrats are making all sorts of proposals, but not saying how or where the money is going to come from. On the other side, the Republicans probably aren't offering much assistance either. What is clear is taxes are going to have to rise sooner or later, and not just on the "rich", either.
What one must remember about wealth and the wealthy these days, is that it is portable. Tax certian persons to death, and they will leave one area of the country for another, if not the entire country all together. Ever wonder why so many UK residents, especially the rich and or famous end up on these shores? Well it has much to do with the fact the taxes in the United States are vastly lower than in Britian. Same reason Russians worth billions flee that country and live in Britian.
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
Right on target Laundress.....
"So why doesn't the public start taking some of the responsibility for the situation they helped create by leveraging credit they could not afford??"
"But it's easier to blame business than take responsibility for one's own actions."
"Unless this country smartens up and takes back its industrial base and starts looking out for its own instead of every god damned third world and other nation on the planet, nothing is gonna change quickly."
A freakin MEN!!!!!!!
"But it's easier to blame business than take responsibility for one's own actions."
"Unless this country smartens up and takes back its industrial base and starts looking out for its own instead of every god damned third world and other nation on the planet, nothing is gonna change quickly."
A freakin MEN!!!!!!!
I wouldn't let upper management off the hook so easily. True there is more than enough blame to go around, but the focus of every company for the last two decades has been to increase stock value at the expense of everything else. This was not always the case. For generations a fair return was OK, then from the 80's up until now it had to be huge returns or the management team was out.
I have a BBA and did retail in all aspects for years - sales, area manager, store management and region management. Luckily I got out before things got really rough, but some of the things I hear from former coworkers really make me glad I'm long gone.
I have a BBA and did retail in all aspects for years - sales, area manager, store management and region management. Luckily I got out before things got really rough, but some of the things I hear from former coworkers really make me glad I'm long gone.
Blaming the public for this collapse is not only wrong IMO, it's downright ridiculous. No one has ever held a gun to a bank's head and forced them to issue a mortgage or credit card. People have always lived according to their means, they still do today and they will tomorrow. They've always wanted the best house they can get. The same goes for cars and food and everything else.
What changed in the last 10 years is a collapse of standards in our government and corporations: a collapse of banking and lending standards, an intentional and systematic gutting of government oversight of corporations, and the continued gutting of America's manufacturing and industrial bases. There's not a damned thing wrong with "the public".
Also, I wonder how many participants in this discussion, who claim that we need to rebuild our industrial base, shop at Walmart.
What changed in the last 10 years is a collapse of standards in our government and corporations: a collapse of banking and lending standards, an intentional and systematic gutting of government oversight of corporations, and the continued gutting of America's manufacturing and industrial bases. There's not a damned thing wrong with "the public".
Also, I wonder how many participants in this discussion, who claim that we need to rebuild our industrial base, shop at Walmart.
