backtop


Print 74 comment(s) - last by spluurfg.. on Apr 14 at 9:38 AM

Dell says expect more than the originally announced 8,800 jobs to be cut

Dell announced earlier this week that it would close down its Austin, Texas PC manufacturing plant and laying off 900 employees in the Austin area. Dell also said at that time that it intended to cut an additional 8,800 jobs within the company in an effort to save a total of $3 billion over the next several years.

Michael Dell, CEO and Founder of Dell, said on Thursday, “We're decreasing our head count. It's declined in the past two quarters and it will decline again in the first quarter. And we will go past the 8,800 target previously discussed as we achieve everything that I'm outlining today."

The AP reports that 5,500 Dell jobs have been cut so far with 1,000 more cuts coming this quarter. However, Dell CFO Donald Carty does say that there has been an increase in frontline personnel like sales and customer support for a net reduction of 3,200 jobs so far.

Dell isn’t alone in cutting jobs; Motorola is having its own problem with profitability and too many mouths to feed. Motorola announced recently that it wanted to break into two companies in an effort to become more profitable.

Motorola announced today that it would cut an additional 2,600 jobs adding up to 10,000 jobs cut since the beginning of 2007. The reason for the job cuts is blamed in part on the poor sales of cellular phones. The layoffs are the first wave of a plan to save Motorola $500 million this year.

The Wall Street Journal quotes Motorola from a statement saying, “The work-force reductions are intended to make financial resources available for strategic business investment, while better aligning operational costs and expenses with business growth.”

Motorola is cutting jobs both abroad and at home, 354 of the jobs cut were in Plantation, Florida where handsets for use on WiMax networks were in development. The sad state of WiMax in the U.S. with Sprint continually postponing its Xohm rollout likely had an effect on those cuts.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Here's an idea
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2008 3:51:01 PM , Rating: 5
1) Release some innovative and quality products. Motorola more on the innovative side but Dell on both.

2) As long as you're making a profit, you shouldn't be cutting jobs. Especially if you're raising executives salaries. What does that do?
a) Make you look like the money, grubbing corporations everyone talks about.
b) Create less people who can buy your products.

I love it how it has become expected that a companies profits should go up every year. And if they aren't, then they must be not doing something right or have too many employees. People wonder why the average engineer will change jobs almost(or more than) 10 times in their career. Because companies are constantly cutting jobs.

That's why I'm pretty happy with my company. We lost some major bids for work but our management's focus is on not laying anyone off. Nor have they. They just do what they have to do to get work in the building. Granted this is for full time employees. Contractors come and go as needed. But the majority of the people here are full-time.




RE: Here's an idea
By fic2 on 4/4/2008 3:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you on the innovative products. Motorola cell phones - they produced the killer product in the Razr but since then they have only done different colors of the Razr and now a Razr2. Big deal. They don't even really have a phone with a built-in keyboard which is needed since all the teens do is text.


RE: Here's an idea
By HaZaRd2K6 on 4/4/2008 4:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They don't even really have a phone with a built-in keyboard


What about the Moto Q? http://tinyurl.com/63gzvm

Personally, I've got a KRZR and I love it. It's much slimmer than both the RAZR and the RAZR2, but it does everything those phones can do. Motorola's 4LTR series has a lot of nice phones, actually. The SLVR, RAZR, KRZR and PEBL are/were all big sellers here in Canada.


RE: Here's an idea
By sprockkets on 4/4/2008 8:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
If they came out with a 3G A1200 aka MING, I would buy it. But nothing recently perks my interest with Motorola. Oh well.


RE: Here's an idea
By aebiv on 4/8/2008 5:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
I love my Q9h, and the KRZR served me very well. Motorola has good products, just like the RAZR2 has a lot of power behind it. What I see being the problem is, sales staff at AT&T being highly uneducated and Motorola not making all the tools and abilities of their phone understood to everyone.

Just like the little gal I bought my Tilt/HTC Kaiser from. She swore up and down that the iPhone did everything the Tilt did, and did it better.

Motorola suffers from not being risky enough with new product design, and being far to conservative in marketing.


RE: Here's an idea
By HaZaRd2K6 on 4/4/2008 3:59:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I love it how it has become expected that a companies profits should go up every year.


It's that way because a publicly-traded corporation's only goal is to maximize profit. If they can't do that then they aren't achieving what their shareholders demand of them.


RE: Here's an idea
By dever on 4/4/2008 4:13:26 PM , Rating: 4
And I can't see any reason why there should be any other explicit goals. They're not running a daycare.

In FITCamaro's example, his employer makes an effort not to layoff employees. That is a BUSINESS decision, just as laying off employees is a BUSINESS decision. There is no moral component... and neither should there be a moral component. If your employer keeps you employed at the cost of making the company unprofitable they are doing everyone a disservice... including you... because everyone will lose their jobs, not just a few.

How can I say this... IT'S JUST BUSINESS!


RE: Here's an idea
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/4/2008 4:19:20 PM , Rating: 1
Not really. You can cut 10% of your head count each year and use those empty slots to bring in new people. This way you can constantly cycle out the losers and try to get lucky during the hiring cycle and find a few winners.

BTW, CEO's need a pay cut. If their pay is going up while the company is going down, there is a problem.


RE: Here's an idea
By therealnickdanger on 4/4/2008 4:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
However, by cutting employees, the company continues to "go up" as well as their salaries, so they - and their stockholders - win.


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/5/2008 12:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
The economy losses as less people with jobs means less people buying product, witch is a large part if this downward spiraling economy. Funny how every one misses THAT component.


RE: Here's an idea
By rsmech on 4/5/2008 2:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
So your suggestion is that if they just kept these 8,000 to 10,000 employees & even hire more that will fix everything? All companies need to increase their workforce by 10% or more & everything will be fine. So the secret to a successful business is he who hires the most employees wins, (makes the most profits.)

I think the consumer went before these layoffs started. If everyones worried about a slowing economy it's not in the corporations hands, it's in the consumers. They are the golden egg. It's the consumers who are telling the corporations we aren't buying your product or services yet because the news says it's bad out there. If you want to see who's impacting the economy just look in the mirror & stop listening to the self perpetuation doom & gloom on the news.


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/5/2008 10:08:35 PM , Rating: 1
Less people with jobs means less people buying goods, less people buying goods means more companies with more layoffs.

And yes I firmly believe that if we had more higher paying jobs that would HELP the economy, what do you think this stupid stimulus plan is for. Its too put money in peoples hands.

You think the consumer stopped buying before the layoffs started, interesting theory, I think you're wrong. I think out sourcing was a big part of what started this, and the fact that companies think they need to incress their bottum line each year. Unless you believe that a company can grow to infinity then their is a problem.


RE: Here's an idea
By rsmech on 4/6/2008 5:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You think the consumer stopped buying before the layoffs started, interesting theory, I think you're wrong.


I will guarantee that is the case especially in housing. Why do you think there is an inventory of unsold homes? Nobody wanted to believe it so they kept building. The companies kept at it, it was the consumers who quit first. Look into it before discrediting it. The housing market is begging for consumers, we never left, we never slowed until it was too late, the consumer left us because of the tragedy news reports. They created a self fulfilling prophecy.


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/6/2008 8:52:56 PM , Rating: 1
Why did the consumer quite buying homes, because these banks were giving out loans people could never pay off. As soon as people were in to much debt they could no longer get more loans. Then we begin the circle. A few lost their jobs, they foreclosed causing the worth of a home to drop and since banks were loosing money they upped interest rates and made it harder to get loans, since people were already in debt they couldn't get loans. Houses continue to drop and people continue to not be able to afford them.

A lot of what wrong with this society is the debt of the average man. Loosing your job will not help that. BTW I didn't discredit what you said, The forces that drive the economy are pretty complex and tied together in ways its hard to tell what comes first. Like the chicken and the egg.

But it's likely to get worse before it gets better.


RE: Here's an idea
By dever on 4/7/2008 3:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
SlyNine, you're arguing against well established Supply and Demand. Do you really expect companies to increase supply in the face of decreased demand?


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/8/2008 1:13:40 AM , Rating: 2
You cannot have supply if their is no demand. You cannot have demand if their is no consumer. You cannot have a consumer with out jobs or loans. You are seriously trying to argue against that ??


RE: Here's an idea
By BansheeX on 4/5/2008 4:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
You assume wrongly that the people losing their job are not going to find another and shift to an area where the production is needed. Funny how everyone misses that integral component of a free market.

The only thing to screw it up is people like you getting government to interfere under the pretense of helping, leading to legislation which introduces privileges, destroying small business competition and incentivizing outsourcing and monopolistic behavior: corporate tax breaks, special subsidies using taxpayer money, managed trade agreements like NAFTA, bank bailouts, no-bid contracts, on and on and on. So instead of natural supply and demand, you have companies paying top dollar lobbying politicians, who upon getting elected, are obliged to do this crap for them in return. That's not a truly free market, that's massive socialist intervention and Republican and Democrat motivational speakers alike are fooling the crapsauce out of you. Wake up.


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/5/2008 10:25:28 PM , Rating: 1
A totally free market doesn't exist either and you are fooling yourself if you think it would be better, It would be total anarchy. Fact is we need some regulation. Just how much and the correct balance I do not know, But we are not there.

Im assuming wrongly that these people are not going to find another job that pays them AS MUCH as they currently are? really where's the proof on that. And as far as lobbing these politicians did you know that they put a lock out so UPRR employees couldn't even strike, oh seems fair enough when they stomp on the workers rights doesn't it.

How would you consider Nafta (cafta), Bank Bailouts, No-Bidcontracts and anything of the such something I'm pulling for, Im about helping the workers in the USA not about making it easier to shift labor to countries we cannot control the labor. If we cannot control their labor how can we make sure we have a fair competition with American workers. No I'm against anything that makes it cheaper to leave this country and get cheap/slave labor somwhere else with no regulation at all. You can bring up these bad things that have nothing to do with what I'm saying to try and make my 2 cents sound like crap if you want I guess.


RE: Here's an idea
By ghost101 on 4/6/2008 6:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
Whats your plan on stopping outsourcing or hiring foreign labour? Ban companies from doing so? Import tariffs? Minimum wages? Anti-immigration policies?

I suggest you look at why the USA is the economic powerhouse of the world. Then reconsider everything you've said.


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/6/2008 8:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yea out sourcing and hiring foreign labor has been such a god send for us hasn't it... Sarcasm alert. Our ability to manufacture and produce products and sell them is what made us an economic powerhouse, we are loosing that and we are loosing our economic powerhouse.


RE: Here's an idea
By dever on 4/7/2008 3:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your so-called "ability" to produce... was born of the freedom to produce. We've slowly ratcheted up the regulations, restrictions and corporate favoratism by government, crippling the natural "ability" of the free market to produce. The US became the greates because it started as the most Free. Now many in this country want to revert to authoritarian control of business/industry (which is actually just authoritarian control of the collections of individuals voluntarily cooperating to produce goods or services)... and all in the name of "progress."


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/8/2008 1:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
So you are saying the great depression was caused because government regulated big business? If you want to play the blame game on the government and ignore all the other factors that effect the market then be my guess.

We were in a growing economy then, what killed it is massive loans to people that could not pay them off. Now we are suffering the after effects.


RE: Here's an idea
By blwest on 4/5/2008 10:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
I hope your company cuts you, that way you can have even more time to post on DT.


RE: Here's an idea
By ghost101 on 4/6/2008 7:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
CEO wages are determined by labour market fundamentals. Supply and Demand. Good CEOs are in very short supply.

Health of the company is secondary to this. CEO performance also isnt entirely about in which direction a firm is going. A CEO which directs a company to lose 10% of its MCAP while the sector loses 20% on average is clearly a good one and needs to be rewarded in order to keep him at the firm.


RE: Here's an idea
By TALENT on 4/4/2008 10:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How can I say this... IT'S JUST BUSINESS!


Yeah until it's you. People are much more important than business.


RE: Here's an idea
By Oakley516 on 4/5/2008 1:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously, the employees at Dell are part of the problem with that company. Whether they are overpaid, or just inefficient workers, they aren't doing as good of a job as the employees at Dell's competitors.

So they have to go.


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/5/2008 2:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like speculation to me.


RE: Here's an idea
By FITCamaro on 4/5/2008 5:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
To me businesses need to be run with a moral component. Otherwise they will go to any length to make money.....kind of like they're doing....funny isn't it. Sweat shops, paying pennies an hour in 3rd world countries, etc. All because most companies no longer have morals.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to maximize your profit share. But if its done by screwing over those who helped make it possible, thats not right. You should reward those who work hard for you with some loyalty. Not cut them the second your stock slips 10 cents and you need to get it back up.


RE: Here's an idea
By ghost101 on 4/6/2008 7:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
As mentioned by other people, companies simply give what the consumer wants. If foreign and international laws allow cheap labour overseas and the consumer doesnt object, why is it wrong? Why should people listen to you? If you wish to change things like this, then engage in what you believe to be ethical consumption. Only then will firms change. Firms act within the law to satisfy consumers. So only 2 things can change, consumer wishes or the regulations. Again, i want to know what regulations can be put in place without damaging the economy.


RE: Here's an idea
By AmyM on 4/5/2008 12:01:28 AM , Rating: 3
Or as my Strategic Business Professor would say:

"A public company's sole purpose is to maximize shareholder wealth and nothing else"


RE: Here's an idea
By eye smite on 4/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Here's an idea
By AmyM on 4/5/2008 10:16:34 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
This is a trend that's been getting worse and worse for the last 10 years. Until the execs in charge of companies right now get replaced or die off, I don't think this lust for greed is going to end anytime soon.

So would you turn down a job that paid more for a similar job that paid less?

This concept that you refer to as “lust for greed” is known as the free market, and it has been around for a lot longer than 10 years. Furthermore, unless our society becomes a Socialist State, this will continue when the current crop of “execs” are “replaced” or “die”. The purpose of a company is not to provide jobs but to maximize shareholder wealth. Jobs are nothing more than a resource necessary for a company to operate.


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/5/2008 1:17:35 PM , Rating: 1
Why can't we have a free market where the people at top realize their "free market" has its limitations. If they abuse it, it will fail. Right now they are abusing the hell out of it. Taking advantage of it anyway possible.

This economy runs on consumer demand, without the consumer their is no economy. I don't think we need to go completely socialized or anything, But some small steps to maintain balance in our economy would be nice.


RE: Here's an idea
By rsmech on 4/5/2008 2:59:50 PM , Rating: 3
If they are abusing it the gov't & share holders will take care of it. There is already a system in place.

There are always those who abuse the system, it's not unlike the rest of life. Just look at robbery, murder, rape, ect. I think if you are looking for gov't to fix something maybe they should start on some of these other issues first.


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/5/2008 10:31:14 PM , Rating: 1
Start on issues that can make or break our economy, cause stress and lead people to robbery and murder, oh and their is already a system in place for that too.

Face it the Share Holders don't give a dam if these companies are abusing the system, and when I say that I don't mean in an illegal way. As with anything that's free, If people don't use it responsibly people will step in and make changes. Its been happening for the last 300 years in our country.


RE: Here's an idea
By ghost101 on 4/6/2008 7:04:12 AM , Rating: 2
What abuse?


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/6/2008 8:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
They take advantage of the situation to such extremes they really don't care who's shoes they step on to make a penny unless they get in trouble. That's abuse in my eyes.

But no your right this country's economy is doing great and people have less debt then ever.


RE: Here's an idea
By ghost101 on 4/8/2008 1:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
Nice obscure answer.

I could use that exact same sentence to criticise any business, government, country or institution in the world.


RE: Here's an idea
By SlyNine on 4/8/2008 1:20:04 AM , Rating: 2
Good thing I was pointing at a broad spectrum then eh. You are correct we try to abuse most things, However things do tend too improve over time much to the dismay of the people in power, Change is never good for them. Unless you want to argue Rome was better for the common man then the USA.


RE: Here's an idea
By ghost101 on 4/8/2008 9:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
My point is that, you gave a politician's answer. So once again, i'll ask, what abuse do you see? Who's stepping on who's feet? Give me some examples of abuse that you talk of relevant to the subject matter.

SlyNine, you just spew rhetoric with little knowledge of the underlying reasons for the current economic climate. You also argue with very circular logic.


RE: Here's an idea
By spluurfg on 4/4/2008 7:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love it how it has become expected that a companies profits should go up every year. And if they aren't, then they must be not doing something right or have too many employees. People wonder why the average engineer will change jobs almost(or more than) 10 times in their career. Because companies are constantly cutting jobs.


If you are referring to this expectation in terms of the share price, then the share price is valued as the discounted cash flow of expected dividends. Many stocks also have a built in expectation of increased profits in the future (and thus increased expected future dividends). When earnings growth slows, obviously this expectation goes away, causing the share price to become depressed. We call this speculation.

Believe it or not, the pay of senior management is typically determined by the board of directors, who are typically selected by vote of the shareholders. Restructuring plans will also not get very far without shareholder support. So blame the shareholders -- the people who own the company -- who want higher returns and think that paying a lot for senior managers and cutting costs is the way to achieve this.


RE: Here's an idea
By elgoliath on 4/7/2008 1:40:40 PM , Rating: 1
Correction, blame the shareholders that hold enough shares that they are able to vote in board members. If you don't own enough shares, you can't vote.

Interestingly you seem to gloss over the fact that the CEO's are appointed by boards comprised of wealthy friends. So, you have a board made up of friends, all of whom are in the upper echelon of wealth dispersement appointing another wealthy friend as CEO and approving a huge salary and bonuses NOT tied to how the company performs.

So yeah, lets blame the 'shareholders' for the acts of the few and their buddies that they put in power.

In my opinion, any company that does not have a 'moral' conscience is doomed to failure- the question I have is if we are going to let the failure be the end of our society or just the failure of the individual company. All those arguing for the government to get out of the free market are either in a position to be the ones in power after every thing collapses or are people in love with what others in power tell them and don't realize that a completely 'free' market will end in anarchy resulting in an even greater imbalance between the have's and the have not's.


RE: Here's an idea
By spluurfg on 4/9/2008 9:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Correction, blame the shareholders that hold enough shares that they are able to vote in board members. If you don't own enough shares, you can't vote.

Interestingly you seem to gloss over the fact that the CEO's are appointed by boards comprised of wealthy friends.


Uh... If we're talking about a common stock in say, a US company, one share grants you one vote. Now if you own very few shares and somebody else holds very many shares, then yes, he will have much more influence over the composition of the board members which are, I repeat, elected by shareholder vote.

If these board members have a habit of selecting incompetent CEO's that happen to be their personal friends, then I suggest that the shareholders sack said board members. To learn more about this system I recommend a finance and management 101 course or a similar business principles/management book.


RE: Here's an idea
By elgoliath on 4/10/2008 3:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, I'll be sure to take that class- that was such an original jab (how long did it take you to come up with that one?). Reading my post again, vote should have been nominate, but I wouldn't expect someone as knowledgeable as you to catch that.

Regardless, even tho I used the wrong word, it doesn't matter as it amounts to the same thing. If you can only vote on nominations by the people/groups that hold enough shares to actually be able to nominate, then you are just choosing between a turd and a douche bag. These same douche bags and turds don't even have to be voted in by a majority which allows management to stack the boards.

The current system is far far far from perfect. Are you arguing against making it better or just jumping on the wrong use of a word even tho the context clues were enough to figure out what I was talking about?

A quick google search turned up this guy who seems to hold a similar view:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Com...


RE: Here's an idea
By spluurfg on 4/11/2008 4:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I wholeheartedly agree that the current system is far from perfect -- all I am trying to say is that shareholder antipathy is as much to blame for weak corporate governance as the system itself. Look at how much can be accomplished by strong shareholder activists like Flowers or Hohn -- whether they are helping or hurting time till tell, but it sure shakes up stagnant managers and board members. If only all minority shareholders were as interested in their ownings...


RE: Here's an idea
By spluurfg on 4/11/2008 4:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
And sorry about the jab -- I didn't really mean it that way... there are just a lot of people on DT who honestly don't know about this stuff. You're absolutely right that if there's a very fragmented shareholder base then a group of larger minority shareholders will have much more power when nominating. It's like the two party political system in the US.


RE: Here's an idea
By elgoliath on 4/11/2008 1:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
I apologize for my reaction, I wasn't in a good mood yesterday and it seems anytime someone makes an honest mistake the first response from some posters is to take a class/read this book etc. because you obviously don't know as much as they do.

Part of the problem is the same problem with capitalism in general- he who has the gold makes the rules, and they tend to only make rules that help them. I look forward to some of the reform that is being talked about so we can get some of the power back to the average citizen.

Overall though, most companies seem to be doing a good job with keeping things in check, but we only ever hear about the boards and CEO's that are outrageous, like the one agreement for the CEO to be paid for 5 years after his death (how else does crap like that get approved unless the board IS made up of cronies of the CEO?). Unfortunately, the worst offenders also seem to be the biggest companies with the most 'gold' so they make, err, their lobbyists make the rules/laws. I hope that type of stuff gets reformed to- they should have to go through their local representative just like everyone else imo.


RE: Here's an idea
By spluurfg on 4/14/2008 9:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
Not at all -- I should have worded my post more constructively.

I think shareholder activism is starting to take sway in a few examples, but so far it's been driven largely by hedge funds and private equity groups like Steel Partners in Japan or TCI in the case of CSX. The trouble is that a lot of personal and institutional investors see equity as a way to get a nice return and gain exposure to the public markets, with little intention of actively managing it -- they assume the board and management will take care of things, drive reforms and operational improvements, etc. Plus, they are too resourced strapped to function as an active investor.

This antipathy allows the sort of cronyism we tend to see these days, with massive salary packages and golden parachutes that never should have been negotiated in the first place. There's been a bit of attention drawn to this -- like Rob Nardelli who got an insane $210m golden parachute from Home Depot even though the company was suffering got appointed to be CEO of Chrysler. However, this time Cerberus, the PE group who bought Chrysler, is giving him a mostly performance based salary.

Erm, so point of ramble is that there's this big divide between how CEO's are compensated and treated in public companies and private companies -- private equity groups and hedge funds tend to drive their managers with performance based pay, and to ruffle up underperforming public companies' boards with threat of removal. This is because PE groups and hedge funds know that this is a way to drive performance and increase returns.

Public companies tend to putter along, with investors not really having the mindset that they are the stock-holding owners of the company and should be driving change in order to maximize their return, but letting the larger minority shareholders vote in their friends. It's the equivalent of not voting because you think one vote won't make a difference.


You do it the smart way & not the easy way
By crystal clear on 4/5/2008 5:30:25 AM , Rating: 1
This from the A.P. report-

quote:
Carty also said the company plans a share repurchase of at least $1 billion this quarter after repurchasing $4 billion last quarter.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5itgY1825xiobliE...

Dell in short is/has been repurchasing its own shares to the tune of $5 billion in 2Qs.

Yes their intentions are good namely protecting share/shareholder value & interest.

But Dell is doing this at the wrong time & at the expense of jobs ,the savings derived are used for the repurchase initatives.

You undertake a share repurchase in times of prosperity just like Intel is doing it right now.

"When prosperity comes, do not use all of it."


Yes you spend & also save a portion for the bad times.

The above quote is the appropriate stratergy for any company in times of prosperity.

You dont use prosperity to pay out huge bonuses to CEOs etc or buy up other companies up,rather use it the smart way.

The smart way being to spread it ,namely-

Share repurchase programs,dividends,bonuses,R&D,new products planning & introductions,cutting manufacturing cost to increase profit margins,new marketing intiatives etc etc.

Dell right now should be focused on-

Marketing & increasing its sales & intorducing new products at competititive prices.

Increasing profit margins & marketshare.

Yes cost cutting should go on at a smaller scale,with redundents employees being transferred to other duties/depts with necessary retraining programmes in place to enable such moves.

Moving jobs overseas to China/India will not solve its problems-you do it the smart way & not the easy way.

This is certainly not the right time for share repurchase.




By crystal clear on 4/5/2008 10:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
A Dell employee speaks his mind-

I think that the Dell lay offs really suck !!! I work at Dell and alot of other people do to. We all need are jobs , Dont any body care !!!!! People are losing their homes cant pay rent or buy food or pay any of their bills, The unemployment dont hardley pay any thing god knows not enought to pay a car payment , then their is you insurance, who can pay for that Cobora coverage I cant't afford to pay that, can any one elese? What about the single mothers out there??. What about all the big wigs that make all the money at Dell , Why dont they cut some of their pay to save money ??? God knows that the little people like me that work at Dell dont get that big fat pay check, Hey matter of fact I only made maybe a little over 22,00.00 last year.I have been with Dell for a while now and it looks like to me that if they would quite spending money on all stupid stuff they might have some money, Like every time you turn around they are moving yellow side rails and buying more shelving, then they have to have some one to come move all this stuff, THAT TAKES ALOT OF MONEY.If the ware house is ruuning good and the parts are going out the door at the right time and the order is right why fix things that are not broken. That is all that I have to say for now.


http://www.computerworld.com/comments/comment/view...

That reminds me an earlier post of mine on the Dell article-

Americans need jobs

Rated down to RED-How ANTI AMERICAN those who voted it down can be.


By crystal clear on 4/5/2008 10:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
U.S. employers cut 63,000 jobs in Febuary according to Labor Department data released . That followed a loss of 22,000 jobs in January. December's job growth was only half as big as the government had earlier reported.

Plus 80,000 jobs had disappeared in March.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers cut payrolls in March for a third straight month and the jobless rate jumped to a 2-1/2-year high, further evidence that a housing downturn and credit crisis may have pushed the economy into recession.

The Labor Department on Friday said nonfarm employment fell by 80,000 jobs in March, more than expected and the biggest drop in five years. Financial markets saw this as reinforcing the need for further Federal Reserve interest rate cuts.



http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN03475545...

63000+22000+80000=163000+how many more in the coming months.


By rsmech on 4/5/2008 3:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
As many as it take so the company survives to rehire them. That will be when the evening news starts improving consumer confidence & not tearing it down.


RE: You do it the smart way & not the easy way
By teckytech9 on 4/5/2008 3:41:18 PM , Rating: 1
No doubt about the need for jobs to stay in America. However, what is causing this outsourcing of jobs can be attributed to the current market conditions and state of the US economy.

Whenever outsourcing happens, a void is created where jobs have left. I don't totally blame one or two factors but a myriad of symptoms that look like things maybe getting much worse before getting any better.

US Dollar devaluation, inflation, health care costs, credit crisis, Iraq war, Fed policies, three-month T-bill rates, tax breaks to corporations, etc.

It follows the premise of Capitalism, when left unchecked, and able to flow at its "own will", may lead to unforeseen consequences. Perhaps the culprit could be massive spending of borrowed funds that is way out of control, and Corporate greed to maximize profits. The lavishness and excesses of the prior years and the lack of real savings, may also be a factor of the current economic demise.

There may be a day when our friends in Asia, and elsewhere quit lending the US any more money, and stop using their massive Sovereign Wealth funds to bail us out. Berkshire quotes from their annual shareholder letter that the US Government needs about $1.2B every four-hours to function, which is about $7.2B everyday.

What follows all reasoning is that the economy can further weaken (currency turns to confetti), or that new "Green" industries are created to employ the millions that have been displaced.

Only US jobs can save our economy, no doubt about that.


By crystal clear on 4/5/2008 5:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think every CEO in the USA should remind himself everyday.

The quote of the day-

Only US jobs can save our economy, no doubt about that

Great !


RE: You do it the smart way & not the easy way
By ghost101 on 4/6/2008 7:10:42 AM , Rating: 2
Please tell me how keeping US jobs at a time of an economic downturn saves the economy? Look around the world where economies have very high government employment where public employment remains fairly constant. These economies arent immune to business cycle fluctuations. Also, dont give me some money-machinesque argument of how keeping workers actually helps drive demand to increase sales.


By crystal clear on 4/6/2008 10:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please tell me how keeping US jobs at a time of an economic downturn saves the economy?


Employment holds the key to the U.S. economy because jobs mean paychecks, paychecks mean consumer spending, and spending accounts for about 70 percent of the economy.

Yes its not only Dell but IBM & many more companies who are in the process of restructoring & reorganizations.

That means job losses that go overseas-thats the easy way out.

The smart way would be retraining programs to get these unemployed back to jobs/working.

I am against bloated governments & inefficiencies that come with it.

Yes the economy is rapidly slipping into recession but you got to Act & not react to this.

ACT means taking the right economic measures at the right time, to stop the economy going into recession & bring it back on the growth track.

Way back in the 4Q 07 I read reports of the expected downturn on 1Q 08 & possibly recession in 2H 08.

People preferred to ignore this & carry on "business as usual".

Repeatedly I have in the past posted comments about the economic slowdown/recession.

Companies like Dell,IBM,Intel etc operate on a global basis,
so the economic downturn in the USA should NOT affect them so much.

The economic slowdown & or recession is not only bad for the USA, but also for the rest of the world-the spill over effect will hurt other major economies.

"people out of their jobs is bad for everybody"


By ghost101 on 4/8/2008 9:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
Again, you make basic mistakes. You cannot use medium to long term policies to solve a short term demand problem. Retraining unemployed wouldnt have prevented the current situation. Unemployment can be reduced if wages are reduced. However, it is a lot easier to simply employ the correct number of workers for the current level of consumer expenditure, level of technology and nominal wages.

As for a recession, yes it was mentioned a while back with a low probability butthats exactly what it is. One possible outcome and you cannot have the correct policy for all of them. predicting a recession (especially the financial bubble) is easier said than done.


By ghost101 on 4/8/2008 9:20:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Employment holds the key to the U.S. economy because jobs mean paychecks, paychecks mean consumer spending, and spending accounts for about 70 percent of the economy.


Dont you appreciate how this is a money-machine? It is impossible otherwise command economies would be the best method of government. You cannot simply pay people to buy your goods.


Sad
By barjebus on 4/4/2008 4:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't object to the job cuts...it appears that aside form the WiMax cuts, most of these jobs weren't professional ones. Regardless, I think it's sad the way in which our culture has changed in the last century. Perhaps my notions of history are completely wrong, but was there not times when companies had a moral and social contract to their employee's? That the company didn't exist simply to make money, but rather to provide a good or service to society, and in return, that money was recycled through it's employee's.

I realize stockholders have quite a stake today in most major business's, I just dislike most corporation's devotion to stockholders and disregard for employee's. I think I'm just being idealistic and overly cynical, but yeah.




RE: Sad
By spluurfg on 4/5/2008 4:55:25 AM , Rating: 3
They have such a system in Japan. The side effects are a completely inefficient labor system, poor growth, and low capital investment.

And stockholders don't just have quite a stake in today's business, stockholders by definition own the business... Many companies motivate staff by providing them with stocks as well as pay -- this gives them the ability to participate in the decision making processes with their share votes.


RE: Sad
By blwest on 4/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sad
By TALENT on 4/6/2008 12:34:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The American "way of business" sucks and people need to realize that ethics and people make business happen, not shareholders.


Agreed - you treat people as useless and you get useless people.

At my company we have many contractors. The contractors get treated like second class citizens and as a result most of them produce second class results. I have noticed when some get hired on full time and get a little sense of security their work results skyrocket.

Treat people like people and you will get better results.

In the same vain - you need to cut slackers and deadwood. I don't want to give the impression I support and sub par workforce. But hard workers should always have a job and that's just not the case these days.


RE: Sad
By SlyNine on 4/6/2008 2:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Couldnt have said it better my self, Id rate you up if I didn't already post.


RE: Sad
By AmyM on 4/6/2008 2:09:24 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
…you create an innovative/quality product and run the business right and profits will come.

quote:
The American "way of business" sucks…

quote:
Prove it.... You are very inaccurate.

No, you are the one who is inaccurate and I’ll prove it. American companies do create an innovative and quality product, as shown by having the highest GDP than any other country in the world – nearly double that of its closest rival, China.

Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world...

While I sympathize with job losses that temporarily add uncertainty to people’s lives, this is nothing more than a cycle due in part to a dynamic world economy. These people will find work, our economy will grow, and life will go on.
If you look back to 1982, the national unemployment rate was 9.7%. Within 6 years unemployment was back down to 5.5%. In 1992 unemployment hit 7.5%, and within 4 years it was back down to 5.4%

Source:http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

To say “The American way of business sucks” is to say that the majority of the population sucks. Business exists to maximize the shareholder wealth. While this statement may seem insensitive to some, it is the American way of life. Some of the posts in this thread suggest that there needs to be some morality, or compassion that leads management in their decisions. To that I say: Where is the morality and compassion from the consumers that allow a small family owned business to go under because they shop at a discount super center.

The bottom line IS the bottom line for both business’ and consumers. Most people wouldn’t pay $4.00 for a gallon of gas when the station across the street is selling it for $3.75. Nor would most people stay at a job that paid $18/hr when they knew they could make $22/hr somewhere else.


Not looking good at all!!
By bobny1 on 4/4/2008 9:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
My company just anounced a pay increse freeze for 6 months, no retro. It is the first time they do somthing of that nature in my 24 years history with the company. I think is time to set priorities and readjust the goals.:(




RE: Not looking good at all!!
By ghost101 on 4/6/2008 7:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
If you were to create a model of how a firm sets wages, what do you think the variables would be? Then consider the recent economic climate and think about why in real terms you are taking a pay cut.


RE: Not looking good at all!!
By bobny1 on 4/7/2008 7:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
Simple, sastify the stock holders and keep top execs bonuses on the high end of the expectrum. It's the new American way.


RE: Not looking good at all!!
By bobny1 on 4/7/2008 7:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
Simple, satisfy the stock holders and keep top execs bonuses on the high end of the expectrum. It's the new American way.


here's another reason
By sprockkets on 4/4/2008 9:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Dell

With people posting stuff like this, why buy a Dell?

http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Newegg

FTW!




RE: here's another reason
By blwest on 4/5/2008 10:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Dell


This is what happens when you take care of your shareholder and not the customer.


The 'R'' Word
By teckytech9 on 4/5/2008 2:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
Blame it on the credit crisis, inflation, falling dollar, higher unemployment and health care costs. Truth is, these companies are just outsourcing their US jobs to China, Taiwan, and India. I just don't get it when politicians say that with the falling dollar there will be more demand for exports, since US goods will become cheaper. The price of corn goes up since its priced on the global market in relation to other commodities, thanks to the falling dollar.

With a looming 'r' there will be less demand for PC's and handsets in the US market. Who is to say that other foreign markets will fair better? Those with expanding GDP will benefit the most.

Dell at 20 and Mot at 9.5, lets see what happens this quarter.




RE: The 'R'' Word
By ghost101 on 4/6/2008 7:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
This means that the total value of corn exports are now higher than before.

Say you exported 100 tons at $x before ($100x. If the $ depreciates and the global value stays constant at some worldwide index. Then the value of corn exports is now at $(x+y) which equals $100(x+y) where y>0.


typo
By fic2 on 4/4/2008 3:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dell and Motorola Cut More Jobs to Met Savings Goals
should be "to Meet...".




Shame
By DKaneda on 4/4/2008 7:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's a shame to ear that. Cutting jobs to make a few people earn more millions... Soon, we will see companies making profit with products they don't design, manufacture or even sell (and I bet some are already doing this).

Crazy world we live in where money is the only thing that matters. Not that I am a communist or anything like that but I think it may be time for administrators and shareholders to think another way about their business. After all, if they go on on cutting jobs, who will buy their stuff ? It's time for some moral and humanism in business; I don't (at all) think it is incompatible.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki