More Job Cuts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

:(Bankrupt Winn-Dixie to Cut 22,000 Jobs

Ford Cuts Yearly Outlook, Plans New Cuts

Remember all that M&A activity this year? Question is when that that reflect in the job reports.

U.S. car makers will go the way of the U.S. bike makers - bye bye.
 
imported post

DMA wrote:
:(Bankrupt Winn-Dixie to Cut 22,000 Jobs

Ford Cuts Yearly Outlook, Plans New Cuts

Remember all that M&A activity this year? Question is when that that reflect in the job reports.

U.S. car makers will go the way of the U.S. bike makers - bye bye.
All this is to me is a chain reaction of vehicle companies selling vehicles on credit and getting hooked. Like I have said before you can not sell vehicles to the little guy when he doesn't make enough to pay for them. Three to four years ago many with high debt just bought by refinancing when they could not afford the vehicle they already had. This same thing is going to happen in real estate as interest goes up the less buying power the consumer has and in a few years real estate will be cheaper and many loans with variable interest will be jacked up and unafforable as many will not be able to make payments. An appreciating asset will then be depreciating and very hard to hold onto regardless of how many people there isin the market.
 
imported post

On a global scale the U.S. can not compete.

Wages/benefits/perks. :(

I enjoyed your insight Cowboy. Good post.
 
imported post

Here's the pattern:

Poorly run and unprofitable airlines about to go belly-up. What happens? The gov't bails them out with our money, so they can operate a little while longer - while still losing money.

Poorly run airline has an even more poorly run pension plan and cannot guarantee payments. What happens? The gov't bails them out with our money.

The same will happen with consumer debt... :@
 
imported post

What irks me is the top executive of these companies make these big fat pay packages for running a company and they are cutting 22K of their workers because they are not doing their job because they are not keeping competitive - which is their job. Yet they will get a juicy bonus for making the decision to axe their workers.

I think it is rotten a company announces job cuts and their stock price goes up a majority of the time.

The ole mighty bottom line at work here.

I guess I should not get started on this :shock:. It really makes me mad. :( (you can tell by the massive run on sentences). :shock:


BTW: The Toy R UsCEO just got a 46M bonus for running that one into the ground. Was hired to move it into the next century. Got his clock cleaned my Walmart. IMHO.
 
imported post

I don't blame CEO's for taking the money. The boards that hire them and compensate them in this fashion are the ones to hold responsible for this practice (much like voters must be held accountable for the idiots that they elect - more on that further down).

CEO's for underperforming companies raking in the dough are no different than hedgefund managers running underperforming funds raking in the dough. Money makes the world go 'round, and there are overpaid / overhyped people in all walks of life. We don't have to be thrilled about it, but griping about it won't change the reality that we face.

I'm much more irate about politicians claiming to represent us... since they have cushy jobs, make six-figure salaries, and hold onto their jobs by spending as much of our money as possible on their respective districts/states. Must be some gig (and they don't even read the legislation or vote part of the time!). :@
 
imported post

Oh oh we are getting each other worked up. :(:)

Updated on Ford:

Ford Cutting 1,700 Salaried PositionsAP

They announced this the same time they announced they are going miss numbers for the qtr and yr. To try to keep the stock price proped up. Dad got the pink slip so the stock price would not collapse. :(

Another U.S. main stay is going to be dead soon - will be a slow death but they can not compete. January 2006 China will be able to import cars (as it stands now). :?
 
imported post

DMA wrote:
U.S. car makers will go the way of the U.S. bike makers


Harley-Davidson has done extremely well in the last 20 years.
Of course, "Ronaldus Maximus" had to help'ema littleback in 1983. I agree with the point that you are making, but motorcycles has one example.

On 2nd thought, you said "bike". If you meant bicycles, you're right. Huffy is an example of American factory closing and being shippd in China.

real_reagan_sm.gif
 
imported post

Greg wrote:

Harley-Davidson has done extremely well in the last 20 years.
Of course, "Ronaldus Maximus" had to help'ema littleback in 1983. I agree with the point that you are making, but motorcycles has one example.

On 2nd thought, you said "bike". If you meant bicycles, you're right. Huffy is an example of American factory closing and being shippd in China.
Welcome to the board Greg, nice to have ya....................back.
 
imported post

None of this would have happened if we restrict what and how much Congress could approve spending for.....

I firmly believe in systems for control...and a system is needed here...

First of all a hand cuff could be put on Congress to only take in so much percentage of your income.

Second, only so much in percentages of that could be spent in certain areas of govt....such as military, social services, running the govt....we need a control system on their spending.....and systems to control who and how contracts are made and given......open checkbooks and flagrant spending are the main means to our ruin.....

It was a long time ago when Reprensentatives and Senators did their own business most of the year and then went to Wash once a year or so to do govt business....we will have to go back to that sort of volunteer to get our house in order.....:^

:dude:
 
imported post

Greg wrote:
DMA wrote:
U.S. car makers will go the way of the U.S. bike makers


Harley-Davidson has done extremely well in the last 20 years.
Of course, "Ronaldus Maximus" had to help'ema littleback in 1983. I agree with the point that you are making, but motorcycles has one example.

On 2nd thought, you said "bike". If you meant bicycles, you're right. Huffy is an example of American factory closing and being shippd in China.

real_reagan_sm.gif

Yes, since they got out of banrucpy they have found a niche market.

I was referring to bicycles. Not moter bikes.

I will try to be clearer in the future.

HDI was agreat stock until Apr 12th of this year when it took a 15 point hit. It is still trying to recover. However, it is now incup and handle breakout. I went long on it on Monday. Hope to ride it for 10%. When there is recession fears money goes to this stock because of their niche market. You may want to take note of that. My whole investing thesis is on global slowdown now - I am hitting some jackpots. :D

hdi


w
 
imported post

Hey Tech- I must say I agree with you but being that my wife is a politician I have to say that it is unrealistic. The truth is that you can hate the politicians for what they do, but they are only doing what YOU or WE are telling them too. If a politician where to cut spending in all kinds of areas to make a real difference then they would never be re-elected... AND THATS THE TRUTH.. It's kind of like blaming the IRS Agent for the policies of the IRS, you can blame the individual but it isn't going to fix anything. As long as we Americans are spoiled rotten then the only successful politician will be the one that continues to spoil. Even if the politician knows the truth should they go against the majority of the people they represent to do what they think is right? That's not what democracy is all about. So really it's the American people to blame not thepeople that resresent them!!

Just my .02
 
imported post

Shaggy,

The plus of spending restrictions would be.....a politician wouldn'tbe reelected based on what projects they got funded in their area.....besides, that isn't what a politician is mainlythere for.........unless money is spentfor a major govt function.....then that would have to be handled in a fair manner across the states, something not voted on but based on fair distribution .....

To get mearly reelected for what money is spent in your area is a fallacy anyway....they should be elected for representing the people for their basic needs and rights...hence spend on projects needed to support the people.

Spending more and more money from a restricted tax base that contracts and expandsis a bad omen as well as bad economics......govt should operatewithin reason with reasonable expense.......

Supporting big business is great, but don't forget to look out for the general population, your neighbors......

My father always said..."Vote the incumbent out!", I say restrict their hands to spending tightly....but be reasonable.

Heck, my family was complaining about Congress's excessin the early 1820's...:shock:...strange.....it hasn't gone away.

:dude:
 
imported post

I agree with you alot Shaggy but the problem is just what you said. "Even if the politician knows the truth should they go against the majority of the people they represent to do what they think is right?" I think the answer is that they should do what is best for everyone not to just get re-elected. As the ones they are listening to are the criers not necessarily the majority. It seems politiciansare working for the money and special interest groupsand thinking of job security and not necessarilywhat is best for the American people as whole. In fact it is not only the politician that has this problem but everyone. How many times have we all went along with something that we did not feel was right, because everyone else wanted it. Most that are elected have good intentions than realize that they hit the political platform ideas and have to fall in line in order to stay in office therefore diluting their goals as a representative.
 
imported post

First I should mention that my wife is county not federal so her function is for basic needs like police, fire roads etc. this is where I get my perspective from.

You said too things there that should be explored 1. Basic needs & 2. reasonable. The problem is everybody has a different definition for both.

Example- you have a community that has mostly dirt roads and no sidewalks. School buses won't drive on the dirt roads that are to bad and drainage is sometimes dangerous. These people want to have their roads paved. Paving all of the roads in the county would cost 100's of millions (large county). Then you have some areas where all the roads are paved basically because the developer paved them and the home owners pay for it.

Is this a basic need? Could it be a public health and safety issue? Is it reasonable to pave these peoples road and essentially improve their property value with everybodies tax dollars, when many people in the county had to pay for there roads through the developer?

Remember that these spending limits would effect thousands of projects effecting what many people feel is essential needs. Once again we come to what people believe is essential, hence my comment (spoiled). In order to get these limits put in place somebody would have to vote for it. Hey I'm all for it - but once they were in place and the people saw the effects they would quickly vote it out.

A good example is the consolidation of public health care projects. They all serve different niches or geograghical areas and are seperatly funded. The minute a politician tries to consolidate them they are bashed for not wanting to support health care for the impoverished children or pre-natal care or what ever the niche is. The real problem is that mostAmericans don't know what you and I know and don't care until it effects them directly. Once again just my .02
 
imported post

Great point Cowboy, I couldn't agree more. My wife actually made a statement to the news paper that basically said. I am going to do what I think is right and if I don't get re-elected then that's OK. She is really doing it from the heart which is the way it should be but by the time you hit the federal level they are really trying keep the position. Something else I should mention the cryers that you talked about are the ones that vote. When you have a 13% turnout for a primary then those people that are crying get who they want in and Wala look at the result!!
 
imported post

The problem is there is a problem.....your wifes job is to start from the very basic problem and fix it.......then go fix the next one...the next one....sooner or later money is the determining factor.
 
Back
Top