IBM Hides the Bodies, Eyes US Government Billions 410
theodp writes "As his company was striving to hide the bodies of its laid-off North American workers, IBM CEO Sam Palmisano stood beside President Barack Obama and waxed patriotic: 'We need to reignite growth in our country,' Palmisano said. 'We need to undertake projects that actually will create jobs.' While Sam positions IBM to get a slice of the $825 billion stimulus pie, Big Blue is quietly cutting thousands of jobs and refusing to release the numbers or locations, arguing that SEC disclosure rules don't apply since the US job cuts are immaterial in its big global picture. The layoffs included hundreds in East Fishkill, coming early in the year after NY taxpayers paid IBM $45 million not to cut additional jobs in East Fishkill in 2008. Some are questioning whether IBM incentives are worth the cost."
Nobody... (Score:5, Funny)
Ever got fired for workign for IBM...
Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Insightful)
It is far better to cut off a dying limb than to have the infection seep back into the whole body.
If the division was in such a pathetic state that the state had to beg IBM not to cut it in good times, is it any surprise that IBM decided to cut it in the bad times?
Business isn't charity, no matter what those enlightened European [timesonline.co.uk] countries may believe.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no it really isn't.
But I really don't see the point of the government giving international corporations like IBM money. I'd wager a bet that with those 45 million they could have helped the laid off workers for more and longer than giving it to IBM.
Same with GM. I have no idea how much your government spent on... 'that', but I just know that with one billion dollars you can give 20'000 people 50'000 dollars, each. I'm just asking myself whether rerouting such money directly into the pockets of those laid off wouldn't make more sense. Give them the opportunity to not worry too much for a year, get some additional education and try elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The automotive "bailout" (it wasn't only GM) was in the form of $18 Bn low interest loans that have to be repaid unlike the bank's $700 Bn or this $850 Bn pork barrel. This country has a fucked up sense of priorities that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than that, most of the fed's actions have been loans, and at pretty high interest rates! Our deal with AIG involved a loan at Libor+450, which is a higher rate then most credit cards.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh that's right, because they're refusing to loan out money even to reputable companies like GM and Chrysler.
Re: (Score:2)
But that would be socialism! It did happen in America you know.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Insightful)
The New York Legislature never should have given that 24 million dollars to IBM. (Or the Pennsylvania Legislature give 10 million to save Boscovs.) The jobs "saved" do not earn 24 million dollars, so it's a lossy investment. Only an idiot would invest 24 million to get back only 1-2 million dollars worth of wage taxes.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you meant:
Remember, the money the politician spent on keeping the company in the area doesn't just translate into increased taxes from wages.
It doesn't just translate into increased taxes on materials spent, and other service and supply industries feeding into that company.
The money spent translates into a situation the politician can point to and say "I just saved your job, vote for me!".
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea how much your government spent on... 'that', but I just know that with one billion dollars you can give 20'000 people 50'000 dollars, each. I'm just asking myself whether rerouting such money directly into the pockets of those laid off wouldn't make more sense.
Because big screen TVs and beer sales would go through the roof?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I work at IBM - trust me when I say it is in fact a soulless corp. Not evil, just soulless. We don't even need money - we had a good year in 2008, even in the 4th quarter. Hell, I'm even getting a bonus from last year we did so well! We sure as hell don't need taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:2)
I had that thought too. If we're going to give money to individuals at all, it should be to their debts (homes, student loans, etc.). And it should go to those who have a track record of working hard, but just ran into tough times beyond their abilities. It still helps them, without the temptation to waste money on non-essentials. If we're going to spend our grand-children and great grand-children's tax dollars, we owe it to them to at least do something intelligent with the money.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Insightful)
But since the financial sector isn't working, so if someone saves, the bank just sits on the money and it disappears. Because of that, a large increase in savings would cause a rather large decrease in aggregate demand, which would causes businesses to close, which causes further decreases in aggregate demand... that process ends at the great depression.
To prevent that, we want the government to spend their money boosting aggregate demand to compensate. Government spending is one way to do it, but there are limits to how many roads you can build within a couple months. So some money will be given to individuals.
But the key point, is that the money given to individuals needs to be *spent*, not saved!
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Insightful)
Really do you want our corrupt government to decide more loosers and winners? I'd rather decide the loosers and winners with my dollars than having the government take them and decide for me. I know more about the companies I like than they do.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh, that sound-byte breaks down when under the second scenario, you don't have any dollars to decide with. You need some sort of policy measure that addresses the breakdown in aggregate demand. Otherwise, you've got nothing but old slogans.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> Because big screen TVs and beer sales would go through the roof?
Now that's an economic stimulus plan the average Joe can understand and support.
c.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Insightful)
The average Joe *did* support it and got behind it when the Bush Administration sent everyone a $600-$1,200 "tax rebate" last year. There was a measurable spike in electronics purchases. So much so it was named as a reason there isn't going to be another such direct payment in Obama's stimulus package. All those precious electronic gadgets are made overseas, mostly in China. The money barely slowed down as it exited the country. The gov't was hoping people would purchase things like durable consumer goods made in the U.S., or put it towards a down-payment on a car, etc.
Suckers.
For my part I purchased a new American-made deluxe Weber grill and bought it at a local, independent shop. Both factors (local purchase, American-made) *were* important factors in my purchase. Lots of local farms in the Midwest to purchase grill supplies like ribs, steaks, burgers, bratwurst, etc. Mmmmmmm...I gotta brush the snow off later today and fire that puppy up!
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Funny)
When I drank 100 coffees in one day, I was able to save all my friends from a fire caused by a cigar.
Re: (Score:2)
Beer sales are increasing now without any special bonuses for workers facing hard times. There was a story on the radio [npr.org] about this a couple of days ago. There was the owner of a liquor store saying that business was booming, and some other dude talking about how instead of going to a game, he was more likely to buy a case of beer and watch it at home.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Insightful)
We doesn't the government just not take the money from joe six-pack in the first place? It's not like he would save the extra 10-15%.
Because you have no paychecks to cut taxes on when you've been laid off or have graduated into a recession and can't find a living wage.
Tax cuts are just like health savings accounts: they're designed to quell the concerns of those who don't actually need the help while screwing everyone who actually does.
tax cuts do nothing to restore quality of life to those truly disenfranchised by this economic disaster.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Insightful)
...but I just know that with one billion dollars you can give 20'000 people 50'000 dollars, each. I'm just asking myself whether rerouting such money directly into the pockets of those laid off wouldn't make more sense. Give them the opportunity to not worry too much for a year, get some additional education and try elsewhere.
Wouldn't it be better if the government didn't to take half of people's money in the first place? Your average homeowner gets about a third of his income lopped off in withholding, then another chunk in sales taxes and property taxes take the rest. How great would it be if everyone's earnings were suddenly doubled?
Even when they have the best of intentions you can't rely on government to do the right thing - look at both of the trillion dollar bailout packages: pure pork and waste. The process of government is inevitably biased by the actions of special interests, self interest of the politicians and plain old human stupidity.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty great for a while. Less great when the roads start falling apart, criminals realize the police can't afford bullets, the jails have to release all the inmates at once, the number of under-educated people around you starts increasing because the schools have shut down, and half your family dies from tainted food because the agencies that impose quality controls have disappeared.
It's not like bailouts are the only thing we fund with taxes, you know. There are actually a hell of a lot of services that benefit you directly on a daily basis. Eliminate taxes and you'll end up either losing those services entirely, or else paying for them out of pocket anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, 'cause our roads are in such great shape now, the cops are doing a bang-up job, we're producing public-school Einsteins at the rate of E=mc^2, and by golly were going to eat to the bottom of this jar of salmonella-laced peanut butter if it kills us.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, 'cause our roads are in such great shape now,
They're paved, aren't they?
the cops are doing a bang-up job,
At least you have cops
we're producing public-school Einsteins at the rate of E=mc^2
An energy is not a rate, though I guess you're proving your own point.
and by golly were going to eat to the bottom of this jar of salmonella-laced peanut butter if it kills us.
Good luck with that. In your world without any taxes you would probably be eating tainted food for real.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Informative)
Roads are funded by gasoline taxes, so a cut in income tax would not affect them at all.
Police waste a lot of time chasing non-violent criminals. If they stopped bothering people smoking marijuana while watching the Superbowl (a "crime" that harms absolutely no one except the smoker), they'd have LOTS of resources to go after the actual thieves and murderers.
Schools are funded by school taxes, and therefore a cut in income tax would not affect them at all.
And finally:
Most government agencies, in my own government experience at the FAA, have 60-65% of workers who sit-around doing nothing all day long, except surfing the net. They could easily layoff those persons (same way a corporation trims the fat), and still get the same amount of work done.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, any health care reforms you make to save money must take information asymmetry into account, as well as the public's refusal to see people die from lack of health care. Any social security reform must take into account that the public is not going to let large numbers of old people live in poverty(Forcing a program of either outright government pensions or forced savings programs like social security)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey we agree! :-) I also want to add that a lot of Canadian and EU patients are being turned away by Government Hospitals, because politicians have decided cutting expenses is more-important. They are false-calling it "universal" even though it clearly is not.
Where do you get this information? I haven't heard anything about patients getting turned away from hospitals and that is the kind of thing that would make the news here in Canada.
Using your pacemaker example. Someone I know recently went to the doctor
Re: (Score:2)
The bulk of public school money comes from local property taxes. That's why inner city schools suck.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
Definitely for your post there it does.
So tell me, how did the US do without income tax until 1913? Was the family death rate at 50% due to a lack of FDA to make sure they didn't buy poisoned food? Was the prison population more than half its capacity composed of non-violent drug offenders there due to Federal minimum sentencing laws? Was private education non-existent or worse than the complete fail of the 'Hold-all-children-behind' public monopoly?
Basically only the posting of roads is the non-foolish part of your post, and a 1% uniform non-protective tariff would be more than enough for the Federal gov't to cover the US in tarmac, if they could restrict their spending to their strictly limited and enumerated powers under the US Constitution.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Insightful)
90% of the federal budget is spent on Health Care, Pensions, and Defense. Before 1913, the government(state, local, or federal) spent money on all of these things, and there was a national consensus that these things were a public priority.
The thing is, that all of these things have gotten *a lot more expensive* relative to the rest of the economy, since the price of labor has skyrocketed. This is a rather textbook case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease/ [wikipedia.org] . It's why the British army was able to fund an army of a couple million a century ago for a fraction of the cost that they now spend to maintain an army of 200,000.
"Was private education non-existent or worse than the complete fail of the 'Hold-all-children-behind' public monopoly? "
Private education was essentially non-existent, and probably less prevalent then it is now. Wide-scale compulsory public education became widespread way before 1914.
The reason costs have exploded, is that the productivity of labor in teaching doesn't increase very much over time, while the productivity of labor in the general economy has skyrocketed. Once again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease/ [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
"Wouldn't it be better if the government didn't to take half of people's money in the first place? Your average homeowner gets about a third of his income lopped off in withholding, then another chunk in sales taxes and property taxes take the rest. How great would it be if everyone's earnings were suddenly doubled?"
As it is now, taxes are too low to pay for the government programs that the public seems to really want. Remember: Health Care, Defense, Social Security, and interest on our debt make up literal
Balance the budget first... (Score:2)
As it is now, taxes are too low to pay for the government programs that the public seems to really want. Remember: Health Care, Defense, Social Security, and interest on our debt make up literally 90% of the federal budget. Unless someone is to propose deep cuts in these programs, any populist moaning on taxes strikes me as a bit annoying.
I have to agree; task #1 would be to balance the budget first, long before you start lowering taxes.
Instead, I'd concentrate on fixing our tax structure so people aren't spending $50/year to figure out their taxes. Reducing pork - there's all sorts of incentive programs out there the feds run that state and local agencies chase to buy equipment and run programs that, if it was 'their own' money they wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole - See the bridge to nowhere(local airport), Alaska.
We have more federal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, wait, you're calling Italy enlightened, even in sarcasm? The country with a government so far-right nationalistic that it's flirting with a return to fascism?
I mean, I'm not sure where you're from, exactly, but seems beyond belief that you'd lump them in with the mid-left 'enlightened' northerners. Perhaps you should consider breaking the continent down into slightly smaller slices.
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Time to tighten our belts (Score:5, Funny)
Italy has averaged one government per year since WW2. They flirt with everyone, they're kinda famous for it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask George Soros who has billions.
HAD...
OK, I admit it, he's still very rich and has much more money than you or me, but EVERYONE has taken a hit last year...
Re: (Score:2)
George Soros made his money by playing game theoretic tricks on the Bank of England. I wouldn't want to prosecute him or anything, but a simple phone call to the central banker saying "Hey, your exchange rate regime is idiotic, and if you don't change it some investor is going to fuck your country over" would have left the world a vastly better place than what actually happened: The British government collecting taxes, w
Re: (Score:2)
sharks circling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
this is why using tax payers money to do anything is never right.
Fixed that for you
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzz.
Spending taxpayer dollars for tasks that benefit ALL the people are legitimate. For example, providing a navy to guard the shores from invasion benefits all citizens. Providing mail service benefits all citizens. (Hence the phrase "for the common welfare" meaning "everyone's welfare", not just a select few. Nobody is excluded.)
Sam steps up... (Score:5, Funny)
He steps over the bodies of the fallen, leaps into the air and does a perfect belly flop into the barrel, with a belly laugh for effect - he'll get good style marks for that.
Sixes from five of the judges,only a 5.7 from China and billions for a wealthy corporation! Sam's gotta be pleased with that result.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for Sam an angry citizen in L.A. has decided to exercise his second amendment rights and kill the tyrant who stole billions in taxpayer dollars.
IBM has never been good at hiding the bodies (Score:5, Interesting)
Some background on the parent comment (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ [ibmandtheholocaust.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Selling to both sides? Brilliant! (Score:4, Interesting)
M1 Carbines for the US, and Holleriths for the Nazis? What a brilliant business strategy! European explosive manufacturers made tons of money supplying both Iran and Iraq during their war in the 1980's. But I guess you're not supposed to do this if your country is on one side of the conflict.
I suppose that IBM would claim that the Nazis had taken over the subsidiary, and that IBM in the US had no control over it. I believe that Ford and GM (Opel) had the same problem with their subsidiaries, and faced the same allegations after the war.
If the case in the book is so strong, why hasn't anyone sued IBM over it?
"Hey, Daryl McBride! Here's your chance to try to sue IBM again!"
Or maybe some militant animal rights groups can sue them over this: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV2154.html [ibm.com]
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! (Score:4, Insightful)
What were the German IBM managers supposed to do? Say "no" to Hitler??? I don't think that would have worked.
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Selling to both sides? Brilliant! (Score:4, Insightful)
What were the German IBM managers supposed to do? Say "no" to Hitler???
Yes. Yes, they were.
No, they're not *really* questioning it (Score:4, Interesting)
Even in the linked article, they're only questioning how much to pay IBM -- not whether to pay them. It amazes me that local officials do this so often, when there's no real proof these sorts of incentives are a net gain. Localities pay hundreds of millions of dollar for sports team's stadiums and get no direct profit sharing, cities offer multi-million dollar packages - or in Seattle's case, even build an egregious trolley line - for businesses and don't even pretend to have a measure of the monetary benefit to the community for the given initial outlay. I always wonder how much these pointless incentives come from honest incompetence versus corruption of the government officials.
Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you honestly suggesting that duly-elected officials in this fine Christian nation would even consider putting corporate interests over the welfare of those they represent, should the two come into conflict?
Re:No, they're not *really* questioning it (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in the linked article, they're only questioning how much to pay IBM -- not whether to pay them. It amazes me that local officials do this so often, when there's no real proof these sorts of incentives are a net gain. Localities pay hundreds of millions of dollar for sports team's stadiums and get no direct profit sharing, cities offer multi-million dollar packages - or in Seattle's case, even build an egregious trolley line - for businesses and don't even pretend to have a measure of the monetary benefit to the community for the given initial outlay. I always wonder how much these pointless incentives come from honest incompetence versus corruption of the government officials.
The fundamental issue is that these payments don't 'create jobs" but just decide *where* a company will locate. As a result, they are a net loss since most companies would locate somewhere and create the jobs; just not in *your* backyard.
If localities would all stop paying them I'd bet that many companies would locate in the same areas as they do with payments. Why? Companies still want low taxes, people who can do the jobs, access to transportation routes, etc. The cash is just a sweetener.
I've seen some economic "studies" done to support such payments and I wish I could sell whatever it is the localities are smoking cause they numbers have no relationship to reality.
So why do they do it? Politicians like to tout how many *jobs* they created. Especially near elections. Cities want sports teams, even if they are a net loss and will probably bail when a better deal come along. So we continue to transfer wealth from taxpayers to private corporations and ell good about it because "we're creating jobs."
Re: (Score:2)
>>>So why do they do it? Politicians like to tout how many *jobs* they created.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury." - Author Unknown. Early 1900s.*
This is why voting rights were originally restricted to those with land, because those without land
Hold on... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of the opinion that the only reason they're still around as a company is because of blind corporate fanboy-ism, coupled with tying people into proprietary solutions. I'm not saying they don't have some good stuff available, but there is much overpriced proprietary crap being pushed by their sales people and their purchasing department golf buddies.
They'r
Re:Hold on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>So [corporations over 1 billion dollars in size] the bad guy now. I just need to know before I comment.
There. Fixed that for you. ;-) In my view large corporations are Greed incarnate. They have no soul and therefore no morality. They don't care which bodies they squash, or which wallets they steal money from, and they have no obligation to the voters except to make stock prices rise as quickly as possible. Greed incarnate.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our lib
As an IBMer... (Score:5, Informative)
...they're so disorganized and flat-out dishonest with their employees that I say screw giving them any incentives, stimulus, or any other kind of special help. They need none.
All IBM has done since Gerstner is coast, layoff, reorg, and outsource. No significant new technology, major divestitures (heck, we sold off our entire networking arm to AT&T). The first thing Palmissano did in his video address after taking over as CEO is tell sales "don't let the engineers tell you no". Great idea - it led to vaprous announcements, selling technology we couldn't produce, and atrophied all of our internal systems, investment, and talent. Growth targets are consistently at bubble levels to ensure no one gets reasonable bonuses, and in the lead up to the firings in Fishkill managers were told to downrate employees on their PBC's to limit severance payments.
And no, I wasn't one of the ones laid off. If I had a better nest egg I might welcome it, freeing me from that blasted place. In the meantime, I have a family to support...
More proof that executives don't do shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you ever think that these huge corporations would perform just as well, or even better, if top executives didn't exist, or just never did anything? So, if the company has good products and the economy is good, it prospers. And if the economy is bad, or the products are bad, the company suffers. That's what a company without top brass with golden parachutes, would do. The absurdly overpaid executives should be the ones who can turn a company around, whose leadership actually makes a difference.
But, as we could see with the big 3 car manufacturers and basically every big publicly traded company (in private companies you can bet your sweet ass that there's an owner that will keep an eye on the managers), executives don't do a lick of a difference. When times are tough, these companies tank - and ask for bailouts.
It's a bailout for incompetence, and Obama's administration would be foolish to support them. But it's too late - from the way the big 3 car manufacturers have been bailed out, I see more incompetence being rewarded.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's too late - from the way the big 3 car manufacturers have been bailed out, I see more incompetence being rewarded.
The biggest public employer in the U.S.? The Government. I foresee them asking for the biggest bailout of them all.
Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Buffet is about the only executive who actually has a clue about management, business and economics. I respect Warren Buffet a lot, and would not be surprised if that quote was true.
He was livid at the groundless bonuses and golden parachutes handed out left and right in the US corporate world, and articulated his anger very clearly. He's one of the good guys.
Re:More proof that executives don't do shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing to remember, is that the car manufacturers, as opposed to ALL the other bailouts, asked for short term low interest loans to keep going, because the credit market had frozen, and they couldn't get the loans they needed.
Every other bailout was a free handout to the company (including AIG TWICE!). While I'm not saying I supported the money paid to the car manufacturers, there is a world of difference between what they were asking for and got, and what other companies got almost without asking for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, that isn't true. Most of the money we've given has been with the Cash-Equity formula, where we give them money in exchange for equity in their company. Either that, or we gave them high, not low, interest loans.
"Every other bailout was a free handout to the company (inc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but somebody has to steer the ship. The fact of the matter is that most people are not good at leading, and are not good at making correct business decisions. A company without people in a leadership position would quickly falter because resources would be unevenly applied.
This is regularly seen in companies run by engineers. What generally happens is that the engineers believe that they can handle everything, after all they're certainly intelligent enough
Workers to power! (Score:2, Funny)
Forge a revolutionary Leninist-Trotskyist workers party! Sweep away capitalist anarchy and barbarism with international socialist revolution!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
More Corporate Welfare (Score:5, Insightful)
The incentives don't appear to work as several states have already found out. Invariably, companies receiving these incentives do not hold up their end of the bargain. And yet this practice continues. This is a kind of socialism too. Where's the outrage?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would argue it's closer to corporatism...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
execs are stupid, so pass the control to gov't? (Score:2, Interesting)
Who is the most inefficient? Government workers! People who have no accountability, can steal money from taxpayers at a whim, and possess no real incentive to ever to a good job or improve themselves. So now that companies have gotten large enough to fail, the dumbest of all are taking them over. This will lead to greater failure because it is sucking in money from better people. Russia tried this approach, and the people starved... Americans are fat, but how long will we last when our bread lines run
Unrestricted Welfare (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unrestricted Welfare (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is in contrast to Japan where the Japanese government did nearly nothing in similar situation a few years before
Regarding Japan's Lost Decade [aei.org], I suggest you review the data. Here is what actually happened:
1) Bad initial monetary policy, the Bank of Japan actually boosted the discount rate from 4.75 percent to 6 percent in August 1990 and held it at that level until June 1991. This was a similar mistake to the monetary contraction by the US Fed from 1929 to 1933.
2) Japan engaged in large stimulus pack
Why would anyone want to work for IBM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would anyone want to work for IBM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's gotta beat the security guard job I ended up with after being laid off from HP. Not much of a market in tech for us over-50 geezers these days. If IBM offered me a job remotely resembling what I was doing before this, I'd take it in a shot.
This relentless pursuit of ever-fatter profits at the expense of the employees who helped get companies where they are is ruining our economy and our country. Sure, they may be helping their short-term bottom line and making the stockholders happy, but when every company is laying off massive chunks of their workforce, they're depriving each other of prospective customers. Somebody's gotta buy the stuff they sell for them to keep making money, but they're taking away people's ability to do that.
(Posting anonymously, just in case someone where I work sees this and recognizes my user name. I may be bitter, but I'm not stupid....)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These layoffs are scaring everyone else and making them stop buying anything. The ones laid off certainly aren't spending except on absolute essentials until their money/retirement/savings run out, etc.
It's the economic death spiral and is becoming its own self-fulfilling prophecy.
It is getting scary out there. I hope it doesn't happen to me, but you nev
Maybe for their Corporate Music Program? (Score:2)
"Ever Onward IBM": http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=L9oh3gqOEKU [youtube.com]
IBM is strange... (Score:3, Interesting)
First IBM manages to post a 'strong quarter' (though in depth analysis by some indicates serious problems underscoring the superficially nice summary).
Then, the CEO sends an email to the whole company saying while other companies are cutting back, IBM is going to be different because they think it is important to invest long term in its people because IBM can afford to.
The next day, they execute the first wave of layoffs.
As layoffs continue, they try to say things about 'accelerating workforce rebalancing through resource actions' to pretend it is somehow different from everyone else. Notably, they have architected the whole thing it so that they feel disclosing the details to the SEC is not required.
I guess it may be different, maybe IBM is trying to finally achieve a goal under the smokescreen of recession-induced lay-offs. They are ditching people in the US with high years of service as they reduce numbers to allow for future overseas growth *despite* relying chiefly upon the US market for revenue still.
I still work at IBM (for the moment), but this recent activity has really frustrated me. The BS is so transparent and yet they shovel it on us anyway. If IBM were at least forthcoming about it, I might retain some shred of respect, but they are being so slimy about it.
My conflict is lack of viable choice in my area and in the industry. Doing in-house IT for various companies has lacked the technical challenge I want, as well as a salary ceiling that goes with that level of expectation. Small business/startups are even less certain than IBM employment. Other healthy hardware providers don't tend to volunteer to help with complex application of the gear. I guess HP would be the other candidate, but they aren't any better and aren't where I live.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"what are good jobs to be in at these times?"
In a good future (defined as long recession, possible, but liveable depression): property & business lawyers, accountants, small time tradesmen like electricians and plumbers, government workers in countries where governments are still working, nurses.
In a bad future (defined as Mad Max-style Fallout 3 depression): outlaw motorcycle club sergeant-at-arms, Marine Corps platoon leader, gang leader.
"What are good skills to have at these times?"
In a good future:
Re: (Score:2)
Also you want to become good friends with your Amish-American neighbors, since they don't need electricity, running water, et cetera. They are unlikely to be affected by the Second Depression, will have lots of food, and being generous will share it with their friends.
Nursing? (Score:2)
Apparently there has been a shortage of nurses in the US for quite a while, and it is expected to get worse. It's probably not what you were looking for, but it might be worth considering if you place a high value on job security.
Random news report on this, dated January 7 2009: http://cbs5.com/health/nursing.shortage.patient.2.901996.html [cbs5.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Its true. I have a couple friends who have finished LPN and had hospitals fighting over them while they were working on their RN's. No matter where they go, they'll get their BSN or Nurse Practitioner schooling paid for by the hospital (with a 3 year work agreement after they finish). But getting paid to finish your education and have a job guaranteed at the end of it...
Re: (Score:2)
Almost makes it sound like Nursing is a better profession than Doctor. :)
Re:What a scoop! (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, the way they keep printing that money, I'm not really sure if I want to work for it any more. I mean, what's it going to be worth in 5 years? Why bother?
I'm going to make a still and go back to bartering. This money stuff is a total rip off.
Re:What a scoop! (Score:4, Funny)
I'll tell you what - you give me a few suitcases of that soon to be worthless money, I'll give you some worthless goods in exchange (perhaps some brightly colored beads?), and we'll call it even.
Re:What a scoop! (Score:4, Interesting)
Replace the beads with rare earth magnets and spools of copper wire for my turbines and motors, throw in a cow, some chickens and some tempered glass to expand my aquaponic setup and you've got a deal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate to break it to you, but the commodities bubble has already gone bust. Dollars and Yen are the only things going up in value these days.
Re:What a scoop! (Score:4, Interesting)
Credit can appear and disappear relatively quickly without causing rampant inflation. That doesn't mean the total money supply can simply increase forever without doing so. Be very careful overgeneralising from the last decade. I think there's a specific reason we've gotten away with it for so long, which is China. They willingly hoarded ever more of our dollars and tied their currency to ours. Part of the reason is because they hold so many US dollars, if they tried to circulate them they'd become almost worthless. If they ever call in our debts by spending those dollars, we are in big trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Last I checked, the Japanese had the highest amount of US dollar holdings. Or did the PRC suddenly gobble up the extra few hundred billion that were desperately necessary?
Printing money is not a smart idea, but at least it's an improvement. I know my money has some value, unlike batering, where you're never quite sure what you'll end up with.
Re:What a scoop! (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's not just China, rather Japan and China.
Nobody is proposing to abolish money and go back to bartering. I'm not even sure this stimulus is such a terrible idea, maybe it will work (though we'll never really known either way). What worries me is we've been doing this since the 80's (Reagan), long enough to know that even in good times, we never quite get around to repaying the debt we rationalize in the bad times. Where will it end?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what the parent is saying. China keeps their take from sales of cheap stuff mostly in US banks... the same ones that turn around and put the money back into loans for high interest credit cards and ARM home loans.
In a sense it was their money that fueled the housing boom... People borrowed to buy more stuff. Which increased Chinese profits and they make the money available to borrow so interest stays low. It works well until the bankers screw it up by fixing the books.. because they are "competing"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, US banks print money on a grand scale, and trade that money for real goods from foreign nations who never redeem them for American made goods because they'd rather trade them back and forth for oil, so the devaluation effects are never felt in the US?
Sorry, that was last millennium. This is the new millennium. The money is starting to come home. Those greenbacks are now bad ch