Slashdot Mirror
IBM Hides the Bodies, Eyes US Government Billions
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."
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 countries may believe.
this is why using tax payers money to solve private businesses problems is never right. at most issue low interest short term loans to ease cash flow issues. never just wholesale billion dollar give aways because it'll slide right into the CEO's and exec's pockets.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Rather than tell you my background etc. I'll leave this as a blank slate: /.'ers what are good jobs to be in at these times?
Or maybe I'll reword it ... What are good skills to have at these times?
1. There is nothing evil about having made money. Ask George Soros who has billions.
2. IBM is a privately held company, not a government entitity. If they want to buy a jet or rework a division or two, that's (literally) their business, and not the business of Congress, or the president, no matter who he is.
3. Sending money to Washington: not a smart way to create jobs. History shows that.
But never mind that. We've been sane a long while, and change will be good!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
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?
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
IBM have a history of being so patriotic (to the almighty Reichsma^Wdollar).
Let's get this quite clear: any major corporation would happily have (by act or omission) you and your family die if (a) it assisted with profit-making; (b) they could get away with it. Anything less severe, such as shedding thousands of US jobs while demanding money collected at the point of a gun (that's "tax" to you and me), is not even on the radar of morally questionable.
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?
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
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."
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
This is the problem when government does not place restrictions on a bailout package. Our government wrote a blank check on us to bailout the results of extreme corporate greed and stupidity. It was incredibly assinine to think that trading mortgages like securities was a good idea. And, now, Uncle Sam turns around like the patient older parent and says, "Oh it's okay .... we forgive you .... here is an 820b allowance." This money should *not* have gone to corporations but should go towards keeping people in their homes. This is the key to beginning recovery. I must say that I am severely disappointed in Obama not seeing this fundamental fact. We should have let these greedy corporations fold under their own weight. We have set a dangerous precedence now for future troubled economic times wherein corporations can say, "Hey, you helped us before!", as an argument for more welfare.
I just don't understand why any American wants to work for IBM. Granted, these days, any job is godsend. But in a year or so, this recession will be over and IBM will probably start growing again, like other tech companies. I have little respect for any American who accepts a job at IBM, given a choice. Years ago I used to work there, and I never got the sense that IBM appreciated its American workers.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
But that would be work! No one wants to do that.
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The money bubble hasn't hit us yet. But although it will, it's probably a few months out. It really depends on how much synergy the president can get from his former friends.
Anyway, the point is that the solution is not to not earn money, but simply to not hold it. Buy lots of stuff that's cheap now. Like land, and stocks.
What were the German IBM managers supposed to do? Say "no" to Hitler??? I don't think that would have worked.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"Bad" as in "round up the villagers with pitchforks and torches," or "bad" as in "you know, maybe a big international corporation with no particular allegiance to the US doesn't need US taxpayer subsidies" bad? They're quite different. I can respect what they do without wanting to donate, can't I?
Frankly, yes. They did have a choice, even if none of the outcomes of that choice were particularly pleasant.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I'm not going to say nobody gets fired from IBM. However, from the perspective of a non-IBMer who has friends and contacts with IBMers around the country getting told your position is being cut isn't the same as turn in your badge on the way out. You usually get a couple weeks to a month to slide into a different job. The project you may be working on now may not be important enough to keep it staffed the way it is. But go find another project to work on and you can do a lateral move and keep on working. That's why (IMHO) IBM doesn't want to talk about how many jobs they are cutting because not that many people may really be out of a job.
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?
What were the German IBM managers supposed to do? Say "no" to Hitler???
Yes. Yes, they were.
Banks create money on a grand scale, and contrary to what people would expect, it doesn't cause rampant inflation.
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 cheques that MUST bounce, and so protectionism is the new order of the day.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I want an aquapony too.