Slashdot Mirror
Cisco To Slash Up To 6,000 Jobs -- 8% of Its Workforce -- In "Reorganization"
alphadogg (971356) writes Cisco Systems will cut as many as 6,000 jobs over the next 12 months, saying it needs to shift resources to growing businesses such as cloud, software and security. The move will be a reorganization rather than a net reduction, the company said. It needs to cut jobs because the product categories where it sees the strongest growth, such as security, require special skills, so it needs to make room for workers in those areas, it said. 'If we don't have the courage to change, if we don't lead the change, we will be left behind,' Chairman and CEO John Chambers said on a conference call.
From the article: “If we don’t have the courage to change, if we don’t lead the change, we will be left behind,” Chairman and CEO John Chambers said on a conference call. In reality, Cisco doesn't have courage at all. If they had courage, they would work to retrain a capable workforce and buck an ever growing trend in employment. By laying off 6,000 people, they are showing cowardice and a lack of confidence in their existing workforce. They would sooner send 6,000 people to the unemployment line then work work with a known, reliable quantity. The move is shortsighted because it costs money to hire someone and the new person must then learn the culture, infrastructure, and the business. Add to it the potential for the starting salary to be higher and any positives from the "courage to change" are negated. Bravo on another epic failure of the corporate world. I would have had more respect for honesty and integrity.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
One cannot blame Cisco since, like any company, it will operate at the margin of the law irrespective of the consequences to the national economy. A country's economy is an national strategic asset not a free-for-all playground. Hell, this concept is not anathema to reasonable interpretations of capitalism. A balance must exist between allowing companies to flourish without falling in cannibalism (stakeholder capitalism vs shareholder capitalism kinda thing.)
That balance is lost in this country. Or perhaps it never had it but it was never a problem until globalization and other factors kicked in.
Regardless, this is another reason to tax capital gains the same (or as close) as income. This buy-back (on top of the layoffs) is pretty much a swap from income gains to capital gains which are taxed more favorably.
Or better yet, this is another reason to revamp our entire tax system : close all loopholes (including offshoring ones), lower tax brackets (both capital and income) while broadening the tax base and/or implement a value-added tax, eliminate double taxation, don't penalize companies from moving capital and operations abroad, BUT instead create incentives for *all* companies (national and foreign) to invest locally.
This Cisco thing is just a symptom of a greater malady.
Blaming Snowden for NSA abuses is like blaming Al Gore for Global Warming.
It is shooting the messenger.
If that messenger didn't tell us, some other messenger would have sooner or later. It was inevitable.
People only keep secrets (like global warming) when they feel it is their patriotic duty to do so for love of country. When they see widespread abuse, contrary to the values of a democracy, little or no oversight, and their peers feel the same way, it is inevitable that somebody is going to blow the whistle about global warming. If it hadn't been Snowden, it would have been someone else, eventually. This was never going to stay secret forever.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Poor people also pay a disproportionate part of their income on food, clothing, energy, housing and transportation. Should all of those things be cheaper for poor people as well?
Should I have done an income analysis on my neighborhood and if I found that I was on the low-end of the income spectrum, should I have demanded a lower price on my house simply because I make less than my neighbors?
I understand charity for the poor, but demanding that poor people pay less for everything simply because they are poor defeats the point of a market economy. If you are going to do that, why not go all the way to a state planned economy?
I'll tell you why.
Because a pure 100% ideological solution to anything is a recipe for failure.
Sometimes a capitalistic approach works. Sometimes a socialistic approach works. Sometimes some other approach entirely works.
If you can achieve a good blend, where you take advantages of systems at their strong points and use some better approach at their weak points, you'll be better off than you will if you live in a binary all-or-nothing world. Where you may get the best of an ideology, but you'll pay for it by getting the worst as well.
Oh yea - keep on blaming the poor for being poor! Have you ever lived paycheck-to-paycheck? If not then count your lucky-ducky stars because you are in the minority of Americans (assuming that you live in the US).
when the poor stop getting earned income credits totaling in the several thousands every year
You're thinking about this in the wrong way. Social safety nets are not about altruism, or even making it easy for the poor to get subsidies (it's not). When poor people lose their jobs, they lose their homes and end up on the streets. When large swaths of the population are homeless, you end up with filthy slums where basic necessities are rare and diseases flourish. Walls, police and even social ostracism may be able to keep undesirable people out of your pristine life, but they won't prevent diseases from spreading from poor communities to the rich who've managed to deny them even a damn toilet to shit in.
Keeping the poor from becoming that poor is a necessity for any civilization. Subsidies for the poor do far more for the common good than tax breaks for the rich.