busyNotice that many of these companies are turning large profits. In other words, someone is just pocketing a lot of the money, instead of rolling a fair portion back into the company to pay American workers enough to live on. Pathetic.
25 companies responsible for 700,000 lost jobs
* Insourcing/Outsourcing * layoffs.labor arbitrage
Daily Finance has compiled a list, from Challenger and Gray
layoff data, of the top 25 companies with the biggest job
losses this recession.
From The Layoff Kings: The 25 Companies Responsible for
700,000 Lost Jobs author Douglas McIntyre, compiled the list
below. I've added whether or not that company is known for
offshore outsourcing jobs. The actual jobs offshore
outsourced is unknown, if some ambitious researcher wishes to
correlate layoffs with jobs created offshore, or offshore
outsourcing contracts written, we'd appreciate the specifics.
From the list we have, these top companies, the number of
layoffs and whether or not they are an offshore outsourcer.
1. General Motors, 107,357, outsourcer
2. Citigroup, 73,056 , outsourcer
3. Hewlett-Packard, 47,540, outsourcer
4. Circuit City Stores, 41,495
5. Merrill Lynch, 40,650, outsourcer (BoA)
6. Verizon Wireless, 39,000, outsourcer
7. Pfizer, 31,771, outsourcer
8. Merck & Co., 24,400, outsourcer
9. Lehman Brothers, 23,340
10. Caterpillar, 23,024, outsourcer
11. JPMorgan Chase, 22,852, outsourcer
12. Starbucks, 21,316
13. AT&T, 18,401, outsourcer
14. Alcoa, 17,655, outsourcer
15. Dow Chemical, 17,530, outsourcer
16. DuPont, 17,000, outsourcer
17. Berkshire Hathaway, 16,900, unknown
18. Ford Motor, 15,912, outsourcer
19. KB Toys, 15,100
20. United States Postal Service, 15,000
21. DHL Express USA, 14,900
22. Sprint Nextel, 14,500, outsourcer
23. Sun Microsystems, 14,000, outsourcer
24. Boeing, 13,715, outsourcer
25. Chrysler, 13,672, outsourcer
As you can see, there are many Tech companies on the list,
when supposedly the recession was about finance and real
estate. Some of these companies have reported record profits,
most are reasonably healthy.
Caterpillar literally demanded U.S. taxpayer dollars, in the
form of Stimulus, all the while firing Americans and offshore
outsourcing jobs.
So, while the blame continues to focus on the housing market
and financial Armageddon, it appears we have the same issues
that were the cause of the 2001 recession, global labor
arbitrage with corporations offshore outsourcing, moving
manufacturing abroad as well as the profits.
September 1 2010, 09:28:03 UTC 10 years ago
who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces,
seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets.
They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers.
They will receive a very severe condemnation."
He sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury.
Many rich people put in large sums.
A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents.
Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them,
"Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury.
For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth,
but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood."
As he was making his way out of the temple area one of his disciples said to him,
"Look, teacher, what stones and what buildings!"
Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings?
There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down."
The upshot here is that Christ has just explained how this people got rich,
and how that widow got poor,
and the disciples are arguing that the wealth is being put to good use,
and Christ is saying that it is not.
A lot of Christians don't notice that,
and I've never heard a sermon/homily given on this topic.
Whatever denomination,
this passage is somehow always used to rationalize
support for the building project.
Always.
Too true...
September 1 2010, 18:16:19 UTC 10 years ago
September 3 2010, 08:07:27 UTC 10 years ago
At the beginning we were told it was all about customer service, how the Overseas Team would be a supplement to us, extend our work hours and give better service. Then Management turned around and fired our local workers in a 1:1 ratio (for every one in the Overseas Team, a NZ worker was made redundant).
I don't have anything against our Overseas Team, we're lucky to have one person doing our work, but at the same time it's become a longer process for us to get the work done.
September 3 2010, 11:38:06 UTC 10 years ago
that the CEO gets into trouble...
Yes...
September 3 2010, 16:59:01 UTC 10 years ago
Thoughts
September 3 2010, 17:00:46 UTC 10 years ago
Well, a company is supposed to make money for its shareholders. The CEO just wants to make enough to pay them and pocket a fortune anyhow. That doesn't leave much for employees or products.
Too bad about your work situation; that really sucks.
Re: Thoughts
September 5 2010, 05:20:19 UTC 10 years ago
And I am pretty bitter; our union is in the middle of contract negotiations and Company is trying to bust our pay level down (to the tune of about $5000NZ per annum). Their reasoning is it's "unfair" to have different pay scales, but they are the ones who set it up a few years ago, not to mention our scale is higher because we need more specialised knowledge to do our job & Company relies on us to be the 'gate keepers' and to help reduce risk and fraud caused by some of the people on the slightly lower scale.
:S Sorry, probably TMI for you.
Re: Thoughts
September 5 2010, 06:35:30 UTC 10 years ago
I agree. It isn't profit per se that's a problem, but a desire for so much profit that it undercuts other functions. Also, I don't think that deceit is a very good business practice: a lie may be your ally, but it will never be your friend.
>>Sorry, probably TMI for you.<<
I'm okay with this level of sharing on this topic.
Deleted comment
Well...
September 1 2010, 18:14:10 UTC 10 years ago
Deleted comment
Re: Well...
September 5 2010, 06:15:48 UTC 10 years ago
I agree. The match is not perfect. What we have is borrowing from various sources ... often, the most ruthless aspects.
>>In today's society, money seems to be at the core of the system. <<
True.
>>Those with money have no real bonds outside of the often dirty connections money makes (bonds that money can just as easily break). They certainly have no sense of honour, and their only real duty is to make more money. The accumulation of wealth is the most important factor.<<
I think this is incomplete. They worship power as much as money. And there is an aspect of aristocracy evolving -- wealthy families have become entrenched. The main difference is the entry filter: American moneyed aristocracy is created by cash but can be maintained by family connections. Anyone rich enough can break into it and be accepted as a Player; they respect whatever it takes to become a self-made fatcat. That's not true for traditional aristocracies. But the grouping of wealthy families -- especially at the peak -- is tighter and more durable than random capitalist social groups.
>>It might not be capitalism, but neither is it feudalism, which was often land-based, and certainly implied the parceling of land to vassals who were expected to perform duties (upholding the law, fighting in wars, castle duty, etc.) in return for holding those granted fiefdoms.<<
Mmm ... the pattern isn't identical, but there are many similarities. In agriculture, more and more land is bought up by megacorps which then hire people to work it, instead of many small family farms. In cities, a single landowner may hold a great many apartment buildings, houses, etc. which are let out to people who can't afford to buy -- because they are not paid enough. Early on, about 90% of Americans worked for themselves, and only 10% were employees. Now it's the reverse: and employees work for someone else's profit. People are frequently trapped in jobs because they can't afford to quit. Also social mobility, which used to be a hallmark of American culture, is falling into the toilet.
The legal structure is different, but some of the economic and social dynamics are disturbingly similar.