Thanks to capitalism. You made billions for them. Then they tell you "you can FO now".
Basically Intel did not keep pace with the rapid technological changes. If they had kept pace these workers could keep their jobs while retraining them for new innovative products.All large companies go through this type of thing. It's how they stay in business. Even smaller companies have to do this on occasion. Like you said, its the price of innovation. Times change and companies must change with it. What would you rather have? Them not restructuring and as such not able to keep up with what they need to do thereby ending up going bankrupt in the long run which means byebye company and ALL jobs lost or restructure and able to keep up with the times with not everyone losing their jobs?
Basically Intel did not keep pace with the rapid technological changes. If they had kept pace these workers could keep their jobs while retraining them for new innovative products.
If, if, if.
They are run by humans and humans make mistakes.
Look at all the bankers (including those at the Fed) and corporations that completely misread the housing boom/bust...it happens.
Basically Intel did not keep pace with the rapid technological changes. If they had kept pace these workers could keep their jobs while retraining them for new innovative products.
Basically Intel did not keep pace with the rapid technological changes. If they had kept pace these workers could keep their jobs while retraining them for new innovative products.
If, if, if.
They are run by humans and humans make mistakes.
Look at all the bankers (including those at the Fed) and corporations that completely misread the housing boom/bust...it happens.
The PC market was dead 10 years ago.Retraining costs money. If it is determined to be cheaper to lay off workers and hire workers able to deal with the company's new direction without that extra retraining cost, that can only be considered a good thing from a business point of view.
In any case, it doesn't appear to me that Intel "did not keep pace with rapid technological changes"...rather the company is charting their course based on technological changes and decisions about the company's focus.
The PC market was dead 10 years ago.
The PC market was dead 10 years ago.
The PC market was dead 10 years ago.
Thanks to capitalism. You made billions for them. Then they tell you "you can FO now".
Basically Intel did not keep pace with the rapid technological changes. If they had kept pace these workers could keep their jobs while retraining them for new innovative products.
I love "if".
You know IF the Edsel had looked different, some 1,200 workers would have had jobs for years.
**** happens, they may have erred, but how many years experience have you had creating a business and building jobs. What you seem to be suggesting is they should be jailed or something for laying people off. Businesses DO NOT operate for the benefit of the workers, they work specifically for the shareholders, like all those union and municipal pension funds.
DA I curious how you feel about stock buybacks......I'm not sure how I feel, but whatever you come up with, I should probably take the opposite view....Haha....Just kidding. But seriously, Intel just bought back $800 million in shares in Q1 of 2016. This inflates the stock price, arguably , artificially.
Thoughts?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?