BrianJB

I am sure many of you have read the many articles about companies doing layoffs since obama was reelected, please see here.

But I have read many other articles about companies doing layoffs, and while I do think *some* of them are new, many of them have been laying people off for the last year, with no end in sight. Regardless of who was in office, I mean does anyone honestly think that if Romney won that RIM was going to quit laying people off?

I am not siding with Obama, or Romney for that matter. I am a pretty moderate guy.


I just want to know everyones opinions.

Do you think that these companies are laying off due to Obama?, Or do you think they already had these plans set in motion, but some are upset about the election and are trying to scare people?

jefboyardee

I believe the companies you refer to, and countless others, were trying to hold out hope, keeping their staffs intact on the assumption that (a) Romney would be elected and (b) the country could at least get on the road to recovery. But when it went the other way, all plans for future business growth, let alone just staying alive, are in complete jeopardy. I also believe that countless giant manufacturers will mysteriously move overseas in the middle of the night, having given up on trying to make a profit in this left-for-dead-country. I’d move too, if I knew any language besides Arizonan.

__________________

BrianJB

I guess what I am trying to say is that many of the companies that have been mentioned the past few days have been places that had already been laying people off...I think RIM has been doing layoffs since 2007.

To me it just feels like it has been political fire.


I have always been one to think that if a company thinks they could make a better profit by manufacturing something overseas they will do it, regardless who is in office.

We have had companies leaving the states under Regan,Bush,Clinton,W,and Obama. And I think they would continue to do so under Romney.

jefboyardee

RIM’s problems had nothing to do with the economy or the president – they were not keeping up with the the competition, just like Palm.

And sure, a smattering of companies move overseas to cut costs, no matter who is president. But just hang on and see what happens next.

I hope I’m wrong – to the point of looking stupid – about where we’re headed.

ElasticNinja

Would you really move somewhere where they force you to have Healthcare?

Thats Europe off your list, or Canada, even places like Switzerland.

__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!

A.Nonymous

A lot of the layoffs are being attributed to Obamacare. Right or wrong, companies believe that Obamacare is going to drive up their cost of doing business. So they are cutting back in order to stay profitable. Can't blame them for that though some people certainly will I'm sure.

Bob Maxey

I have read the stories as well.

I do know of one company that has laid off their entire creative staff and for the time being, they are hiring freelancers. I am one of those freelancers that is working hard to heep his position, so I hope they do not lay me off to hire perminent people.

Selfish, right?

I also work for several local companies that are trying to avoid hiring people untill they know what is going to happen and if Obama is really going to do smething useful this time around.

I have to admit it, but a slow ecconomy has been good for me in some cases. the comany saves money and I make more. Not sure how to parse that.

saptech

Most companies started laying off around 2007/2008 when the economy started sinking from the housing burst. I believe alot of them just took advantage of the situation to lay off during this time so they wouldn't look so bad, use the bad economy as an excuse.

Also alot of buy-outs & mergers are a cause for layoffs.

Now companies that are hiring are hiring people at lower wages and working them longer hours.

__________________
"One Nation Under A Groove"

cmybliss

Every company my husband has worked for since 2000 has laid people off at this time of year. Really, they do it at the end of each quarter. It's their way of maximizing profits. Doesn't matter who's in office, as it was just as prevalent in his line of work during the Bush years.

Just my 0.02

jefboyardee

And this is more business as usual?

The Bush-era income tax rates will expire at the end of the year. That is only one of a number of financially significant–some say cataclysmic–deadlines that occur around year end: the payroll tax holiday ends, the alternative minimum tax patch will expire, $36 billion in Obamacare taxes will take effect, tax extenders will expire, the (minimal) 2009 stimulus tax cuts will run out, the inheritance tax will increase, and 100% expensing for business investment will expire.

A.Nonymous

None if this matters because businesses will cheerfully take the hit right in their bottom line. Profits are evil.

jayjay1122

Your 0.02 is worth a little more than you give yourself credit for. I have seen similar behavior and I have actually been with the same company since 2001.

My company has been laying off people, quarterly, in the name of Lean Management. It'd have more credibility if they knew the realities of Lean Management, but they don't.

It is like clockwork, we see the irrational projections they tell "the street" and then a few months later there is a down-sizing. You could set a seasonal watch by it.

A.Nonymous

I'm now running into some of these stories not just in the news, but anecdotally. I've crossed paths with a number of people recently who have lost their jobs or had their hours cut and their management has told them directly that it's because of Obamacare. The next year or so will tell us definitively how much of impact Obamacare will have.

cjr72

"Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money."

A.Nonymous

Denny's announced they are raising prices 5% and cutting back on employees hours as well in response to Obamacare. Why won't companies just take the hit on the bottom line like they're supposed to? It makes no sense.

saptech

Yes Obamacare is a good reason to use for layoffs. I remember before Obamacare became, companies used the housing bust to start laying off around 2007. What's next I wonder???

cmybliss

They'd rather have their employees come to work sick and hacking all over the food and customers than reallocate a few cents from every order for health care. I saw a piece on Papa John's that estimated it would be about 0.15 per pie. Just so you know where a lot of these guys are coming from, most of them donated money to the Romney campaign.

Bob Maxey

That is why they exist.

To make money.

That is why you likely have a job, made possible by a for-profit company. You have a phone, computer, car, apartment/house, food and clothing. Made by evil manufacturers and landlords so you do not live in a cardboard box

Incidentally, also made by a for-profit cmpany.

I am a for profit company, so you can hate me if you wish.

Bob Maxey

You might take a look at this:

How Much Is The Obamacare Mandate Going To Cost You? - Forbes

Lots of questions about exactly what it will cost you and me. We will know when we know and my guess is many will not like the invoices they get.

I have heard as much as 2500.00 per person. I do know the IRS has hired lots of people and some say this is to collect the "free" health care. I am no longer sure what will happen. I am still bothered that those that voted for the bill did not read the 2500 or so page document. Ticks me off.

As for donating to Romney, so what does that mean exactly? I donated as did many I know. So what?

I can guess that lots of rich people will find a way around the laws and the bottom line is this: we will pay vast amounts of money for a system we might never get rid of. Like the IRS, it will likely control the lives of many people.

And we have almost 4 more years to see what else obama has up his sleeves.

Here is another look: Here Are The New Taxes You

cjr72

No hate from me. I was just quoting a line from a comedy that a post here reminded me of.

A.Nonymous

That's the thing though. If companies raise prices or cut hours, they are evil. I talked with someone on another forum who said that corporations who raise prices or cut employees hours are "greedy." However, the person demanding free healthcare that someone else will have to pay for is not greedy at all.

cmybliss

Here's the thing. I don't mind a small rise in prices if it allows people to have health care. The current system is broken. When a parent can't buy health insurance for their child because of a preexisting condition, that's wrong. I don't think the majority of people want free health care, they want affordable health care. Besides the fact that there's really no such thing as free health care because even if you're talking about government run, you're paying for it.

A.Nonymous

I don't disagree with you that the majority of people want affordable and not free health care. That's not what Obamacare is doing though. It's not aimed at bringing the cost of healthcare down, it's aimed at forcing everyone to have healthcare.

rabernet

Are you aware about this part of Obamacare when it comes to pre-existing conditions? It's part of the plan that Pelosi said we'd just have to learn about after it passed.

I am lower middle class. I am fiscally conservative - and what's happening now, is not surprising. Obama's house of cards is beginning to fall down all around him. I happen to NOT view big business as evil or greedy. They are the job makers. Why WOULDN'T they take their business elsewhere when Obama has made it so hostile for them?

I applaud what the Denny's owner, Papa Johns, Applebee's et al is doing. Those who voted for Obama this time around for their "free ride" (and his creation of even more people dependent on government was really quite brilliant for his re-election), really need to SEE the impact of what Obamacare and this Administration is really costing us. Of course, it will be spun by the media (love that ABC was laughing about the loss of 18,500 jobs this morning with the announcement of the closure of Hostess - but I regress) that these businesses are evil. Who's going to be evil and at fault when the unemployment rate climbs higher and higher? Oh right - Bush...keep forgetting everything is his fault......

Here are two articles that articulate how I feel very well.

http://www.caintv.com/left-goes-bonkers-as-obamacare

http://www.caintv.com/dennys-adding-a--obamacare-sur

Last edited by rabernet; November 16th, 2012 at 02:34 PM.

ElasticNinja

I have said this before, I think placing the full, ridiculously high cost of American healthcare onto employers is a shitty idea.

However, if one claims to be fiscally conservative and knows their stuff, by rights they should support Universal Healthcare (=/= obamacare btw). It basically costs everyone a lot less as its far more efficient. If the healthcare system that exists in Germany was enacted right now in America, with the same efficiencies, and with the federal government giving states a responsibility to negotiate with insurers as happens in DE, the about 70-80% of American health spend would be covered by what the federal and state governments spend right now. And businesses and individuals would have a massive burden lifted off their shoulders.

A.Nonymous

It doesn't cost less and it's not more efficient. Nothing at all the US government does is efficient. That's the problem.

jefboyardee

Hostess, the makers of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread, is going out of business after striking workers failed to heed a Thursday deadline to return to work, the company said.

jefboyardee

Time to Let the Country Crash?

"Let it crash!" "Give them what they want and they'll see what happens!" "Surely, once the left's programs are implemented and the economy crashes, people will come to their senses."

saptech

Voting for 2012 ended with the reelection of President Barack Obama, but the hatred, disrespect and attacks on the president have been non-stop. From Twitter messages, to college campus protests to radio station call-ins, to gun purchases, and anger on the streets.

But on the bright side of things...

Millionaires to Washington: More Taxes, Please! | Mother Jones

jefboyardee

Can Romney's loss help Republicans?

Just ten days after the election, it already looks like rough sledding ahead for whoever sits in the Oval Office. And the fact that it is not Mitt Romney may ultimately help Republicans.

saptech

Demography Not The Only Reason Romney Lost - ABC News

If winning an election depends on appealing to and then turning out a base of old, white people you are going to lose every presidential election from here on out.

Last edited by saptech; November 16th, 2012 at 10:02 PM.

ElasticNinja

I'm sorry, but the statistics disagree A.Nonymous. They simply do.

A.Nonymous

The only reason some government services are able to provide the same services for less money is because they operate at a loss. They are not at all viable long term solutions. At least not if we have any interests in cutting the size/cost of government. They are certainly not more efficient.

ElasticNinja

Operate at a loss = efficiency? You are a smart guy A.Nonymous, sheesh. If we compare government regulated and mandated (or run) health systems, they are far more efficient than the free for all model in the US.

Read this:

Healthcare spending around the world, country by country | News | guardian.co.uk

Healthcare spend as a %GDP: Germany = 11.6% vs US = 17.9 %GDP.
Private spend as a % of HC spend: Germany = 22.9% vs US = 46.9%.
Public spend per capita PPP: Germany = $3339 vs US = $4437.

Germany has 3 doctors for every 2 the US has.

Don't give me a bunch of shit about US governments being inefficient etc. German healthcare is run by their states, many of whom have quite large fiscal deficits and could be run somewhat better.

Basically, what I'm saying is, taking the government out of healthcare will only increase overall healthcare spending, cause millions to die unnecessarily, drive up costs and economic inefficiency and make the US more uncompetitive.

A.Nonymous

Again, they are not more efficient. Your argument that they can provide more services for less money is right. But they only reason they can do this is because they operate at a loss. It's not a sustainable long term model.

kevincott

If the Government actually improves efficiency, what really happens?

Medicine will lose the best and brightest students to other fields. The sharpest people will want to make more money wherever it lies and doctors as a whole will be B to C+ type students.

Is this what you want, your life dependent on 'above average' students?

ElasticNinja

The healthcare system of Germany does not operate at a loss. The Japanese one does, but that doesnt make a big difference to health spending in practice.

Look at the statistics. Address them. Please.

Thats the way it is in my country, and we have a life expectancy far better than America's, despite smoking and drinking much more.

A.Nonymous

Every healthcare system the US government operates operates at a loss. That's all I'm saying. The US government doesn't turn a profit on anything it operates. In fact, every system the feds operate that I'm familiar with operate at a loss. Med*****/medicaid all lose money. Social Security loses money. And if you try to deal with these systems on a regular basis you quickly find that they are anything in the world but efficient.

Set all of that aside for a second. The fact is that culturally people here do not trust the government at all. The last thing they want is government in charge of their healthcare. As I mentioned earlier, the government runs the VA healthcare system from the top to the bottom. They have full control over everything. Your dog gets better care. Just saying.

ElasticNinja

Running a loss mean not enough taxation. Not relevant to the efficiency of the service!

A.Nonymous

Not very efficient to lose money year after year, but what do I know? The fact is you are not going to drive down healthcare costs by raising taxes. Silly that anyone would think that is the solution. If you want to reform healthcare in the US you need to drive costs down, not force everyone to buy it. Drive costs down and then let people decide if they want to buy healthcare or not. If they don't, it's all on them.

ElasticNinja

My point was that if a system like Germany's existed in the US, taxes would not have to be raised. The government would not provide healthcare. etc etc

A.Nonymous

And if money grew on trees no one would ever go bankrupt. What's your point?

jhtalisman

You are either going to pay for others healthcare upfront or when you have see a doctor or have surgery. I, along with many others, would rather pay upfront.

A.nonymous, you can only speak for yourself and those you know, so please don't try to represent the entire population of the U.S.A.

cjr72

Government run or not as long as healthcare remains a third-party payer system in the US it will continue to be inefficient.

ElasticNinja

Depends on your definition of efficient I guess. A well regulated, mandatory 3rd party payer system would be a lot more efficient than the current system.

Granted, an entirely government run system would be the most efficient and effective, based on statistical evidence, but in a lot of cases that is not feasible (certainly not in the US).

You know exactly what my point is A.Nonymous. Its that the US needs a universal healthcare system to improve outcomes and to make the economy more competitive.

EDIT: Also if money grew on trees there would be rampant inflation and probably thus more bankruptcy.

Last edited by ElasticNinja; November 18th, 2012 at 06:18 AM.

A.Nonymous

For the last time we have a perfect example of a fully funded, fully run by the US government health system. It's the VA system. Someone please make the case for me that the VA health system is great and wonderful. I'm listening. The fact that every vet I know would rather pay money for insurance out of their own pocket so they can go elsewhere tells you a lot. They are entitled to free health insurance for life but would rather pay for something in the private sector. What does that say about the efficiency and effectiveness of a fully government run system in the US? But if someone thinks the VA system is better than any private system out there, I'm listening. I think it's a shame we treat our veterans this way.

In any case, why not address the problem of why healthcare is so damn expensive? Instead of forcing everyone to buy a product that everyone seems to agree is overpriced, why not focus on bringing the price down. You bring the price down to something that is reasonable and then you let people decide if they want to buy it or not. If they don't want to buy a reasonably priced product, it's on them.

ElasticNinja

Can you read my posts? I've explained how one gets the bloody price down over and over again to you ad nauseum, but at this stage I reckon you simply have selective illiteracy.

Apoplectic1

Because they don't have to. They can just side step it and delegate the costs down to the employees by cutting hours and consumers by raising prices.

That's why you can never truly tax the top 10%. You only really tax the rest indirectly.

...and that has absolutely nothing to do with Europeans typically having a much better diet than Americans does it?

Unfortunately increasing taxes can have an inverse relationship with productivity. Raise taxes too much, productivity goes way down. Ever hear of the Laffer Curve?

Productivity down = inefficiency.

That's just it, does the government have the right to force people to buy anything? Am I the only person who that seems completely oppressive to?

Not to mention that it is directly in violation of several commerce clauses and the tenth amendment of the US Constitution. But when was the last time that stopped any politician?

Whether or not people are healthy (whether or not their state of unhealth is self imposed or not) should not be the governments concern.

A.Nonymous

No, your idea of bringing the price down by (ideally) having a system run entirely by the government is beyond ridiculous. I'm still waiting to hear your arguments about how the VA system (entirely run by the government) is so good.

ElasticNinja

Well, while I would like my countries healthcare system to be largely government run like the NHS (and I guess it is, but it is heavily two tier, 50/50 split of no insurance to insurance, should be more like 90/10), but as I said, I think government run healthcare is impractical for nigh on all US states.

If you had read my posts, you would see me saying that in the US, governments should negotiate with insurers and the healthcare industry, set targets and levels of care, etc. The government would not own hospitals. It would not pay nurses or doctors. But it would insure everyone had cheap efficient insurance.

I really have no idea about the VA. I don't think its really practical for a government run healthcare system with low use to exist across the US. Veterans should just have Universal Healthcare like everyone else, throw in free orthodontistry for their kids of something.