4 ms·

The choice isn't (always) "lay off some workers or go out of business". Instead it's "It's profitable now but it could be even more profitable if we did somethi

The choice isn't (always) "lay off some workers or go out of business". Instead it's "It's profitable now but it could be even more profitable if we did something that incurred job losses." For example, Carrier was already very profitable when they decided to outsource to Mexico. http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/snapshot_of_a_broken_system_how_a_profitable_company_justifies_laying_off_1400_people_moved_their_jobs_to_mexico/ http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/snapshot_of_a_broken_system_... "A look at United Technologies’ annual report reveals even more good news: Commercial and industrial products, Carrier’s category, make up over half of UTC’s $56 billion in net sales. Climate, Controls & Security had 3 percent growth in 2015, the highest in the company; it was the only division to increase its profit margin year-over-year. “Organic sales growth at UTC Climate, Controls & Security was driven by the U.S. commercial and residential heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and transport refrigeration businesses,” according to page 14 of the report. In other words, air conditioners – what the workers are making in Indianapolis – drove the growth of the best-performing facet of United Technologies’ business."

icantdrive55 9y ago
So more money is always the target? Yea--that's fine, but with these profit moves shouldn't come so dam easy to those in charge. The United States provided relatively safe neighborhoods, schools, could leave the house without fear of kidnapping, blah, blah, etc. Then a company decides to make more money where business can do pretty much whatever they want to the enviorment, pay bribes to officials, hire cheap labor, blah, blah, etc.? (I'm not sure if you're for, or against this profit seeking behavior, and I'm not directing this towards you. That said, what bothers me is when they make their "nut" here; and get greedy. I wish their was a federal law stating if you move your company overseas, you need to move your BOD, and all executives right along to whatever chit hole you decided to make more profits. Point being--don't use this country as your first wife/husband. So--call me a liberal, I believe in company ethics. Something we are losing. Something we assume Berkshire Hathaway has nailed down. The reason why we all like Warren Buffet? And what if they arn't a moral company? I don't know? I just read good things about Warren. I don't know all the dirt in everyone's closet.)
derefr 9y ago
The choice happens at a higher level than such context is available. It's more like "encourage a philosophy of cost-cutting, which might be what saves us if a big, efficient rival comes up behind us too fast for us to begin cost-cutting in response—or allow for a culture of slack and waste, which will become very hard to change if we're ever in such a situation."
golergka 9y ago
> "It's profitable now but it could be even more profitable if we did something that incurred job losses." If keeping someone's employed is making the company less profitable than it could be if it fired him - why would the company keep paying this person money?
- adventured 9y ago
  The argument being presented, is that a job is - to one degree or another - a right or entitlement. The argument is: while yes, that job is of low productive output and it may be questionable as to whether it serves any purpose or needs to exist, it employs someone and therefore should exist specifically for that employee's benefit as opposed to the benefit of the owner of the business who provides said job. That's an emotional argument without any factual or rational merit to support it. It's meant to arrange the 'working class' as the rulers of the means of production. Standard labor vs capital debate.
  - chrisbennet 9y ago
    No, a job is not a right or entitlement, but then again, that wasn't my argument. In the case of Carrier, they were trying to move part of their most profitable divisions to Mexico. It wasn't a case of employing people for charity, it was literally a case of adding more zeros to an already fat bank account.
    - golergka 9y ago
      > It wasn't a case of employing people for charity, it was literally a case of adding more zeros to an already fat bank account. I don't understand, why is adding zeroes to already fat bank account is morally different from pulling the account from negative to positive?
      - chrisbennet 9y ago
        I'm not understanding, could you clarify? Thx. Oops, I think we're too far down the rabbit hole for "reply" to work. I'll take a stab at answering but forgive me if I'm answering the wrong question. When a business is losing money, paying employees is a charity. When the business is making a great profit and decides that it could make even more by hurting/laying off some employees, that is a choice with moral implications. When there is plenty of ice cream bars for everyone but the first guy who arrives at the cafeteria grabs all of them out of the freezer and proceed to sell them to everyone who comes later, the first guy didn't earn them. He didn't actually increase the amount of ice cream. He only captured the value. It is possible to not grab every single ice cream bar especially when you have more than you can ever eat. People and companies do this all the time. As a businessman, I don't find it necessary to screw every other party in a transaction in order to feel successful.

icantdrive55 9y ago

So more money is always the target? Yea--that's fine, but with these profit moves shouldn't come so dam easy to those in charge. The United States provided relatively safe neighborhoods, schools, could leave the house without fear of kidnapping, blah, blah, etc. Then a company decides to make more money where business can do pretty much whatever they want to the enviorment, pay bribes to officials, hire cheap labor, blah, blah, etc.? (I'm not sure if you're for, or against this profit seeking behavior, and I'm not directing this towards you. That said, what bothers me is when they make their "nut" here; and get greedy. I wish their was a federal law stating if you move your company overseas, you need to move your BOD, and all executives right along to whatever chit hole you decided to make more profits. Point being--don't use this country as your first wife/husband. So--call me a liberal, I believe in company ethics. Something we are losing. Something we assume Berkshire Hathaway has nailed down. The reason why we all like Warren Buffet? And what if they arn't a moral company? I don't know? I just read good things about Warren. I don't know all the dirt in everyone's closet.)

derefr 9y ago

The choice happens at a higher level than such context is available. It's more like "encourage a philosophy of cost-cutting, which might be what saves us if a big, efficient rival comes up behind us too fast for us to begin cost-cutting in response—or allow for a culture of slack and waste, which will become very hard to change if we're ever in such a situation."

golergka 9y ago

> "It's profitable now but it could be even more profitable if we did something that incurred job losses." If keeping someone's employed is making the company less profitable than it could be if it fired him - why would the company keep paying this person money?

adventured 9y ago
The argument being presented, is that a job is - to one degree or another - a right or entitlement. The argument is: while yes, that job is of low productive output and it may be questionable as to whether it serves any purpose or needs to exist, it employs someone and therefore should exist specifically for that employee's benefit as opposed to the benefit of the owner of the business who provides said job. That's an emotional argument without any factual or rational merit to support it. It's meant to arrange the 'working class' as the rulers of the means of production. Standard labor vs capital debate.
- chrisbennet 9y ago
  No, a job is not a right or entitlement, but then again, that wasn't my argument. In the case of Carrier, they were trying to move part of their most profitable divisions to Mexico. It wasn't a case of employing people for charity, it was literally a case of adding more zeros to an already fat bank account.
  - golergka 9y ago
    > It wasn't a case of employing people for charity, it was literally a case of adding more zeros to an already fat bank account. I don't understand, why is adding zeroes to already fat bank account is morally different from pulling the account from negative to positive?
    - chrisbennet 9y ago
      I'm not understanding, could you clarify? Thx. Oops, I think we're too far down the rabbit hole for "reply" to work. I'll take a stab at answering but forgive me if I'm answering the wrong question. When a business is losing money, paying employees is a charity. When the business is making a great profit and decides that it could make even more by hurting/laying off some employees, that is a choice with moral implications. When there is plenty of ice cream bars for everyone but the first guy who arrives at the cafeteria grabs all of them out of the freezer and proceed to sell them to everyone who comes later, the first guy didn't earn them. He didn't actually increase the amount of ice cream. He only captured the value. It is possible to not grab every single ice cream bar especially when you have more than you can ever eat. People and companies do this all the time. As a businessman, I don't find it necessary to screw every other party in a transaction in order to feel successful.