HP CEO Gets $2M Raise Despite Laying Off Thousands

Quix said:
Why does the least-skilled position at the company demand so much pay? Seriously, in a large corporation the CEO is just a talking head who's job it is to read copy. Everything is delegated to other, more necessary people.
Click to expand...

So then why are you not a CEO of a major company yet? Sure you qualify to do all of those things...

:rolleyes:

OH thats right because it isn't that easy actually and to think it is, is being rather...naive...
 
aardvark sandwich said:
We have fundamentally different opinions on the self-validation of government in your first quote. You are seeking an emotion based solution. Santa clause doesn't prevent death and disease, sorry. Their only solution is to directly create a market distortion because they have an emotional dispute with where prices are. That only prolongs suffering.
Click to expand...

When people don't have jobs, a way to pay for food or a roof over their head, they tend to become emotional. It's not a matter of an emotion based solution but rather accounting that emotions run high in times of great economic uncertainty. Again, it's easy to tell people to grin and bear it. It's much harder to actually do it.

aardvark sandwich said:
As to percentage points, I'm at a loss here; we're talking subjective values and attempting to assign them to a system that utilizes appointed bureaucrats that will invariably come up with their own idealized percentages. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Human despair makes no sense to you?

aardvark sandwich said:
Re: risk. The system purported to mitigate these risks has just pegged gambling with toxic derivatives on the tax payer. I fail to see how that controls risk.
Click to expand...

But before we even get to these kinds of issues there is the underlying of too big to fail. And it's not all just about government cronyism. We did repeal a lot banking laws like Glass–Steagall because government was supposedly in the way. Sometimes I think it has to be in the way. Capitalism isn't self-regulating because it's all amount making money as you pointed out. Regulating yourself at the reduction of profit is the ultimate conflict of interest.
 
tetris42 said:
You're projecting to hell and back is all I can say. I literally don't believe any of the things you're claiming I do in this post, nor is lazy or "not making it" describe me in the slightest. My family and half my friends have accused me of being a workaholic. You're seriously so far off the mark with me and what I'm saying, that there's really not much more point in responding. I'm saying the behavior portrayed by HP at the top is sociopathic. It being an industry standard has no bearing on that. You're essentially reinforcing that assertion, aren't providing any evidence refuting it, and are insulting me, so... good job?
Click to expand...

Every single political/economical post you make on here is dripping with socialist drivel. You fully believe that people are victims of the "rich" keeping them down.

Workaholic... forgive me if...

image.png
 
wgm3446 said:
Maybe... just maybe... she cut the 15,000 jobs after a full review of unneeded/redundant departments & positions, poor performance, and various inefficiencies...

That's her and the COO's job. Their job is to ensure the survivability of the company and make sure it is running as efficient as possible.

I'm sure she didn't enjoy killing those jobs, but you have to maintain the big picture of keeping the business alive.


So much business hating and ignorance here.
Click to expand...
As a business owner I'm agreeing with this one. People bitch and moan like crazy over business moves when they don't have the business skills nor the information needed to understand such a move.
 
This is what capitalism has come to. As Paul Craig Roberts has rather elegantly summarized on numerous occasions, American corporations no longer seek a comparative advantage in the marketplace, but an ABSOLUTE advantage, mainly through outsourcing and paying labor as little as possible while maximizing "elite" pay. Globalism has not caused this, but pure greed by the 1% who have captured any meaningful amount of wealth via an income war with the remaining 99%.

Saying there's not enough money to go around for the 99% is as absurd as saying there's a scarcity of money itself. It's a fiction, solicited and advanced by those who detest labor and idolize the ridiculously rich.
 
Blown 89 said:
As a business owner I'm agreeing with this one. People bitch and moan like crazy over business moves when they don't have the business skills nor the information needed to understand such a move.
Click to expand...


You don't know the details on why these people were laid off. So making such a statement is pretty....moot to say the least.



What if it was the board of directors and the C's making all the decisions that caused HP to have to lose these jobs in order to stay afloat? Is it still ok? If the banks failed and money lost its value, would you still have the same view? Most likely not.


What if, what if, what if, what if........
 
heatlesssun said:
Human despair makes no sense to you?
Click to expand...

I'm saying what does it matter what my own idea is about a percentage? It will differ from yours, yours will differ from the guy down the street, his will differ from the FED's.
 
heatlesssun said:
But before we even get to these kinds of issues there is the underlying of too big to fail. And it's not all just about government cronyism. We did repeal a lot banking laws like Glass–Steagall because government was supposedly in the way. Sometimes I think it has to be in the way. Capitalism isn't self-regulating because it's all amount making money as you pointed out. Regulating yourself at the reduction of profit is the ultimate conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Having read the excellent book "Too Big to Fail" the government was a key player in the financial crisis ... their desire to encourage what they considered positive business behaviors (like loaning money for people to buy homes) and positive market indicators (stock growth), led them to adopt policies that encouraged business to engage in riskier behaviors than they had in the past ...

capitalism may not be totally self regulating but most businesses aren't stupid either ... they will tend to engage in super risky behaviors only when there is an incentive to do so ... the government gave them incentives to take risks that they had never taken before (and both sides paid for that) ... can business make stupid decisions on their own (most certainly) ... can they make horribly stupid decisions when they follow government guidance (even more certainly) ... also, business is unlikely to all follow the same high risk behaviors unless the government makes it easier to do so
 
XvMMvX said:
Every single political/economical post you make on here is dripping with socialist drivel. You fully believe that people are victims of the "rich" keeping them down.

Workaholic... forgive me if...
Click to expand...
I would try to explain there's a difference between believing one thing in certain situations you associate with a certain with a certain group v. believing ALL the things that group does for ALL situations, but you've made it pretty clear you're not interested in rational discourse.

As for your meme, whatever man. I put in close to 300 hours in my work for December and it paid off. It's the reality, and if you want to doubt it, I can't argue with that. It's like somebody not believing the sky's blue: if that's what they believe, there's nothing you can really say to them when you're looking at it with your own two eyes.
 
kbrickley said:
Having read the excellent book "Too Big to Fail" the government was a key player in the financial crisis ... their desire to encourage what they considered positive business behaviors (like loaning money for people to buy homes) and positive market indicators (stock growth), led them to adopt policies that encouraged business to engage in riskier behaviors than they had in the past ...

capitalism may not be totally self regulating but most businesses aren't stupid either ... they will tend to engage in super risky behaviors only when there is an incentive to do so ... the government gave them incentives to take risks that they had never taken before (and both sides paid for that) ... can business make stupid decisions on their own (most certainly) ... can they make horribly stupid decisions when they follow government guidance (even more certainly) ... also, business is unlikely to all follow the same high risk behaviors unless the government makes it easier to do so
Click to expand...

Government certainly leveraged bad behavior in the mortgage collapse, but that was far from the only factor, and probably not the most important one. There were simply too many bad business practices going on. Inflated appraisals, bad securities grading, lack of oversight in lending and co-party exposure. The list goes on. I work for a mega bank and there's been a realization that we did have failures in our business that were on us. And there's been a lot of work going on to make sure that it never happens again. Not that it won't, but we wouldn't be doing ourselves any favors by not cleaning up our own mistakes and just blaming government.
 
tetris42 said:
Man threads like these always bring out the sociopaths on Hardocp.
Click to expand...
I've noticed that as well, tune usually changes when it happens to them or a family remember. Theories tend to go out the window when it's you that's being fucked. Steinbeck summed it up nicely:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
 
The funny thing is that isn't a valid argument.

We dont put the bereaved on the jury when someone kills someone do we? They aren't objective.

Someone who has just lost their job is not in the position to tell others what they should be doing with their money.
 
Unexploded said:
I've noticed that as well, tune usually changes when it happens to them or a family remember. Theories tend to go out the window when it's you that's being fucked. Steinbeck summed it up nicely:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
Click to expand...

I was part of a workforce reduction with my first employer ... I dodged being "reduced" twice with my last employer and was able to finally leave them before the "third time is the charm" ... my current employer was just sold to another company so who knows what my future will hold ... that doesn't mean I will switch from my desire for a meritocracy based capitalistic system to a mediocrity based socialistic one ;)

Are layoffs bad for the employee (of course they are) ... are there bad companies out there that are so poorly managed that layoffs have become de rigueur (certainly) ... is HP one of them (not sure, but I don't think so) ... although I would love to work for a company (or even better own one) that never has layoffs, that is a difficult thing to do ...

bottom line is that business conditions change over time ... it is hard for a big company to anticipate every market shift and move into new markets fast enough to avoid rightsizing their resource pool ... sometimes that means headcount reductions, sometimes it means skill and product shifts, sometimes it means picking up and moving to a new location (inside or outside the USA), sometimes it means a combination of several of those ... if we truly expect our businesses to be competitive capitalistic ventures then we have to give them ability to succeed (and sometimes to fail) ... that isn't being sociopathic but is just cold hard reality :cool:
 
aardvark sandwich said:
We dont put the bereaved on the jury when someone kills someone do we? They aren't objective.
Click to expand...

When it comes to money no one is objective. I'm not proposing taking from those who have and giving to those who don't. But I'm also not proposing that in hard times telling someone who wants and needs to work to stay off the streets is equivalent to belief in Santa Clause.
 
When you tax something you have less of it.

But Santa will buy it back for you! Just give him your money first.
 
heatlesssun said:
When it comes to money no one is objective. I'm not proposing taking from those who have and giving to those who don't. But I'm also not proposing that in hard times telling someone who wants and needs to work to stay off the streets is equivalent to belief in Santa Clause.
Click to expand...

When we had the large number of unemployed in the Great Depression we forced them to work to receive their aid (a lot of roads and buildings in our national parks were built that way) ... unemployment is bad but having a government hand out money to anyone who asks is worse (or restricting a company's ability to hire, fire, and promote who they wish) ... I am not a hard core libertarian opposed to all assistance but I also think you get what you pay for ... give unemployment (but limit the time it can be collected) and force the worker collecting it to report for work or training 40 hours/week (we required people to move halfway across the country during the Depression because they didn't live where the jobs were) ;)
 
kbrickley said:
When we had the large number of unemployed in the Great Depression we forced them to work to receive their aid (a lot of roads and buildings in our national parks were built that way)
Click to expand...

and we also established Social Security.

kbrickley said:
r ... give unemployment (but limit the time it can be collected) and force the worker collecting it to report for work or training 40 hours/week (we required people to move halfway across the country during the Depression because they didn't live where the jobs were) ;)
Click to expand...

Um we already do this.
 
kac77 said:
Um we already do this.
Click to expand...

No we dont. We require them to "claim" they applied for at least 3 jobs in a form that can be filed online every week. You literally dont have to leave the house to collect unemployment.
 
Disposed said:
You literally dont have to leave the house to collect unemployment.
Click to expand...

Depending on the state you live in though, you my not have a house for long with what unemployment pays. Unemployment for me would barely cover the mortgage and literally nothing else, and I ain't paying a whole lot for my house either. So if I needed to drive to a job based on what unemployment is paying, it wouldn't even cover the gas to get to the job.
 
heatlesssun said:
Depending on the state you live in though, you my not have a house for long with what unemployment pays. Unemployment for me would barely cover the mortgage and literally nothing else, and I ain't paying a whole lot for my house either. So if I needed to drive to a job based on what unemployment is paying, it wouldn't even cover the gas to get to the job.
Click to expand...

Thats not the point. I dont look down on people on unemployment like some people do but the guy i quoted made a claim thats bullshit.

When i was laid off i literally just filed online every saturday and went into one meeting thing at the office down town. I was only on it for a couple months but i got so fucking bored i had to go do something.
 
bwanaaa said:
This is what is wrong with the concept of a corporation. Everyone should be equally expendable.
Click to expand...

Has never been and will never be true. People bring difficult skills and abilities to any organization. Any organization may need more of person A or less of person B.

AND cutbacks in employee numbers should be accompanied with proportional cutbacks to administrative budgets - there are fewer employees so management has less work to do.
Click to expand...

If you disagree with how they run their business, you can choose not to patronize them. Management's goal is to improve the financial condition of the firm. This sometimes means reducing labor.

The concept of a corporation as an entity is fundamentally at odds with the other life forms on this planet. Wait till ur sick and you butt heads with corporate America in the ER. You will soon realize that posting bad reviews of your caregiver on the net will do nothing to improve your lot. And you will die sooner - saving the insurance execs even more money so they can have more profits so they can have bigger bonuses.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies file public financial documents. They're traditionally far less profitable than plenty of other businesses that congress hasn't seen fit to specifically demonize to further an agenda.
 
nutzo said:
I agree with you on computers, but they still make some of the best laser printers.
Click to expand...

Don't forget about some of their IPS monitors a few years ago. My LP2475w has been the best $550 I've ever spent on a peripheral.
 
michaelvvang said:
Everyone I talk to seems to have a bad experience with HP laptops...seems related.
Click to expand...

Consumer side, I will agree with you. Enterprise side, I feel that HP is the best choice right now for a good mix of quality, specs, price, and support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top