Born Losers - Page 8

legion · 04-12-2007, 12:16 PM

I think it is in our (the U.S.) interest to have a stable allie in the Middle East...the more the better. I do not think that was reason enough to invade and overthrough a government. I do think that 11 years of violating cease-fires and U.N. resolutions IS enough to invade and overthrough a government. Paper is meaningless if it is not backed with action.l

Tim Hancock · 04-12-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by legion
I think it is in our (the U.S.) interest to have a stable allie in the Middle East...the more the better. I do not think that was reason enough to invade and overthrough a government. I do think that 11 years of violating cease-fires and U.N. resolutions IS enough to invade and overthrough a government. Paper is meaningless if it is not backed with action.l

Agree 100% with the above especially the last two sentences!

Superman · 04-12-2007, 12:31 PM

Bob, Chris has provided an explanation. Our intentions are not altruistic. There or here. Iraq and its people are means to a further end. The end involves wealth. And these guys are comfortable with that. More than comfortable. If anybody suggests any limitations to this strategy, there or here at home, they go berzerk and pretend as though the Universe will implode. So, not only is it okay to use people to make money without regard for their welfare or health, it is imperative that no impediments exist.

on-ramp · 04-12-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Maybe if those 30,000 workers had been making a bit less money than their union demanded, the CEO would have been able to remain profitable and not have had to go overseas to survive. A company cannot operate at a loss for too long and expect to survive.

Or maybe if the same CEO was able "give up" a bit of their extravagant multi-millionaire dollar bonus , then the company would be able to afford these "working" people and not ship their jobs overseas.

Tim Hancock · 04-12-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
Bob, Chris has provided an explanation. Our intentions are not altruistic. There or here. Iraq and its people are means to a further end. The end involves wealth. And these guys are comfortable with that. More than comfortable. If anybody suggests any limitations to this strategy, there or here at home, they go berzerk and pretend as though the Universe will implode. So, not only is it okay to use people to make money without regard for their welfare or health, it is imperative that no impediments exist.

So you were OK with the 11 yrs of violating UN resolutions?

Reminds me of some parents who yell at their kids 24/7 threatening to punish them.....all the while the kids are learning that mom and dad don't really mean it and therefore the kids continue to do what they want. BRILLIANT!

Maybe SH just needed a few more time outs.

Tim Hancock · 04-12-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp
Or maybe if the same CEO was able "give up" a bit of their extravagant multi-millionaire dollar bonus , then the company would be able to afford these "working" people and not ship their jobs overseas.

Yeah a couple of million split by 30,000 said employees should make a difference

Superman · 04-12-2007, 12:40 PM

Who represented "management" at the bargaining table when the labor agreement was negotiated? My personal observation is that

1) Management is as responsible for a final labor agreement as union representatives are, and

2) Frankly, management is responsible for a myriad of other cost inputs, several of which have a higher impact on costs than the labor agreement and

3) Management is also responsible for non-cost things including and expecially customer perception and marketing and product development that also play a much more powerful role in a company's fortunes.

And when they screw those things up and have to downsize by laying off 30,000 workers, they are hailed as saviors. This truly is the land of opportunity, it seems.

Tim Hancock · 04-12-2007, 12:41 PM

Thank god it is time to head home today.

legion · 04-12-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp
Or maybe if the same CEO was able "give up" a bit of their extravagant multi-millionaire dollar bonus , then the company would be able to afford these "working" people and not ship their jobs overseas.

You are 100% correct. (Is that twice in one day.

)

A CEO that loots a company is no better than a government that loots a company. Now, if the company is owned 100% by the CEO, he has that right. If not, he is defrauding the owners.

on-ramp · 04-12-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by legion
You are 100% correct. (Is that twice in one day. )

A CEO that loots a company is no better than a government that loots a company. Now, if the company is owned 100% by the CEO, he has that right. If not, he is defrauding the owners.

Z-man set me straight today so I'm being extra cautious not to offend any of you.
Think before you post. that's a good rule to go by!

Superman · 04-12-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp
Z-man set me straight today so I'm being extra cautious not to offend any of you.
Think before you post. that's a good rule to go by!

Oh oh! You've been to the Principal's Office?

Moneyguy1 · 04-12-2007, 08:00 PM

Not a couple of million divided by 30,000 employees, but a reduction in the cost of product to increase market share for the company. THis maintains jobs and may even (gasp!!) create a few more!!