Future is rank for 3,000 Xerox employees
TECH GIANT Xerox is the latest company to announce large-scale redundancies and blame it on the economic turmoil resulting from the fact the banks spent everyone's money.
Despite reporting $285 million in annual profit, based mainly on sales to emerging markets, poor sales in the US market and gloomy predictions of tougher times ahead have lead the company to announce 3,000 job cuts.
Reading from the same hymn book as every other CEO who has thrown people out of their jobs to protect shareholder dividends in the past few weeks, Xerox Chief Exec Anna Mulcahey said: "We are accelerating actions to reduce our cost base and drive operational improvements across the board, giving us more flexibility in our business in this unpredictable economy."
And what better way is there to create an economic downturn than to throw everyone out of work their jobs?
Xerox joins Yahoo, Micron and Dell which have all announced massive cuts in staff this week. µ
Share this:
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
As the author mentions... its the backwards thinking at the companies that protecting the value of their stock is going to make everything better... The big problem is actually all these high-paid execs that are tying up that money in their personal accounts and company cash reserves rather than using the money to expand business operations and create new jobs which would actually help the economy.
The government unfortunately needs to step in to regulate the companies' spending to improve the economy. One solution might be to evaluate company yearly profits plus yearly executive earnings (including bonuses and stock options etc), call the combined figure "X" take a ratio "Y" and apply it so that companies must create XY jobs the following year. If the jobs are not created or jobs are removed then the company and execs are fined 90% of X The government can take that money and use it for small business grants (not loans) so new companies and jobs can be created.
For example say X = $400,000,000 lets call the ratio Y = .00001 so XY = 4,000 new jobs they have to create. If the average salary of the new jobs were 50,000 then the company is obligated to spend 200,000,000 on the new salaries. Maybe Y should be half that since business growth has a lot more expenses than just the salaries so Y=.000005 creates 2,000 new jobs and has plenty of money to budget for new buildings, office expansions and equipment for the new employees to work with. 

Lets get this passed in Congress :)
Quite simply these people are tnucs, sacking people to ensure they get their fat cat bonuses. Yet again the man in the street gets shafted, and not in a good way.
errr....uh....What's the good way to get shafted?
The dollar is deflating after the enormous amount of credit (which when available decreases demand for the dollar) was removed. 

Gas is $2.20 today,and thats much better than $3.20 a week ago. 

The companies overestimated demand in 1999-2007. Now the market is fixing that error. That's why gas was so high, when it didn't need to be. 

The people who say regulate companies know nothing of economics. . that Freddie may and mac were backed up by government money in case they broke meant that they felt safe while operating with a 190% risk! You cannot do that and expect not to crash. 

The subprime loans had a real risk of 400% in some places... go figure if those banks lost wastebaskets of money. Last, people who took loans which they never expected to pay back were dishonest. The banks were too full of business majors and didn't have enough econ majors.

The market solved that problems---both are screwed now; which is how it should be.

If you make errors, then account. Its the laws of physics. And the laws of human behavior (economics). Its the business cycle. 

Socialism has no business cycle, that is true; they have no businesses!
Todos a la puta calle, incluyendo a la CEO