You've used just 6 examples to try and say that higher profits always means a reduction in staff headcount
I never said always, and that's 6 examples from the first page of a single search, if I spent an hour, 2 hours, a day searching, how many would I find then? how many do you need to be told of to realise it's not an uncommon occurrence?, or are you so pig-headed that you're completely incapable of being wrong about anything?, your original posting stated things in such a way that it was implied that increased profits will always create jobs. I just gave several examples proving that wrong, and said that those examples will be far from unusual cases. and as stated, it only took a few seconds to find, spend more time looking, and you'll find plenty more, which just validates my point., now you can prove me wrong this time, and admit that you were wrong about something, or you can continue being obstinate and closed-minded and prove me right again.
There are many many more examples where companies showing increased profits will choose to invest the money and NOT cut head counts. It's scandalous if they do, as per IBM, to deliver short term shareholder value - this is poor governance and not market forces / business sense in play.
no it's not poor governance, from the director's view, it's extremely good governance. increased profits, and reduced costs going forward. that's exactly what directors want, and what they're are employed for.
if all the jobs in a company can be replaced with robots, working 24 hours a day, without pay, how many staff do you think that company will have?
if the director's didn't reduce the staffing numbers, the shareholders will remove them from the board, they'd be replaced with new directors who will.
Unbelievable
Page 9 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 11/6/16
You've used just 6 examples to try and say that higher profits always means a reduction in staff headcount
I never said always, and that's 6 examples from the first page of a single search, if I spent an hour, 2 hours, a day searching, how many would I find then? how many do you need to be told of to realise it's not an uncommon occurrence?, or are you so pig-headed that you're completely incapable of being wrong about anything?, your original posting stated things in such a way that it was implied that increased profits will always create jobs. I just gave several examples proving that wrong, and said that those examples will be far from unusual cases. and as stated, it only took a few seconds to find, spend more time looking, and you'll find plenty more, which just validates my point., now you can prove me wrong this time, and admit that you were wrong about something, or you can continue being obstinate and closed-minded and prove me right again.
There are many many more examples where companies showing increased profits will choose to invest the money and NOT cut head counts. It's scandalous if they do, as per IBM, to deliver short term shareholder value - this is poor governance and not market forces / business sense in play.
no it's not poor governance, from the director's view, it's extremely good governance. increased profits, and reduced costs going forward. that's exactly what directors want, and what they're are employed for.
if all the jobs in a company can be replaced with robots, working 24 hours a day, without pay, how many staff do you think that company will have?
if the director's didn't reduce the staffing numbers, the shareholders will remove them from the board, they'd be replaced with new directors who will.
Page 9 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9