Replies

That is not what I have a problem with. My problem is that if they were not doing the job right, then fire them and hire new ones. They can rehire locally. Instead they choose to move almost all jobs out of the country. I have no problem with a company making money, but how about cutting the pay of the CEO, CFO, etc. to keep costs down. How many of the US jobs could have been retained if they cut the CEO, CFO, etc. salaries by 10%? I would guess that they could have kept a bunch and the upper management still would be paid well.

We talk about the economy getting better, but how can it continue if jobs are sent out of the country or if given to visa holders and other immigrants? People cannot continue to spend money if they lose jobs. This is not just about protecting jobs, but helping keep the economy growing. The more people that are unemployed, the more we have to pay for with our tax dollars.

They can rehire locally.

but how about cutting the pay of the CEO, CFO, etc. to keep costs down.

Be sure to send those and all other suggestions regarding running their business to their customer relations hot line. (Probably outsourced in India)

How many of the US jobs could have been retained if they cut the CEO, CFO, etc. salaries by 10%?

How many jobs could have been saved if they cut the CEO's salary by 90%? No one is stopping anyone from running their company like that. In fact, Ben & Jerry's (I believe) had a policy that no officer would earn more than 10 times their lowest paid worker. They had the best CEO that 50K would buy.

The more people that are unemployed, the more we have to pay for with our tax dollars.

What percentage of the workers that lose their jobs move on to better jobs? Different jobs? Start their own biz and employ 50-100 people. Suggesting that these people are going straight from IBM to the soup kitchen is absurd. (If they did, IBM was right to drop them)