31–40 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Layoffs is how to get rid of your worst workers, pay cut is how to get rid of you best.
Layoffs get rid of both ends, as well. Don't fool yourself here.
When bailed out banks paid bonuses it was understandably unpopular, but there was a certain logic that retaining talent optimized performance of the remaining bank, and therefore it was ultimately in the interest of taxpayers. It seems surprising that Intel either doesn't think that retaining top talent is in the interest of shareholders, or thinks that investors aren't able to understand the investment. I would assu…
I don’t know who is invested in Intel that's betting on anything but a high risk high reward underdog story comeback. Intel already was undercompensating to the point of driving the talent out of their company to begin with. These wage cuts are a sign for investors to flee faster because management lacks coherence. Management seems to be betting on a strategy of promising the world to gain government subsidies while…
Even weirder that last year Intel trebled the stock bonus, added a high performer profit bonus adder, and increased base pay by a lot. What a strange about face. What is Pat doing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know who is invested in Intel that's betting on anything but a high risk high reward underdog story comeback. Intel already was undercompensating to the point of driving the talent out of their company to begin with. These wage cuts are a sign for investors to flee faster because management lacks coherence. Management seems to be betting on a strategy of promising the world to gain government subsidies while…
I wonder if they just became terminally risk averse. The thing that made them big is pretty obvious: high-margin premium priced x86 CPUs, which is a position they were able to hold for decades due both to manufacturing excellence and being able to shepherd the standard. They simply can't do it anymore-- execution has stumbled, and the market for x86 is gradually weakening, especially in spaces outside the cut-throat,…
When bailed out banks paid bonuses it was understandably unpopular, but there was a certain logic that retaining talent optimized performance of the remaining bank, and therefore it was ultimately in the interest of taxpayers. It seems surprising that Intel either doesn't think that retaining top talent is in the interest of shareholders, or thinks that investors aren't able to understand the investment. I would assu…
Or Intel has found cover from other tech shops to 'do the necessary' and prune the dead wood. It's about time the C level began to look at employee performance and contribution to profits or losses.
So the OP would rather have Intel fire thousands of employees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Layoffs is how to get rid of your worst workers, pay cut is how to get rid of you best.
As pithy two edged maxims go, that is dull and chipped on both sides. Recent layoffs have indiscriminately targeted talent and pay cuts deter those that are primarily driven by returns.
"All employees below Principal Engineer, grades 7 to 11, will get a 5% cut, 10% cuts will be instituted for VPs, and the executive leadership team will take a 15% cut, with Pat Gelsinger taking a 25% cut. " So the OP would rather have Intel fire thousands of employees?
"All employees below Principal Engineer, grades 7 to 11, will get a 5% cut, 10% cuts will be instituted for VPs, and the executive leadership team will take a 15% cut, with Pat Gelsinger taking a 25% cut. " So the OP would rather have Intel fire thousands of employees?
Ah yes - the only option
(The rationale is, they'd have to hire someone to do your job when you're gone, although of course that's nonsense for engineers.)
No one on Wall Street was fooled by crap like this, and I doubt Intel's moves will make any difference, either.