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…
Yep. Intel salaries were already on the low side. To some extent they could get away with this in the past because many of their locations were outside of silicon valley in places where there really weren't a lot of (or any) other companies where you could work at the same level. For example, say you worked at their Folsom, CA or Hillsoboro, OR locations - if you were going to change to a different company that pretty much meant you were moving. But now that a larger proportion of jobs are remote that strategy for keeping salaries low isn't going to work.