https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/inside-the-ticker/ges-dollar500000000000-market-wipeout-is-like-erasing-facebook/ar-BBNMhyw?ocid=spartanntp
Remember GE? They're not even on the Dow Jones anymore, after a solid century of dominating it. They have lost 5/6ths of their value, for a whopping half a trillion dollars.
Thing is, they didn't lose their market share to technology changes, like 3M and the insufficiently-nimble Toshiba. They lost it because they outsourced to the absolute lowest bidder for 30 years, until they became a byword for "catastrophic failure" in power plants, etc. To try to save themselves, they divested themselves of Thomas Edison's light bulb company, which was the only earner they had.
In short, they have demonstrated a level of incompetence that couldn't be topped if you did it on purpose.
I recall that it was about 35 years ago that smaller manufacturing companies became skittish about poaching executives from GE. Even that far back, the GE boys had acquired a reputation for being "short-term, bottom line only managers."
So, now we can see how that worked out for them long-term.
Quote from: Brother Mythos on October 01, 2018, 11:43:37 PM
I recall that it was about 35 years ago that smaller manufacturing companies became skittish about poaching executives from GE. Even that far back, the GE boys had acquired a reputation for being "short-term, bottom line only managers."
So, now we can see how that worked out for them long-term.
Funny thing about this is that you can repeat the lesson as often as you like, and humans will not learn.
I have basically been given control over 3 other director's reserve budgets, because they cannot be shown that you have to spend money. I have watched the F&B guy more or less bankrupt his department "saving money".
Watching my own former employers do this. The plan, as far as I can see it, is to strip down the company permament personnel to the bare minimum to keep operations running. After that, it will be to employ outside contractors and people on zero hour contracts to "meet demand on a case by case basis".
If you're not making money hand over fist when you're charging students £50,000 a year for board and education in a run down, slightly shitty building that doesn't require much beyond cleaning and repairs, then your problems go further than just laying off workers to save cash.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 02, 2018, 01:20:39 AM
Quote from: Brother Mythos on October 01, 2018, 11:43:37 PM
I recall that it was about 35 years ago that smaller manufacturing companies became skittish about poaching executives from GE. Even that far back, the GE boys had acquired a reputation for being "short-term, bottom line only managers."
So, now we can see how that worked out for them long-term.
Funny thing about this is that you can repeat the lesson as often as you like, and humans will not learn.
I have basically been given control over 3 other director's reserve budgets, because they cannot be shown that you have to spend money. I have watched the F&B guy more or less bankrupt his department "saving money".
This must be a new, 21st Century management strategy. I never saw, or heard, of anything like it during my career.
Are managers now being given some kind of tangible reward for doing this?
Back in the day, managers were unwilling to
not spend every single cent of their budgets, for fear those budgets would be cut by higher level management for the next fiscal year. But, I'm sure you've seen more than your share of that old management style.
Quote from: Brother Mythos on October 03, 2018, 12:31:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 02, 2018, 01:20:39 AM
Quote from: Brother Mythos on October 01, 2018, 11:43:37 PM
I recall that it was about 35 years ago that smaller manufacturing companies became skittish about poaching executives from GE. Even that far back, the GE boys had acquired a reputation for being "short-term, bottom line only managers."
So, now we can see how that worked out for them long-term.
Funny thing about this is that you can repeat the lesson as often as you like, and humans will not learn.
I have basically been given control over 3 other director's reserve budgets, because they cannot be shown that you have to spend money. I have watched the F&B guy more or less bankrupt his department "saving money".
This must be a new, 21st Century management strategy. I never saw, or heard, of anything like it during my career.
Are managers now being given some kind of tangible reward for doing this?
Back in the day, managers were unwilling to not spend every single cent of their budgets, for fear those budgets would be cut by higher level management for the next fiscal year. But, I'm sure you've seen more than your share of that old management style.
The F&B guy is one of those guys that's so sharp he cuts himself. He is in a position in which he is expected to lose about a third of a million a year, and he keeps trying to be profitable, at the expense of what he's actually supposed to do.
It is an article of faith with me that budgets are for people who worry about budgets. I get things done right the first time, most often, and what do you know? At the end of the year, my budget looks pretty damn good.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2018, 12:49:08 AM
Quote from: Brother Mythos on October 03, 2018, 12:31:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 02, 2018, 01:20:39 AM
Quote from: Brother Mythos on October 01, 2018, 11:43:37 PM
I recall that it was about 35 years ago that smaller manufacturing companies became skittish about poaching executives from GE. Even that far back, the GE boys had acquired a reputation for being "short-term, bottom line only managers."
So, now we can see how that worked out for them long-term.
Funny thing about this is that you can repeat the lesson as often as you like, and humans will not learn.
I have basically been given control over 3 other director's reserve budgets, because they cannot be shown that you have to spend money. I have watched the F&B guy more or less bankrupt his department "saving money".
This must be a new, 21st Century management strategy. I never saw, or heard, of anything like it during my career.
Are managers now being given some kind of tangible reward for doing this?
Back in the day, managers were unwilling to not spend every single cent of their budgets, for fear those budgets would be cut by higher level management for the next fiscal year. But, I'm sure you've seen more than your share of that old management style.
The F&B guy is one of those guys that's so sharp he cuts himself. He is in a position in which he is expected to lose about a third of a million a year, and he keeps trying to be profitable, at the expense of what he's actually supposed to do.
It is an article of faith with me that budgets are for people who worry about budgets. I get things done right the first time, most often, and what do you know? At the end of the year, my budget looks pretty damn good.
Thanks. Now I understand about your F&B guy.
Our work experiences differ. I spent most of my career as a project manager on capital and construction projects. I got dragged into maintenance projects on a kicking-and-screaming basis, and managed to avoid most of them, with the exception of real emergencies (I didn't begrudge helping out, when the situation was critical.).
After learning (the hard way) to refuse
any project that I had not
personally estimated, I had minimal budget concerns. And, as I also learned (by no longer really giving a shit) that the consequences of refusing under-budgeted projects were really no worse than the consequences of doing those projects and going over budget, life was good.
Quote from: Brother Mythos on October 03, 2018, 04:10:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2018, 12:49:08 AM
Quote from: Brother Mythos on October 03, 2018, 12:31:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 02, 2018, 01:20:39 AM
Quote from: Brother Mythos on October 01, 2018, 11:43:37 PM
I recall that it was about 35 years ago that smaller manufacturing companies became skittish about poaching executives from GE. Even that far back, the GE boys had acquired a reputation for being "short-term, bottom line only managers."
So, now we can see how that worked out for them long-term.
Funny thing about this is that you can repeat the lesson as often as you like, and humans will not learn.
I have basically been given control over 3 other director's reserve budgets, because they cannot be shown that you have to spend money. I have watched the F&B guy more or less bankrupt his department "saving money".
This must be a new, 21st Century management strategy. I never saw, or heard, of anything like it during my career.
Are managers now being given some kind of tangible reward for doing this?
Back in the day, managers were unwilling to not spend every single cent of their budgets, for fear those budgets would be cut by higher level management for the next fiscal year. But, I'm sure you've seen more than your share of that old management style.
The F&B guy is one of those guys that's so sharp he cuts himself. He is in a position in which he is expected to lose about a third of a million a year, and he keeps trying to be profitable, at the expense of what he's actually supposed to do.
It is an article of faith with me that budgets are for people who worry about budgets. I get things done right the first time, most often, and what do you know? At the end of the year, my budget looks pretty damn good.
Thanks. Now I understand about your F&B guy.
Our work experiences differ. I spent most of my career as a project manager on capital and construction projects. I got dragged into maintenance projects on a kicking-and-screaming basis, and managed to avoid most of them, with the exception of real emergencies (I didn't begrudge helping out, when the situation was critical.).
After learning (the hard way) to refuse any project that I had not personally estimated, I had minimal budget concerns. And, as I also learned (by no longer really giving a shit) that the consequences of refusing under-budgeted projects were really no worse than the consequences of doing those projects and going over budget, life was good.
My experience in maintenance is that while board members may scream at my august personage, they never actually tell me not to spend the money.
They seem to think they need to holler so that I remember that spending is shameful and bad and I should maybe wash my hands after I do it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 01, 2018, 10:28:26 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/inside-the-ticker/ges-dollar500000000000-market-wipeout-is-like-erasing-facebook/ar-BBNMhyw?ocid=spartanntp
Remember GE? They're not even on the Dow Jones anymore, after a solid century of dominating it. They have lost 5/6ths of their value, for a whopping half a trillion dollars.
Thing is, they didn't lose their market share to technology changes, like 3M and the insufficiently-nimble Toshiba. They lost it because they outsourced to the absolute lowest bidder for 30 years, until they became a byword for "catastrophic failure" in power plants, etc. To try to save themselves, they divested themselves of Thomas Edison's light bulb company, which was the only earner they had.
In short, they have demonstrated a level of incompetence that couldn't be topped if you did it on purpose.
What do you know about Schneider Electric / Square D as far as the quality of their products, and just generally as a company?
Quote from: Emo Howard on October 03, 2018, 08:59:52 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 01, 2018, 10:28:26 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/inside-the-ticker/ges-dollar500000000000-market-wipeout-is-like-erasing-facebook/ar-BBNMhyw?ocid=spartanntp
Remember GE? They're not even on the Dow Jones anymore, after a solid century of dominating it. They have lost 5/6ths of their value, for a whopping half a trillion dollars.
Thing is, they didn't lose their market share to technology changes, like 3M and the insufficiently-nimble Toshiba. They lost it because they outsourced to the absolute lowest bidder for 30 years, until they became a byword for "catastrophic failure" in power plants, etc. To try to save themselves, they divested themselves of Thomas Edison's light bulb company, which was the only earner they had.
In short, they have demonstrated a level of incompetence that couldn't be topped if you did it on purpose.
What do you know about Schneider Electric / Square D as far as the quality of their products, and just generally as a company?
Square D makes a good product, especially in control items (limit switches, etc). The principal problem with them is that, if you don't like their product numbering system, wait 6 months and they'll change it.
I grew up in Connecticut about 4 miles from the GE headquarters. They brought a lot of money into CT.
A few years ago, our governor killed the goose that laid the golden eggs by slapping them with heavy taxes, basically driving them out of the state. Everybody thought he was an idiot, even though they all wanted to see the rich pay their share. So to some degree it's kind of a relief that they were dying anyway?
anyway, CT is fucked regardless
Quote from: Cramulus on October 04, 2018, 06:11:26 PM
I grew up in Connecticut about 4 miles from the GE headquarters. They brought a lot of money into CT.
A few years ago, our governor killed the goose that laid the golden eggs by slapping them with heavy taxes, basically driving them out of the state. Everybody thought he was an idiot, even though they all wanted to see the rich pay their share. So to some degree it's kind of a relief that they were dying anyway?
anyway, CT is fucked regardless
GE has been cold shit on toast since I was old enough to drive. Taxes were never their issue; they rarely are. It takes a great deal of taxation to make it worth a company's while to move from point A to point B inside the United States.
If, on the other hand, you're outsourcing your electric motor construction to the lowest bidder in Myanmar - for one example - it makes a GREAT excuse. "We had to go, they were taxing us to death"...despite the level of taxation GE faced when it was growing in the 30s and 40s, which were about twice as high.
What's up with Carrier, really?
They bailed on my hometown maybe 15 years ago and left over 1000 people without a job.
Naturally, everyone blamed the union, because unions make baby Jesus cry.
Quote from: Emo Howard on October 04, 2018, 07:06:32 PM
What's up with Carrier, really?
They bailed on my hometown maybe 15 years ago and left over 1000 people without a job.
Naturally, everyone blamed the union, because unions make baby Jesus cry.
Carrier is doing now what GE was doing in 1995. Offshoring everything and living on their reputation.
I buy 10-15 units a month, from 3-10 tons per. Carrier is preferred, because I don't want to retrofit the roof penetrations. However, we're watching the quality of the units like a hawk, and we expect to see shitty welds and leaking compressors in new units over the next 3-6 months on account of the offshoring.
It's worth mentioning that cost/unit is UP, not down.
Sears has been swirling the drain since at least the 90's. I worked at one of their call centers for about a month when they first tried to get rid of the catalog... `92 or `93, I think. I remember a girl in a cubicle across from me talking to some creep about panties for like 45 minutes.
Anyways, they're closing the sears in my town, along with a couple hundred others.
Quote from: Emo Howard on November 18, 2018, 06:58:56 PM
Sears has been swirling the drain since at least the 90's. I worked at one of their call centers for about a month when they first tried to get rid of the catalog... `92 or `93, I think. I remember a girl in a cubicle across from me talking to some creep about panties for like 45 minutes.
Anyways, they're closing the sears in my town, along with a couple hundred others.
The stupid thing about Sears is that if worked with the catalog model and invested in a purchasing website, they could've provided some competition with Amazon. Or kept Amazon from being a thing.
Er one stupid thing about Sears, there's many stupid things they did that killed them.
IBM keeps turning away money from things if you need people to make the things work. Doesn't matter if it'd be profitable, the margin has to be incredibly high if it involves a human.
Though buying Red Hat makes sense just business and tech wise, but I'm more worried about them killing Red Hat. They acquire a thing that has all sorts of products, take the piece out they like and abandon everything else. Even if those other things are what the company they acquired is known for.
Quote from: Trivial on November 20, 2018, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on November 18, 2018, 06:58:56 PM
Sears has been swirling the drain since at least the 90's. I worked at one of their call centers for about a month when they first tried to get rid of the catalog... `92 or `93, I think. I remember a girl in a cubicle across from me talking to some creep about panties for like 45 minutes.
Anyways, they're closing the sears in my town, along with a couple hundred others.
The stupid thing about Sears is that if worked with the catalog model and invested in a purchasing website, they could've provided some competition with Amazon. Or kept Amazon from being a thing.
Er one stupid thing about Sears, there's many stupid things they did that killed them.
Amazon seemed to kind of come out of nowhere as the mega-giant internet retailer they are today. Back in the day, their main competitor was Borders.com. Then they were trying to compete with eBay or something, which was cute. Then suddenly they were the place you go to to buy things on the internet.
Quote from: Trivial on November 20, 2018, 04:03:32 PM
IBM keeps turning away money from things if you need people to make the things work. Doesn't matter if it'd be profitable, the margin has to be incredibly high if it involves a human.
IBM knows what's up. Humans are going out of style. We were always just a fad, anyway.
Quote from: Emo Howard on November 20, 2018, 06:29:45 PM
IBM knows what's up. Humans are going out of style. We were always just a fad, anyway.
Well, yes.
Just noting that they will choose no money over some money under certain circumstances.
Automation will get to everything, but they are killing things now and some of those things will be lost before they have the know-how to automate them.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-sells-software-portfolio-including-notes-and-domino-to-hcl-for-1-8b (https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-sells-software-portfolio-including-notes-and-domino-to-hcl-for-1-8b)
:lulz:
Someone paid for notes.
The Woodridge Group, the paragon of financial management firms, has been running a $1.2 Bn+ ponzi scheme for years.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/more-than-8000-investors-misled-by-dollar12-billion-ponzi-scheme/ar-BBSTLzM?ocid=spartanntp
Wow. That's kind of huge. It would be explosive, if we didn't have a blindingly incompetent president sucking up all the media attention.
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2019, 01:44:47 PM
Wow. That's kind of huge. It would be explosive, if we didn't have a blindingly incompetent president sucking up all the media attention.
Well, yeah. It's going to leave a crater, and possibly hasten along this iteration of bundled mortgage defaults.