Cisco Layoffs (Star: job market, to live, cost)

[skaternum]

80 employees at Cisco told they are losing their jobs :: WRAL.com

I posted this link because of all the "what's the technology job market like in RTP" questions we get. This is particularly troublesome to me personally because I work for a company that "trades" employees with Cisco -- meaning, we often hire folks who work(ed) at Cisco, and they hire folks who work(ed) for us. We've had a couple of large layoffs recently, with more on the way, so this means our laid off folks won't be able to find jobs at Cisco.

[rnc2mbfl]

I heard that between 700-800 were laid off in San Jose.

[tluv00]

Not to sound rude but 80 out of 4500 isn't too bad. I know they laid off more earlier in the year but it's much worse in Silly Valley than here. At least here the cost to live is much less.

These jobs will find their way back soon enough. I know it stinks not working and not knowing but once companies and people stop worrying so much about the economy and get back to biz as usual the sooner we can actually see some changes in the economy.

[NewUser]

Originally Posted by tluv00

Not to sound rude but 80 out of 4500 isn't too bad.

But that's another 80 guys that I have to compete with to find another job.

[tlh1005]

I also wouldn't doubt that companies will use the economic climate as a means to shed some of the weight they've been wanting to all along.

[Starglow]

Originally Posted by tluv00

These jobs will find their way back soon enough.

Yeah..... most likely in a foreign country and not here in the US.

[playnice]

Originally Posted by Starglow

Yeah..... most likely in a foreign country and not here in the US.

Roger that, darn it all.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by tluv00

Not to sound rude but 80 out of 4500 isn't too bad.

Except that it is Cisco.

[gotsomedata]

Originally Posted by tluv00

...These jobs will find their way back soon enough...

Perhaps, but I have friends at IBM who say that internally comments have been made that the Corporation's intentions are to reduce the US workforce by 20,000 while building up numbers of employees in other countries ("Project Match"). Regardless, whatever the agenda is, as far as short-run profits go, it seems to be working; but my "long-run" question continues to be that if the US Consumer is feeding the world, and if US Corporations continue to negativley impact the US consumer's spending power (by relocating employment), then why do the braintrusts at these corporations not consider this type of employment action to be "long term detrimental??

[gobirdz27]

Because the "braintrusts" at these corporations aren't in the game for the long haul. They're in it for the short-term profits, cash out and move onto another big name corporation. Shampoo, rinse, repeat. They're the locusts of the corporate world.