Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a move by big banks to show stock owners that they are acting more prudently, they are going to lay of 75,000 employees. Of course, compensation at the top remains unchanged.
In a move by big banks to show stock owners that they are acting more prudently, they are going to lay of 75,000 employees. Of course, compensation at the top remains unchanged.
Actually no. When banks have less depositors, they need less employees.. Isnt this what you left wing kooks WANTED to happen? Now you want to whine about the results
That's how the free market works. Fewer profits mean fewer jobs. Banks are not exempt from this correction, except when the government jumps in and beleives that it can create a full-time position out of part-time funding. Then it just get's stupid to the point that you have thousands of protesters who actually believe government intervention is the way to create jobs.
That's how the free market works. Fewer profits mean fewer jobs. Banks are not exempt from this correction, except when the government jumps in and beleives that it can create a full-time position out of part-time funding. Then it just get's stupid to the point that you have thousands of protesters who actually believe government intervention is the way to create jobs.
It's mind-boggling.
Big banks stock have been taking a beating. Corporations know that the best way to increase your stock prices in the short term is to announce job cuts. This is what they are doing. Unfortunately for their employees they are nothing more than tools to drive up executive compensation based on the shares of their stock bonuses increasing.
Big banks stock have been taking a beating. Corporations know that the best way to increase your stock prices in the short term is to announce job cuts. This is what they are doing. Unfortunately for their employees they are nothing more than tools to drive up executive compensation based on the shares of their stock bonuses increasing.
HEY HOT.. Everyone here said thats EXACTLY what would happen when your left wing kooks started their anti big bank movement, and you stood here calling all of us crazy. Why do so many on the left lack common sense to know that with less customers, banks will be forced to lay off employees?
Seems to be some inconsistancy from the conservatives here. First, they were saying that the OWS movement would have no effect on Wall Street, and now they are saying that they are causing them to have to lay employees off. Well which is it. Please make up your minds.
No I believe its you who needs to make up their mind. This is your thread.
Your op is a clear contradiction of OWS and liberal loonie ideals.
Your perception is that liberals want to get rid of banks? Where do you guys come up with this stuff? It is not the banks that anyone cares about. It is the power they exert over congress and the WH. We need banks, but banks should be regulated so that their primary goal of growth does harm the U.S. economy as a whole. I often wonder is it just spin by you guys or do you guys really believe this stuff. I actually hope it is the former, because the alternative is way too scary.
Seems to be some inconsistancy from the conservatives here. First, they were saying that the OWS movement would have no effect on Wall Street, and now they are saying that they are causing them to have to lay employees off. Well which is it. Please make up your minds.
No, OWS isn't having an effect on the "big banks" - the continuing commercial real estate and mortgage collapse is (which makes the residential mortgage crisis look like peanuts in comparison).
Besides, you OWS people wouldn't have anything to do with evil big banks to begin with, right? So, how does a non-existant customer base leaving affect the banks again?
Your perception is that liberals want to get rid of banks? Where do you guys come up with this stuff? It is not the banks that anyone cares about. It is the power they exert over congress and the WH. We need banks, but banks should be regulated so that their primary goal of growth does harm the U.S. economy as a whole. I often wonder is it just spin by you guys or do you guys really believe this stuff. I actually hope it is the former, because the alternative is way too scary.
Here's a homework assignment if you feel up to it:
1) Pick any "big bank" you'd prefer and look up their financial report for the year and look at an expense called "Compliance" - I'd bet you'd be surprised how large that expense is!
2) This will be a fun one, I promise - Start reading the regulations on banks - Start with "A". Don't stop with "D" or even "GG" - read them all, get back w/ us in a few months (or years, it may take you that long) and if you still feel we need more regulations, than at least you'll be qualified to speak on it.
Deal? - or do political talking heads who refuse to enforce current regs sound reasonable?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.