HP to cut 27,000 jobs Around Town, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on May 23, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Palo Alto tech giant HP announced Wednesday that it would cut 27,000 jobs -- 8 percent of its global workforce -- by the end of the fiscal year of 2014. An HP spokesperson said that the company has not announced any specific plans for Palo Alto's HP workforce.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 2:29 PM
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on May 23, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Hopefully Meg will let some of the jobless hang out at her place so that they can network while doing their job search. You blew it at Ebay, now you're blowing it at HP. Good job, NutMeg - this really encourages me to hope that you run for public office again.
Posted by What-Would-Obama-Do?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 23, 2012 at 3:20 pm
We're seeing two different kinds of solutions to the same basic problem--downturns in the economy resulting in severe contractions in the revenue streams for public and private sector entities alike. The Federal government has borrowed/spent trillions from future generations to insure that government, and labor union jobs, are not cut. The private sector, comprised of tens of thousands of large and small companies, does not have the borrowing capacity to equal the actions of the US government, and must take a different path.
In Europe, we are seeing "austerity" programs take hold--government speak for "cutting spending". Obama, and his "spirit guide", Paul Krugman, have promoted more spending as the solution to the problems of the smaller, and badly managed, European nations, such as Greece, Portugal, and even the large nations of Spain and Italy.
So what would Obama do, if he were sitting in the HP CEOs seat? Would he borrow hundreds of billions of dollars, go on a hiring spree, and kick the problem into the next decade, as he has done sitting in the Chief Executive's seat? Or would he do the same thing that Whitman is having to do?
The Federal government is not going to go broke. But HP may not be so fortunate. HP is not so big that it can not fail--and it's very possible that it will, one of these days.
Posted by meg cares, a member of the Juana Briones School community, on May 23, 2012 at 3:34 pm
"Whatwould": Obama, and congress, can support HP and all Americans by resisting austerity, which only furthers the pain and the duration of this Great Recession we inherited from Romney's friend "he who shall not be named".
The poster "Whatwould" brings up Europe, which is a real world case of austerity hampering growth and recovery.
Stimulus works. Look at the job recovery picture in the chart, noting that Stimulus stemmed the job losses we inherited from Bush: Web Link
It shows that the Stimulus spurred growth, job creation and recovery, but it wasn't enough. We need more jobs, more growth, both of which lead to more revenue. We need to tell congress to quit voting on abortion bills and start creating JOBS.
Your hypothetical of Obama running HP is nonsensical - this isn't a game of Fantasy Capitalism; this is real - Obama is our President and Congress needs to finally work with him, as they once promised in 2010, instead of working against American looking for work.
Perhaps if Congress kept it's promise in 2010 to work on "Jobs, jobs, jobs", HP would be operating in a much better economy and would be doing considerably better, even with Meg.
Posted by talk to Meg, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on May 23, 2012 at 3:35 pm
HP has been suffering from massive mismanagement for years. Can you name or even count all the CEOs the company has had since Hewlett and Packard?
Hint: the number is 8, not including Hewlett and Packard.
How many billions of dollars (and thousands of jobs) have they wasted on failed product lines like cell phones, tablet computers, digital cameras, etc. They were even tried to get out of the computer business. Other companies are making tons of money on these products. HP is failing because of internal corporate politics and lack of leadership from the top. Don't blame Obama like the previous comment is trying to do. This mismanagement started during the 1990s.
Posted by What-Would-Obama-Do?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm
> Don't blame Obama like the previous comment is trying to do
The previous poster isn't blaming Obama .. not for HP's problem, anyway.
The previous poster is simply pointing out that Whitman has few choices. Obama, and Brown, and local governments could do what Whitman is dong .. but they are laying on debt that will likely never be paid off.
The previous poster is just pointing out the differences between what a prudent private sector CEO should do, and what an imprudent public sector Chief Executive too often does.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on May 23, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Anyone notice this is projected to be by Jan 2014...1 1/2 years from now. Anyone else wonder how much of this will be from folks retiring? And anyone else wonder what will happen if we change our WH/Senate control? I wonder if the headline in 1 1/2 years will be "HP did NOT lay off staff after all, business climate in USA more friendly"
I know that last line is a silly line, but it is a throw away silliness to match the "resist austerity" comment a few posts up as a solution. Geez.
To make it simple: Austerity is lowering the borrowing we are doing. Pretend Dad makes $15,000/year, owes $16,000 and is borrowing $1,500 per year to give away. But Dad thinks "Oh well, no big deal, when I die my kids and grandkids can pay it off" Ok, what do the kids do? They save their money, not starting businesses, for example, not buying houses, not buying much of anything, knowing the piper has to be paid off.
Austerity would be if Dad STOPPED borrowing every year, and had a plan to pay off his debt before he dies. What would the kids do then? Be free to spend their money on ...whatever..business starts, homes, cars etc. What happens then? Think about it.
THAT is why austerity is good for the economy.
It will be an interesting time in the next few years. I hope that HP and all other companies can hang on a little longer, and start to grow soon.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on May 23, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Speaking of austerity measures, what has HP done, besides firing people? Does anyone know of other budgetary measures that they've implemented? Cheaper paper clips? Execs taking salary cuts? Battery-powered fans in lieu of AC? Hiring freeze? The CEO refusing a paycheck until the end of fiscal year 2014 in solidarity w/the soon to be redundant employees?
This has nothing to do w/POTUS, Steve Jobs or Greece, as we all know. It has to do w/HP's incompetent leadership in recent years.
I recall some time back when people were proud to say that they worked for HP. I hope that time comes again for the majority of the (remaining) employees.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on May 24, 2012 at 5:55 am
Just add 000,000,000 zeros to the numbers of the family, and you are at the level of our national spending and GDP right now.
Figure it out, folks.
Do we keep borrowing more from China to pay for our greediness now, or do we stop?
The "quote" about showing austerity doesn't work comes from ..where? And what, exactly, isn't working about cutting debt in nations that try? It doesn't "work" for those who want to greedily keep borrowing from the future at the expense of their kids. It doesn't take an economic genius to understand that at some point, the piper has to be paid.
Posted by daniel, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on May 24, 2012 at 6:48 am
When Meg, and her mirror image Willard The Mitt say jobs are coming, they actually mean jobs are going away and not coming back. HP certainly needed to trim their work force-by letting Meg Whitman go.
To "Perspective":austerity is disastrous during severe recessions when the private sector refuses to invest and hire due to weak and uncertain demand for products and services. Austerity during severe recessions reduces revenues and increases the deficit. During such times only the government can jump-start the economy which in turn encourages the private sector to hire, which will produce revenues, etc. When Obama took office the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Now it's gaining at least 150,000 private sector jobs a month, because the government has jump- started the economy instead of implementing self destructing austerity policies.
Posted by economic literacy, a resident of Atherton, on May 24, 2012 at 10:13 am
Pers... "...the level of economic literacy is appalling sometimes." Yes, P, you are appalling.
Pers... "The "quote" about showing austerity doesn't work comes from ..where? And what, exactly, isn't working about cutting debt in nations that try?"
Omigawd, are you serious?!? Do you read anything? Try reading about growth and jobs in Europe since austerity. Ever wonder why Sarkozy is gone? Read the Financial Times.
Former head of the World bank: Growth not austerity is best remedy for Europe Web Link
You crow about the debt for the US, debt is not the issue at this time still climbing out of the bush Great Recession, the issue is growth and jobs.
Debt is the preeminent issue at this time. Okay, stop screaming and answer this: if US debt was such a problem, why would evermore be lining up to lend the US money at near historic low rates of interest?
Stimulus, economic growth, jobs, jobs, jobs add revenue and our debt becomes a much smaller percentage of GDP. Then we balance the budget.
Clinton levels of spending, Clinton tax rates = balanced budget.
Jobs jobs jobs.
We can't afford the wackadoodles like a Whitman in CA or Mitt Romney, who wants to return to Bush spending and debt policies, trashing the economy along the way to giving themselves tax cuts for billionaires.
Clinton levels of spending, Clinton tax rates = balanced budget.
Obama has already flatlined the Bush spending spree, time to raise revenue.
Clinton levels of spending, Clinton tax rates = balanced budget. Bush took the Clinton surplus and all we got out of it was the Bush Great Recession.
Growth and jobs, not austerity.
Clinton levels of spending, Clinton tax rates = balanced budget. Historical fact. When was the last time a Republican balanced a budget?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 24, 2012 at 11:08 am
>> We're seeing two different kinds of solutions to the same basic problem --
>> --downturns in the economy resulting in severe contractions in the revenue streams for public and private sector entities alike. The Federal government has borrowed/spent trillions from future generations to insure that government, and labor union jobs, are not cut.
The people in power did not have to do too much to camoflage their intent, the rule of law means nothing save for bringing it to bear against those who want their fair share of this country and its opportunity.
The government people who voted all this stuff into place and the corporate folks who pushed it past the limit and broke it knew what they were doing, and the purpose behind it is clearly to cut resources to people they do not like, by distorting and exaggerating ideas they do not like.
There is a middle ground that is deliberately not being discussed, talked about, or entertained, and that is due to the same hardline folks who brought this all about as a disavowal and pretense that they do not know or cannot control what is going on. I don't buy it, the corporate recovery was fast and certain.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 24, 2012 at 11:17 am
Extrapolating linearly we will never be out of this debt if we continue business as usual. We will never make up lost jobs or catch up on infrastucture, we will never bring our people's abilites and experience back if we work linearly with business as usual.
If we continue to do what we are doing, cutting and allowing everything in place to wither, we will either pay multiples of what it costs to fix now, or we never recover - all the talk about the US becoming a 3rd world country will finally be true.
The one thing the US had going for it as a super-power in comparison with Russia, China and the budding Middle Eastern consolidation was that is held the promise of the rule of law and opportunity for all with the full infrasructure to back it up.
As soon as that all started to pay off the people at the top realized what was going to happen and started to reverse the very ideas that the public was starting to embrace, free education, support of citizens to be productive and get ahead.
Our leaders absolutely cannot stand the idea that they may lose the reigns of power or have no way to control people, and the War On Terror pushed that fear over the top. Starting at about the year 2000 everything started a sharp turn for the worse based on those fears.
Now there are few jobs so jobs and sustenance can be used to coerse citizens, and not falling inline is a virtual death sentence. That is just plain immoral for a country like ours with our tradition. There needs to be another way.
Posted by daniel, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on May 24, 2012 at 11:21 am
"Perspective":if any additional evidence was needed that austerity doesn't stimulate the economy, but rather depresses economic activity and growth and slows down the recovery from recession, look at present Great Britain. The Tories have implemented draconian austerity measures favored by the Milton Friedman school of thought, aka The Chicago Boys, and now the UK has sunk into a deep recession with no recovery in sight. There is no evidence from anywhere in the world that austerity works, but there's plenty of evidence that it makes things much worse, especially for the job creators:the consuming middle class.
Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside, on May 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Certainly "austerity" (a better word would be solvency) is painful in the short term, as necessary adjustments are made. The problem is that profligacy, while masking economic damage for now, stores up worse pain for later.
Posted by economic literacy, a resident of Atherton, on May 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Joseph: "stores up worse pain for later."
No, hasn't happened, and lord knows, Republican presidents have tried their worst to do so. You and the deficit hawks have been saying that since Carter. Except you got real quiet when Reagan tripled the national debt, Bush added a trillion, and Bush 2 doubled the national debt.
Only other thing you 'hawks' are quiet about is Clinton's consecutive budget surplus's, that Bush spent away.
Growth and jobs, not austerity, increase revenue and shrink the deficit and debt. Clinton levels of spending, Clinton tax rates = balanced budget. Historical fact. When was the last time a Republican balanced a budget?
Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of Woodside, on May 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm
@economic literacy, I'm not quite sure how to interpret your comment. If you are arguing that we should return to the federal tax and spending levels of the Clinton years, I would be happy to do so. But note, we would have to cut the budget by more than half, since we have doubled spending in the past decade.
Posted by economic literacy, a resident of Atherton, on May 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Joseph. Let's do it. Stimulus to get jobs and revenues up. After all, Clinton created 23 million jobs (compared to Bush's 1 million compared to Obama's most recent 26 months of private sector job growth.)
Clinton spending, Clinton tax rates. Get rid of DHS, Medicare part D, get out of Afghanistan. Bush and Obama tax cuts gone, including cap gains up to Clinton rates. Better yet, let's raise it all to Reagan rates!
re "since we have doubled spending in the past decade." Not exactly accurate. Bush took it from 2.0T to 3.4T. That was all under Bush, not Obama. Obama has the lowest rate of spending increases in 50 years, according to the Wall Street Journal:
Posted by economic literacy, a resident of Atherton, on May 24, 2012 at 4:14 pm
$2T (plus inflation) after a stimulus = get rid of Medicare part D, out of Afghanistan and cut all the other DoD spending that came in Bush's years, cut DHS, add a couple other cuts like farm subsidies and oil subsidies, etc..
Back to Clinton tax rates and a prosperous economy.
Balanced budget. (Only reason to ever run a deficit is recession stimulus which will get the economy and jobs, therefore revenue, up a fast as reasonably possible.)
Now, Joseph, you first:
- get Grover Norquist and John Boehner to agree. Norquist is the key, but Boehner voted for all those budget busting items listed (Medicare part D, Iraq and Afghanistan, all the other DoD spending that came in Bush's years, DHS, farm subsidies and oil subsidies, etc..)
Let me know when they're on board and I'll have the Democrats prepare a balanced budget immediately. They won't even need my call, they already have several ready. Here's one that just needs a minor tweak: the CPC budget Web Link
Posted by daniel, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on May 24, 2012 at 4:50 pm
The only way to get out of a deep recession and reduce the deficit is by growing the economy, creating more employment, therefore more revenues. Austerity contracts the economy, therefore brings down revenues. Even people on food stamps who don't pay taxes stimulate the economy by being consumers. reducing the consuming power of consumers during a recession when inflation isn't a factor is tantamount to economic suicide. The austerity measures in the U.K. have contracted the economy, triggered a deep recession and caused a reduction in government revenues at a time it desperately needs those revenues.
If Bush hadn't spent the Clinton surplus on tax breaks for those who didn't need them and didn't start two wars which have cost trillions of dollars, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Posted by Steve C, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 25, 2012 at 1:02 am
All you Obama-bashers, especially WWOD, should re-read the history of what ultimately caused the Great Depression. Here's a hint: restrictive monetary and fiscal policy(it's their own fault for being so reckless, let them pay the price and suffer); and protectionist trade policy(Smoot and Hawley). The banks made money so scarce that virtually no one could raise money to continue operations, let alone expand them. Smoot and Hawley pushed isolationist tariffs through congress, resulting in retaliatory policies being instituted by former trade partners, freezing up exporting industries as quickly as it put importing industries out of business. This effectively exported our depression to the rest of the world. Our popularity was at an all-time high.
Now check again and see how we emerged from the depression and why Keynes was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics.
And then ask yourself what the republicans and the banks are doing or attempting to do today.
Posted by daniel, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on May 25, 2012 at 7:33 am
Incompetent corporatists like Whitman see their work force as a liability, when in reality they would be worthless without their engineers, scientists and sales people. In reality, the least important, most expandable employee in HP is Meg Whitman, and she should have been the first to be cut. Notice also that she never offered to take a pay cut, or reduction in her compensation package in order to help struggling HP. That's not what Meg does, the billionaire who underpays and mistreats her domestic help.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on May 25, 2012 at 8:53 am
Joseph Davis: Thanks for trying. As you can see, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
I keep wishing there were a way to give all the leftists their own part of the USA, call it CUSA, and let those who wish live there, and those who don't want to, live in our USA. But we are stuck with each other, and all we can do is fight by word and vote, and hope we win before they sink all of us.
I would with DELIGHT go back to Clinton's budget..and tax rates!! It would mean we stop borrowing more each year! I would even go back to Bush's last budget of 2008! At least it would cut our borrowing to 1/3rd it's current level. Anything but our budgetless ( no budget yet, since Obama's election!) profligate spending without end.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on May 25, 2012 at 10:50 am
e.l.: Bush's last budget was 2008-2009. Obama came in Jan 2009, added a trillion of borrowing to it in just a few short months. That is why I say Bush's 2008 budget, not Obama's 2009 budget.
But, go ahead, keep believin' in the fantasy that Obama was not POTUS with all Dem control starting Jan, 2009. It is like Obama and his minions are trying to pretend that he wasn't there Jan-July 2009, and did nothing, borrowed nothing, ...truly incredible. And, of course, no admission of a lack of any budget, any spending caps, since.
Just keep merrily borrowing $58,000/second, ...no problem!
Posted by daniel, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on May 25, 2012 at 11:09 am
Perspectice:the economy was losing 800,000 private sector jobs a month when Obama took office. His "borrowing", or stimulus spending, for people living in the real world and not in Rush Limbaugh's warped fantasy land, turned the economy around and now the economy is gaining at least a 150,000 private sector jobs a month. If he was allowed to spend more, we would already be out of the recession. Obama prevented an economic meltdown and a depression. Yes, fixing Bush's mess is very expensive, perhaps you should have considered it back in 2000 when you stole the elections. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by meg cares, a member of the Juana Briones School community, on May 25, 2012 at 12:29 pm
As pointed out above, Perspective is told by the non-partisan Office of Management and Budget, as well as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that the 2009 budget was George W Bush's, but instead, we should not listen to those facts because...
... he says so.
Must be nice to be in a place where you can pin tea bags to your tin foil hat and make up your own facts and history.
Econ Lit posted a great Wall St J article. Look at the Bush spending chart. You are wrong.
Then, P claims that magically, the 800,000 jobs lost per month in Dec 08, Jan Feb of 09 become ALL OBAMA's fault, as well as Mar Apr May, too, I suppose.
Perspective - I posted the chart above two days ago. Have you ever even looked at it?
Nice debt clock. is that your way of ignoring the that the debt is not the problem? After all, it's been pointed out that out here in the real world (not in tea bag land) everyone is willing to buy debt at near record low rates.
Making it the perfect time to rebuild our infrastructure, recover and grow.
Why do you hate America and American workers? Why do you want to slow doewn growth and recovery? It's time to move forward and once and for all get out of this disastrous Bush-created economy. And NOT reelect the people who created it.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on May 25, 2012 at 3:30 pm
This isn't about Demos vs. Repubs, even though NutMeg ran unsuccessfully for office. This isn't about WWOD. Greedy, deplorable & just plain mediocre CEOs exist in both parties & we all know it. Those who've permanently moved jobs offshore, who have bad records for inhumane treatment of those offshore making products - those admired leaders range from faux hippies to conservatives.
It's a bummer that NutMeg doesn't care enough about her stockholders to defer her own stock options for awhile & set an example & isn't asking her excecs to take a pay cut. It's a bummer that the BOD doesn't care enough about the stockholders to take responsibility for their decisions which have negatively impacted the company.
It would be much easier to understand NutMeg's "plan" for success with HP if she made public their austerity measures & led the charge herself by being the first one to apply them to her own role there. But I guess she thinks that her $1 salary is austere enough, even though she has all of those stock options & that promised bonus. Oh, & there's her cash from being a board member, too. Sad, pathetic & unsurprising.