It’s official: AMD to lay off 10% of its work force

You know that executive exodus we talked about this morning? Yeah, it’s not a rumor anymore, and it’s quite a bit bigger than we thought. AMD is actually planning a wide-ranging restructuring effort that will see it shed 10% of its work force, with layoffs beginning this quarter and continuing into 2012.

AMD claims the mass firings—sorry, the “restructuring plan and implementation of operational efficiency initiatives”—will help it become more competitive and “rebalance the company’s global workforce skillsets.” More important, AMD expects the restructuring to save about $200 million next year. Here are the details straight from the horse’s mouth:

AMD expects that the restructuring plan will result operational savings, primarily in operating expense, of approximately $10 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and $118 million in 2012, primarily through a reduction of its global workforce by approximately 10% and the termination of existing contractual commitments. The workforce reduction will occur across all functions globally and is expected to be substantially completed by the end of the first quarter of 2012. Based on anticipated savings from the restructuring plan, AMD expects fourth quarter 2011 operating expenses will be approximately $610 million.
As a result of implementing efficiencies across the company’s operations, AMD expects to save approximately $90 million in 2012 operating expenses in addition to the restructuring plan savings, resulting in more than $200 million of expected combined operational savings in 2012.

The chipmaker says it plans to reinvest a “significant portion” of the money saved into “strategies for lower power, emerging markets, and the cloud.”

AMD is still turning a profit, but it’s in a tough competitive position. It hasn’t put up much of a fight against ARM in the booming handheld market, and its latest desktop and mobile CPUs have failed to catch up to Intel’s offerings in most respects, integrated graphics excepted. Recent 32-nm manufacturing issues at GlobalFoundries haven’t helped. Meanwhile, Intel continues to post record quarter after record quarter and to execute almost flawlessly on its roadmap. AMD may have to fight harder than ever to stay relevant over the next few years.

Comments closed
    • albundy
    • 8 years ago

    someone’s gonna be turning out 16 hours a day from now on over there…glad its not me, lol. workforce reduction doesn’t equal to work reduction. i’d sure as hell make sure to provide quarter @ssed work insteadof half @ssed work if that was me in their shoes.

    so will 99% of the profits made on this new found slave labor be evenly distributed to all executives, or just the ceo?

    • Ryhadar
    • 8 years ago

    I don’t have an MBA or anything, but it seems really dickish to layoff 10% of your workforce when a) the company has turned a profit in recent quarters and b) the economy is what it is.

      • shank15217
      • 8 years ago

      Its really the perfect time to lay off people, to keep the momentum growing.

    • dpaus
    • 8 years ago

    Jeez, people, get a grip. This is a company that is profitable with almost 20% market share – they’re not going to disappear overnight.

    And laying off 10% of a workforce is ‘trimming’ – that level of workforce reduction can often be done by just freezing hiring for a year or so, maybe combined with some early-retirement bonus offers.

    That doesn’t make it ‘good news’ in any way for us, but it’s hardly the end of the world that some of you are describing (somewhat gleefully in the case of Intel fanbois, who seem tragically ignorant of what would happen to the price of their Intel CPUs if AMD were to exit the market)

      • shaq_mobile
      • 8 years ago

      Well what I find interesting, working for a company of about 5,500 people, is that I could easily see them trim ~10% of the workforce without us being uncomfortable. I suppose it all depends on how the company is already run, but I don’t think we’d be in trouble until we cut about ~20%. We probably have about 5% we could cut without even noticing. 10% would mean a little more hustle in my routine. 20% would have an obvious impact on service but still be functional. What’s unfortunate is that they always seem to cut from the bottom up. Every five to ten average employees is worth one officer. A ten percent paycut for the senior staff would save thirty or forty jobs.

      Funny story about paycuts. A few years back at the start of the recession, the senior staff claimed they would do just that and receive a 10% paycut. However, they just shuffled money around (we’re a non profit, so we have to reveal certain financial information). They all started receiving “consulting fees” that same year, which was equivalent to the paycut and then some. In fact, our CEO got a $150,000 raise that year. This year, the nurse union picketed over what the senior staff did and spoke about it in a newspaper article. They claimed they wanted the same 10% raise for all nurses, which would cost about 10 million. They were offered 2.5% raise with an additional 1% on top of the normal 3% raise, for a total of 7.5% over four years. The union took the offer. So now, everyone who got paid very well gets paid even more. Out of curiosity, I did a cost of living/wage comparison and the nurses here get paid noticeably more than any other nurses in the area (soon to be significantly more).

      In other news, we’ve had to decrease benefits to all employees and downsized housekeeping staff to offset the costs of recent increases in wages. :/

    • FuturePastNow
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]"strategies for lower power, emerging markets, and the cloud."[/quote<] Barf. You're a CPU and GPU company. Spend that money on engineers to design better processors.

    • stmok
    • 8 years ago

    Overall, it seems legit…

    * New CEO (Rory Read).

    * Killed off the Piledriver-based Komodo (Socket FM2, up to 10-cores) in favour of Vishera (AM3+, up to 8-cores).

    * New CTO (Mark Papermaster) who reports directly to CEO.

    * New “Technology and Engineering Group” headed by the new CTO.
    (Engineering, research and development (R&D), and product development.)

    * Get rid of the extra useless gruff. (10% lay off)

    One wonders if their “restructuring” involves getting rid of lots of management/marketers and re-investing the money saved, back into engineering and R&D.

    [quote<]Meanwhile, Intel continues to post record quarter after record quarter and to execute almost flawlessly on its roadmap.[/quote<] They're just following a simple rule. => Consistency wins over time. (As competition in the technology sector is a marathon of never ending improvement. Not a sprint to the next grand revolutionary gesture of technology.) Intel is kicking ass because their design and manufacturing branches are aligned with one another. (Both follow the Tick-Tock release model). AMD is not in sync with GlobalFoundries. Sometimes I think AMD made a poor move by selling off their fabs. (GF operates on its own now. There's nothing AMD can do if GF diverts its engineering talent to work on future manufacturing processes, when they are needed on 32nm to help improve yields). So AMD's roadmap gets dragged out longer than intended while they grin and bare it. They're supposed to release APU refresh and more of the Llano based CPUs in this quarter. (APUs that have failed validation on its IGP side.)

      • kc77
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<] * Killed off the Piledriver-based Komodo (Socket FM2, up to 10-cores) in favour of Vishera (AM3+, up to 8-cores). [/quote<] This is the first I've heard of this. If this is correct then this is very very bad from a memory bandwidth standpoint. AM3+ has no longevity left in it. It doesn't have room for more than dual channel memory, same goes for FM1. If anything if AMD could converge around FM2 for both IGP and non IGP use then that would be a very smart move (if possible). As AMD puts in more and more powerful IGP's that dual channel memory controller is going to run out of steam eventually. We can already see that memory bandwidth is tight on Llano.

        • stmok
        • 8 years ago

        2nd generation FX-series (Vishera) is no different to 1st gen FX-series (Bulldozer) by the perspective that both are 8-cores on the AM3+ platform. The major difference between them is the improvements of the Piledriver cores in Vishera. If you already own a AM3+ mobo, you should only need a BIOS update with the new CPU code support. AMD is extending the life of the current platform well into 2012 (it’ll probably hang around to early 2013 before its gone).

        2nd generation A-series (Piledriver-based Trinity) APU will have to use FM2 because of the higher electrical requirements. FM1 won’t work. Its dual-channel RAM, but RAM speed support is bumped up to DDR3-2133. AMD says you can expect Trinity to offer a 20% improvement over the Llano line.

        In both cases, AMD will be re-using the same chipset architectures from their current line.
        ie: 9xx series for the FX series. A55/75/85 series for the 2nd gen A-series.

        Right now, its about saving money and focusing on processor development. AMD knows they’ve stumbled, and this recent restructuring in the last few months proves it.

        The good news is that it signals to one that AMD led by their new CEO isn’t giving up. Its going to fight for its place in the x86 market. (Which is good for us, as everyone knows Intel needs competition or else the consumer suffers.)

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Sometimes I think AMD made a poor move by selling off their fabs.[/quote<] "Rock, meet Hard Place." "Hi, how are you? Wanna grab some beer?"

      • insulin_junkie72
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]GF operates on its own now. There's nothing AMD can do if GF diverts its engineering talent to work on future manufacturing processes, when they are needed on 32nm to help improve yields[/quote<] AMD still has a pretty good board presence at GF, as I recall, so they should have some say (much like Abu Dhabi is AMD's largest shareholder and has seats on the AMD board)

    • destroy.all.monsters
    • 8 years ago

    Something that no one’s brought up yet is that hard drives appear poised to completely run out of stock – worldwide – in about two more weeks (unless I’ve misunderstood the news stories I’ve read).

    This could very well bring the whole industry to a stand still until factories are brought on line elsewhere. Regardless prices of pc’s will rise whether you’re building or buying a rather significant amount. This has got to have a larger effect on cpu sales as well.

    • yogibbear
    • 8 years ago

    This is old school management shenanigans. Wow, you make the books look good for 2012 as your operating expenses go down. But you’ve just reduced your throughput and likely increased inventory. Massive fail. Restructuring a company is fad management. Bad signs if you asked me. Though you can always turn these things around, just hope some of those 10% that are forced to leave aren’t the 10% that would have given you then next best thing. Surely they could have increased sales by 10% or reduced inventory by 10% instead of layoffs. But… the grey hair management gurus fail again.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Moreover, when 10% is forced to leave, the top 10% may decide the situation is f*cked, and start looking for other options (which, being in the top 10%, they have). And once those are gone, the next-tier folks are starting to get nervous and begin planning their own exits. Ball rolling…

      Layoffs destroy companies in more ways than one.

        • shank15217
        • 8 years ago

        Intel has laid off much larger workforces on several occasions in the last 10 years. AMD is doing this layoff even though its profitable which means it wants to stay that way always. It doesn’t’ want to bleed any more money. A fiscally responsible AMD has a fighting chance.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          Intel was laying off folks when the business was good… so, those who got to stay were happy to do so.

          This is different – AMD is laying off people after sh*t hit the fan. People must be a bit worried about the future of the company..

    • can-a-tuna
    • 8 years ago

    If you’d stop buying those Intel crap processors this wouldn’t have happened.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      It’s really really hard to justify buying a BD… I mean, I understand that charities are important for the society, but c’mon..!

        • Arclight
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t think he was referring to the i7, i5 or even i3 series of Sandy Bridge based CPUs, rather to low end, last gen CPUs like the 775 ones that people i know still buy just cause they are from Intel.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 8 years ago

        There are still 1100T and 1090T to buy if BD doesn’t do what you want it to. However most people really aren’t going to notice a significant difference.

        His point that this could be a 1 horse game and that it will have an extremely negative outcome as a result is a solid one.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    I’ve long thought that AMD has a lot of slackers working for it. These people are involved in product development (just look at their latest CPU products), management (just look at where they’re headed, which many in the industry are questioning, and Dirk leaving abruptly), marketing (although I have to admit that they did a good job hyping BD all the way to Mars, those I see talking on YouTube aren’t very convincing, and even their website contains broken links and questionable grammar), etc. If AMD wants to be really professional at the things they do, the folks responsible for the wrong things AMD is doing need to go and AMD will have to hire really good people to replace them or assign the work to people now inside who can actually pull it off better.

      • revcrisis
      • 8 years ago

      How can you even make this statement when you haven’t worked at AMD? I’m pretty sure everyone is busting their ass, but it doesn’t matter when you have a flawed architecture.

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        I’m not working for AMD all right, but if you look at their recent performance it’s either they have a lot of people slacking off or they’re not performing anywhere near the required level to compete strongly with Intel. Busting your ass is no guarantee that you’re doing a great job. As it is, anyone can plainly see that there are a lot of things wrong inside AMD right now, and who are to blame but the people themselves? That’s what they’re TRYING to clean up right now. Not saying it’s the right thing to do. Maybe you should ask someone who’s actually working inside AMD, and at a high position at that.

          • clone
          • 8 years ago

          it takes 5 – 7 years to design a new arhitecture and less than 5 minutes for ppl to proclaim it crap, to profess with authority that the workers were lazy and incompetent.

          ignoring of course that Intel has an R&D budget 10 X that of AMD, ignoring that Intel has manufacturing processes 18 months to 24 months ahead of AMD and a budget 10 X larger available for them to extend that lead……. ignoring that the real issue must be all those lazy incompetent workers.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            ^ This. +1

            AMD doesn’t have [i<]enough[/i<] people to compete with Intel.

            • odizzido
            • 8 years ago

            Despite all the odds stacked against them they have the best mobile platform IMO.

            I am looking forward to hondo/krishna too.

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    Uh oh.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 8 years ago

    So they release Bulldozer, it gets panned, then they start mass firings. Plus, they have people leaving on their own. Suddenly, AMD’s morale is disastrously low. Cutting edge tech and products will almost certainly be born of such sad desperation, right?

    This is the end of AMD. The only way this ends with AMD doing anything but completely shutting down is if/when they are bought by a bigger player. Unfortunately, nVidia can’t buy AMD without also buying what’s left of ATI. Meanwhile, Intel can’t buy AMD without getting slapped around for a monopoly. Intel doesn’t want AMD to go out of business, just limp along as weakly as possible while still posing a faint, faint competitive force against them.

    Heaven forbid AMD wind up being bought by someone not inept or cowed by Intel’s larger size. Intel might actually have to work and spend lots of money being competitive. Instead, Intel’s motivation becomes allowing AMD to catch up like when you’re running with a 2 year old and so you go only a little before you stop and turn around to wait. So will Intel. They now have a motivation to innovate only a little and price always just a little higher than AMD to always keep them in their place, but also allow them a place in the market.

    If only x86 had more competitors, but licensing keeps that from happening (VIA doesn’t count) and so we’ll have to wait until ARM catches up in pure performance.

    For now, we’ll suffer through Intel’s coasting and AMD’s collapsing.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Wow, that really paints a sobering picture… and I can’t disagree with anything you said.

        • clone
        • 8 years ago

        I can, the mass firings are not the result of weak Bulldozer reception, AMD runs benchmarks in house and knew well ahead of time where Bulldozer was going to place in the performance rankings, to even hint that the mass layoffs are the result of some knee jerk reaction is laughable.

        atm AMD has a lot going for it including 4% more marketshare of a much bigger market than it had back in 1999.

        bulldozer will do fine in server where it’s supposed to, AMD releases an 8 core processor and the desktop market pans it because it doesn’t dominate…… it was never going to.

        AMD’s biggest problem is production scaling not the tepid response from desktop, once production scales I’d buy one, wouldn’t hesitate once perf and price meet and I’m really interested to see where AMD is headed.

    • Draphius
    • 8 years ago

    i guess bulldozer was developed to help clean house….

    • odizzido
    • 8 years ago

    A shame the people who did the layoffs didn’t lay themselves off as well. Instead they probably gave themselves a 5million dollar bonus.

    • Aussienerd
    • 8 years ago

    At least they are trying to restructure to survive. They could have just put it up for sale.

    Sad about peoples jobs but i supose the company needs to exist for there to be any jobs at all.

    Wat is the number of the reduction? 10% = ???

    • jimbo75
    • 8 years ago
    • HighTech4US2
    • 8 years ago

    Is JFAMD gone yet?

      • Palek
      • 8 years ago

      Meanwhile, the question on pretty much every TR reader’s mind is: “Why isn’t HighTech4US2 gone yet?”

        • HighTech4US2
        • 8 years ago

        This from the poster who has publicly stated that he replies to posts without ever reading them.

        JFAMD is the public mis-information mouthpiece of AMD.

        JFAMD is the AMD employee who publicly posts on forums and stated how bulldozer’s IPC would be better than the previous generation when in fact it was known to him to not be so. Because of his public posts he lead people to hold on for bulldozer only to find out it was a complete dud. Those people are now p*ssed off big time. Some of them long time AMD fans are now so turned off of AMD they have switched to Intel forever.

        His damage to AMD’s image is immense and why there are still people who back him is simply amazing.

        People like you.

          • shank15217
          • 8 years ago

          ‘Switched to Intel forever’ … lol whatever man get a gf or a wife

            • HighTech4US2
            • 8 years ago

            Read the friggen posts on your bible site SemiAccurate for quotes exactly like the one I quoted.

            But them again reading is not your strong suit.

            You denial droids are just hilarious.

            • Waco
            • 8 years ago

            Comprehension and logic are clearly above you.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            It’s 2HighTech4U, you mean.

          • Waco
          • 8 years ago

          JF was misinformed and didn’t have the authorization to correct his statements when he found out the truth. Are you really going to berate him for that?

          Anyone with half a brain isn’t mad at John nor have they “switched to Intel forever”.

          Note that this is coming from someone who’s already played with an FX-8120 and is switching to a 2600K.

            • HighTech4US2
            • 8 years ago

            John Fruehe finally does the sensible thing and comes up with an excuse

            [url<]http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/john-fruehe-finally-does-the-sensible-thing-and-comes-up-with-an-excuse[/url<]

            • Waco
            • 8 years ago

            That’s not an excuse. That’s called reasoning and explanation. Try not to let your rage color your conclusions so much…because you’ve clearly got a lot of it.

            • sschaem
            • 8 years ago

            Have you been following some of his post ? you wouldn’t defend him if you did.
            He was irrational and pretty heated defending the product for issue we know know are correctly true.
            It went from denying experts that the document publish on the architecture show lower IPC,
            to “If you want higher IPC go buy a single core processor”

            He was not helpful in ANY of the post he made. He was doing damage control by deceiving from the start.

            That letter he posted on “I was deceived by the AMD R&D team” is bullshit.

            BTW, now is the time for him to post on forum and answer questions no more “I can comment on unreleased product”… coward.

    • ish718
    • 8 years ago

    More R&D $$$ for Fusion and Bulldozer can’t hurt… O_O

      • Saber Cherry
      • 8 years ago

      Waste of money. Abandoning Bulldozer and returning to a high-IPC design would be much smarter.

      • Deanjo
      • 8 years ago

      Ya like that huge 1 billion settlement resulted in all kinds of improvement with their R&D.

    • wingless
    • 8 years ago

    AMD needs to do whatever it takes. If AMD goes out of business then the x86 market will disappear. Do you think Intel alone can carry an entire market when ARM is at the gates in droves? Windows 8 is ARM compatible. It’s only a matter of time before the market shifts as it is. We better hope and pray AMD pulls an optimized Pile Driver out it’s arse before they dry up for the sake of the x86 market. Either that or Intel should grant Nvidia, TI and a few other ARM chip makers x86 licenses so they can get on board.

      • Deanjo
      • 8 years ago

      Or the day where x86 has come where it just has to die and heavy computational tasks will be taken care of on GPU’s.

        • shank15217
        • 8 years ago

        You keep dreaming big guy, x86(64) runs your world.

      • Yeats
      • 8 years ago

      Yes, yes I do think Intel alone can carry an entire market. They nearly do now. The real question is, would the US government allow it?

      AMD’s success or failure is not going to change what ARM does.

        • LaChupacabra
        • 8 years ago

        This was answered in the original post. Intel’s main competitor (in the consumer space) looks to be ARM. Even in the server space, things like file servers and domain controllers, in a lot of situations, would run fine on an ARM chip. And an ARM processor running all out will still destroy a heavily down clocked and power gated x86 chip (in performance per watt).

        Right now Intel is in absolutely no shape to rest on it’s laurels. They are kings of a market that, over the course of the next few years, looks to be shrinking. There will always be a demand for high power and high performance chips, but answer me this. When was the last time you were really put in a position where you had to stop working because your processor was too slow?

          • Yeats
          • 8 years ago

          Nothing you’ve posted conflicts with what I posted.

          Intel alone can carry the x86 market until x86 is superseded. AMD’s involvement in x86 is immaterial to how successful x86 will be in the future.

          Your point about processing power is one I’ve made on multiple occasions. 90% of the time any modern mid-level CPU is sufficiently powerful. Sometimes not, though, in graphics and video work.

            • LaChupacabra
            • 8 years ago

            My bad, I typed the reply originally but wasn’t logged in. When I logged in I must have click your post by mistake. I have no idea who I was originally responding too. Thumbs up for Yeats!

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          [quote<]And an ARM processor running all out will still destroy a heavily down clocked and power gated x86 chip (in performance per watt).[/quote<] That doesn't help much if the performance is much lower... and to hike the performance, ARM is sacrificing the efficiency. Go check out that Anandtech article on A7/A15 I keep linking.

            • LaChupacabra
            • 8 years ago

            ARM chips are measured in milliwatts while Intel chips (even at their most efficient) are still measured in watts. If the new A15 cores double the current power usage of A8 were still talking under 1 watt of total power when it’s running at 100%. And that’s for a quad-core 1.5ghz chip. It wouldn’t get nearly as much work done as an i7 @ 1.5ghz, but for low transaction servers it would still be more power efficent than an Intel chip.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]That doesn't help much if the performance is much lower... [/quote<] "Higher CPU performance" doesn't help if it doesn't accomplish anything. You ignore reality, where ARM "CPUs" are actually a SoC with numerous, highly specialized, and ever-evolving parts. [quote<]and to hike the performance, ARM is sacrificing the efficiency. Go check out that Anandtech article on A7/A15 I keep linking.[/quote<] Repeating something that's factually inaccurate doesn't make it right. What you're doing is showing everyone how an ARM SoC's clever design can simultaneously cut power by a tangible amount, [i<]and[/i<] increase performance by a tangible amount, [i<]and[/i<] reduce the cost, [b<]without a compromise[/b<]. Since when did x86 CPUs have a history of this sort of improvement? You often see something like 10% faster, hardly tangible, but with an increase in power use, or minor power savings, but with no other added benefit - and in both cases, you'll likely end up paying more for the advantage.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]an ARM SoC's clever design can simultaneously cut power by a tangible amount, and increase performance by a tangible amount, and reduce the cost, without a compromise. Since when did x86 CPUs have a history of this sort of improvement? [/quote<] Um... SandyBridge? My point is that everyone's touting how ARM will magically take over the computing world because it's so efficient while x86 is so inefficient, completely ignoring the performance gap. I'm pointing out that closing the performance gap comes with efficiency sacrifices. Eventually when ARM and Intel CPUs are at equal performance levels, Intel's will be more power efficient and cheaper to make - thanks to the process advantage. Please keep in mind that upgrading to the next process node automatically should provide all those benefits you're talking about (and IvyBridge will be a good example of that). ARM A9->A15 sacrificed a lot of that process-related efficiency benefit for higher performance. Or, how else would you explain the low 10% improvement in energy efficiency when going from 40nm to 28nm? I'm all ears.

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 8 years ago

          [quote<]When was the last time you were really put in a position where you had to stop working because your processor was too slow?[/quote<] Yesterday morning. Of course, if the corporate IT goons would upgrade my desktop from a Core2Duo to a Phenom II X6 or Core i7, I'd be fine. Instead, they're busy downgrading the majority of our users to Atom-based thin clients that can't even run our computer-based training videos. 🙁

            • LaChupacabra
            • 8 years ago

            The hell? Do you guys buy your PC’s or have some kind of service agreement.

            • paulWTAMU
            • 8 years ago

            uuuugh. OK, Atom has a place, and that isn’t it.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Yep – I have that problem on a daily basis.

            I kinda hate McAfee.

      • lycium
      • 8 years ago

      Wholeheartedly concur.

      • EV42TMAN
      • 8 years ago

      fun fact for you Intel owns the x86 patent and AMD owns the x64 one so x86 isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. but i do like how intel wins on both fronts they make better 64bit cpus so where they kick off to AMD doesn’t really matter to them. And they have the loosing side paying them for older technology. haha

        • TheBulletMagnet
        • 8 years ago

        It losing. Losing side paying them. Loose is the opposite of tight.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 8 years ago

          *It’s. As in “it is”. *The losing side paying them.

          Pedantry is fun!

      • Lans
      • 8 years ago

      Except I can’t see how this will help “reduc[e] time-to-market” mentioned in press release and [url=https://techreport.com/discussions.x/21912<]AMD posts $97 million third-quarter net income[/url<]. I think they need better products and not cost cutting...

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Why would it shift to an extremely under powered processor? Maybe for handhelds and netbooks… but that’s competing against Atoms, not i7s.

      I’m more frightened that this will turn into a monopoly and as the competitiveness dies out, Intel will slowly become a conglomerate that does nothing to push the whole of the industry forward.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Wow… savant wingless.

      One of the worst possible predictions was put to the test the next day. Not that the prediction itself is bad, but what it is predicting is.

    • Buzzard44
    • 8 years ago

    One would expect this to come across as a sign of weakness in the company.

    However, their stock is up 5% today. Apparently management aren’t the only ones who think this is a good move for the company.

    Personally, I’m astonished that they can afford to lose any more people. It’s already a David vs. Goliath battle against Intel, and frankly I’m surprised they kept up as well as they did given the limited resources. Go AMD! Well, I don’t mean go lay off all your employees, I mean recover and become a good company again (and hire them back one day).

      • Deanjo
      • 8 years ago

      Cyrix Part Deux

      • Ringofett
      • 8 years ago

      All I can figure is that, if I were a shareholder, I’d of bought the stock if I thought the cuts were all administrative, marketing, and various forms of overhead. I’d of sold the stock if I thought any R&D groups would be hit. That’s just me, though.

      And from the sounds of the article, they’re investing in “strategies” for good-sounding things. If that means R&D, then perhaps thats the 5% pop?

        • paulWTAMU
        • 8 years ago

        Yeah. Wish I knew where the cuts were. Are managers/executives part of this 10% or is it just going to *)(*$ the low men on the totem pole?

          • Lans
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah, I wished there was a shake up of the board of directors… Even if you fault Dirk Myers for selling off their handheld business, it would have been done with the board’s blessing etc so if Dirk was fired, one or all of the board members should get fired too…

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 8 years ago

          More info here:

          [url<]http://semiaccurate.com/2011/11/03/amd-cuts-10-of-workforce-leaves-one-group-untouched/[/url<] [url<]http://tech.icrontic.com/news/the-axe-falls-at-amd-as-layoffs-sweep-through-the-company/[/url<] Layoff notices here: [url<]http://pastebin.com/FGC10TSB[/url<]

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 8 years ago

      Wall St. loves layoffs. [i<]Loves[/i<] them. Then mix in some short-sighted thinking and buzzwords and voila! your stock goes up. It sure doesn't sound reassuring to me though.

        • clone
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t believe AMD is going to compete with Intel directly on the desktop anymore, they’ll maintain a presence so long as they make some money off it but I believe they see the writing on the wall and know they will never be able to beat Intel at die shrinks.

        they’ll fight in server and likely portable and ultra portable but desktop is too fickle for them and lacks the margins.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 8 years ago

          You might be right – if BD is the equivalent of Matrox’s original Parhelia though we’ll all miss out. Innovation on the desktop will likely go to a trickle then cease as a result.

          On the other hand we know they’re working to fix BD and there are further chips based on it going a few years out. I’m not buying the gloom and doom yet – but I’m also not sold on Read either.

          • eofpi
          • 8 years ago

          Desktop does lack margin, but it makes up for it by subsidizing much of the engineering costs for the server parts. If AMD were to pull out of the desktop business, their Opterons would no longer be profitable either.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            this only works when calculating fuzzy math, if AMD keeps the divisions separate and pays separate wages for both departments and separate R&D costs then yes desktop does subsidize server because the tech is shared.

            this only helps employee’s & executives at the expense of the company though because it doesn’t get rid of a dead department, I agree AMD will stay in desktop so long as it makes money but the cost will be in focus moving away from desktop, they will still get parts but bulldozer is a great product in server at the expense of desktop and this trend will likely continue.

            I believe AMD would do well in the space between ARM and Intel, AMD could become another Apple if they so desired given they have the product to produce their own platforms and Apple’s margins leave a huge amount of room for them to maneuver but they’d have to be ready to start small and grow the brand…… a close relationship with Google to handle software would be best although Microsoft is likely the more desperate of the two, problem being Microsoft’s brand isn’t “cool”.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Perhaps their stock rose because they’re going to pay less in wages in the short term and their annual revenue will be higher in the short term. They plan to dump their stock before they lose out in the long run.

      This definitely is bad.

      • sschaem
      • 8 years ago

      For the past 3 years AMD has been running a ‘double’ company and this is coming to an end.
      In 2012 and beyond AMD will now focus on its new lineup.

      So I’m in the camp that believe that this is the best thing the new CEO could have done.
      AMD need to be a lean operating machine, focused and eliminate waste.

      Lets not forget that AMD now have 40,000 people working at TSMC and GF that they dont have to employ directly.

      The layoff is most likely ‘dead wood’ for AMD future plans and closure of some of their 47 offices world wide.

      What is not right is that the board and other executives wont take a pay cut of 10% in solidarity.

      • FuturePastNow
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]One would expect this to come across as a sign of weakness in the company. However, their stock is up 5% today.[/quote<] That's because investors are morons who think only of short-term gain for themselves, not of what is good for a company.

      • WaltC
      • 8 years ago

      If it’s a “sign of weakness” that AMD lays off some people then I judge Intel ought to be on life-support about now…;)

      Wow…talking about people sorely in need off a few business courses, just rehashing the last few years…let’s just start with Intel [url=http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/salary-freezes-at-intel-employees-show-satisfaction-with-compensation/<]laying off 6,000 people in 2009 and freezing salaries[/url<]....'cause everybody knows that AMD was sure puttin' a hurtin' on Intel right about then (sarcasm)! Go back just a couple more years [url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0902biz-intel0902.html?&wired<]to 2006[/url<] and AMD was smashing Intel into pulp (sarcasm)--it was so bad that Intel was [url=http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Layoffs-Loom-at-Intel/<] laying off more than 10,000 people that go-around![/url<] Hey--let's wind up the WayBack Machine and look at 1998--pre-Athlon--when everybody knows that AMD [url=http://www.faceintel.com/layoffs.htm<]was stomping Intel so hard [/url<]that the company had to look up to see the bottom! Yea--sure! Right? Sigh...if you want an eye-opener just Bing "Layoffs at Intel" and grab some popcorn and settle in to read because it's a loooo-o-o-o-o-o-ong read....;) The fact is that companies routinely lay people off for wide varieties of reasons that often have nothing whatever to do with being crushed by competitors. AMD has, in case some people have forgotten, essentially been in a reorganization since it bought ATi and decided to emulate nVidia and [url=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8bffed2a-c8f2-11e0-aed8-00144feabdc0.html<]Apple[/url<] by going fabless...and look what failures nVidia and Apple turned out to be (sarcasm)! This recent layoff is essentially nothing save a temporary move to reign in costs (as you can see, Intel does it all the time with few ill effects) and those in the investment community smart enough to understand what's happening are rewarding AMD by buying the stock because AMD is showing some managerial smarts here. The great thing about reorganizing your company is that when you get things on track then you start [i<]hiring[/i<] again! Gawwww-Leeee !(sarcasm.) I mean, what's wrong with people? Do they check their brains at the door every time the subject of AMD comes up? It sure seems like it. The company is reorganizing, showing a profit, and ramping up its production strategy and people pretend that unless AMD produces a cpu that runs selected Internet benchmarks 2-3x faster than the latest Intel cpu runs them, and unless the latest AMD gpu runs selected Internet benchmarks 2-3x faster than nVidia's latest gpu--that AMD just doesn't have any products worth buying and that nobody will buy them and so AMD is dead already but just doesn't know it. Sheeesh!....;) When I think of the word "shallow" it seems like the word was invented to cover analyses like that. Investors, though, are savvy enough to understand what AMD is doing when it lays people off, just like they are savvy enough to know what Intel is doing when it lays people off. For the economically challenged among us, and there seems to be no shortage of such people, sadly enough, I'll emphasize this so that you might be able to retain it: [b<] layoffs are not permanent, and layoffs do not mean a company is two shakes away from certain and intractable morbidity.[/b<] Heh...;) Good grief, people, get a grip! (And a clue--no sarcasm intended!)

    • Deanjo
    • 8 years ago

    See, see, see, I told you guys on October 19th!

    [url<]https://techreport.com/discussions.x/21857?post=590168[/url<] Now go vote me up dammit!

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      You did call it…. but don’t expect any love from the mods. If there’s one thing they hate, it’s being proved wrong.

        • Deanjo
        • 8 years ago

        Lol, I know.

      • TheEmrys
      • 8 years ago

      No one cares.

        • Deanjo
        • 8 years ago

        I bet 1400 people would have liked to have known about my insight.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      I had a similar prediction a week earlier:

      [url<]https://techreport.com/discussions.x/21813?post=588004#588004[/url<] Now I feel even more sadness. Some of my predictions I really don't want to come true. Also, this move for short term gains seems aimed at making shareholders happy and stock price up (you know, so those executives can have their options income). None of this will truly help in the long run - instead, they should [i<]hire more people[/i<], and run at a loss for a while. They can't out-innovate Intel without R&D. This is a nail in the coffin for AMD. Option gains for exiting executives at the expense of hard-working employees. Disgraceful. With this attitude, no wonder so many American cities are Occupied.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        Yup, I agree at operating at a loss. This comes down to either going balls deep or withering away. I think balls deep scares anyone that likes working off short and safe bets.

        • sschaem
        • 8 years ago

        ?? Its ludicrous to see some of those “Occupied” wearing team cap and jersey complaining about CEO pays…
        Do those idiots even know how much athlete get paid ?
        Why not wear some AIG or Bank of America T-shirt at those rally while they are at it , it makes no sense.

        Kobe makes 53 millions a year, and he is NOT the highest paid.

        If you take all MLB player (over 1200 of them), they average $3,318,855 a year per player, with the top 50 easily making over 10 million each.
        At the top people like Rodrigez with 32 millions.

        What give them the right to say that a guy that can only swing a bat at a ball deserve a 32 million payday, but a CEO that manages 300,000 people worldwide against fierce competitors deserve a fraction of what a ball player makes?

        AMD did the right thing, you cant operate a company just breaking even. AMD need to focus on its 2012 road map and need the fund for focused R&D.
        AMD is not a charity, better to have 1400 of the least needed people go then having to let got 11,000 people 2 years from now.

        And believe it or not, when AMD is back on track they will hire again if they have reason to.

        BTW, out of AMD 47 offices, most are not in the US. llano was developed in India. With 26 offices in Asia pacific , 5 doing R&D.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          Your athlete comment is valid, but no – cutting R&D is a way to lose even more. The only reason to cut cost so heavily is short term stock prices, or punishment for failure (which, in itself, discourages risk taking which would be the only way AMD could beat a much bigger, stronger and richer competitor).

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 8 years ago

          First off those players make vastly less than the owners. Most, if not all, sports teams are not publicly traded entities and do not have the benefit of corporate personhood.

          Your ire is misplaced. You want to make the Occupy folks hypocritical for your own purposes which are to maintain the status quo without looking at the inherent inequity of it.

          About the only point you’d have is if you brought up how so many cities are willing to give up major concessions for no money in order to support already insanely rich sports teams. A point you did not make.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      There should be a word for someone who lists one of many possibilities that fits a pattern (which may or may not even be relevant) then gets it right and says ‘I told you so’.

      So if this didn’t happen and AMD didn’t layoff anyone would you have said in a month that you were wrong?

    • sschaem
    • 8 years ago

    If the 2012 roadmap is not changed, AMD secured its future for at least the next 3 years.

      • HighTech4US2
      • 8 years ago

      What have they secured?

      Need I remind you of all those Bulldozer road maps from years ago.

        • sschaem
        • 8 years ago

        They just secured 200 million a year in pure profit, something they can channel in project that makes money.
        AMD seem to have 47 offices world wide, this is just nuts.

        AMD barely break even, and they are not in a position where they can borrow hundreds of millions to move forward.
        Without serious funds AMD will stall.

        AMD will let go the dead weight, the dead projects, the lousy marketing group, etc…
        End up much strong with 200 millions a year to spend on project that can secure their future.

          • Peldor
          • 8 years ago

          AMD already spends around $1.4 billion annually in R&D. Will another $200 million (aka ~1/40th of Intel’s annual R&D) be transformative? Are we ready to presume $200 million is going to be added to R&D when the 10% cuts are across the board?

    • jdaven
    • 8 years ago

    “The chipmaker says it plans to reinvest a “significant portion” of the money saved into “strategies for lower power, emerging markets, and the cloud.”

    and make it look more enticing for a third-party to come and buy AMD. What better way to beef up its buyability than to say, “We already laid everyone off so you don’t have to.”

      • Yeats
      • 8 years ago

      Don’t you get tired of saying the same thing over and over and over again?

    • TaBoVilla
    • 8 years ago

    damn, this is just sad..

    • Abdulahad
    • 8 years ago

    AMD: “We are closing down business, but first we going to shrink our workforce in several bursts and say good bye…”
    The fanboys’ hearts must be palpitating right now. lol..

      • Yeats
      • 8 years ago

      Thumbs down from me. No lols when people are losing their jobs.

      • Sunburn74
      • 8 years ago

      Its only funny until someone gets hurt. However, I don’t consider rich executives with generous severance packages to be people (he said slyly with tongue fully in cheek).

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        There aren’t 1400 of those guys being laid off.

    • quasi_accurate
    • 8 years ago

    Made it this round. But the mood’s pretty somber around the office…

      • Game_boy
      • 8 years ago

      Why are you still working there?

        • quasi_accurate
        • 8 years ago

        Mainly the people and the work atmosphere. It’s very laid back, not so much politics like at some other tech companies. Besides that, the work is challenging and interesting.

          • Sunburn74
          • 8 years ago

          Do you feel like you’re properly managed over there?

            • quasi_accurate
            • 8 years ago

            That’s a loaded question, ain’t it 😉

          • Deanjo
          • 8 years ago

          [quote<]It's very laid back,[/quote<] Ever think that could be part of the problem?

            • quasi_accurate
            • 8 years ago

            No. Laid back work environment != not getting your work done.

            • Deanjo
            • 8 years ago

            Ok according to you it is not equal to getting your work done, so what exactly has been “getting done” at AMD since 2005 other then being unable to release competitive products? Your company went “asset light” in 2009 to be light and nimble and concentrate resources on the development side of the game. So far nothing notable other then more layoffs, shrinking profit margins, and underwhelming execution has come from it. If it wasn’t for the ATI division keeping what little company is left afloat, and intel feeling pity and settling out of court for a short term cash bandaid, AMD more then likely would have already been a cliff note in “manufacturers that used to make processors”.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            What good does it do to rip into an employee who’s not a top executive? Do you like it when some douche rips into you at work for something you have no control over?

            Empathy = something you lack.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            +1.

            Don’t vote the guy’s factual post down just because you don’t like the message.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            You’re being a troll right?

            As there is little factual bits to his post and his overall message is quite a bit different from the facts as destroy pointed out.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Plenty of facts, starting from asset light. The bit about Intel feeling pity is off, but otherwise I think it’s pretty solid.

            Him attacking quasi with the “your company” comment is uncalled for, though.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            People are downvoting him because he’s yelling at the wrong guy. How do you miss this?

            There’s no excuse for berating someone powerless to do something about the situation. The OP likes his job and workplace – and he actually has a job in a terrible economy and Deanjo just rips into him. This is not ok.

            No one cares about the facts *because they are not on topic for this subthread*.

            WTF man.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            I love old school manager types that are all like ‘if you come in 9-5 and look like you’re working then it’s all good’. Flex hours and playing games at work = no productivity!

            Fucking old generation.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            AMEN! Google has a laid back workplace, probably going to be the single largest tech company in the world soon.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” Your motto?

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            I love that one. I found a magnet with that on it somewhere, and gave it to my ex boss.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            That the spirit of the old school managers! Fear and control yields results!

            • ermo
            • 8 years ago
            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            I know but that is kinda a schoolyard mentality. When you look at the intricacies of the bulldozer chip its quite phenomenal but they clearly failed because of management, there is little cohesion between the many points of genius in that chip. If you build a engine out of performance parts but tune it and get them to run in concert what do you have??? a chunk of metal. You can see in the bulldozer design that the individual engineers delivered some great parts but someone up top didn’t bring them together.

        • Vasilyfav
        • 8 years ago

        Because have you seen the economy out there?

      • BiffStroganoffsky
      • 8 years ago

      I’m with you there Bubba. Working as a public servant when tax revenues are plummeting because people aren’t working can crank up the paranoia..

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 8 years ago

        Not to mention the “YOU ARE ALL LAZY GOOD FOR NOTHING LEECHES ON TEH SYSTEM AND UNION GOONS” horse manure you guys have to suffer with everyday.

          • paulWTAMU
          • 8 years ago

          Not everyone whose salary comes from the government (indirectly, via block grants in my case) is unionized.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            I think small government is a good aspiration but the current anti government movement on the right is just not productive. Private sector has failed to adequately address certain things in the past that only government seems to pull off. Sadly we don’t see a legitimate discussion on the merits of any of this.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 8 years ago

      Good luck man – I hope you keep your job.

      It’s a hell of a thing to be let go right around the holidays.

      My fingers are crossed for you and your friends there.

      • Arclight
      • 8 years ago

      When new products are launched do people in your office watch reviews online to see how the product is received?

        • quasi_accurate
        • 8 years ago

        A lot of them do, yes. I do religiously, but that’s because I’ve done that for years, even before working here.

    • Vulk
    • 8 years ago

    Wow. It seems like they’re abandoning a market they’re nominally competitive in to chase one they’re number one competitor can’t even crack… Since they had a ARM division and all that previously this seems slightly insane.

      • Voldenuit
      • 8 years ago

      AMD had an ARM Division? Not that I recall (the GEODE was x86). Are you sure you’re not thinking of intel, who shed their Xscale division to pursue Atom?

        • sweatshopking
        • 8 years ago

        They didn’t have an ARM devision, they had a mobile GPU division that they sold.

          • StuG
          • 8 years ago

          You sure about this? I thought the Snapdragon design was AMD’s originally?

        • Deanjo
        • 8 years ago

        AMD has carried other non x86 processors in the past such as the AMD Am29000 series and they also bought out MIPS manufacturer Alchemy Semiconductor.

          • loophole
          • 8 years ago

          They also used MIPS in their (originally ATI’s) Xilleon line of SOCs (that were later sold to Broadcom).

        • loophole
        • 8 years ago

        They got the Imageon line from the ATI acquisition and as part of that line they had several application processors that included ARM cores alongside Radeon and other multimedia coprocessors for video and decode acceleration, etc. See the Imageon A250 as an example.

        They sold the division to Qualcomm in early 2009, and Qualcomm later went on to use components of it in their Snapdragon SoCs (the Adreno).

    • tone21705
    • 8 years ago

    Just wait for the bailout.

      • TurtlePerson2
      • 8 years ago

      There’s no union voters that the government needs to please.

        • r00t61
        • 8 years ago

        Or super-politically connected, TBTF financial institutions.

        • Kaleid
        • 8 years ago

        Pfft, as if the rich and powerful cared about unions.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 8 years ago

          Just about destroying them. Already in the country with the weakest unions in the entire first world.

          Which is exactly why labor law, workman’s comp, the near annhilation of pensions etc. has gotten so bad – and continues to get worse.

            • Draphius
            • 8 years ago

            lol i swear unions are just a legal means for the mafia to stay around. they do absolutely nothing for most americans nowadays yet suckup a portion of there paycheck for a job they cant even get without paying those union fees, a little corrupt when a union can keep americans from getting a job somewhere; atleast that is if u dont feel like paying them there “protection” money.Also unions are the reason it costs a couple hundred dollars an hour for a person on an auto assembly line to hold an electric drill and put a screw into a car, and the reason so many auto manufactures have moved overseas! there are enough laws in place to get rid of unions at this point, most are virus’s leaching off the hardworking people anyway. btw have u ever wondered who votes in union leaders cause if u happen to look at the statistics everytime one person steps down a family member takes there position…. much like the mafia….

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Yes unions = mafia. How did I miss this?

            You want maybe to research something you post before you post it? Because that would be rad. There are about a million “experts” talking about unions that have never been in one – just like you.

            Since when was an auto assembly worker paid 200 an hour? Never is when.

            Pro tip – you want your posts to be taken halfway seriously don’t skimp on the letters “y” and “o” – they don’t cost you anything.

            • Draphius
            • 8 years ago

            they dont get paid 200 dollars an hour but after the company pays medical, matches things for retirement and a plethora of misc things its actually over 200, if i remember correctly it was in the 240 range for some of the lowest paid workers on the assembly line in auto manufacturing plants, look it up. btw i have plenty of experience getting screwed by unions that have done nothing for me yet demand more out my paycheck year after year

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            I am not going to make your points for you – you look it up and cite it. The onus to present your mystery sums as facts is on you.

            You’ve listed no union experience at all. You present a completely slanted point of view and present no evidence and then try to cover it up by saying “it happened to me plenty of times”. Excuse me if I don’t take your word for it.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            Seriously. We can have an intelligent discussion on employee protection, corporate interests, and the conflict of the two… or we can have a stupid conversation. While I think unions serve their purpose, I also feel they can greatly overstep their bounds. A good example of the latter is United Auto Workers, in my opinion.

            That said, to be well-educated on the gross overreach of unions while sticking your head in the sand regarding the gross overreach of corporations doesn’t help anybody. There are plenty of people who will resort to absolutely idiotic positions to maintain their ideological enemies.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            So you know what? I did look it up. And you’re full of it just like I said from the beginning.

            Not only is it not 200 dollars or 240 _and_ it *never has been* but you’re off by a factor of 3 (roughly). Andrew Ross Sorkin – himself no friend to labor listed an already over inflated (and highly disputed) 70/hr including all benefits before the UAW even lowered its lowest wage tier to 14/hr.

            Just keep posting those lies dude.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            you speak about unions with only prejudice and ignorance to guide you.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 8 years ago

        Oh please. It was the financial institutions – the very same ones as got us into this mess that got bailed out.

        Nice propaganda move.

          • Ringofett
          • 8 years ago

          Not the only bailout, though. GM, Chrysler, farmer groups get their due every so often (in most recent years, ethanol mandates, tarrifs and subsidies), anything with “green” in the business plan powerpoint is probably eligible for a few federal bucks.

          UAW was one union, but the teachers union want their due as well for donating their millions, in the form of federal money to the states to boost/fill up education budgets to avoid layoffs.

          So dont pretend it was just the TARP in recent years. TARP was big, but at least it’s been paid back, at a small profit, even after accounting for big losses on AIG. The guy focused perhaps too narrowly mentioning only unions, but you commit the same crime, and then call him on propaganda.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Blaming the unions is a lazy propagandist move. GM and Chrysler didn’t get bailed out because of their unions but because of intense lobbying by both the companies themselves – and their local representatives (constituencies are important not to alienate and Michigan has already been ravaged economically) and last of all the unions who made massive concessions. You seem to greatly underestimate the political power of folks affected, even indirectly, of factory closures.

            Farmers groups are not unions. The fact of the matter is that a great deal of farming in this country is done by huge Agribusiness conglomerates now anyway.

            Education is in trouble everywhere – it isn’t just the unions concerned about it – nor is it just about maintaining jobs. There are reasons that individual cities set up additional taxes to support education. Education is the first thing stolen from in the majority of state budgets. No one in their right mind wants their kid in a classroom with 40+ students in it. Are you going to next tell us all just how rich teachers are?

            If you want to call me a hypocrite you need to do a damn sight better job than that.

            The most powerful unions in the country are in law enforcement and in the prisons – and they’re as fully under attack as any other union right now.

            Union lobbying power is at an all time low. Compared to the vast amounts of money that coporations have through both industry lobbying groups and their own lobbyists there is no comparison. So yes – it is lazy – and it’s propaganda. Propaganda that serves the very rich at the expense of the working man.

            • Ringofett
            • 8 years ago

            GM and Chrysler didn’t get bailed out because of their unions? That may be true, since they donate heavily to the party that wasn’t in power at the time, but the average hourly total compensation and the huge legacy costs the UAW wouldn’t let GM and Chrysler budge on was a leech that slowly bled GM and Chrysler down. Ford had good enough management to avoid it, but the other two domestics didnt.

            Goes beyond compensation, too; unions love job descriptions, and having peoples roles written in stone hobbles productivity innovation.

            Farmers are a powerful lobby, though not a lobby. My point was broader than unions. Powerful lobbies are equally bad.

            As far as education goes, you haven’t bothered to do anything but listen to what teachers unions talk about. The US spends vast sums on education, and we get crap results. The fact is only a small portion goes to the teacher who stands in the classroom, so its actually possible to rationalize education spending without laying off any teachers (except for some that need to be). Construction projects for schools is commonly riddled with corruption and outright fake word orders, phantom workers, and the administrative overhead in schools (and colleges as well) versus other labor intensive industries is outrageous. Overhead, not student-teacher ratios, is where private schools can often make a profit while spending less per student.

            But all you want to do is bring it back to Marxist bull about the very rich vs the mythical “working man.” Whatever.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            unions didn’t kill Chrysler and GM, an inadequate response to a 50% loss of market share over 30 years killed GM while the Daimler acquisition killed Chrysler. when problems arise executives never blame themselves, it plays very well to hate on unions because it’s easy and advances tangible efforts to weaken labor as well as health care, blaming labor distracts from discussions regarding low quality and uncompetitive products.

            the funny part about scapegoating unions aside from it’s superficial insubstantial simplicity is that it caters to societies sociopathy, ppl love to blame everyone else, GM loses 50% of it’s marketshare over the course of 30 years not because their supplier base had issues, not because they were overcapacity, not because they were slow to react to changing market conditions, not because their products weren’t competitive, not because they ignored the entry level market favoring higher margin vehicles which inevitably left them with a lost generation of car buyers… not because of any of that…. no, the focus must be on…. unions?

            Chrysler on the other hand was killed not because they didn’t try, Chrysler 1998 was the leanest and most profitable of the big 3 while increasing their marketshare but following the Daimler acquisition they got gutted from within, cancelled R&D, Daimler taking any and all assets liquid & hard and using them to fund purchases then following Pacifica Daimler opted to strip the product line of investment needed to remain competitive… but again this is all the unions fault?

            p.s. you speak of Ford like you almost know…. you don’t.

            Ford failed first in 2002 / 03 but everyone involved understood & instead of throwing in the towel they restructured the company, by 2005 Ford was small and efficient enough to secure loans for a complete restructuring which they did, Ford today is massively in debt, they borrowed the money first but because it wasn’t the publics no one notices, time will tell whether they survive.

            GM failed because of incompetence at the top not because of the bottom 7% of their cost structure, they consistently mis-predicted the market and always worked from the view that they would get it all back.

            Chrysler was going to fail because it was small enough to be leveraged while no longer viewed as an auto company but instead as an asset to be leveraged, Daimler gutted it, Cerberus was planning on the same focusing on diluting the brand and making it just a manufacturing company, the banking collapse is the only reason Chrysler survived.

            btw Chrysler got a loan at 9% which they paid back.
            GM got a bailout which they paid back.
            Ford is massively in debt and it’s not certain they’ll pay it all back… probably will but never know.

            • Ringofett
            • 8 years ago

            In other words, Ford did it the right way, without public money, and I knew that. Which is why I said Ford had the better management; they’ve managed to stand on their own without dipping so much in to the public purse.

            The rest was a wall of text that ranted about management without wanting to admit that the labor cost structures, which are only now starting to get close to non-union plants run by Toyota, Honda, etc. in price parity, were a contributing factor. There’s other issues at play, like the role of having a strong union influencing management decisions may play, but you address none of those. Nope, not the unions fault at all in any way, all management and those golden parachutes.

            Also, you don’t know anything about economics if you dont call that a bailout. If the market would’ve never have offered a 9% rate, it was a bailout.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            you’ve got nothing to say but silly.

            you don’t understand the cost structure today anymore than you did yesterdays, you only know what you’ve been given by the media, which is/was nothing.

            having been in the industry on both sides at multiple companies and departments as part of my career I have some of the insight you lack, I’d never be so stupid as to claim I know it all but in all honesty it’s not that you don’t understand, it’s that you assume the industry is so brutally simple that you could make the worthless superficial claims you’ve made and pass them off as insightful.

            it’s obvious you have the bias while lacking the substance to push your worthless opinion, you’ve made a lot of flawed and silly comments relying on the one trick pony you play with.

            you should stick to playing with your pony.

            a loan at 9% is a loan, a bailout is a 0% loan, Chrysler got a loan, GM got a bailout, both were paid back, in the case of Chrysler the public made billions.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Goalposts – you keep moving them. Your entire argument is not only specious but dishonest.

            Further as as guy that gets his information about schools from Fox News instead of ever having worked in one you certainly make a lot of unfounded and unsupported assumptions.

            • beck2448
            • 8 years ago

            Public unions have gutted the country’s and state’s fiscal integrity. massive pension scamming, bloated benefits and no one representing the tax payer as liberals handed out other people’s money in exchange for union dues. This is why FDR, the biggest liberal of them all said public employees, as opposed to private sector, should NOT have unions as they already have a thousand civil service protections. Ever try to have a public worker fired? It’s nearly impossible for anything other than sheer inability to pay them.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            Yay more Fox fueled propaganda! I never get enough of people with no facts.

            • Draphius
            • 8 years ago

            since running my own business for the past 3 years, which is a 35+year family business i can tell u its damn near impossible to fire someone nowadays thats y u see so many companies resort to horrible tactics to make your life a living hell so u will just quit. btw for destroy all monsters u may think this is all fox fueled propaganda but tell me how that works for me since i dont have a television service and dont watch any tv on my computer. i read lotsa history books from as many sides as possible and youll realize that everything spewed at u through media is complete and utter BS. LEARN to digest all the facts and talk to people u live around (im lucky im in about 100 customers homes a week) and u will realize just how disgusted 99.9% of people are with the govt, not one side but all sides

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            “its damn near impossible to fire someone nowadays thats y u see so many companies resort to horrible tactics to make your life a living hell so u will just quit.”

            Not in [i<]any[/i<] right to work state or California. Which state are you referring to? I'm glad you read [i<]lotsa[/i<] history books. If that were the case then you'd realize that union bashing is shortsighted and a load of bull. Particularly since many of the countries with the best economies as well as places to live have vastly stronger unions than we have here (Germany is just one example). You'd also realize that unions have been at the forefront of workman's comp and other labor related law and that since their decline those laws have been made consistently more lax and barely help workers at all any more. You can be permanently crippled at work and still not be able to live off what you make as a result - and in many states they force you to take a buyout/lump sum. Whether people are disgusted with the government or not it does not justify bashing public [i<]employees[/i<]. Nor does it change the fact that Beck (wonder where he got that name from? Hmm...) is repeating talking points from Fox, ALEC etc. verbatim. The Fox comment was not directed at you. But I'm rather certain you've heard these ridiculous anti-union jibes from somewhere or else you wouldn't be repeating them would you? Your consistent use of text speak, slang and just slapping up a wall of text do not help your credibility. If you think I'm standing up for the government - in any other way than I do not think we can do without it (or that by weakening the federal government we will magically be better off) then you're wrong.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            damn near impossible to fire someone?…. I could fire someone tomorrow in my sleep and have it stick but if you really want to avoid any and all hassle you just lay them off, you know this already, the reason ppl raise a stink about being fired is because they get disqualified from post employment benefits.

            it’s a stupid and cruel game employers play when they cry about how hard it is to fire someone when in reality they can and do it all the time without any grief at all.

            I know of companies now that actively let their women employee’s go…. not a month after but within 2 weeks of returning from maternity leave they are laid off permanently…. it’s never said that it’ll be permanent of course but they never return so… yeah it’s permanent.

            companies that resort to horrible tactics do it because they like too, it may not be company policy but the human resources ace alone who is abusing his fragment of power, the ppl involved dehumanize their workers and toy with them at a whim.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            [quote=”destroy.all.monsters”<]Blaming the unions is a lazy propagandist move.[/quote<] It is absolutely not. UAW had some incredibly destructive, unsustainable policies that they were absolutely unwilling to budge on -- policies like the "Jobs Work Program," in which laid-off auto workers received 95% of their take-home pay and benefits for [i<]five years[/i<]. To suggest that blaming the unions is always a sign of a "lazy propagandist" is nothing less than an out-and-out lie, and indicates to me that you're just as interested in fencing yourself into your ideological paradigms as Draphius, with no intention to leave. Let's solve the damn problems. Asking a company to pay former workers nearly 100% of their take-home pay and benefits for a full [i<]five years[/i<] after their layoff is functionally unsustainable. UAW had no right to bludgeon these companies into what, in my view, was a wanton overreach of power and downright irresponsible. Any of the idiots at UAW that came up with that policy should have been fired and viewed by the workers as imbeciles who endangered the long-term viability of their ability to provide for themselves and their family. There's a lot of examples, as well, where unions may be beneficial for the employment of their [i<]existing[/i<] members, but are detrimental to the employment of other people in or near the industry. Do you know anyone who works at the Post Office? I do. He's a casual, a good guy -- but to the American Postal Workers Union, he's the enemy. He does [i<]exactly[/i<] the same work as his unionized counterparts, but at half the wages (roughly $12.00/hour), with no healthcare/dental/vision, and no paid vacation. Also unlike his unionized counterparts, he can't "call in sick" three or four or five times a month and expect to keep his job. To turn a blind eye to unions is no different than turning a blind eye to corporations. They are both part of the problem, and reformed, will both be part of the solution.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 8 years ago

            You list two solitary examples and think it translates across the board?

            Let’s recap: the OP says “just wait for the bailouts”, turtleperson2 stated that there were no unions involved – clearly inferring that only unions got companies bailed out. Then Ringofett attempted to prove turtleperson2’s comment correct.

            So yes – blaming unions for bailouts is a lazy propagandist move since the vast majority of bailouts were and are not for companies with unions. Having worked in unions for nearly 2/3rds of my roughly 35 years of work I have my own beefs with certain union leaderships but the usual smear tactics and anti-union propaganda in the country with [b<]the weakest unions in the first world[/b<] is horse manure. As a matter of fact I know several people that work in the Postal Service. All public employers screw their part time workers - that has nothing to do with the unions and everything to do with the employers. Getting on permanent is a major deal and is very hard to do. Most of the time you get laid off with minimal notice and get zero benefits - which is exactly why they want to keep them part time since they can jerk them around for *years* (Managers get bonuses just for this very thing). In many municipalities there's a certain number of months or years you can work and then are forcibly laid off. Regardless none of that has anything to do with how the unions treat part time employees because in many instances by law the union cannot represent them and in the few cases where they can be represented they can be fired at will [i<]anyway[/i<]. The most commonly heard phrase by most part timers from the unions is "Look, try to keep your nose clean and don't make any waves because until you're permanent - and past probation there's nothing we can do for you". Work 39 hours per week and get bupkis until you get permanent - for years - with the constant specter of layoffs behind you and you'll see it sure isn't the union doing the screwing. I'm not going to address the UAW simply because I haven't done the research and don't know anyone that has worked there personally. Unlike the other posters I'm not going to make an ass out of myself simply because I have an axe to grind. Nor am I going to make a cursory look at a few wikipedia articles and call myself an expert. I'm not going to cede your points I merely cannot adequately address them - at least not honestly (and I'm just not willing to spend the next 2+ hours getting acquainted for a single post). "There's a lot of examples, as well, where unions may be beneficial for the employment of their existing members, but are detrimental to the employment of other people in or near the industry. " Feel free to cite them. I've known people at dozens of union employers and I feel confident I can address or refute just about anything you have to throw at me. 🙂 Solving the problems, such as they are, do not include demonizing working people or their unions. Again, in case you have missed the point, I'm talking about *blame*. Nothing is perfect certainly - including unions. However I've seen how "labor reform" is handled - and at least for the last thirty years - it's meant gutting the unions. But as long as people keep saying there needs to be labor reform and keeps putting the onus on the workers and unions to get all the takeaways - and nothing substantive ever gets done reforming the employer side of the bargain we'll never get anywhere.

            • kc77
            • 8 years ago

            Tarp was payed back but not the Trillions in lost GDP. Tarp recapitalized the banking system. It did not put back the lost GDP. Trying to blame this crap on teachers or UAW workers is absurd. They don’t create financial instruments.

            What you’ve written IS propaganda because you’ve solely written it because you don’t like the fact that it’s NOT the middle class that has gotten us here. They don’t have lobbyists anywhere near the strength of the banking industry.

            Payed back Tarp…lol How about they re-capitalize the world economy they almost destroyed?

            • Ringofett
            • 8 years ago

            I was more pointing out that some bailouts are black holes of money, whereas at least TARP was repaid.

            Debating bank busts is broader… History is littered with banking crisis. If you have better ideas on how to allow a banking system to recycle savings and provide lending to safe, worthy borrowers as efficiently as possible, in a way that makes them enough money to be worth existing, AND safely then feel free to let the Fed, World Bank, BIS, IMF, ECB and others know. Otherwise, we’re just gonna have to roll with the next Basel rules, keep an eye out, and hope it doesn’t happen again.

            If you really want to hate on finance, though, go cut up your credit and debit cards, if you owe money on your car then go set it on fire, and if have a mortgage, walk away from it, get an apartment. We use financial services, so we can’t quite regulate them out of existence if we want good rates.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            your position is specious if not outright hollow.

            I don’t believe anyone is crying for an end to any and all forms of banking, but how about not allowing banks to become/remain hedge funds?

            history isn’t littered with banking crisis, their have been banking problems but to claim “littered” is to assume every 5 to 10 years all banks collapse and have been collapsing for the past 100 years or more.

            many nations have a stable banking system, the nations that don’t also don’t want one because the requirements to maintain a stable system aren’t nearly as fun as gambling with retirees pensions on the stock market.

            • Ringofett
            • 8 years ago

            My understanding of Dodd-Frank, the Volcker Rule, and the Basel rules about to be phased in is that investment banking must be separate (and newly regulated) from traditional banking. Basel is also calling for higher capital requirements. There’s also talk of forcing BoA and Citi to break in to smaller, small-enough-to-fail parts. The system is already working on fixing those problems. As everyone that works in finance knows though, the protestors neither know nor care to know about Basel and the progress of regulation, though.

            And suggesting history isn’t littered with banking crisis shows you’re out of depth. Long stretches of the post-WW2 era has been marked by stability not seen before in financial history, but even then there’s been financial panics — ask anyone from a developing nation what they thought of the 90s. Also hard to see a connection between regulatory oversight, the banking system, and people having “fun” managing pension assets, but I know, ya just wanna troll now.

            • clone
            • 8 years ago

            Dodd-Frank is about allowing while minimizing, aka:maintaining the status quo in smaller doses.

            their is lip service given to traditional banks and investment but inevitably those rules will fail if not go ignored.

            what the OWS protesters want is their political process back.

        • pot
        • 8 years ago

        LOL What? There are no unions on Wall St and they got all the bailouts. But don’t let that get in the way of your union hate.

      • Yeats
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Just wait for the bailout.[/quote<] We could all buy Bulldozers and overclock them. Then we'd bailout AMD and the power companies together.

      • Deanjo
      • 8 years ago

      Apple will wait a little longer before gobbling them up.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Doubtful; AMD isn’t too big to fail, and their lobbying budget was too small.

    • gmskking
    • 8 years ago

    I am afraid that it might be too late for AMD to still be relevant.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This