ESPN Laying Off HUNDREDS

Thank you for quoting "sunk cost" to me. I know what the f*ck it means. It doesn't change the principle.

 
KJ. said:
sd said:
have not seen anything to substantiate this claim. quite the opposite. seems like the employees are doing quite well for their company.

there was a time where any form of an economy was to provide jobs to people. the idea was that the freer the markets, the greater the liberty. now, neither of those are true and the only goal is to get shareholders rich. this mba mindset is troubling as a weakened workforce is the greatest threat to the overall health of the economy. but, hey, we should get over it. at least the opulent minority who own shares are getting taken care of.
Click to expand...
That has always been the only goal. Corporations don't exist to boost the economy or to hand out jobs to those who could use one. They exist to make money and it is their right to do whatever they want within the law to make as much of it as possible. That has always been the case.
Click to expand...
you have just effectively demonstrated that you know nothing about the history of corporations or economic theory.

 
KJ. said:
sd said:
have not seen anything to substantiate this claim. quite the opposite. seems like the employees are doing quite well for their company.

there was a time where any form of an economy was to provide jobs to people. the idea was that the freer the markets, the greater the liberty. now, neither of those are true and the only goal is to get shareholders rich. this mba mindset is troubling as a weakened workforce is the greatest threat to the overall health of the economy. but, hey, we should get over it. at least the opulent minority who own shares are getting taken care of.
Click to expand...
That has always been the only goal. Corporations don't exist to boost the economy or to hand out jobs to those who could use one. They exist to make money and it is their right to do whatever they want within the law to make as much of it as possible. That has always been the case.

QMany said:
Spare me the bullsh*t MBA rhetoric. They do teach forecasting and business ethics also, right? Forecast better! They brought these 400 on because they forecasted the need. They are dropping them because they made policy decisions to spend crazy amounts of money elsewhere (billion dollar contracts and unnecessary $125 million studios) and now need to cut.
Click to expand...
http://www.investope.../s/sunkcost.asp

ADS said:
How were those 400 employees costing a billion dollar monopoly like ESPN money?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't know, but ESPN could have profits of a billion, million, zero, or negative one billion and the cost of those employees is the same. You can be mad at them all you want for firing all those people, but don't make this an issue of them making "too much money" or something like that. Like I already said, businesses exist to make money. If ESPN thinks they can make more of it without those 400 people, then more power to them.

That's just how the system works. If you don't love it, leave it.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone said thi is an issue of making too much money, it's a matter of ethics.

 
I moved 9 months ago for my job. I would not have moved here if not for this job. I would not be happy if my firm made some ridiculous capital expenditures, called them sunk costs, and cut my position because of their bad budgeting. I am single and 26. I can't even think of that happening to me if I had uprooted a family.

 
They said this is all cause of the money ESPN invested in its future—SEC Network, new digital center, NFL rights, etc. They expect ESPN to be extremely profitable in the future but they have to cut costs now to make sure they have enough money over the next few years while so much money is tied up in investing in the future.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top