192 points

The upper management is scapegoating the workers for their mistakes

permalink
report
reply
109 points

You would think that they would move hard to make sure they were hiring the best and more people to ensure bullshit like FRYING THE ONLY COMPONENT PEOPLE WANT FROM YOU BY USING YOUR PRODUCT NORMALLY would be paramount. But no. Fire everyone but the C-Suit, do some stock buybacks, ???, then profit.

Line must go up.

I swear to god if companies don’t realize that the point is to make a product or service that people want to use, I’m gonna sue them in Texas and hope to finally get the corporate death penalty.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

That’s the Jack Welch playbook!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I don’t think that’s scapegoating, that’s just cutting costs (which they are great at, judging by the quality of their CPUs)

permalink
report
parent
reply
95 points
*

If it were a sane world I’d be worried about my Intel stock but investors seem to get hard-ons at news of layoffs so it’ll probably go up.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

Layoffs always make financial numbers look good for a moment. People are expensive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-148 points

It’s cute that you think shareholders actually drive stock prices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
102 points

Make your point without being demeaning

permalink
report
parent
reply
-98 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points
*

Stock prices are absolutely determined by investors. As in, that’s the only thing that matters. If more people are selling than buying, line go down. If more are buying than selling, line go up. That’s how it works.

You say “shareholders,” but that’s not accurate. the OP said “investors,” which can mean everything from long-term shareholders to day-traders throwing around options. The former doesn’t determine share prices, those who actively trade the stock do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Honest question as I’ve been pondering this (and not my orb 😞) recently and I’m not sure if my reasoning makes sense.

You mentioned day-traders making option plays. I can see how that could be used as a signal by the rest of the stock market. Does that have a bigger impact than, for a lack of a better term, mega investors? I’m not a huge investor. My holdings are primarily in ETFs. But I have some money in my portfolio to play around with.

To me it seems like my stocks are affected more by what berkshire hathaway does for example than actual consumer/investor sentiment. To the point where I’m wondering if unless we band together, like GME, we are primarily along for the ride. All while massive firms, insurance companies, tech companies and other large holdings managed by small number of individuals impact stock price a lot more and with that don’t have an insensitive to sell holdings they bet big on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-30 points

Hedge funds and short sellers control prices. And they cheat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

So, what does drive stock prices?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The FREE MARKET™

permalink
report
parent
reply
65 points

I honestly thought this was about to be another orb post from the thumbnail.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Wanting to ponder, huh. Me too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
63 points

I’d hate to be named Jobs, working at Intel. 🔪

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Especially if you’re the only one

permalink
report
parent
reply
51 points

Guys, i’m sorry to say that 15 years of avoiding innovation because we were the market share leader has to end. We thought AMD was a joke after so many issues in the 00’s so we got complacent.

So we have to can all of you marketers who are shitposting on our advertising “review” site and hire some R&D people. Maybe we can scalp some from AMD.

Sincerely, Intel Executives

permalink
report
reply
12 points

sounds good, lets_eat_grandma

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I guess he likes his roast beef well aged. lol

But yeah, Intel is a company that only innovates when they have to. If it wasnt for AMD they’d probably only produce a new CPU every 2-3 years to save on R&D costs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Isn’t it essentially Intel’s fault that instead of moving to automated fab configuration, they kicked back and let TSMC get most of the world’s capacity for these new generation fabs, right on top of a geopolitical faultline? Another example of corporate decisions by near-monopolies harming the national interest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Extra mayo!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.9K

    Posts

  • 84K

    Comments