Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (294748)	7/14/2006 6:48:24 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578296

...and the upcoming announcement of a networking division deal INTC could even show additional strength.

To: bentway who wrote (294748)	7/15/2006 1:57:56 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578296

I've seen many layoffs at close quarters. My observation is it does not matter whatever method is used to select redundancy candidates, the result is the same. If a company has "x" percent good guys and "y" percent deatbeats, when you look at the people picked for redundancy, there will be "x" percent good guys and "y" percent deatbeats in the subset. I believe this to be true no matter what method is used to select the people. Companies used to use the "in crowd" method. A favored manager would keep "his" guys and dump those of the other unfavored groups. This could well be in just one department or over several departments. Another method is for the HR group to use some sort of methodology to retain the best employees. The results were always the same though from my observation. The real question is how does a company end up with too many employees in the first place? The cuts have to start at the top first, otherwise the company is no better off imho. Investors thinking anything else is happening are just plain silly imo.