Wednesday, October 12th 2022
Intel Said to be Considering Laying Off Thousands of Staff
The world is without a doubt entering a recession and now the first rumours of mass layoffs in the tech industry are starting. According to Bloomberg, Intel is considering laying off thousands of employees as a measure to cut costs, as its businesses are slowing down. Bloomberg is mainly citing the PC market, which the publication calls Intel's main business, although Intel's Client Computing Group (CCG) does a lot more than just selling PC chips, but the group was Intel's largest source of revenue in Q2 this year by quite some margin. That said, despite a revenue of US$7.7 billion in Q2, this was down 25 percent compared to 2021, which in all fairness was a record year for most companies in the PC industry.
According to Bloomberg, Intel had 113,700 employees as of July this year and the publication said Intel is considering cutting as much as 20 percent of its sales and marketing staff. Bloomberg is expecting Intel to be looking at reducing fixed costs by 10 to 15 percent, although this is unlikely to affect key parts of Intel's business units. Last quarter, most of Intel's business units made a healthy profit, but only the Network and Edge Group had a significant revenue increase over the same quarter in 2021, with most other groups being down significantly. The third quarter results aren't expected to improve upon things, something that appears to be reflected in Intel's share price, which is down over 50 percent in 2022. That said, all of Intel's competitors are in the same boat and it's likely that we'll see more news about companies that are considering trimming back on their expenses and staff numbers in the near future. Intel is scheduled to report its third quarter earnings on the 27th of October.
Source:
Bloomberg
According to Bloomberg, Intel had 113,700 employees as of July this year and the publication said Intel is considering cutting as much as 20 percent of its sales and marketing staff. Bloomberg is expecting Intel to be looking at reducing fixed costs by 10 to 15 percent, although this is unlikely to affect key parts of Intel's business units. Last quarter, most of Intel's business units made a healthy profit, but only the Network and Edge Group had a significant revenue increase over the same quarter in 2021, with most other groups being down significantly. The third quarter results aren't expected to improve upon things, something that appears to be reflected in Intel's share price, which is down over 50 percent in 2022. That said, all of Intel's competitors are in the same boat and it's likely that we'll see more news about companies that are considering trimming back on their expenses and staff numbers in the near future. Intel is scheduled to report its third quarter earnings on the 27th of October.
84 Comments on Intel Said to be Considering Laying Off Thousands of Staff
Live enough and I guess you'll see it all.
I believe if companies were not allowed to use stocks which they fabricate out of thin air to pay executives, executives would not be paid nearly as well.
The reason is pretty straightforward. By creating $100M in stocks and giving them to the executives, corporations aren't actually paying a dime out of the corporate coffers. This makes it too easy for them to do, it makes executive pay 'cheap' from their perspective.
But nothing is free. The ones that pay for it are the shareholders, who see the value of their shares diminished by this.
Now if that 100M came off the bottom line, hurt their profit, emptied their bank account, they'd think quite differently. It would become far more competitive, and executive 'compensation' would almost certainly drop.
Just pay them the same way normal people are paid - payroll - and for one it becomes subject to payroll tax (37%) and not capital gains tax (20% max). There's also big incentive to make people compete for top jobs, just like regular people.
They can still get bonus', just like normal people. Just keep in mind, that bonus comes out of profits, not out of the shareholders equity. And full normal taxes need to be paid on it.
Yeah, I think modern Americans don't understand how shares work (my uncle was trying to tell me that various stocks would go up when they did a split... a LOT of ignorance going around in my family, coworkers, and friends). That's the main issue. So companies try to extract value from people who don't know what's happening.
From this perspective, it doesn't really matter if they paid from the company's coffers or from stocks. The shareholders by and large, don't pay attention to such details and probably don't read 10k statements either.
That's the point of free market, it gives you freedom to choose between 10s or 100s of thousands of company stocks.
You pick and choose the best one (for you). This is easier said than done, as it would require a ton of market research to do in order to be able to switch from 1 company stock to the other.
And big companies know this and ride this fact as can be seen by those enormous stock packages to C-suite guys already mentioned.
CEO is often installed not for their competence, rather for their obedience. Often these CEOs know that they need to do something quite stupid or or plain obscene just to get the stock price at certain level, knowing they will get their cut of the pie.
In all honesty, how many of us here will turn down, say $100m as a CEO, only to do something fundamentaly fucked up, which eventually will result in 1000s of employees being fucked up badly for the years to come?And this essentially boils down to the root of the problem - nobody cares what's happening with the C-'minus' and lesser employees, for as long you get your promissed money. Then, when a given company is fucked up beyond repair you just jump ship to another one.
And even HR and recruiters promise you a paradise, knowing very well how the scheme goes.
There are of course ways out of this but I personally can't see it happening anytime soon.
Back in 1909 for example, state legislatures under public pressure voted to ratify an income tax amendment to the US constitution that the US congress was pushing. Why would people do that? Because they were told that income tax was going to 'soak the rich' and make them pay their fair share (that's where the phrase came from).
Income tax is now otherwise known as a payroll tax, and rich people either aren't on or make very little of their income from payroll.
I don't think things will change, simply because people can't admit to themselves that they either cannot or simply don't have time to figure out complex systems. If you want transparency and fairness, you have to have simplicity.
Now imagine just how bad the other systems are.
What happened happened for a reason and couldn't have happened any other way.
I don't have to imagine anything. I know what it could have been and what it can be. Yet, here we are.