Apple Lays Off Recruiters as Part of Its Slowdown in Hiring (bloomberg.com) 27
Apple laid off many of its contract-based recruiters in the past week, part of a push to rein in the tech giant's hiring and spending, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, citing people with knowledge of the matter. From a report: About 100 contract workers were let go in a rare move for the world's most valuable company, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the situation is private. The recruiters were responsible for hiring new employees for Apple, and the cuts underscore that a slowdown is underway at the company.
Workers laid off were told the cuts were made due to changes in Apple's current business needs. Bloomberg first reported last month that the company was decelerating hiring after years of staffing up, joining many tech companies in hitting the brakes. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook confirmed during Apple's earnings conference call that the company would be more "deliberate" in its spending -- even as it keeps investing in some areas.
Workers laid off were told the cuts were made due to changes in Apple's current business needs. Bloomberg first reported last month that the company was decelerating hiring after years of staffing up, joining many tech companies in hitting the brakes. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook confirmed during Apple's earnings conference call that the company would be more "deliberate" in its spending -- even as it keeps investing in some areas.
But muh job creators (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has more actual literal cash on hand than anybody, they have massive liquidable investments, they can afford to invest in new lines of business. But they apparently don't have any ideas for any products which would be profitable in this economic environment, so instead they are just sitting on the money.
Apple (and other corporations like this) need to start spending their money, and losing it if necessary, in order for the economy to function. If they don't spend the money, they don't create anything. Not goods, not jobs, nothing. And without those jobs, capitalism cannot function.
Wall street is choking itself to death, and us with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the top corporations are flush with cash. It's why tax cuts don't stimulate much R&D: many companies already have plenty of money to spend on R&D if they wanted, they just don't because they don't feel it will pay off.
For example, they may estimate every $1 spent on further R&D will generate only 90 cents of revenue based on past R&D projects, and thus it's better to sit on cash, using it for purchasing other co's, stock buybacks, executive bonuses, etc. And Amazon found they overbui
Re:But muh job creators (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax cuts not only don't stimulate R&D, they discourage R&D.
They also discourage hiring.
R&D and salaries are expenses, and companies do not pay taxes on expenses. They pay taxes on profits.
Reducing the corporate tax rate ALWAYS results in companies decreasing expenses and taking out profits.
Re: (Score:1)
that is logically incorrect. The lower the corporate tax is compared to personal, the more incentive is to keep money in the corporate account and not to take it out for personal use, because personal tax is higher.
Of course there shouldn't be any income or corporate taxes, governments should live off of excise and consumption taxes and not steal people's productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a common misconception about how corporate taxes work.
For income tax purposes, corporations are only taxed on profits. If a corporation has revenue of $1billion and spends $1billion on salaries, R&D costs, rent, advertising, maintenance, and stock buybacks, they pay $0 income tax. The only remotely comparable personal tax situation is for people with very small businesses who file a schedule C.
For a truly fair tax system, we need a heavily progressive income tax on individuals and corporations,
Re: (Score:1)
What is a misconception, I was talking about net profit. So if you make a million and if you spend a million as a corporation you don't have any net profit, your corporate tax is 0.
However if you make 1.1 million and you spend 1 million, you have 100K as net profit. Now you can pay it out as dividends or as personal income or you can leave it in the company to use for something in the future (for example this year you made 100K in net profit and next year maybe you will run into a loss, so your 100K from y
Re: (Score:1)
Why has this been modded troll? Would be better for people to write comments containing counter arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Why has this been modded troll? Would be better for people to write comments containing counter arguments.
They don't have counter arguments, just feelings they don't know how to handle.
Re: (Score:2)
how can you argue you are not trolling when you are proposing that a money making enterprise should lose money on purpose because of your feelings?
Found the guy who didn't understand the argument.
Hint: Go find out why money is called currency. It's not arbitrary.
Re: (Score:1)
Money is savings, of-course since it can be just printed it's not working as savings very well because it can be inflated away by the central governments that really control the central banking systems and the treasury, however money is savings first of all, that's why people save their money when times are good, so they can survive when times are difficult, it's really not arbitrary.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, this modding doesn't make sense. I don't mod drinkypoo one way or the other, typically, because he/she/it comments a lot and others take care of the modding. I look to promote voices I haven't heard. But if I had the points today I'd mod it up for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
They are, that's what this is:
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is very much not that, because they're just going to give the money back to people who are going to either buy more Apple stock, or buy stock in some other corporation that's also not employing more people.
If the money is reallocated in any way that doesn't employ people, it does nothing whatsoever to reduce unemployment. And unemployed people can't afford to buy Apple's shiny shit.
Lay offs for contractors? (Score:3)
I'm guessing this isn't technically lay offs -- merely Apple choosing not to continue to use these 1099s' services, as clearly enumerated in their agreements. These folks are not employees, so they're likely not eligible to collect unemployment (not sure though -- is CA paying unemployment to independent contractors yet?) and likely didn't get any severance pay.
Maybe not too much difference in practice for the contractors, but for Apple, this is very different than, say, theoretically laying off the iPod dev team, which probably consisted of legit full-time employees with benefits and PTO balances etc.
Forced market slowdown (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Correct use of 'rein in' (Score:2)
I'm impressed, the editors actually got it right this time: they correctly used the phrase rein in in TFS, instead of the all-too-common but incorrect reign in. Good job, mshash!
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen it used more often correctly than not in summaries, but the wrong rei[g]n is commoner by far than the right one in comments. The plebes are still far less competent than the aristoi.
Don't worry about them (Score:2)
Spin (Score:2)
Why is the word "contractor" not found in the actual title of any of these?