Yahoo Saving $375M by Eliminating 2,000 Workers

[bucknutty]

[citation][nom]kensingtron[/nom]What the Mr F! That's $187,500 per person. Also typically 10% of an earning demography will be earning 90% of the money; which equates to $1,662,500 for the top 10%. Wait, it's probably a little less as that only leaves $20,800 each for the remaining 1,800 people.[/citation]

I was thinking along those lines as well. Maybe they are moving out of some office buildings and saving money on rent too?

 

[freggo]

You can package your headline any way you want; but firing 2,000 people is not about 'saving money'. It simply means business/sales are down and your stock price will soon follow.

 

[Kami3k]

[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]Obviously you're a demagogue and you don't understand how business works. For starters he makes a base of $1 million. The board fired the old CEO because he sucked and was running the company into the ground. They had to then find a new guy who was willing to right the ship. Someone who had a track record, the connections, and the expertise to turn things around. It turns out that in order to get someone like this they had to offer him a lot of money. They found Scott Thompson and in order to get him to leave his job at Paypal had to WRITE A CONTRACT PROMISING 1 million and UP TO 27 million IF he performs.Amazing how Albert Pujols doesn't employ anyone, plays a game for a living, makes 20 times as much, and isn't responsible for tens of thousands of employees, and yet the class-envy crowd doesn't get angry at them like they do CEOs who actually do something.[/citation]

Lol, CEOs do something? You mean like run companies to the ground?

HP, Yahoo, etc for examples.

 

[f-14]

Yahoo employs to many fluffers like marcus yam and douglas perry of Toms.
chris chase and maggie hendricks being prime examples in the sports pages, those two report about everything other than the sport as if they are reporting on hollywood stars and what they wore, or had for dinner last night, nothing relevant to the world of sports or what happened in a sports game.
granted yahoo is a social site and is not as savy as a specialty news agency that reports only on the main subject and specifics with detail, when i read a headline with david beckham i expect to see some credible reporting on his past game or recent performance or some fact concerning his playing ability, not what color of faux paux shoes he wore last night when he escorted his wife 'posh spice' to the music awards and posted in the sports section.
they are sports reporters reporting gossip entertainment news aka social issues, not sports. while i understand the reason is to draw women into the sports world, your core and most prolific readership deserts you for greener pastures.
as far as i am concerned if those two are gone Yahoo is on the right track esp if they employ 2,000 people of this calibre.