@truekop Okay, I'll bite. I'm not for it. I think we would lose our edge in general if we drifted more towards this socialistic, or more accurately fascistic (economically speaking), relationship between business and government. In this case, perhaps Cisco was a victim of their own success. Do they even have competitors in their core HW/SW market? So, a totally disruptive technology emerged and they got caught flat footed, had to react. It sucks but it does happen, and monstrosity companies seem to be especially susceptible.
Apple is "allowed" to sit on their piles of cash because it is theirs. They earned it and they can do with it whatever they'd like.
@truekop - from what I know (and I am not sure I am on firm ground here) Europe has more socialist tendencies whereas in the US capitalism reigns supreme. As far as I know industry in Germany (all industry not just electronics) is doing OK?
In Australia we lean more towards the US than Europe, with similar disastrous results.....
Any European readers who know more about what they are talking about care to weigh in?
All, I would just like to get a feel for what would be the american publics appetite for more governmental regulation here, somthing like what is there in europe ? I think there should be widespread support for such a measure but not sure if there is political will...Lastly I am not an expert here but would stronger labour laws and regulation really kill our industry , atleast i feel that is the general perception....on a more tangential point i cannot imagine why on earth companies like APPLE sitting on such large cash reserves allowed to continue in that maner, why cant they build a foxconn equivalet here and boost the manufacturing sector here...imagine if every semiconductor company did this...manufacturing may be alive and kicking...
Don't take me wrong, I think CEOs should make a lot of money. But when the company they are running is losing money and laying off workers, it should be reflected in their pay. I also think there is a lot of age discrimination that is not being addressed. Companies would rather have an inexperienced worker that will make a lot of mistakes just so they they can pay less. This is what happens when the CFO is making the business decisions.
@Anand....yeah you have to wonder about these guys. Especially when you read about Hewlett Packard in the good old days of Bill and Dave...not one layoff when they were in charge, and one of the greatest companies in the world.
"I don't know what the solution is....tax high salaries at a super-high rate....make companies confirm to a bell curve of salary distribution....limit the differential between the lowest and highest paid workers in a company (include contractors so the CEOs can't snivel out)....etc."
David, I think that CEOs aren't good at their job, that is why they have to cut the workforce short. Firstly, they look authoritative, but I think they have no idea what they are doing. Microsoft recently laid off 16000 workers from the Nokia merger, and my question was why did Microsoft buy Nokia if it was going to lay off so many workers?