Article: AmEx Cuts Jobs as Digital Age Transforms Travel Business

[fancy_pants]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-10/amex-profit-falls-on-costs-tied-to-5-400-job-cuts-at-lender-1-.html

[1713996841]

1713996841

[1713996841]

1713996841

[1713996841]

1713996841

[gabbergabe]

Just a thought, but paying for airline tickets in BTC? I kno it has nothing to do this but It just got me thinking about it. sorry ill make a new thread about it.

[gabbergabe]

“Against the backdrop of an uneven economic recovery, these restructuring initiatives are designed to make American Express more nimble, more efficient and more effective in using our resources to drive growth,” Chenault said in the statement.

greedy fucks, why not keep them employed, just a drop in the bucket to keep them employed with the profits they make.

[asdf]

“Against the backdrop of an uneven economic recovery, these restructuring initiatives are designed to make American Express more nimble, more efficient and more effective in using our resources to drive growth,” Chenault said in the statement.

greedy fucks, why not keep them employed, just a drop in the bucket to keep them employed with the profits they make.

Is that some kind of troll? This is an economically destructive attitude. Why pay people to do redundant work when those resources could be spent better elsewhere?

[Kluge]

“Against the backdrop of an uneven economic recovery, these restructuring initiatives are designed to make American Express more nimble, more efficient and more effective in using our resources to drive growth,” Chenault said in the statement.

greedy fucks, why not keep them employed, just a drop in the bucket to keep them employed with the profits they make.

Is that some kind of troll? This is an economically destructive attitude. Why pay people to do redundant work when those resources could be spent better elsewhere?

It might be good for the company, and in principal, it seems sound, but finding new work is generally a resource-consuming process itself (not just for the worker himself, but the economy as a whole as consumption possibly drops). Overall, it may be an economically destructive action to "give up" on employees rather than trying to "salvage" them (whether that means keeping them on-board assuming they'll be profit-makers later, or repurposing them to work in a similar role). Not taking a side either way, but it'd be interesting to read studies on the true impact of letting employees go.

[gabbergabe]

So theres two sides to this coin, My opinion is based of fustration of people lossing their jobs. I guess Im just looking at the human factor in this and thats it. Maybe its a better direction for the company but for all those loosing their job is just a bummer. It just reminds me of my mom loosing her job she had loved so much when the recession hit. And it just devastated her, along with me feeling sorry for her loss Ive also remeberd it and when I here of people loosing jobs just brings back to that time. Its just my opinion.

Wouldnt this also be bad for their PR department? Doesnt that effect them too? Im sure its not a big loss on image but they still look like pieces of shit to me.

I really do wish i knew more about economics and buinsness , and Im trying everyday to learn something new and I guess thats hy I lurk around here so I thank you both for your imput. Got 2 different points and allowed me to look at it differently and learn something.

[vokain]

So theres two sides to this coin, My opinion is based of fustration of people lossing their jobs. I guess Im just looking at the human factor in this and thats it. Maybe its a better direction for the company but for all those loosing their job is just a bummer. It just reminds me of my mom loosing her job she had loved so much when the recession hit. And it just devastated her, along with me feeling sorry for her loss Ive also remeberd it and when I here of people loosing jobs just brings back to that time. Its just my opinion.

Wouldnt this also be bad for their PR department? Doesnt that effect them too? Im sure its not a big loss on image but they still look like pieces of shit to me.

I really do wish i knew more about economics and buinsness , and Im trying everyday to learn something new and I guess thats hy I lurk around here so I thank you both for your imput. Got 2 different points and allowed me to look at it differently and learn something.

Usually in times of distress, companies will cut employees only if they have to. They do this because they have to, or else everyone loses out when they go under because they can't afford to pay wages whilst staying competitve. Yes, there is the human factor, and that's why most good companies have money set aside in the case they have to sever contracts with an employee to help them transition to other things. Money to keep you by and references can go a long way. To those people that only know how to do one job and one day their job becomes obsolete by technology, I'd say they now have the freedom to pursue other worldly ventures but most people don't know how to get there, especially after an abrupt change in lifestyle such as the loss of a job. It'll be hard, but there are other things now worth doing I'd imagine. Such is reality I suppose, but things undeniably have still gotten better than before. Our standards of living 300 years ago were definitively poorer than now.

[fancy_pants]

Just a thought, but paying for airline tickets in BTC? I kno it has nothing to do this but It just got me thinking about it. sorry ill make a new thread about it.

Actually that's why I posted!

[gabbergabe]

So theres two sides to this coin, My opinion is based of fustration of people lossing their jobs. I guess Im just looking at the human factor in this and thats it. Maybe its a better direction for the company but for all those loosing their job is just a bummer. It just reminds me of my mom loosing her job she had loved so much when the recession hit. And it just devastated her, along with me feeling sorry for her loss Ive also remeberd it and when I here of people loosing jobs just brings back to that time. Its just my opinion.

Wouldnt this also be bad for their PR department? Doesnt that effect them too? Im sure its not a big loss on image but they still look like pieces of shit to me.

I really do wish i knew more about economics and buinsness , and Im trying everyday to learn something new and I guess thats hy I lurk around here so I thank you both for your imput. Got 2 different points and allowed me to look at it differently and learn something.

Usually in times of distress, companies will cut employees only if they have to. They do this because they have to, or else everyone loses out when they go under because they can't afford to pay wages whilst staying competitve. Yes, there is the human factor, and that's why most good companies have money set aside in the case they have to sever contracts with an employee to help them transition to other things. Money to keep you by and references can go a long way. To those people that only know how to do one job and one day their job becomes obsolete by technology, I'd say they now have the freedom to pursue other worldly ventures but most people don't know how to get there, especially after an abrupt change in lifestyle such as the loss of a job. It'll be hard, but there are other things now worth doing I'd imagine. Such is reality I suppose, but things undeniably have still gotten better than before. Our standards of living 300 years ago were definitively poorer than now.

Well I guess thats a positive way of looking at it. And you can also add in that they now have goverment programs that pay for a worker whos has been laid off to be trained in a new field.

So maybe I should be a little happy for these poor people because now there free to pursue a different direction, And hopefully the company does have some money set aside for those who were laid of to help them with their transition and also maybe they will take adavntage of these new training programs and find a good company to work for.

[gabbergabe]

Just a thought, but paying for airline tickets in BTC? I kno it has nothing to do this but It just got me thinking about it. sorry ill make a new thread about it.

Actually that's why I posted!

Well I thought the whole purpose behind BTC was anonymity? And Though alot of people believe that purchasing anything you shouldn't be required to provide personal information but a plane ticket they definitely require a lot of personal identification.

But then again If you dont really care to much and if you were one of the lucky/smart ones who was part of the begining of BTC and you were mining and amassed quite a few coins then buying plane tickets and racking up flyer miles would be a win/win for you.

But this is my personal opinion and I want to make that clear before I say this but...It seems that BTC is a currency for the tech savvy and is requires the average person to educate themselves on BTC and how it works, how to us it, and how to obtain it. And unfortunatly I think thats asking alot from your average person. So I just dont see this becoming a currency that your able to purchase plane tickets with.

I use my mother as a BTC expierement, she was excited when I had told her about it but I left it that. She came back to me awhile later saying it was just to hard to understand all on her own without investing a good chunk of her time to be comfortable with it. And with a 40 hour a week job and life as it is, it just didnt seem to benifit her to invest or go any further for her.

so with that said its just my opinion and how I see BTC with the average person. With USD Ive had my whole life to learn, earn, use, loose ect. Be comfortable with my countrys currency. And to implement a new alternative currency that is not a pysical , but digital doesnt really sit to well with most people when i first tell them about it.


We just really need a better way of getting the BTC message out there and in a way" DUMB" it down for the average person to get on board which I think we will all benifit from. I cant tell you how many time I felt stupid with BTC or with this forum because im not as educated as some of our members here on these subjects. And more then once its almost driven me to just leave it alone and to those more technical and just sticking to USD. But the benifits if BTC are just to great for me to walk away. So imagine the average person getting into it and how overwhelming it must be for them after the euphoria of the benifits of BTC ware off in the light of the reality of how BTC works and what you must know to be profecient with it.

[asdf]

“Against the backdrop of an uneven economic recovery, these restructuring initiatives are designed to make American Express more nimble, more efficient and more effective in using our resources to drive growth,” Chenault said in the statement.

greedy fucks, why not keep them employed, just a drop in the bucket to keep them employed with the profits they make.

Is that some kind of troll? This is an economically destructive attitude. Why pay people to do redundant work when those resources could be spent better elsewhere?

It might be good for the company, and in principal, it seems sound, but finding new work is generally a resource-consuming process itself (not just for the worker himself, but the economy as a whole as consumption possibly drops). Overall, it may be an economically destructive action to "give up" on employees rather than trying to "salvage" them (whether that means keeping them on-board assuming they'll be profit-makers later, or repurposing them to work in a similar role). Not taking a side either way, but it'd be interesting to read studies on the true impact of letting employees go.

The retrenched workers will find work in other areas of the economy where they will actually be paid to do productive work.

Keeping the unproductive people employed is just a lose-lose proposition. The company suffers and produces less goods/services and the potential productivity of the worker is wasted. You say this is greedy and you might be right, but society is much better off for this. The alternative is that everyone suffers; prices go up for everyone.

If the recovery is "uneven", it's because the government is intervening in the allocation of capital, such as enforcing the very policy suggested (interfering with the terms of employment). Jobs can't go where they're needed and the economy doesn't seem to recover... huh!

[Kluge]

“Against the backdrop of an uneven economic recovery, these restructuring initiatives are designed to make American Express more nimble, more efficient and more effective in using our resources to drive growth,” Chenault said in the statement.

greedy fucks, why not keep them employed, just a drop in the bucket to keep them employed with the profits they make.

Is that some kind of troll? This is an economically destructive attitude. Why pay people to do redundant work when those resources could be spent better elsewhere?

It might be good for the company, and in principal, it seems sound, but finding new work is generally a resource-consuming process itself (not just for the worker himself, but the economy as a whole as consumption possibly drops). Overall, it may be an economically destructive action to "give up" on employees rather than trying to "salvage" them (whether that means keeping them on-board assuming they'll be profit-makers later, or repurposing them to work in a similar role). Not taking a side either way, but it'd be interesting to read studies on the true impact of letting employees go.

The retrenched workers will find work in other areas of the economy where they will actually be paid to do productive work.

Keeping the unproductive people employed is just a lose-lose proposition. The company suffers and produces less goods/services and the potential productivity of the worker is wasted. You say this is greedy and you might be right, but society is much better off for this. The alternative is that everyone suffers; prices go up for everyone.

If the recovery is "uneven", it's because the government is intervening in the allocation of capital, such as enforcing the very policy suggested (interfering with the terms of employment). Jobs can't go where they're needed and the economy doesn't seem to recover... huh!

The recently-terminated will eventually be paid - possibly. A worker in a rural area where there's only one major business around would be totally screwed. They may be unable to find work for months or years, long enough to rely on charity (or in the current clusterfuck society, welfare).

Your theory is sound, but it's just a theory. Workers SHOULD find a new job where their work is worth more than they're paid. It makes sense -- they have bills to pay. - But will they? How long will it take for them to be doing nothing (which, as far as productivity goes, is probably worse than working at a loss) for them to find a new job? The skills they picked up at the old place may either be irrelevant, or the businesses could have very different policies in place, preventing maximum efficiency for the worker. Because the job is different, it's very likely the workers will not be as efficient, because they won't have as relevant experience as the job they were working (assuming they weren't temps or something).


So, let's make up a mock experiment using some made-up Best Buy corporate store. We'll say they have 20 cashiers and 20 salesmen. The company recognizes that each salesperson is technically bringing in net income for the company. However, their workload is relatively low. Many of them have more down-time than time able to work due to a lack of customers (and overstaffing). Most of the cashiers are worked beyond what they're able. Lines at this Best Buy store are thought by management to be too long, resulting in customers avoiding the store. Best Buy has two obvious options to help alleviate or solve the problem: fire some salesmen and assume customers will purchase fewer items, relieving cashiers OR retrain some salesmen to work as cashiers (keeping in mind these jobs have a lot of crossover skills).

Firing the salesmen, I'd argue, is simply giving up on the employees, and it's probably bad for the economy as a whole. By not retraining the salesmen to do something similar, you're letting them out into the wild where they now must explain termination on a resume. Should they readily find a new job (which I can assure is very difficult in a rural area), it's very possibly these people who've spent years or decades working their job will now go into a different type of job with an entirely different skill-set required. I'd argue when a company like AmEx lets go of a mass of workers like that, it's management basically just throwing their hands up and declaring "we don't know what we're doing. We don't know what to do with these people. We can't think of any way to use 'our most valuable asset' in a profitable way, and all this time, the arguments in upper-management have always been 'do we fire them, or keep them doing what they're doing?'" I can imagine a lot of scenarios where it isn't the workers' fault, but really the lazy management's inability to repurpose relatively valuable people (given they have a history with these people, they have lots of useful data).

Idunno. Lack studies to say anything authoritative, so I'm just shooting out speculation, too. It seems a little scummy to me to fire a large number of workers, though, without firing executive management. Maybe contractually give execs a special one-off monetary bonus to make the decision, but insist they can't be rehired, so they have to really think if there's absolutely no way to use these proven, skilled workers in some relevant way. Firing people just seems like a half-ass, lazy, "easy" solution. I'm really not arguing over whether or not government should be involved, though - just curious on whether or not firing "unproductive" workers is a net gain or loss for the economy once total unproductiveness in unemployment, demand decrease, and welfare are factored in. I guess, growing up, I only heard that "firing people is bad because companies make money, and they shouldn't make more money by firing people," and by the time I hit the age of reason, I was surrounded by libertarians so I've never heard any decent debates on the matter.

[asdf]

The retrenched workers will find work in other areas of the economy where they will actually be paid to do productive work.

Keeping the unproductive people employed is just a lose-lose proposition. The company suffers and produces less goods/services and the potential productivity of the worker is wasted. You say this is greedy and you might be right, but society is much better off for this. The alternative is that everyone suffers; prices go up for everyone.

If the recovery is "uneven", it's because the government is intervening in the allocation of capital, such as enforcing the very policy suggested (interfering with the terms of employment). Jobs can't go where they're needed and the economy doesn't seem to recover... huh!

So, let's make up a mock experiment using some made-up Best Buy corporate store. We'll say they have 20 cashiers and 20 salesmen. The company recognizes that each salesperson is technically bringing in net income for the company. However, their workload is relatively low. Many of them have more down-time than time able to work due to a lack of customers (and overstaffing). Most of the cashiers are worked beyond what they're able. Lines at this Best Buy store are thought by management to be too long, resulting in customers avoiding the store. Best Buy has two obvious options to help alleviate or solve the problem: fire some salesmen and assume customers will purchase fewer items, relieving cashiers OR retrain some salesmen to work as cashiers (keeping in mind these jobs have a lot of crossover skills).

so cashiers are "working beyond what they are able", but the company is "overstaffed"? This makes no sense...

Firing the salesmen, I'd argue, is simply giving up on the employees, and it's probably bad for the economy as a whole. By not retraining the salesmen to do something similar, you're letting them out into the wild where they now must explain termination on a resume. Should they readily find a new job (which I can assure is very difficult in a rural area), it's very possibly these people who've spent years or decades working their job will now go into a different type of job with an entirely different skill-set required. I'd argue when a company like AmEx lets go of a mass of workers like that, it's management basically just throwing their hands up and declaring "we don't know what we're doing. We don't know what to do with these people. We can't think of any way to use 'our most valuable asset' in a profitable way, and all this time, the arguments in upper-management have always been 'do we fire them, or keep them doing what they're doing?'" I can imagine a lot of scenarios where it isn't the workers' fault, but really the lazy management's inability to repurpose relatively valuable people (given they have a history with these people, they have lots of useful data).

The point is, the company will make the most economically rational decision they can. If that means they must fire workers, then that's what they should do. If they're making bad business decisions, then they deserve to go bust and let some more productive entrepreneurs buy up their capital. Otherwise they're just wasting resources.

Are you going to pay someone to mow your lawn, even if it was just mowed, because they need the work? Yeah, the lawn mowing guy gets the cash he needs, but he's productivity is wasted by your subsidy and you lose that cash. Meanwhile, he should be facing reality and finding better work and you could be paying some other guy to paint your fence, which you actually need to have done. You would just be enabling a poor career path and denying the valid career of the painter. This is a poor allocation of resources and the company scenario is fundamentally no different.

The lawn mower will have to learn new skills and that's exactly what he should do. He needs to learn how to produce something that people actually want. That's how the market works.

Idunno. Lack studies to say anything authoritative, so I'm just shooting out speculation, too. It seems a little scummy to me to fire a large number of workers, though, without firing executive management. Maybe contractually give execs a special one-off monetary bonus to make the decision, but insist they can't be rehired, so they have to really think if there's absolutely no way to use these proven, skilled workers in some relevant way. Firing people just seems like a half-ass, lazy, "easy" solution. I'm really not arguing over whether or not government should be involved, though - just curious on whether or not firing "unproductive" workers is a net gain or loss for the economy once total unproductiveness in unemployment, demand decrease, and welfare are factored in. I guess, growing up, I only heard that "firing people is bad because companies make money, and they shouldn't make more money by firing people," and by the time I hit the age of reason, I was surrounded by libertarians so I've never heard any decent debates on the matter.

It's simple. If it's a loss for the company, then it's a loss for the economy.

[gabbergabe]

The retrenched workers will find work in other areas of the economy where they will actually be paid to do productive work.

Keeping the unproductive people employed is just a lose-lose proposition. The company suffers and produces less goods/services and the potential productivity of the worker is wasted. You say this is greedy and you might be right, but society is much better off for this. The alternative is that everyone suffers; prices go up for everyone.

If the recovery is "uneven", it's because the government is intervening in the allocation of capital, such as enforcing the very policy suggested (interfering with the terms of employment). Jobs can't go where they're needed and the economy doesn't seem to recover... huh!

So, let's make up a mock experiment using some made-up Best Buy corporate store. We'll say they have 20 cashiers and 20 salesmen. The company recognizes that each salesperson is technically bringing in net income for the company. However, their workload is relatively low. Many of them have more down-time than time able to work due to a lack of customers (and overstaffing). Most of the cashiers are worked beyond what they're able. Lines at this Best Buy store are thought by management to be too long, resulting in customers avoiding the store. Best Buy has two obvious options to help alleviate or solve the problem: fire some salesmen and assume customers will purchase fewer items, relieving cashiers OR retrain some salesmen to work as cashiers (keeping in mind these jobs have a lot of crossover skills).

so cashiers are "working beyond what they are able", but the company is "overstaffed"? This makes no sense...

Firing the salesmen, I'd argue, is simply giving up on the employees, and it's probably bad for the economy as a whole. By not retraining the salesmen to do something similar, you're letting them out into the wild where they now must explain termination on a resume. Should they readily find a new job (which I can assure is very difficult in a rural area), it's very possibly these people who've spent years or decades working their job will now go into a different type of job with an entirely different skill-set required. I'd argue when a company like AmEx lets go of a mass of workers like that, it's management basically just throwing their hands up and declaring "we don't know what we're doing. We don't know what to do with these people. We can't think of any way to use 'our most valuable asset' in a profitable way, and all this time, the arguments in upper-management have always been 'do we fire them, or keep them doing what they're doing?'" I can imagine a lot of scenarios where it isn't the workers' fault, but really the lazy management's inability to repurpose relatively valuable people (given they have a history with these people, they have lots of useful data).

The point is, the company will make the most economically rational decision they can. If that means they must fire workers, then that's what they should do. If they're making bad business decisions, then they deserve to go bust and let some more productive entrepreneurs buy up their capital. Otherwise they're just wasting resources.

Are you going to pay someone to mow your lawn, even if it was just mowed, because they need the work? Yeah, the lawn mowing guy gets the cash he needs, but he's productivity is wasted by your subsidy and you lose that cash. Meanwhile, he should be facing reality and finding better work and you could be paying some other guy to paint your fence, which you actually need to have done. You would just be enabling a poor career path and denying the valid career of the painter. This is a poor allocation of resources and the company scenario is fundamentally no different.

The lawn mower will have to learn new skills and that's exactly what he should do. He needs to learn how to produce something that people actually want. That's how the market works.

Idunno. Lack studies to say anything authoritative, so I'm just shooting out speculation, too. It seems a little scummy to me to fire a large number of workers, though, without firing executive management. Maybe contractually give execs a special one-off monetary bonus to make the decision, but insist they can't be rehired, so they have to really think if there's absolutely no way to use these proven, skilled workers in some relevant way. Firing people just seems like a half-ass, lazy, "easy" solution. I'm really not arguing over whether or not government should be involved, though - just curious on whether or not firing "unproductive" workers is a net gain or loss for the economy once total unproductiveness in unemployment, demand decrease, and welfare are factored in. I guess, growing up, I only heard that "firing people is bad because companies make money, and they shouldn't make more money by firing people," and by the time I hit the age of reason, I was surrounded by libertarians so I've never heard any decent debates on the matter.

It's simple. If it's a loss for the company, then it's a loss for the economy.

Thank you so much, This really opened my eyes.

[asdf]

Thank you so much, This really opened my eyes.

You're welcome! :-)