HorrorScope wrote on May 9, 2013, 20:04:BitWraith wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:53:
This is the part of Capitalism that I don't understand.
"For the quarter, non-GAAP net revenue of $1,040 million was within our guidance of $1,025 million to $1,125 million. Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.55 was slightly below our guidance of $0.57 to $0.72." As for the year: "GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $3.50 billion. Non-GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $4.00 billion. GAAP diluted loss per share is expected to be approximately ($0.97). Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share is expected to be approximately $1.20."
How does this equal massive layoffs exactly?
No shit.
My company in our announcements we use all the time "We owe it to are shareholders", as if our product isn't the goal, some people that invest are. Which I am one by the way, and as a shareholder I say, take care of the employees. So they selectively listen to shareholders.
BitWraith wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:53:
This is the part of Capitalism that I don't understand.
"For the quarter, non-GAAP net revenue of $1,040 million was within our guidance of $1,025 million to $1,125 million. Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.55 was slightly below our guidance of $0.57 to $0.72." As for the year: "GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $3.50 billion. Non-GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $4.00 billion. GAAP diluted loss per share is expected to be approximately ($0.97). Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share is expected to be approximately $1.20."
How does this equal massive layoffs exactly?
Mr. Tact wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:56:BitWraith wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:53:Gotta improve the numbers to get those executive bonuses rolling!
How does this equal massive layoffs exactly?
BitWraith wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:53:Gotta improve the numbers to get those executive bonuses rolling!
How does this equal massive layoffs exactly?
Ravor wrote on May 8, 2013, 22:30:
It's too bad they have to fire 900 people when they could just fire one or 2 execs instead to come up with that same wage value..
Ravor wrote on May 8, 2013, 22:30:
It's too bad they have to fire 900 people when they could just fire one or 2 execs instead to come up with that same wage value..