36-Hour Layoff Binge Follows Obama’s Re-Election

By Joe Budzinski

Since yesterday morning there has been a cascade of layoff announcements, largely unreported. It’s a surprising number of such notices, coming from all around the U.S., in a short period of time.

As to why exactly there would be a spate of downsizings so quickly after the election, possible reasons would be:

  • Employers are distressed by the result and decided to make cuts for business reasons, for example the guy who fired 22 employees the morning after, or
  • Employers saved the news until after the election in order not to cast a further pall over President Obama’s economic record, which some speculate is what happened with Boeing.

But those two just seemed like oddball stories that made the news today. What, one might wonder, is the meaning of the rest of the list? Maybe the first rule of Jobs Armageddon is, you don’t talk about Jobs Armageddon.

TE Connectivity to close Guilford plant, lay off 620

Nextel to cut 20% of jobs at Virginia headquarters

U.S. Cellular to sell Chicago customers to Sprint, shed hundreds of local jobs

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Cuts Valley Workforce

MN Dairy Plant Closure to Result in 130 Layoffs

Vestas to cut 3,000 more jobs

Nearly 200 ‘family-sustaining’ jobs to be lost as HarperCollins plans to close warehouse

Hawker Beechcraft plans to cut about 410 jobs

Layoffs continue at Anniston weapons plant

RIM Reportedly Cuts 200 Jobs In Irving, Texas Office
(This one is technically a rumor, but the company statements reads much like a cloaked confirmation).

It is a remarkable cluster of stories since yesterday. Not sure why that expression came to mind.

A commenter in one of the discussion groups used the term “Obamasizing,” and maybe we will hear that one more often.


  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Obviously the One Percenters aren’t happy about the election, Wall Street isn’t too happy either.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    Yeah, I don’t get the logic of the sell off. Loose money is good for the 1% (but not so good for the rest of you saps), and there will be plenty of that going around now that Bernanke is safe. Methinks this is a head fake.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    There may be a certain amount of “F You” going on here as well from the folks at the top convinced that the folks on the bottom just screwed them over.

  • Old Yeller says:

    Wonder how many of the people laid off voted for President Obama? The election results point to ~51%. Wonder what they think of Mr. Obama now.

  • Elder Berry says:

    The logic of the selloff is that there was bad news from Germany that the big boys in the know reacted to before anyone else heard of it, and then it snowballed from there.

    As for layoffs, did you know that historically 4 out of 5 businesses fail?

    Please. Didn’t the election result convince you to rejoin the reality-based universe?

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    Random facts will never make a valid point, Joe.

  • Leej says:

    oh the stock market is for adrenaline gamblers it is not like it used to be. invest first in your self and what you do. :-)

    LIKE HOUSING and real estate THE SPECULATORS start jumping into it and ruin a good business looking for a quick buck. what happened to making money the good old way. believe in yourself start a business and thru sweat and hard work make it happen and create something people want and need. today the stock market has become a place for the quick buck artist. it is no longer for the everyday people.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    Gee, I thought it was 2003, and everyone was using Nextel phones and Blackberry was the only smartphone.

    You mean that RIM is going out of business because of President Obama, not because everyone is buying Android and iPhones instead? That with the retirement of the Space Shuttle and fewer Tomahawk and other military missiles being ordered that rocket motor manufacturers are cutting back? Since we’re no longer blowing hundreds of billions a year in Iraq that Army Material Command facilities are cutting contractors since they’re producing less munitions?

    Yes, it’s all a conspiracy.

  • Leej says:

    wars always create a false economy

    i can just hear baby bush laughing all the way to the bank

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Random facts. Right.

  • Smith says:

    Some of these people are living out Atlas Shrugged fantasies. A book for disallusioned teenagers is making rich business men looking like fucking assholes.

    The Atlantic has been following the emails of one such owner

    Luckily there is a free market to fill these gaps. There were threats that people would lay off people if they voted for Obama. They kept their word. I think its pretty sick, childish, and disturbing.

    This election showed that there is an alternate universe in this country that people like Budzinski are living in, where Obama was going to lose, where Romney had his transition website published, where Obama is a monster, where white men will carry you to electoral victory, and where Bush was a great president and caused no debt.

    Turn off FOX and come back to reality. Hell, taxes havent even gone up!

    Its so predictable what will happen. The taxes will expire in January and by February the new middle class Obama tax cuts will go into affect. The GOP will get to say that didnt raise taxes, they just expired. And they will make a deal to save the defense cuts.

    Lloyd remains an idiot ( :roll: 6 )and does not get his kitchen remodeled out of spite, hurting our local economy.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    There are now many more than I found this afternoon, so we can say the widespread post-election layoffs are officially a thing.

    Probably will be an epic blog post somewhere if not here.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Good Gentleman Smith! Nice to see you here. Point me towards some of those teenagers who will read a 60- page speech in a book that size. Once you get a little older, you ought to read it.

  • Smith says:

    “Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we’d pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we’re only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we’re considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity-that that’s a pretty narrow vision. It’s not one that, I think, describes what’s best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a ‘you’re on your own’ society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party.”

    Re-elected President Obama

    And I know many people who read that when they were in theire teens. Maybe not in Loudoun because they spend so little on education, but in other places.

    Its a great excuse for rich people to be really fucking greedy. There just putting on their John Galt pajamas.

    Those shitty movies sure made a lot of money too… oh wait.

  • Smith says:

    And this is the problem with the GOP again. 2 days after your assbeating, its back to Obama the jobs killer, Obama the tyrant.

    In your mind, nothing has changed. No of course people DONT want rich peoples taxes to go up (they only elected Obama twice). Of course they want Obamacare overturned. Of course they want massive financial deregulation again. Of couse Ron Paul and coning soon Rand Paul will win in presidential elections.

    So much for the GOP re-evaluation period Joe.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    Joe, I am just saying if you want to make te point you think you are making, you are going to have to do some work. There are away too many variables and you have not even demonstrated a statistically significant trend. Even if you could I would simply retort that correlation does not imply causation. Random facts is right.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Smith, yeah, I know the Obama quote. He was roundly lampooned for it because it demonstrated he had not read the book. As you have not.

    Eric, these are just a startling news trend from a half hour period scan this afternoon. It turns out lots more have surfaced since then. At the moment, no, I do not in fact have to do any work, but I will wait another day to see if someone else does it, and then I will link to it.

  • Dan says:


    Yeah, the RIM one jumped out at me too. A company in deep shite that is going down even if Jesus Christ is elected president.

    But you are using objectivity and judgement in assessing these random data points that Joe listed. That is your mistake! You have to place yourself in the mindset of those who KNOW that any information that doesn’t come from “trusted” sources (like Fox News and the talk show host wing of the Republican Party) is suspect and is a liberal lie designed to deceive you. Once you adopt that mindset then virtually anything and everything is the fault of the president (who “everyone knows” has evil un-American motives) or is the result of uncertainty and fear of the evil Obama. I know it isn’t rational, but then we aren’t talking about a rational mindset.

    For example, Obama has done nothing to restrict gun rights. In fact, he has expanded them. Thanks to President Obama you can now carry on Amtrak trains and in National Parks. Yet these people are in fear of and are absolutely convinced that Obama is going to “grab their guns”.

    So naturally a list of layoffs that are related to a business like RIM being caught flat footed in the marketplace and having its clock cleaned by its competitors (I thought these guys loved the free market) or layoffs due to a government program ending (hey, I thought these guys believed that government doesn’t create jobs) might be viewed accurately by an objective rational person. But not these guys. To them there is a direct cause and effect relationship between the re-election of the president and anything bad that happens. It may seem crazy, but they “know” it.

  • Smith says:

    “Smith, yeah, I know the Obama quote. He was roundly lampooned for it because it demonstrated he had not read the book. As you have not.”

    Buz – only in your caccoon was he lampooned. You dont have to read the book to study what it says and know how it goes against the American spirit.

    I love the free market because someone else who wants to get rich will fill the gaps where the Galt business owners close shop. How are these startling news trends. Businesses come and go. The unemployment rate is going down. Romney said 12 million jobs would be created and he based that on OBAMAs policy job projections (slight of hand by Romney).

    There are plenty of small businesses hiring in the country – but those arent important right?

    I like to see the comments on Obama in 4 years when the economy is in better shape. Taxes for middle class have not gone up.

    Turn off your blinders and stop the circle-jerk of Obama hatred on FOX News. The America that all these comentators are saying they dont recognized anymore is because they cant come to grips with reality.

    Like Dan said, gun rights have INCREASED under Obama. You would think he went into peoples houses and stole their guns.

    FOX news is the all powerful OZ and the country just opened the door. Inside was a bunch of old white guys telling each other their the titans of industry and ROmney is gonna win!!!

    Your suprised by all these articles! Werent you suprised that the Obama turnout was similar to 2008. Maybe your the one who needs to rethink things.

  • Ref says:

    This is complete idiocy. So these companies were just prepping for the contingency of an Obama re-election and, within a day of hearing the results, began laying off hundreds of people? Did you read the articles you linked and digest, for even a moment, some of the factors underlying these layoffs?

    I’m glad that places like the Drudge Report and Huffington Post have caused such a deterioration in “journalism” that a handful of carefully selected stories begets a narrative and therefore a worthless blog post. Try again.

  • Dan says:


    I must have missed the president being lampooned for that remark about Ayn Rand. At any rate, long before the president made that remark many of us (who have read Ayn Rand) were mystified that anyone over the age of 14 could be captivated by the crackpot notions of Ayn Rand. And frankly amazed that Congressman Ryan (at whom the president’s snark was undoubtedly aimed) felt that all of his staffers just had to read her nonsense. My wife can verify that I had expressed this long before the president’s comments on the subject.

    Coming from the same Irish Catholic background as Congressman Ryan I find it particularly strange that the basis of his economic ideas would be the oddball rantings of an atheist crackpot with an overt hostility toward Christianity. The church has produced some first class minds in many areas including economics. I might direct Ryan to Pope Leo XIII and his encyclical, Rerum Novarum. In it, Pope Leo addresses the relationship between labor and capital and the duties of BOTH as well as government and citizen. One plods through a rather lengthy denunciation of socialism (actual socialism not what lunatic teabaggers who need a damned dictionary call socialism) before he gets into the meat of his message. But Pope Leo makes very clear that capital does have responsibilities to labor and he condemns the destructive evil of the excesses of unrestrained laissez faire capitalism. Unlike Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan who seems to think those excesses are just swell. It’s a pity Ryan didn’t look to his church for the basis of his economic belief system.

    Pope Leo’s writing is just as spot on today as it was when it was published in 1891. Ryan should put down the mediocre fiction penned by a crackpot atheist and read Pope Leo. He might also do well to read the works of Monsignor John Ryan who taught economics at Catholic University in the early part of the 20th century and expanded on the work of Pope Leo and brought it more fully to an American audience.

    Being raised in the Catholic Church during the height of the Cold War, I can assure you that you would be hard pressed to find a more staunchly anti-communist organization. Yet capitalism was a word very rarely used when talking about America. The term that one heard was free enterprise. Americans had figured out that unrestrained laissez faire capitalism was just as stupid and destructive and evil as communism was. And so we had wisely checked the excesses of capitalism to make it work for the benefit of the entire country rather than let our country be destroyed for the benefit of a small number of people. That free enterprise system didn’t prevent anyone from being successful and in many cases becoming quite wealthy. In fact, it made it possible for many more people to become quite successful.

    These very clear lessons were obviously lost on both Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan. A very good reason to not have wanted to see Paul Ryan a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

    I’m not shocked that Ryan ignores the economic teachings of his church. He ignores its social teaching too. But Ayn Rand? Really?

    I have a wide tolerance for a wide variety of views with which I disagree. If you can sell them in the free marketplace of ideas I say good on you. But Ayn Rand? Truly, beyond the age when pimples are a major concern, her ideas should be easily seen for the tripe that they are.

  • Smith says:

    Joe Budzinski, Loudoun Insider, and Lloyd – now THAT is a comment!!!

    IWell done Dan.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    My goodness, this has struck a nerve! What a lot of writing so unrelated to the facts in the post. And what a lot of blather about a very good book, or at least an important book, by typists who know nothing about it. Now that is actually pretty funny!

    Because – if you can stop the steam whistles blowing out of your ears for a second – I did not bring up Ayn Rand at all, nor did I say anything about any of these companies going Galt. I would not make that claim now. Cutting staff because you can’t afford to pay for their benefits doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the book that none of you have read. So why all the talk?

    None of these are from right wing media. They are a bunch of news items from unrelated sources within a short period of time. The only relevant critique has been that RIM’s in trouble anyway. Yes they are.

    It is also true that putting these layoffs in a context would make the information more meaningful, as Eric has suggested. How many such layoffs occur in a normal month for instance. But that does not mean this collection of news is meaningless, unless you don’t happen to know, as I stated above that this is surprising.

    Because it’s surprising. I think I conveyed that towards the top.

    Well I can tell you right now if none of the major bloggers compiles a full list of all the layoff news from this 2 day bloodbath that I can link to, I sure will. This information has been a challenge for some to accept, which tells me it is needed. For I am here to serve.

  • FedUp says:

    This is not surprising because there was a steep increase in job losses in November 2008.

    I think a Romney win would have boosted confidence in the business community, as well as among consumers. Maybe we would have started to see that real recovery that has been missing 3 and a half years after the recession ended. Instead, we get 4 more years of the same old failed policies.

  • muriel says:

    End of the world on Dec 21, 2012, right? According to the Mayan calendar; end of the world needs a black Prez of the USA, right?

    That’s the way it lays in the movies Deep Impact and Idiocrasy, right?

    The damn election was RIGGED, so I wish Repubs would stop beating themselves up about losing the Hispanic vote and the black vote and the Asian…..blah..blah..it was RIGGED!!!!

    Forget it and move on…..to some other country.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    When is the next LCRC meeting?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Joe, this was a slogan election, and you are receiving slogan responses.

    I am interested in the data mining that allowed microtargeting messaging to probable non-voters who leaned Obama–it surely could explain the entire non-message focused only on the base of the Ds.

    The electorate just reaffirmed “hope” as policy and voted to go “forward” with it.

    Okay. Lead the way, gang!

    My favorite blurb has been that the UN inspectors brought in to make sure that evil bigoted Rs didn’t disenfranchise anyone were astounded that we don’t require ID to vote.

    Glad to see you posting here Joe.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:


    Let us know when you find that documented trend and we can talk. In the meanwhile, I think it important to note (lest Barb start spinning too dramatically) that there is no business anywhere who decides to layoff ANY workers in 36 hours based on the results of a Presidential election. Even the inference of such a relationship (IF there is even a trend) is absurd.

    There may be a causal relationship in that one or two of your examples may have simply been waiting until after the election so as not to generate too much negative publicity in the resultant media frenzy surrounding the election but that is about as far as I would go with anything and, of course, it doesn’t fit with the theory you appear to be offering.

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    I always enjoy reading your post.

    But I think the Vestas # is off. I just read upwards of 3,700 employees by the end of 2012 and an additional 3,000 by 2013.

    The Company stated it has concerns about the Dec 2012 tax credit being retired and the shaky turbine market/demand. The AWA states nearly 37,000 industry jobs will be lost if the 2.2% tax credit isn’t extended for another year.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Eric … Just a quick question:


    I need to point out that this statement of yours is false:

    ” there is no business anywhere who decides to layoff ANY workers in 36 hours based on the results of a Presidential election. Even the inference of such a relationship (IF there is even a trend) is absurd.”

    There are all sorts of reasons a business can decide to layoff workers. Why would you even presume to say this, or has something been lost in translation?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    A comment (see “spin”, etc) on “going Galt”, and what it actually meant in the book most of the people who make fun of it as a slogan (see “spin”, etc) haven’t read:

    The market exists, supply and demand. When government, which also exists, interferes with that, there develops a black market in the face of a continuing demand. How long has prostitution been around? Drugs? We had prohibition for alcohol once, and it had given us organized crime when it was repealed. Now a market and industry of its own, controlling a lot of black market supply and demand. Making billions, which the government desperately tries to curtail (for tax evasion in some cases, among the moral reasons).

    In the book, the people who most dramatically went Galt were those highly visible large economic producers who had to disappear if they refused to continue to produce at a loss under growing government mandates.

    But large economic producers, employers, etc are few in relation to the many average people who went Galt in plain sight.

    Ordinary people with skills and talents, who decided to live and work small enough to take care of themselves, with nothing left over to loot. Professors with a lunch counter instead of tenure, publishing deals and speaking engagements. Engineers who became laborers. And on and on.

    When gasoline becomes too expensive, people drive less. When electricity does, people turn off lights and appliances.

    When success is punished, people are disincentivized from being more successful than they personally need.

    And “rich” will be an ever more relative term, with very different meanings depending on who’s saying it, and to whom.

  • David Dickinson says:

    This is Obama’s fault, literally.

    Federal contractors were required to send out layoff notices on November 1 as part of sequestration. CONTRARY TO LAW, the Administration told them to hold off until after the election. The election is over, so all that “pent up demand” can be released.


  • Shiloh says:

    Barb – Quick question: Are you advocating legalizing prostitution and drugs? Sort of sounds like it, in the context above, or perhaps I’m misreading your message.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Oh, he’ll fix that David. And if he can’t it’s the House’s fault–those bastards.

    Obama won, and that’s all that matters. Get with the program!

    (sarc perhaps permanently on)

  • Dan says:


    No steam whistles here. As I said, I welcome the debate on a wide variety of opinions. I believe that fully airing competing ideas in the free market of ideas is the surest way to arrive at sound public policy.

    I understand, for instance, that there were people who were completely hostile to Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. And that there are people, like Congressman Ryan, who would like to end those programs today because they conflict with their ideology. I think he is dead wrong. But if he were able to convince enough of the American people to support that then I am confident the Republic would survive. (btw, I don’t think Soc. Sec. or Medicare beneficiaries are takers or moochers)

    It was a perfectly legitimate political position in 1935 and 1965 and is a perfectly legitimate political position for Ryan to hold today. I certainly hold no personal animus toward him for holding it (and in my humble opinion being wrong). He seems to be an earnest young man who has a lovely family. My favorite picture from the Vice Presidential debate was the one of Ryan’s young son sitting in the chair his father had occupied and high fiving his dad. (sorry, I don’t have a link)

    My concern, and what I was addressing (probably at too great a length. criticism noted) was what are the philosophical underpinnings of the people who would offer themselves for high office. In the vernacular, where are they coming from. I believe this is important in evaluating a candidate whether or not one agrees or disagrees with them or whether the decisions they take are judged by history to be the most effective or not. It speaks, I think, to both character and judgement.

    For instance, Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I think most folks would agree with me that his position was the wrong one. But Goldwater was a good and principled man and his opposition was rooted in a coherent political philosophy and not by prejudice toward black people. Goldwater didn’t espouse the crackpot racial theories that animated the opposition of far too many people in that period. That is why a man like Congressman John Lewis who was beaten unconscious during the civil rights struggle could later express respect for Goldwater and have cordial relations with him. How you arrive at a conclusion IS important in an office holder.

    I don’t fear the election of someone whose views are different from my own. That sort of comes with the territory in a democracy. But I want to be comfortable with the judgement of that person while they are in office. So someone being elected with Ryan’s views would cause me no heartburn or, as you put it, to have steam come out my ears. What I would hope for is a serious person who came to hold those views through serious inquiry and some sort of rigorous process.

    Speaking of “hitting a nerve” as you described it, it seems I may have hit a nerve with you with my characterization of Ayn Rand and her ideas. I assure you I didn’t mean to insult you. I think my history of comments here demonstrates that I am not one who takes cheap shots at people or goes in for personal attacks.

    Having said that, I still think Rand’s philosophy is bogus and at odds with how the vast majority of Americans have always viewed their country. And I still find it troubling that Ryan has so clearly stated what an inspiration to his belief system a crank like Rand was. That it stands at the core of his philosophy. It makes it difficult for me to take the guy seriously.

    Frankly, I think the fact that Ryan is purported to be the intellectual heavyweight and budget genius of the Republican Party speaks volumes about the current degraded state of the party. There was a time when the conservative movement had quite a few genuine first rate minds expounding a coherent conservative philosophy. I used to read their stuff and listen to them speak and it was a real pleasure even when I disagreed with them. And sometimes they were convincing enough to persuade me to modify my own views by causing me to look at something in a way I hadn’t previously. These were the guys who laid the foundation for the greatest electoral successes of the American conservative movement.

    You aren’t going to persuade a very large portion of the American people with silliness like Ayn Rand. But then, it seems we are going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

    Honestly, I take no joy in the current poor state of the Republican Party. For a variety of reasons we are going to remain saddled with this two party system we have now. That being the case, America needs a rational conservative political party. For the moment it doesn’t have one. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Republican Party is going fill that role in the immediate future. I sincerely hope I am wrong about that.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Shiloh, many places in Europe have, and that’s the model we’re adopting here in many major programs.

    personally, I think we could do a lot more in the “war on drugs” if we decriminalized pot. There’s a revenue stream there ripe for regulation and taxation, just like booze, and it would save us a lot on prison expenditures, especially since prisoners’ rights now cost more in upkeep than some of their victims make in a year.

    Prostitution IS legal, regulated and taxed already in Nevada–home of good ole Sen. Reid. I don’t really have a position on that, other than that I think many many things should be left to individual states to decide, rather than continuing to expand the fed.

    That would be an easy thing to grab onto in what I said, but my point is that supply and demand drive the world, and people respond to that in different ways. The theme of the book no one reads yet reviles (see spin, or perhaps sloganeering) is that individuals who are actually productive can choose to produce no more than THEY need (modifying their actual needs from their wants or fancies in the process), and when that happens on a large scale (either through massive reductions or many small personal ones), those who either produce nothing or make a living (or even a profit) out of regulating, punishing, or skimming that productivity end up in deep poop a lot faster than the ones who can actually create, maintain, operate or produce.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    p.s. to Shiloh–if one is progressive or “green”, it’s always been a virtue to go Galt, even though they’d be horrified to call it that. it’s called “simplifying your life”, and seems to mean choosing a very small uncluttered life in order to spend on things that matter to THOSE individuals (often like locally grown organic food–which some then lobby the government to mandate in public schools, but I digress). They could be said to be going Galt on consumerism, or plastics, or whatever sent them in that direction.

    Some people will go Galt on the government, which in my opinion is the original meaning–it is production-oriented, as opposed to consumption-oriented. But those who choose to go on a productivity diet will also consume less in the process, so maybe in the long run everybody wins (mild sarc–lots of people will suffer, who rely on others to produce FOR them, and this is why I think some people so viscerally hate Rand: she doesn’t espouse the “right” of government to compel from each according to a government-determined ability, reapportioned to someone with a government-determined need)

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “personally, I think we could do a lot more in the “war on drugs” if we decriminalized pot. There’s a revenue stream there ripe for regulation and taxation, just like booze, and it would save us a lot on prison expenditures, especially since prisoners’ rights now cost more in upkeep than some of their victims make in a year.”

    Eight total agreements in 2012!

    Dan, thank you for that comment.

    I am saddened and deeply concerned conservatism is in the shape that it is in right now. It has had it’s intellectual legs taken out from under it over the course of the last two decades.

    A healthy, vigorous, intellectually vibrant conservatism is important for the entire political spectrum. There are some young, brilliant conservative thinkers out there.

    But they are on the outside looking in right now.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “There are all sorts of reasons a business can decide to layoff workers. Why would you even presume to say this, or has something been lost in translation?”

    Indeed but a business would never make such a decision and release the information within 36 hours of an election. Sorry. As I said, they may have made this decision BEFORE the election and were holding off (to kind of parrot Dave’s opinion above).

    But there is NO business that would see the reults of a presidential election, reach a resultant management decision to layoff workers or close plants as a result of that election (frankly this in itself would be very rare indeed and show a complete lack of business acumen – in other words if one manages one’s business based on the results of national elections, one DESERVES to go out of business and we are all far better for it), and go public with the decision all within 36 hours. Nope, not buying it.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Eric, I’d be interested in hearing what is your experience with management of businesses of any type. Agreed that a plant closing, depending on what type of “plant” it is, might take an extended time to evaluate, not a process that would be completed in 36 hours. But not necessarily.

    Layoffs can be decided and announced in an hour. (And note, these are announcements. Maybe your confusion is in thinking the whole process of getting people out the door might take longer?)

    Whether you are talking 5 employees or 50,000, many businesses can easily make major decisions of such a nature in a short time. It is people sitting around a table discussing data.

    Dan, I appreciate your thoughts. You write about Ayn Rand as someone who has only read about her in a magazine article or in Wikipedia.

    You also seem to be conflating the themes of one of her books with the “philosophy” she is known for. Atlas Shrugged is a very important book. As far as I can tell, Barbara and I are the only ones who have read it among this community. But if you are compelled to preach about it, preach away brother.

    But since, again, I did not invoke anything about Rand nor “Ryan” I don’t know what too say to your comment.

  • Matthew Osborn says:

    “…3 and a half years after the recession ended. ”

    Really? So roughly about the time that unemployment peaked?

    Are Republicans ever concerned with facts?

    btw…I read Atlas Shrugged as a teen, and loved it. All 900 pages of it. But all I remember about it is that it had something to do with trains.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    However did you last through “A is A”?

    I’ve still never sat through all of that part (the philosophical treatise embedded in the novel, which the entire world supposedly sat still and listened to when Galt ECOMCONed the broadcasting system).

    The story tells the theme fine without inserting that to say it another 200 times, but she was a White Russian (non practicing) Jewish emigre whose family got out in the early 20th century, who absolutely hated the soviet central planning model, and some of her didactic storytelling is pretty heavyhandedly Russian (at least IMO). but how many people are taught to read Dostoyevsky these days, either? or Dickens? or Steinbeck? or even Vonnegut, whose Harrison Bergeron is getting daily more apt. and so it goes

  • Dan says:

    “ECOMCONed the broadcasting system”


    You get extra bonus points for the Seven Days In May reference.

    Now THAT was a book that captivated me. And the movie was terrific too. Both Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas turned in great performances in that one. Among others.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    It was well done, both by Knebel and by Frankenheimer.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Joe and Eric, you both know there are plenty of idiots that run businesses out there.

    Businesses, like governments, are run by people. And people can be pretty weird.


  • Most of the small business owners I know and provide services to have been in survival mode for the past four years, having already cut things back to the bone and bringing the wife back in to do the books the way she did when they first started out from nothing decades ago. Their boats have been up on blocks the past three years or more, they have not purchased or leased a new luxury car, do their own house cleaning and yard work, and many of them now, kids educated on on their own, will decide to shut down the business, divest their assets, sell their primary home and move to their vacation home in Vermont or Wyoming.

    It will be a drain in entrepreneurial capital and experience that will take decades for our economy to recover from, if ever. At some point rational people simply decide it is better to be shooting the arrows at, instead of taking them from their ungrateful fellow citizens who vilify them so, or avoiding them and their shooting range altogether.

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    Yeah, they’ll forget that they love to make money, and will revert back to a primitive state and become hunters and/or gatherers. Do they get to keep their teabagger flags as mementos?

    Do you guys really, really believe the shit that you write? If some of the old Republican farts want to call it quits, that’s great. Someone will immediately come along and take over their market.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    NoJSM, they remember that they like to keep the money they make, and do their own deciding on what to spend it on. When that choice is limited past the point of being worth it, they’ll stop making it for other people. That’s not primitive so much as prudent, unless you believe your own shit that that just makes them “greedy”.

    Let me see if I can put it in a way that you might understand: is the screwing they’re getting worth the screwing they’re getting? When the answer is no, it’s time to go.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Usually, poor business people screw themselves — and then blame it on somebody else.

    This also happens with poor political parties.

  • Elder Berry says:

    Barbara Munsey these particular nasty people are known in the industry for running unsafe operations and screwing their employees. Why are you making excuses for them, you’re still not in the reality-based universe are you. Do you have Karl Rove disease? Not every business owner is worth your sympathy or defense. Some of them are simply sleazeballs. You diminish your own credibility when you go out on a limb for sleazeballs.

Leave Comment