Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 04, 2012, 05:40:19 pm
-
Still a "rumor", according to Kodak, but a rumor (http://goo.gl/y8f0J) published by Wall Street Journal. Just a day after "... the New York Stock Exchange warned the company it could be delisted unless its fortunes rebound...".
-
Very, very sad. But, unfortunately, inevitable once Kodak's miserable management decided to coast through the digital age on the company's film cash cow.
-
So true.
I had an uncle who was a chemist for Kodak many years ago. Others in his family also worked for the company, and in those days it was customary for big companies like Kodak to take good care of their employees.
You said it just right, Russ. Very sad indeed.
Eric
-
Very, very sad. But, unfortunately, inevitable once Kodak's miserable management decided to coast through the digital age on the company's film cash cow.
Ah, speaking of Les Miserables: read this (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/kodak_spends_14m_on_private_jets_to_vegas__news_310335.html) and weep. A quote from the article:
"... Kodak incurred a cost of $309,407 through Perez's 'personal aircraft usage' in 2010..."
-
Somewhat related to the Kodak "news" Our local (Washington DC) camera retailer, Penn Camera filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy yesterday and announced the closing of 5 of its 8 stores. The press release indicated falling sales as the reason. Their prices were pretty darn competitive with the big Internet retailers and they had a good knowledgeable in-store staff. They also have/had a Internet site with decent prices as well. More and more the Internet seems to be ending in store shopping.
-
Very, very sad. But, unfortunately, inevitable once Kodak's miserable management decided to coast through the digital age on the company's film cash cow.
Quite true and ironic, since Kodak invented digital sensors but did not implement them for fear of cannibalizing the film market. Bankruptcy would be a disaster for the retirees, since their pensions and health care would be adversely affected. However, management assented to generous benefits demanded by the workers during good times and now both management and the workers are paying the price.
Regards,
Bill
-
...However, management assented to generous benefits demanded by the workers during good times and now both management and the workers are paying the price...
Seriously!? Workers' benefits doomed Kodak?
But I can see how today's top management is paying the price for the workers' childish behavior: the CEO' budget for a private use of corporate jets had to be limited to "only" 100K for 2011. Now, that's a cruel and unusual punishment!
-
Seriously!? Workers' benefits doomed Kodak?
But I can see how today's top management is paying the price for the workers' childish behavior: the CEO' budget for a private use of corporate jets had to be limited to "only" 100K for 2011. Now, that's a cruel and unusual punishment!
Workers' benefits did not doom Kodak, but the main reason for chapter 11 is to reduce the cost of benefits to retirees and abrogate existing contracts. High executive pay and lavish use of corporate jets are outrageous, especially when management is incompetent, but those expenses are only a small part of total corporate expense, whereas worker compensation is a much larger part of the expense pie.
Regards,
Bill
-
Well, it ain't Kodak, but I had a 'phone call yesterday from my bro'n'lo telling me he'd been to do a survey of a camera store. I knew the original man well; he sold me my 'blads, Nikons and he was also a Leica Specialist, which in those days at least (60s), was something else. He handed over to his son some years ago, and then that boy handed over to his daughter, I think.
So what happened? I remember once when buying some Hassy stuff that he told me that he couldn't buy the things from VH at the same price that some London dealerships were selling! And there, I think starts the rot. I've long advocated that a manufacturer should only have one price at which any ultimate retailer can buy. That way, the mega retail firms could make extra money by taking advantage of their own economies of scale through better management, shipping etc. and not by buying more cheaply than can a small competitor. I'm surprised that governments allow this to happen: not only 'luxury' goods outlets are affected - look at how dairy farmers are being driven off the fields by the low prices the supers will pay them so that they can screw both ends of the chain - and all we get in the end is unemployment on today's disastrous scale. Nobody wins when there's huge injustice going down, not even the supers because they, too, will ultimately get trampled by the next bigger baron.
So now, that small town on the outskirts of Glasgow has no camera shop.
Rob C
-
Rob, how about the following scenario: say you are selling prints of your photographs at around $400 a piece. Sales are sporadic and each time require your attention: corresponding, printing, packing, shipping, handling payments, etc. Or you pack a few in a car and start visiting nearby galleries, where they would take a 50% cut, if it sells. Say someone comes and offers to buy 100 prints immediately, but only if you give them a 30% discount. What would you do? Insist on $400 or no deal? Or ask the government to oblige your buyer to pay $400 for the bulk purchase?
-
Clever, Slobodan, but I don't think it fits. There's a finite cost for producing VH widgets and they would sell just as well - if not better - through a local shop where one could hold the things and really see and check them out first-hand. (That's how I bought in those days, and the big chains were already established. In fact, I think it's become even worse in today's world, with the Internet cutting prices even more, but hiking up delivery very expensively.) Selling into the public space via a local dealer or through a huge conglomerate, I doubt many more units of 'blad ever got shifted than for which there existed natural demand.
Making a case with prints, where you are just as likely to tear them up and dump them in a fit of pique (or even common sense) is no big loss in spent cash. Expensive sales of said bits of printed paper are pretty much limited, I'd say, and whether they sell or not doesn't really make or break you. If it does, you're in the wrong hobby! I don't think I'd feel that way if I were making cameras; I think I'd be very concerned about getting a good price and an even better distribution network than just a few, privileged heavyweights who, in the end, could pressure you more than you'd like.
Rob C
-
Hi,
I agree most with what you say, but I would say that Kodak was not really the inventive, nimble, mean and lean company it needed to be to survive. The core business of Kodak was film and processing. Both core markets disappeared rather quickly. A company cannot reinvent itself from one day to the other.
Kodak was not really successful in the camera business, their philosophy was always simple and low end, and the camera industry went in the other direction.
I guess the last installment is that with the arrival of high end digital video they also loosing a lot of the motion picture business. Fact is, most film industry is gone.
Best regards
Erik
Workers' benefits did not doom Kodak, but the main reason for chapter 11 is to reduce the cost of benefits to retirees and abrogate existing contracts. High executive pay and lavish use of corporate jets are outrageous, especially when management is incompetent, but those expenses are only a small part of total corporate expense, whereas worker compensation is a much larger part of the expense pie.
Regards,
Bill
-
Hi,
I agree most with what you say, but I would say that Kodak was not really the inventive, nimble, mean and lean company it needed to be to survive. The core business of Kodak was film and processing. Both core markets disappeared rather quickly. A company cannot reinvent itself from one day to the other.
Kodak was not really successful in the camera business, their philosophy was always simple and low end, and the camera industry went in the other direction.
I guess the last installment is that with the arrival of high end digital video they also loosing a lot of the motion picture business. Fact is, most film industry is gone.
Best regards
Erik
A few points:
a. Kodak FILM has unusually generous employee benefits which contributed to a culture which contributed to Kodak FILM's bankruptcy.
b. The problem with a FILM company when the use of film keeps falling.. is that it's a FILM company. This was the major contribution to Kodak's FILM's bankruptcy.
c. KODAK was/is inventive, nimble, lean and mean.. Kodak Chemicals. A direct takeoff of Kodak FILM. By being separate.. and new.. Kodak Chemicals doesn't have the overly generous employee benefits or the old style management.. and not being legally bound to Kodak Film has prospered on, taken it's related technology, and reinvented itself as a profitable chemical company. FILM and Chemical are both listed on the Exchange. Hard to miss.
d. Unfortunately the use of chemicals isn't falling. Cancer is at a all time high. I'm sure someone is going to tell me these are unrelated.. ::)
-
I felt bad when I read the Kodak chapter 11 notice in the newspaper. My father was a processing lab foreman in their Chicago lab for about 35 years. So I always had a fond feeling for the way the company's insurance and pension plan stayed with my dad from his retirement at age 60 until his death at age 93. I can see how those generous benefits could mount to an incredible burdon on a company in the face of the dwindling film market. Not unlike our own U.S. social security's future I'm afraid.
I also think that Kodak was incredibly stupid and horribly mismanaged. I recall that Kodak had most of the digital photography patents way back, maybe as early as the 1950's or 1960's if I'm recalling that right. Top management refused to keep pace with the practical digital applications, offering only marginal quality digital cameras way behind other digital pioneers who were more nimble and aggressive. Kodaks success and profits from film over so many years blinded them to film's ultimate demise that was certain to follow digital technology. I do believe that the chapter 11 filing may be able to save the company if they could shed much of their unfunded mandates. I think they still have a good presence in the digital movie distribution system to theaters. What else I don't know. The patents they still have, and mentioned in the bankruptcy news, may still have some value.
One thing is certain. George Eastman would never have put the company in this position. He was a marketing genius, ala Steve Jobs. Eastman would have fired the entire management team who first tried to bury their digital future.
-
There were multiple reasons for Kodak's problems of today. In the late 1980s to early 90s I did a fair amount of work with Kodak during a period when the company was extremely entrepreneurial. It was just before they spun off the chemical operations which became Eastman Chemical (not Kodak Chemical as Steve Weldon stated (ticker symbol is EMN and that company is doing quite well; one of my former direct reports is now the manager of investor relations there). They were also working very hard in the medical diagnostics area and had a joint venture that developed Snomax that was used in snowmaking at the 1988 Calgary Olympics (I still have my Olympic pin somewhere). They had also set up a pharmaceutical branch of the company to examine all the proprietary chemicals that the photo group had synthesized over the years for possible pharmaceutical activity (my PhD advisor was the head of R&D for that subsidiary). The company also had a lot of R&D going on in new technologies and as most know has some essential patents on digital sensor technology. I don't think management understood how fast things were going to change with regards to the movement from analog to digital and they sold off a number of subdivisions of the company since the film group was the cash cow of the company. When film started going into the death spiral, the other groups which could have helped on cash flow were gone.
Ultimately this will be a business school case study for MBA students but it's still sad for those of us who started off with film and transitioned to digital. In my mind they were doomed once they sold off the other units since they really did not have a hardware platform to manufacture digital cameras. The patents they have are "valuable" but given Kodak's precarious financial position they may not be fully realized as they are sure to receive some low ball bids for them. Contrast their behavior with that of Apple who are reinventing themselves every year with new products while getting rid of the older legacy products that are not generating cash flow (Ipod sales vs Iphone sales is the good example).
-
There were multiple reasons for Kodak's problems of today. In the late 1980s to early 90s I did a fair amount of work with Kodak during a period when the company was extremely entrepreneurial. It was just before they spun off the chemical operations which became Eastman Chemical (not Kodak Chemical as Steve Weldon stated
Thanks for the correction. Kodak Chemical is a separate company.
Kodak/Eastman has already been used as case studies in MBA programs. At least they were in 1999.. There is a lot of interesting history there.
Sometimes I wonder if the old guard knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it to sustain a culture that sustained a standard of existence for those who retired after decades of service and a decent level for the employees they knew would someday get the short end when the company closed or was sold off. A sort of company for the people so to speak, vs. the profit at all costs more corporations are ran under today. It would make for an interesting investigation.. and most of the answers would probably be found within 5 years of either side of the Eastman Chemical start up.
I don't know why people think it's sad they're going under. Most companies don't exist indefinitely and many more go under than go on.
-
Does anyone see a parallel to Polaroid demise? Remember them.
I worked in Cambridge, Mass near the Polaroid headquarters and watched them do a nose dive as many friends who used to try to get me to join the Polaroid gravy train in good times, got thrown under the bus by Polaroid (mis)management and lack of innovative growth as their one and only product went down the tubes.
It seems when Kodak lost the patent infringement battles with Polaroid (1985), they had enough "smarts" to see the instant photography business had no future, paid the infringement fees to Polaroid and shut down all their instant photography camera and film production. Why didn't Kodak soothsayers see the advancement of digital over film the same way?
Polaroid continued with their instant photography, tried to bring out "instant movies", specializing in extremely high speed instrumentation cameras (at astronomical prices since they knew they had no mass market for cost scaling) and went into the pit with that business as digital tapes (VHS) were available for cheap and more instant than Polaroid, but, they stuck with instant movie film a la SX70 technology. Maybe VHS weren't high speed, but, the instant movie market had no place for a proprietary Polaroid movie, when every consumer store was selling VHS equipment cheap. As the world moved to digital, Polaroid had no product in their research lab to compete, only Dr Land's patents and technology, and it just was passed by like the Kodak Film business.
As someone said, the chapter 11 lets Kodak off the hook on employee benefits - ask any former Polaroid employee who's retirement was tied into Polaroid stock which went from $100's of dollars per share to pennies, and the people that gave the corporation their sweat and toil for many years left with NOTHING. Only management got (very generous) severance packages as they bailed out before the stock pot was empty.
-
Workers' benefits did not doom Kodak, but the main reason for chapter 11 is to reduce the cost of benefits to retirees and abrogate existing contracts. High executive pay and lavish use of corporate jets are outrageous, especially when management is incompetent, but those expenses are only a small part of total corporate expense, whereas worker compensation is a much larger part of the expense pie.
Regards,
Bill
Considering that the workers create the wealth then they can expect to benefit the most? :-\
-
Amazing. The labor theory of value, that "workers" create the wealth, is right out of Das Kapital, a theory that has absolutely no foundation in logic or experience. The guy who created the wealth at Kodak was George Eastman, and he created it with his brain. Same thing was true of Apple and Steve Jobs. The "workers" manufactured the products, but the only reason they were able to do that was because of the brains of Eastman and Jobs.
-
Amazing. The labor theory of value, that "workers" create the wealth, is right out of Das Kapital, a theory that has absolutely no foundation in logic or experience.
The guy who created the wealth at Kodak was George Eastman, and he created it with his brain. Same thing was true of Apple and Steve Jobs. The "workers" manufactured the products, but the only reason they were able to do that was because of the brains of Eastman and Jobs.
That's why George Eastman and Steve Jobs became rich. Eastman also gave back much in his philanthropy, while the philanthropy of Steve Jobs is still in doubt (see Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/record-thin-on-steve-jobss-philanthropy/2011/10/06/gIQA3YKKRL_story.html)). Unfortunately, many CEOs have driven their companies into the ground and exited with exorbitant golden parachutes while the workers' pensions and healthcare has suffered. It will be interesting to see what happens to Antonio Perez. That said, a good workforce is essential to the success of an enterprise.
Regards,
Bill
-
... The guy who created the wealth at Kodak was George Eastman, and he created it with his brain. Same thing was true of Apple and Steve Jobs. The "workers" manufactured the products, but the only reason they were able to do that was because of the brains of Eastman and Jobs.
So, Russ, what you are saying is that it isn't "the hand of man" that matters after all, but "the brain of man"? ;)
-
Quite true and ironic, since Kodak invented digital sensors but did not implement them for fear of cannibalizing the film market. Bankruptcy would be a disaster for the retirees, since their pensions and health care would be adversely affected. However, management assented to generous benefits demanded by the workers during good times and now both management and the workers are paying the price.
Regards,
Bill
Not necessarily. It depends on the structure. Health benefits quite possibly. But pensions are hived off and managed separately from company assets. If there's a funding deficit in the plan it could impact retirees but if the plan is fully funded or overfunded there shouldn't be a problem.
-
Amazing. The labor theory of value, that "workers" create the wealth, is right out of Das Kapital, a theory that has absolutely no foundation in logic or experience. The guy who created the wealth at Kodak was George Eastman, and he created it with his brain. Same thing was true of Apple and Steve Jobs. The "workers" manufactured the products, but the only reason they were able to do that was because of the brains of Eastman and Jobs.
It's a mistake to engage in political/economics discussions online, I know, but will add my two cents anyway.
I find this view a little too doctrinaire. GE may have had the spark and foresight to start up an enterprise, provided the germ and initial funding even, and it is correct and a useful thing that he acquire personal wealth because of it. Good for him. But he had hundred and thousands of employees who did their bit every day, and I bet some of them also came up with very good ideas, some maybe even better than his. To say that he created the wealth is a little over the top, he certainly did, but so did others. There's nothing to be gained by assigning too much credit to the superman, I don't believe. It is not instructive. The "rugged individual" is backed by lots of other people and a lot of luck. Just because some credit is given to some of the workers in an enterprise doesn't mean that Marx is being rammed down your throat. Real life is way more complex than that.
The behaviour at GM over the last 30 years was interesting to me. Throughout that period, management continued on a path that led to ruin. They kept designing and building cars that people chose not to buy. It was NOT the millwrights and machinists who decided which models to build and which automotive trends to ignore. But near the "end" there, I kept reading in the business press how GM was strapped by their health and pension demands, as if those were to blame for the company's demise. This is an all too typical pattern, when sales are going well, management pays itself handsomely for their foresight, after all, they created this wealth, goes the thinking. When things go wrong, magically, management is hardly ever to blame, and they don't have to give the previous year's bonuses back. How can that be?
-
Unfortunately, many CEOs have driven their companies into the ground and exited with exorbitant golden parachutes while the workers' pensions and healthcare has suffered.
Right, Bill. There's no way to make crooks go away. And there doesn't seem to be any way to get corporate boards to pay closer attention to what's going on in the companies for which they have fiduciary responsibilities.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Antonio Perez.
And it will be interesting to see if Corzine goes to jail.
That said, a good workforce is essential to the success of an enterprise.
No doubt about it. And profit is essential to keep an enterprise like Kodak, q.v., going.
-
I'd never take anything away from the people who do the work, Robert. I've been there. But that's not the point. In Das Kapital Marx demonstrates that the wealthy are wealthy because they've stolen the wealth created by the workers. His logic is close to impeccable. Only problem is that in order to accept his conclusion you have to start with the premise that labor is the only thing that produces value. He never attempts to prove his premise. I'll quote myself from an article I wrote long ago:
"The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.
"Many who claim “scientific” methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous.
"Marxism is a good example of this garbage in, garbage out variety of religion. In Das Kapital, Marx started with the premise that value in human terms comes only from human labor. Without questioning the premise, he proceeded to construct a process-oriented explanation for human endeavor which leads, inexorably to the conclusion that profit must come from exploiting the labor of others. His scientifically-arrived-at remedy for this warping of the human condition by capitalism is even more startling than the conclusion itself: that if the state owns the means of production, all will be well!
"No sane Marxist will argue with you about the source of value — any more than a priest will argue with you about the divinity of Christ. Either you accept the premise on faith or you don’t. The difference is that in the first case, if you accept Marx’s premise, everything else can be proven. In the second case, if you accept the divinity of Christ, nothing more need be proven, nor, for that matter, said."
Yes, there are plenty of managers out there who are ruthless and full of blame, often supported and coddled by the government, though if we get into that discussion none of us will get much done for quite a while.
But to paraphrase Churchill: capitalism is the worst economic system there is, except for all the rest.
-
Not necessarily. It depends on the structure. Health benefits quite possibly. But pensions are hived off and managed separately from company assets. If there's a funding deficit in the plan it could impact retirees but if the plan is fully funded or overfunded there shouldn't be a problem.
Do you think that a company who can't pay its current bills would fully fund their pension? According to this report (http://seekingalpha.com/article/259593-in-sharp-focus-red-flags-at-eastman-kodak), the pension plan is underfunded by $2.6 billion.
Regards,
Bill
-
Oh Christ. If I'd noticed it was your comment I was responding to, I wouldn't have bothered.
But as I said, if the plan were underfunded it could be a problem. Apparently it is. OK, so be it. There was no mention of that in your previous commentary. Just a blanket statement that was unproven/unsupported by facts. That said, the unfunded liability number isn't definitive. If a raft of retirees die the liability will drop. The return assumption is more than a tad optimistic which doesn't help. Given the size of the company historically, the unfunded liability isn't that big.
-
Do you think that a company who can't pay its current bills would fully fund their pension? According to this report (http://seekingalpha.com/article/259593-in-sharp-focus-red-flags-at-eastman-kodak), the pension plan is underfunded by $2.6 billion.
Regards,
Bill
You are probably right, Bill. But in an ideal world, shouldn't those funds been funded at the time salaries are paid and remain "untouchable" after that? After all, both (salaries and benefits) are parts of the same compensation package and a contractual obligation. The contract was not "I'll pay your pension if I feel like it when the time comes" or "I'll see if something is left for you". After all, management bonuses are not subject to the same casual rules and the maximum you can "lose" is one year bonus. I say "lose" because it is not a contractually fixed obligation, but subject to performance, so you know from the beginning that bonus is not guaranteed. Not the same with benefits. Benefits are contractual, fixed, and used as a competitive instrument, to attract needed talent, and are not offered on a hypothetical basis.
-
You are probably right, Bill. But in an ideal world, shouldn't those funds been funded at the time salaries are paid and remain "untouchable" after that? After all, both (salaries and benefits) are parts of the same compensation package and a contractual obligation. The contract was not "I'll pay your pension if I feel like it when the time comes" or "I'll see if something is left for you". After all, management bonuses are not subject to the same casual rules and the maximum you can "lose" is one year bonus. I say "lose" because it is not a contractually fixed obligation, but subject to performance, so you know from the beginning that bonus is not guaranteed. Not the same with benefits. Benefits are contractual, fixed, and used as a competitive instrument, to attract needed talent, and are not offered on a hypothetical basis.
No, that's not quite how it works. A pension plan receives contributions (from employers, employees or both) and those funds are hived off. The company doesn't, normally, have access to use the funds for operations. The funds are invested and the size of the fund required is based on the future pension obligations (payments to retirees). The calculations of how much is required in the fund is based on the required monthly payment (in a defined benefit plan like Kodak's), projected investment returns and an estimate of how long retirees will live. At any time the fund can be fully funded, underfunded or overfunded.
Underfunding can happen due to a reduction in the actual investment return vs. the projected investment return (pension plans got hit HARD with the 2008 market crash), a change in actuarial calculations (people are projected to live longer), among other things. If a plan is underfunded, the plan sponsor notes it in the financial statements and, over time, is supposed to make up the shortfall. The shortfall is a fluid number due to the various moving components that make up the calculation of the required plan size and can rectify on its own. This is why plan sponsors aren't typically quick to top up an unfunded plan.
Overfunding can occur for reasons opposite to the causes of underfunding as well as people actually not living as long as projected. Depending on the jurisdiction, companies can reclaim an overfunded balance to bring the fund back into a fully funded position. That clawing back of the overfunding ends up as profit for the company. Don't know if Kodak's plan was ever overfunded or if they ever clawed back any overfunded position. The risk of clawing back any overfunded position is that, of course, the plan can subsequently become underfunded more easily.
Not all pension plans are defined benefit; however. DB plans were popular until, around, the late 80s and early 90s. After that, defined contribution plans became more common. Under a DC plan contributions are made at a prescribed level but the ultimate payout is determined based on the investment return on those funds. Some companies left DB plans in place for employees employed prior to a certain date and started DC plans for new employees. Companies just starting to offer a pension plan went with DC plans due to the lower cost. It's rare to find a DB plan being offered any longer.
-
"Considering that the workers create the wealth then they can expect to benefit the most? :-\"
Workers. They are employed to do a job. Period. There is no divine right to work any more than there is to have a successful business. One employs people to perform specific tasks. If they can do that well, they get paid; if they don't do it well, it's extremely difficult to fire them. How bloody nice.
That's one of the major problems that faces Spain: folks won't employ because it becomes a legal/political nightmare to end that employment when the employee is not up to scratch or, perhaps, is surplus to requirement when work slows down. As a freelance worker, I was never under the impression that a client should continue to pay me when he had no further work for me; because an employee is on a longer-term style of employment, why does he suddenly become a sacred cow, protected by laws and trade unions? I have often though how nice and instructive it would be for everyone in employment to have to go through the experience of self-employment, just to get a sense of what market reality actually is. What is it? Simply that nobody owes you anything; that you are valuable as long as you are valuable, and that there are hundreds if not thousands of other people willing and able to do what you do.
Rob C
-
My understanding of the bugaboo for DB plans if that if they are funded to the federally required minimums ( which i guess assumes a going concern) - not 100% like they should have been, and then the company files for bankruptcy protection, the plans obligation can get dumped on the pension benefit guaranty agency which pays out much less than the promised benefit.
-
Workers. They are empoloyed to do a job. Period. There is no divine right to work any more than there is to have a successful business.
Unquote
But if workers decide not to work for a certain employer then that employer won't make a penny profit? It doesn't matter the size or scope of his brain.
Employers would use robots if they could but workers would have to build them. ;)
-
Workers. They are empoloyed to do a job. Period. There is no divine right to work any more than there is to have a successful business.
Unquote
1. But if workers decide not to work for a certain employer then that employer won't make a penny profit? It doesn't matter the size or scope of his brain.
2 Employers would use robots if they could but workers would have to build them. ;)
1. That's okay - he'll just take his business offshore. Is suicide part of union culture? Reminds me of Red Robbo and his valiant morons
who destroyed the British car industry. Oh - were they early robots and not morons?
2. Of course they would, and in great part they do already. Why would 'workers' have to do that? The idea's so 50s!
;-)
Rob C
-
If workers don't have money to buy products, then the business still doesn't make a profit.
Les
-
My people have this little story about a guy who was training his horse not to eat... just as he thought he finally succeeded, the horse died.
So, for all of you proponents of "screw workers" theories, the moral of the story is: you can make workers work for next to nothing (or not work), but they will ultimately die (metaphorically speaking). And by 'workers' I mean blue-collar and white-collar ones, a.k.a. middle class. For one thing you proponents of "screw workers" theories are forgetting, is the double role they play in this world: they are not just workers, making things for you and helping you get wealthy, they are, simultaneously, your consumers, buying your stuff, and again helping you get rich.
So, go ahead, cut your cost, reduce your labor "burden" by frivolous bankruptcies, increase your profit and let your greed go crazy, starve workers to death... but remember you are cutting the branch you are sitting on.
You did that in the '30s, you are doing it now.
-
My people have this little story about a guy who was training his horse not to eat... just as he thought he finally succeeded, the horse died.
So, for all of you proponents of "screw workers" theories, the moral of the story is: you can make workers work for next to nothing (or not work), but they will ultimately die (metaphorically speaking). And by 'workers' I mean blue-collar and white-collar ones, a.k.a. middle class. For one thing you proponents of "screw workers" theories are forgetting, is the double role they play in this world: they are not just workers, making things for you and helping you get wealthy, they are, simultaneously, your consumers, buying your stuff, and again helping you get rich.
So, go ahead, cut your cost, reduce your labor "burden" by frivolous bankruptcies, increase your profit and let your greed go crazy, starve workers to death... but remember you are cutting the branch you are sitting on.
You did that in the '30s, you are doing it now.
Beautifully put, SB.
Eric
-
Well said, Slobodan. It's something Henry Ford understood, and it's something that made Henry straospherically wealthy.
Hmmm. That didn't come out quite right considering the prior comments. Henry understood that the people who were involved in manufacturing his cars also were his customers. He also started paying good workers enough to keep them on board.
I'm not coming on as an apolgist for Henry. He had a bag of flaws, but he did understand how to make things work.
-
Speaking of the '30s... one of my favorite photographs (and no doubt captured using Kodak film):
EDIT: The photographer is Margaret Bourke-White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Bourke-White)
-
i hope the press photographer that shot it won a Pulitzer for that one !
-
Well said, Slobodan. It's something Henry Ford understood, and it's something that made Henry straospherically wealthy.
Hmmm. That didn't come out quite right considering the prior comments. Henry understood that the people who were involved in manufacturing his cars also were his customers. He also started paying good workers enough to keep them on board.
I'm not coming on as an apolgist for Henry. He had a bag of flaws, but he did understand how to make things work.
I think Upton Sinclair's book the Flivver King exposed Ford for what he was. On a par with Carnegie. Both despots. I haven't read the
book for a couple of decades but it is worth reading.
-
So, for all of you proponents of "screw workers" theories, the moral of the story is: you can make workers work for next to nothing (or not work), but they will ultimately die (metaphorically speaking). And by 'workers' I mean blue-collar and white-collar ones, a.k.a. middle class. For one thing you proponents of "screw workers" theories are forgetting, is the double role they play in this world: they are not just workers, making things for you and helping you get wealthy, they are, simultaneously, your consumers, buying your stuff, and again helping you get rich.
Slobodan, I think you are being gripped by trace memories. I can't read here anywhere where anyone advocates 'workers' be forced to work for slave-rates (though to be accurate, I always thought slaves worked for feed and lodging alone). From my perspective on the subject, everyone should be paid what they are worth - that's the difficult calculation, of course - but their worth depends on how much they are needed and, in the sense of workers as employees, includes the possibility/viability of their continued employment by any organization. That's why I advocate the impossible-to-apply, but desirable universal subjection to the self-employed experience: it rapidy teaches one the perspectives of reality: you are usually not indispesable and there are queues waiting not so patiently behind you for every job or sale you might be fortunate enough to secure. The union boss neither knows nor cares, and if he is enlightened enough to know, he certainly doesn't push it around to his followers.
Trouble is, the entire matter becomes embroiled with 'rights' and politics and reality is forgotten in the resulting conversation between people who are then driven into opposite corners which usually demand total blindness to the other point of view.
Basically, Life's reality is this: nobody owes you a thing. That's the bottom line, the platform from which you have to begin your crawl or march or sprint through life.
Rob C
-
Hey, it's pretty simple, when was the last time that you bought a Kodak product? For me it was about 10 years ago. If you are not producing things that people want to buy then you will go broke.
Cheers,
-
... If you are not producing things that people want to buy then you will go broke...
Tom, that makes as much sense as saying that people are poor because they do not have enough money ;) A tautology, in other words.
The real question is why. Why has Kodak ended up on the brink of bankruptcy? Yes, the technology changed, dooming film, but two things to take into account: one, Kodak was among pioneers of digital, and to this day some of the best sensors are Kodak, so why did not they turned that into a business success? And two, there's the film archrival still doing fine, e.g. Fujifilm, by adapting to the new era.
Kodak was slow to adopt to digital business-wise, and even slow to respond to Fuji's aggressive entry into its own film territory. It took Kodak ten years to respond to Velvia. Kodak kept repeating that the world can not possibly fall for an over-the-top saturated and contrasty film, far from realistic. And if you are publishing botanical textbooks, you would tend to agree: for realistic reproduction of flowers, Kodachrome 25 (not even 64) was the king. But hey, we all know how that game ended: 90% of professionals switched to Velvia.
-
Hi,
A personal reflection. I was a Kodachrome fan until Kodak made life hard for Kodakchrome users. After that I desperately searched for an alternative and found it in Fujichrome. Then Velvia came around.
Best regards
Erik
Tom, that makes as much sense as saying that people are poor because they do not have enough money ;) A tautology, in other words.
The real question is why. Why has Kodak ended up on the brink of bankruptcy? Yes, the technology changed, dooming film, but two things to take into account: one, Kodak was among pioneers of digital, and to this day some of the best sensors are Kodak, so why did not they turned that into a business success? And two, there's the film archrival still doing fine, e.g. Fujifilm, by adapting to the new era.
Kodak was slow to adopt to digital business-wise, and even slow to respond to Fuji's aggressive entry into its own film territory. It took Kodak ten years to respond to Velvia. Kodak kept repeating that the world can not possibly fall for an over-the-top saturated and contrasty film, far from realistic. And if you are publishing botanical textbooks, you would tend to agree: for realistic reproduction of flowers, Kodachrome 25 (not even 64) was the king. But hey, we all know how that game ended: 90% of professionals switched to Velvia.
-
Hi,
A personal reflection. I was a Kodachrome fan until Kodak made life hard for Kodakchrome users. After that I desperately searched for an alternative and found it in Fujichrome. Then Velvia came around.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, but Velvia was no damned good for people shots; they were all blushing. Or were red herrings.
The trouble with Kodachrome 25 for people shots, as per my beaches, was that I found it uncontrollably contrasty and did not suit my one-man-and-his-wife sort of working. I hated flash - never a brilliant idea (oh dear) with Nikons. Reflectors on a beach - aren't they always windy? - was not something too clever either; the solution was that we usually worked hardest early morning or evening, when Kodachrome 64 gave just enough speed to do the job without losing crispness... The technique, on most location days, also allowed for an excellent gentleman's luncheon, unrushed and untroubled with thoughts of passing time.
Kodak's failure - part of it, at least - was the woeful lack of quality control in some processing stations. I found Lausanne to be the most reliable, but that's probably more to do with the national temperament than Kodak.
Rob C
-
Chapter 11 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-19/kodak-files-for-bankruptcy/3783274), I presume, but overseas companies miss out.
For a company which invented the digital camera over 35 years ago, truly ironic.
-
Tom, that makes as much sense as saying that people are poor because they do not have enough money ;) A tautology, in other words.
The real question is why. Why has Kodak ended up on the brink of bankruptcy?
With respect, it makes perfect sense and is the reason for their problems. They were reluctant to push digital products because it would impact their profitable film business, other digital manufacturers filled the gap and it happened anyway but without any significant porttion of the revenue going to Kodak.
People wanted digital and Kodak were not producing it so everyone just went elsewhere instead.
-
Hi,
I'd say lack of competence and focus. Kodak was never really good at the camera stuff. Kodak tried to invent a lot of formats that failed in the long run, 126, 110, photo disc.
Regarding Kodachrome vs. Velvia, in my view Kodak pulled the curtain on Kodakchrome when they removed most processing capabilities. Turnaround time got very long. I also hated the cardboard mounts. Once I ordered Kodachrome development without framing. Kodak sent the film back as roll (hard rolled). That film was practically destroyed. So I started looking for alternatives, Agfa, Gaf until I found Fujichrome, well before Velvia came around. I left Kodak because I was pissed off (to cite "MR") with their processing.
Best regards
Erik
The real question is why. Why has Kodak ended up on the brink of bankruptcy? Yes, the technology changed, dooming film, but two things to take into account: one, Kodak was among pioneers of digital, and to this day some of the best sensors are Kodak, so why did not they turned that into a business success? And two, there's the film archrival still doing fine, e.g. Fujifilm, by adapting to the new era.
Kodak was slow to adopt to digital business-wise, and even slow to respond to Fuji's aggressive entry into its own film territory. It took Kodak ten years to respond to Velvia. Kodak kept repeating that the world can not possibly fall for an over-the-top saturated and contrasty film, far from realistic. And if you are publishing botanical textbooks, you would tend to agree: for realistic reproduction of flowers, Kodachrome 25 (not even 64) was the king. But hey, we all know how that game ended: 90% of professionals switched to Velvia.
-
...
...the solution was that we usually worked hardest early morning or evening, when Kodachrome 64 gave just enough speed to do the job without losing crispness... The technique, on most location days, also allowed for an excellent gentleman's luncheon, unrushed and untroubled with thoughts of passing time.
...
Rob C
I once asked other wildlife photographers this same question; ie
what do you do through the harsh light of the middle of the day?
BTW it correlates to when shallow water fish typically don't bite.
Sometimes I get lucky with a certain mood and CRI due to infamous weather of SF
So, what does one do at a gentleman's luncheon?