Siemens DX is far from ending its employee layoff schedule and it's rumored most sites will once again be hit before end of 2012.
USA-Sacramento was just hit and we in the UK were told pending layoffs will start here by next week.
The madness continues.

"By the way ... what ever did

"By the way ... what ever did happen to all of those jobs and prosperity that the Bush taxes were supposed to bring us?"

Ever hear of 9-11 ? Without those tax cuts our economy would have really tanked.

Once upon a time, in a decade

Once upon a time, in a decade long, long ago, there was a shortage of qualified workers to fill all of the jobs in America. In order to make themselves more attractive to potential employees, some companies thought it would be a good idea to offer fringe benefits in addition to wages or salaries. As with many new ideas, this one gained momentum and, ultimately got out of hand. Now we have benefits like health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, AD&D benefits, etc. Once these benefits started to become common, many unions climbed on board and demanded that they be added to the package.

Now, after an half a century, all of these added benefits have gotten out of hand and cost companies millions/billions of dollars each year. It doens't matter today who started it or who piled on afterwards. What matters is that many companies are saddled with all of these costs, many of which are not part of the balance sheet in foreign countries. The situation now begs two questions:

By what logic is there a necessary connection between health care or other insurance and employment? On what basis, other than tradition, should they be tied together?

What would be the impact on American business competitiveness if companies were no longer responsible for all of these benefits? What, for instance, if we had a national health care system? Oh wait, wouldn't that be socialism? If only we could call it something else so that word would't scare people off.

Yes, Virginia, there are alternatives to just lowering taxes more in order to help American business become more competitive. What we are witnessing now is a last ditch attempt on the part of the rich to preserve their Bush tax cuts that were going to open up millions of new jobs for Americans. By the way ... what ever did happen to all of those jobs and prosperity that the Bush taxes were supposed to bring us?

" Good statement. If you put

Good statement. If you put tariffs on cars for example, GM, Ford,,,, would not have to work to keep their costs in line, unions could demand higher pay, which would result in higher prices for cars. Consumer loses: The imported car prices would go up because of the tariff , and the domestic ones because of higher labor costs."

More scare tactics from the rich elite. Notice that the option for the rich to take a little less is never considered. They always have to come first. They are rich already. They are the elite. They are ENTITLED to more riches and the power to rule us all.

How about the other scenario. Cut back on salaries and benefits for American workers. Eliminate all unions and collective bargaining. Re-institute the 12 hour day and 6 day working week. Bring back child labor. Bring back the company towns and company stores. Remove all regulations that inhibit business; it's ok to keep the ones that promote businesses or give them preferential tax treatment. Imagine how competitive we will be then. Then sit back and wait for the 'workers of the world (to) unite ... (they'd) have nothing to lose but their chains'.

And that, boys and girls, is the threat from the other side.

Anyone up for joining forces in the middle?

"Go ahead set up tariffs to

"Go ahead set up tariffs to protect American firms, increase taxes on the business controllers and you will have a completely uncompetitive country in a few years if maybe a decade or so, America will be toast at that point with little to export and no money to buy imports."
Good statement. If you put tariffs on cars for example, GM, Ford,,,, would not have to work to keep their costs in line, unions could demand higher pay, which would result in higher prices for cars. Consumer loses: The imported car prices would go up because of the tariff , and the domestic ones because of higher labor costs.

It isn't so much that Vitamin

It isn't so much that Vitamin D is so important. It is just the latest and greatest new analyte on the block; the diagnostic fad-du-jour. There are also a few contraversies about vitamin D testing and the various tests on the market which adds to the noise. And all the noise for a test that can only be a small percentage of most companies' total DX revenues.

Just got the results back

Just got the results back from Labcorp for my annual physical check. My Vitamin D is close to the low end and the doc told me to take some supplement, which I could care less about.

I wonder why everyone here felt DX Vitamin D assay is a big deal? As an average consumer, I felt all other stuff on my testing results are far more important than the "D".

I wish Siemens could invest money elsewhere.

"NAFTA agreements passed by

"NAFTA agreements passed by Clinton"

I was not aware that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) affected our trade relationship with China. Thank you for setting me straight on this point. (From Wikipedia: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994). I guess they don't know about the China connection either.

Now it's my turn. Presidents do NOT pass legislation. They simply sign or veto legislation passed by Congress. Moveover, this was not a Clinto thing. (From Wikipedia again: Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.) NAFTA was primarily a Republican idea that was negotiated during the Reagan and Bush administratios. In fact, in the spirit of cooperation and compromise Clinton worked with Republicans to find ways to make it somewhat acceptable to both sides: ("Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required US partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.)

I am always willing to learn new things. However, I have no need to learn from those who would re-write history to support their own agenda. As you can see, I prefer facts and data to assertions and endless repetition of half truths or outright lies.

"Go ahead set up tariffs to

"Go ahead set up tariffs to protect American firms, increase taxes on the business controllers and you will have a completely uncompetitive country in a few years if maybe a decade or so, America will be toast at that point with little to export and no money to buy imports."

Interesting that tariffs have historically been something that Republicans support. This was becuase, for many years, they helped to protect American businesses, although not necessarily to the benefit of the general public. Now that businesses would be hurt by tariffs, Republicans oppose them, even if they would be helpful to the average American. It seems that the only principles that Republicans have is that the rich and big business always comes first and the wealth can just trickle, or drip slowly, down.

The biggest fear you have is that your threats won't work and the American will take charge of their country again and take it out of the hands of the economic elite. Worry, dude, worry. It's going to happen sooner or later. All you need to do is look at the history of the past few millenia to see the trend of human social development. The era of empires is fading; the era of Kings and Queens is fading; the era of one-party, one-family, one person rule is fading. Elitism is on it's way out. And all of the poor unfortunate rich people might actually have to live like the rest of us. What a pity !!

Yeah, America really sucks,

Yeah, America really sucks, doesn't it. All those evil workers who want a decent living wage. All those who want a fair share of the pie. All of the satanic environmentalists who object to industry dumping their garbage into our air and water. Why not go all the way and just demand the legalization of slavery again? At least get rid of that horrid Marxist minimum wage law. (You can explain later who would have enough money to be a decent consumer without minimum wage laws and the effots of trade unions). It's never enough for the rich; they always want more. They tend to believe this is THEIR country and the rest of the people are just here to serve them.

So you think the solution is to export jobs to China, eh? Wait a few years. I recently heard a number that I have trouble believing: China has over 150 cities with 1 million or more people. Have you seen the pictures of 60 mile long traffic jams? Have you seen the people in some of these cities needing to wear masks to deal with all of the pollution there? Have you noticed the increase in demenad for consumer products which means Chinese workers will soon be demanding higher wages and benefits. Keep in mind that the Chinese government will put the needs of their country far ahead of American needs when push comes to shove. Sooner or later, they will have the same kinds of wages and benefits as we have in America and will be forced to enact more restrictive environmental policies as well. On top of all of that, our exporting of jobs to China is also a way to help them develop their own industries which will eventually compete with American companies. With over 10 times our population, don't be surprised if your children and grandchildren are driving Chinese cars and using Chinese developed technology as they use what they are learning from us now to eventually dominate us economically. It is all extremely shortsighted thinking and is solely for the purpose of further enriching the already wealthy. In the long run, it won't work and will only make this country weaker. Of course, big business doesn't care. After they use up the benefits of relocating to China, they sill have all of Africa to try to exploit. The smart, long range investor would do well to consider investment in Africa, actually. It will be the next big thing; I just can't tell you when.

This is actually one of the big problems with Mitt Romney's work experience. It was all about the short term. How fast can we turn a company around and sell it for a profit. How much more profit can we make with fewer workers, who may have to work longer. No long term vision; no need for it. It's just about how much profit you can pull out of a company and how fast you can do it.

Your philosophy is all about what you can get for yourself. There is no sense of community, of duty to nation, of helping one's neighbor, or of working together for long term common goals. It's a me, me, me philosophy that relies on a wealth-based elitism. It is just fine for companies to conspire to fix prices (once we can rid of all of those socialist anti-trust laws), but it's not ok for workers to unite for a common purpose. We don't need a government to regulate the environment or even product safety. After enough people get injured or die, market forces will straighten things out. We don't need child labor laws or laws requiring overtime payments. After all, if they don't have them in China and other developing countries, why should we? (I guess it's bad to follow the so-called socialist Europe by finding ways to have decent health care for everyone, but no reason not to follow Communist China in their labor laws and conditions). The hypocracy is unbelievable.

It's a great philosophy with only one problem. There is virtually no data to support it's validity and almost every time we have moved in that direction, we wind up with an economic disaster. Free enterprise is one thing. The economic anarchy that you advocate is quite another. My Constitution starts with 'We the people'; yours appears to state with 'We the Corporations' (remember .... 'corporations are people too, my friend').

"The concentration of wealth

"The concentration of wealth at the top has gotten alot worse in the past few decades. The top 2-5 % in America already control roughly 25 % of the national wealth, and it's just not enough. So one question in this year's election is whether we will give into economic terrorists and extortion. "

Perfect example of the typical American who expects things to be the way they were a few years ago, when things were much more "fair" to middle class working Americans. This is fine and you can wish for the good old times but that is missing the point completely. You cannot reverse tax structure and payroll schedules as they were in the past and expect the same result. Exactly the OPPOSITE will happen! You will indeed lose jobs and businesses, look at what has happened recently to so much lost. The RULES HAVE CHANGED in the international marketplace and if you think lowering taxes will make the rich even richer (it will)and that that is bad you are a lost sole. The game is being played with different rules and the West still has not adjusted fast enough. Competition that did not exist years ago is upond us like it or not. Go ahead set up tariffs to protect American firms, increase taxes on the business controllers and you will have a completely uncompetitive country in a few years if maybe a decade or so, America will be toast at that point with little to export and no money to buy imports.

If products are imported by

If products are imported by an American firm from China and sold here NAFTA agreements passed by Clinton aloows for no special tariffs so the profits would be taxed much like if it was made in the USA. But the full manufacturing penalty must be considered for manufacturing in the USA (OSHA, EPA, FDA, FICA, unions,etc.....and yes taxes) as these things add up to far more impact than any one tax. Ask any manufactuer what they have to put up with and they will roll their eyes. And this is not even considering the much higher pay rate that American workers arrogantly expect. Then you have the fear of law suits especially if you are in the health care field. We are literally pricing ourselves out of the international marketplace so its not just taxes, thats just the subject that was brought up here, it is far more complicated than that. So when people say a small tax increse has no real affect on jobs it is like saying increasing my bath water temperature 20 degrees won't matter much; unless the temperature is already at 140 degrees.

"few crums" Oops, that's

"few crums"

Oops, that's crumbs. Sorry, but we humans make mistakes now and then. Some of us admit them, and then there are politicians who have had their apology 'gene' surgically removed. Like me or not; I don't care. Just don't ever call me a politician.

Watch out people. The

Watch out people. The Republicans are now taking hostages.

The demands: Lower our taxes and make us even richer.

The threats: If you don't let us get even richer we will ship all of your jobs overseas.

The proposed resolution: If you make us rich enough, we will give a few crums to those who we needed and had to use in order to get rich in the first place unless we had the talent and hard work to 'earn' our inheritance.

The concentration of wealth at the top has gotten alot worse in the past few decades. The top 2-5 % in America already control roughly 25 % of the national wealth, and it's just not enough. So one question in this year's election is whether we will give into economic terrorists and extortion.

(I can't wait to see what hostility this one provokes).

Most companies do not make

Most companies do not make products that people need. They make products that they hope people will want and spend millions of dollars on advertising to 'assist' people in wanting the product. One definition of 'marketing' is to 'create a need in the eyes of customers'. One of the biggest problems in America is that most people no longer can distinguish between want and need. Madison Avenue et alia have contributed immeasurably to the American want, want, want mentality and the now, now, now mentality as well. This, in turn, changes the focus from saving up to buy something rather than just buying with plastic or other forms of credit. Consumer debt (ultimately the result of what 'we' do, not what 'they' do) was a major contributor the the Great Recession. The same mentality also causes most Americans to think short term rather than long term.

It's a good idea, once in a while, to just sit down and ask yourself what you really need in life and to separate out all of those 'wants' into a different mental zone. This simple exercise goes a long way to both inner peace and better personal financial health.

"Some politicians ( one party

"Some politicians ( one party in particular) seem to think that a company's purpose is to employ people -- even if they do not make a profit."
Yet another reason to vote for obama.
Add that to the ACA and we are moving in the right direction---finally!

A company needs to make a

A company needs to make a product some one, or some company needs. They need to be able to make it better or at a lower cost then a competitor and still make a profit to sustain the company. Some politicians ( one party in particular) seem to think that a company's purpose is to employ people -- even if they do not make a profit.

Mr. business expert, would

Mr. business expert, would you please answer my specific question?

"Just out of curiosity, does a company pay a different amount of tax on profits made on products made in China than they do on products made in the US? If so, what is the difference? "

We appreciate your simple, clear response.

Thank you.

Oh, and rumor has it that

Oh, and rumor has it that Siemens will eventually move most of DX to China or India"

I'm the guy posting about the lack of understanding the American employee has about the new world of business. The above quote is precisely why politics and the election is pertinent to this thread. Everyone wants a tomorrow type rumor or hint of what the future holds, typical of us Americans while the real concern is the longer term picture. Worrying about whether Siemens lays off a few people this year misses the point; they may very well decide that in order to stem the losses, the best way to decrease overhead is just to move the entire operation eventually to India. India in the southernn region hosts some of the best universities in the world for Biochemists; do not snicker, they focus on biochemistry and are truly ahead of many of the most respected university programs in the West in this specific area. So what does it matter much if Siemens lays a few off by next year, if all of us are unemployed in 2-5 years? Yes, that's a way off but the big picture is really what needs to be focused on because it is symptomatic of everything that is going wrong w/ our economy. And believe it; the next president most likely to spend money and increase taxes is your enemy, and the yyounger you are the more impact on your life and career. Is this post wasting space for all this political talk? Yes, if you only want 6 months of what the future will bring, but if you are concerned for the long haul and the future of employment and business in the USA (including Siemens), then we are using the space well. Believe it, Siemens is actively evaluating such drastic measures and the more $'s they lose in DX the more likely that kind of desperate move becomes likely.

Well, the rumor mill is

Well, the rumor mill is quiet, so why not talk politics to fill in the time? &^$^% 4 PRESIDENT !

Just out of curiosity, does a

Just out of curiosity, does a company pay a different amount of tax on profits made on products made in China than they do on products made in the US? If so, what is the difference?

Oh, and rumor has it that Siemens will eventually move most of DX to China or India. They will make the final decision after the election in the US. If Romney wins, Siemens, like the rest of us, will wait to see what he actually proposes on taxes and what preferences, if any, they would get for relocating outside the US.

For a thread about layoffs at

For a thread about layoffs at Siemens on a biotech forum, you guys are going to great lengths to make sure that subject never comes back up. Save the politics for the Huffington Post or Drudge, and save your corporate history of who worked at various incarnations of the companies that became Siemens Dx six years ago. we deal in rumors here. so somebody deal me some rumors about Siemens, please.

You are right in that many in

You are right in that many in the USA are carefully evaluating future overseas operations vs manufacturing here, primarily due to the fears of increases in the price of shipping goods all the way from Asia because of the price increases expected for crude oil, soon. But the up front costs of sourcing from overseas has been greatly reduced because of tremendous increases in infrastructure investments, primarily by the Chinese. We laugh at their mostly cheaply made goods but that will change/ is changing very, very fast. 10 years from now, "Made in China" will not be the deathly scurge it is currently. Even now extremely high end products on the cutting edge are being made there; Apple phones, Dell computers, HDTV's, high end shoes, leather goods, etc. And if American start-ups are not particular about actually fronting infrastructure costs for manufacturing, there are thousands of manufacturing firms in China that ply the trade shows for American busineses; all you have to do is go to one in the USA and show them the widget, and they will tell you how much they will make it for. So even the problem of very small firms making a small $10.00 widget having to shoulder huge start up costs is NOT an issue. They can very easily and cheaply more manufacturing overseas. The world of business has completely changed and the American mindset had better get on the bandwagon, because we are killing the very businesses that so many politicians covet, by increased tax rates and all the other baggage. Actually it is amazing that anything at all that can be shipped, is still being made here.

I certainly agree that there

I certainly agree that there is much uncertainty in business and that tax rates are only one of the factors when it comes to hiring people. I agree that for companies like Siemens shipping jobs overseas is a viable option, for a while. But businesses like Siemens have a very different tax code than individuals. I was talking about the small business person who uses his personal income tax for business purposes and for companies with 50 or fewer people who are generally not about to start laying off their employees to find ones overseas. Business taxes are a whole different matter. Even with large companies, the total number of people they employ tends to correlate with demand. The details of where they hire is a different matter as well. Other factors such as the regulatory environment cause alot of uncertainty as well. Nonetheless, despite all of these factors, I submit that when demand picks up, you will see alot of positions opening up at your local Wal-Mart and mall. More people will feel comfortable going out to restaurants (more jobs), etc. Companies that still operate plants in the US that operate at half capacity will hire workers back. You know the drill as well as anyone.

Some jobs cannot be outsourced and some companies are not yet big enough to consider outsourcing (we are also told that small companies create most of the new jobs). Outsourcing may require an initial investment, sometimes substantial. And from what I have been reading lately, the outsourcing trend is showing some signs of reversing. And it was to those companies, where outsourcing is not a major issue or option, when I asked someone to explain why lowering taxes, per se, would increase employment without any change in demand. I still don't see how the math can work unless you through in alot of other factors which are relevant to a hiring decision, but not to my specific question. Isn't it possible to just discuss this single variable without complicate things with tangential issues? I'm just poor old John Q. Public who still likes to go out bowling, shoot pool, hunt, fish, throw down a few beers with some pals, and go to church on Sunday. If I had an MBA I wouldn't be seeking your help in understanding this issue.

"If I only make $500 per new

"If I only make $500 per new employeee I would hire the same number to meet the demand. It has virtually nothing to do with my tax rate....."

You may think like this as an observer of the business world within the USA, and you have a legitimate argument here. The trouble is, this is no longer the model that corporations use for determining the bottom line and what hiring they will do or not. Things are very, very different now and the trouble is, those of us who do waddle in this hyper competitive business world really know the score, but those w/o business experience do not. And that is that the potential for higher taxes, greather health care costs (whether or not mandated by law), environmental regs, OSHA, FDA, class action lawsuits, you name it, (there are a ton of issues weighing down businesses in the USA) they all factor in to what businesses will do. And do you think it is simply hiring or not hiring? No, the decisions have far more ramifications than this; the extra burden of even further tax increase on top of everything else will make smart business owners move operations overseas if it is even remotely possible. See how this all falls flat on your face? That is the issue, not that companies will not decide to hire or not based on just an extra 1-5% in taxes; THEY WILL LEAVE THE USA TO MAKE WIDGETS IN CHINA, INDIA, VIET NAM, etc.
This is how increased taxes cuts down employment, and precisely why so many jobs have been lost here. To be fair it is not just taxes of course but the cumulative affect of all that burdens the Amerian manufactuer. The trouble is, taxes are the only thing that seems to change significantly other than Health Care costs, and is the reason that business people focus on it, besides being the one thing that can be moved by lobbying or electing the right guy. The other thing is austerity, and the left always focuses on how mean consevatives are for asking for it while the country goes bancrup. How is that going to be better? Just ask the Greeks.

Wild and crazy. Just like

Wild and crazy. Just like Siemens.

Wow talk about a thread gone

Wow talk about a thread gone wild!!!!

Does any of this relate to

Does any of this relate to Siemens? In a way it does.

Maybe, but it doesn't relate to this thread.
If you want to talk politics (over and over and over) then start a new one or find one on the mill.

Siemens fiscal year is now over so meetings in October will deal with Management changes within DX and other branches.
Any further layoff news should hit by end of month or early November. Siemens never denied the additional 1400 scheduled layoffs so it should make for an interesting Holiday Season.

Does any of this relate to

Does any of this relate to Siemens? In a way it does. Siemens has been taking a pounding here for the way they run DX. All they can seem to do is to cut costs and lay people off. They have done virtually nothing to actually increase sales and revenue, and they keep losing money, making things worse, and increasing the chances for more layoffs.

Anyone can see that to balance a budget, be it a national budget, a company budget, or a personal budget, there are two choices: decrease spending or raise income. How do you do it? How do most companies do it? They try to do both. When you get your next raise and it's only 1%, how do you feel when your boss tells you that you will just have to tighten ur belt a bit? Do you feel even better when you find out that the people at the top are still getting good bonuses while you get 1% more? NO WAY!

This is exactly the debate that this election is about. One side has decided to pledge allegiance to one Grover Norquist and not increase taxes (revenue) come hell or high water. One side is willing to take a balanced approach. Raise income on those who can afford it, much like we did during World War II when a national emergency caused up to have top marginal tax rates close to 90%. I am not suggesting that we need to go anywhere near that level; I only use history to make a point. In addition to raising taxes, cuts in many government programs should also occur. Unfortunately, neither party has ever proposed a system of program evaluation and review. Every government program should have the equivalent of a mission statement and annual, measureable objectives. Annual reviews of program performance, coupled with evaluation of the ongoing necessity of the program itself should be the norm. Minor or major adjustments to programs should be what we discuss, not just taking the simple way out by saying a program didn't meet its objectives for a given year and thus, the program itself should be abandoned. (One wonders who many projects at a company like Siemens would survive if Siemens abandoned every project that wasn't on schedule or within budget each year). We seem to refuse to even discuss the largest component of our Federal budget, namely the military. For the constitutionalists here, where is it written that America will be the world's policeman? Where is it written that Americans should have military bases in dozens of countries around the world? Why should American spend far more on it's military than just about any country in the developed world? I am not taking a specific position here; what I want is the debate itself among our leaders. If we are really serious about reigning in government spending, then everything has to be on the table; every government program and department must be forced to defend it's necessity.

Siemens, like most companies, review their internal investments all the time. They decide to invest in their best ideas. They make course corrections when things aren't going optimally. They lower costs and raise prices to meet their budgeting goals. So a discussion of what a government does is quite relevant to what Siemens does. Moreover, in the long run, what the government does will probably affect the lives of Siemens employees far more than anything Siemens will ever do.

You and I agree on at least

You and I agree on at least on thing. Mitt Romney is not a tax cheat. We also seem to agree on the basic unfairness of the tax code as it exists today. The issue of how much Romney gives to charity is completely irrelevant to this discussion and, for what it's worth, most of what he does give is a matter of his Mormon faith with REQUIRES that he tithe. Data suggests that he also tithes close to the minimum requirement.

Romney built much of his wealth before he inherited the wealth of his father. One can only speculate on how much risk someone like Mitt Romney might have taken without the knowledge that if he fell on his face, he would have his daddy's millions to fall back on. Remember, this one is pure speculation.

If Mitt really wants to make real changes to the tax code to make the code more fair, why won't he be specific about what preferences will stay and which ones will go? I have a theory about that. Most of Mitt's career was spent with Bain Capital. He and Bain were actually geniuses at what they did. The key to their success was their understand and use of the Federal tax code to their benefit and to the benefit of their investors. They did nothing illegal whatsoever from what I can see. They just used the tax laws to their benefit which is a criticism of the tax code and not of Romeny or Bain. However, the very nature of their busiess was short term. Take a bad company, fix it up by whatever legal means were available and then sell it for a profit. In the Bain world, long term planning, long term visions for a company were not necessary. It was all short term, turnaround and sell, thinking. It was all about fighting fires and flareups. The long term consequences of their ownership of a company were never a factor. Thus, today, Mitt is saying that he will give out details AFTER the election once he has a chance to 'look things over'. That is asking for alot of trust on the part of the American people. After running for President for 5 years or more, one would think that any candidate would have more than enough time to develop specific proposals and to offer them to the American people. I think we deserve better from our candidates.

As far as your 'Jesus' and 'liberal' comments, you are way out of line. The right can't PROVE they have the best approach any better than the left can. Both philosophies can point to successes of their approach and to the failures of the other sides' approach. I think that both sides are sincere in their positions and believe that their approach is best for America. However, to call one side un-American or unpatriotic is pure demagoguery and childish. Yes, both sides do it to some extent, but I would suggest that an objective person would note that one side seems to do it alot more than the other side. It is one thing to question a viewpoint or a political position; it is quite another to question the morals, ethics, and sincerity of a person who holds that position.

Once again, I would like you or anyone to explain how lowering taxes on the rich or on small businesses will increase employment. As an employer, I would be hiring people (or laying them off) based solely on the demand for my product and services and the assumption that each new employee will not only pay for itself, but will increase overall profits. If I have more demand for my widgets, I hire more people to make them. If I make $1000 per new employee, I will hire more when I need them. If I only make $500 per new employeee I would hire the same number to meet the demand. It has virtually nothing to do with my tax rate. If there is an alternate explanation, I sure would love to hear it. The oft-repeated assertion that lower taxes will increase employment is nothing more than a slogan without some details to back it up.

So rather than trying to impugn my integrity, why not educate me as to why your position works?

Jesus, the liberal mind set

Jesus, the liberal mind set is simply fascinating. I too believe the tax code is highly unfair and immensly too complicated. That IS NOT WHAT YOU GUYS WERE INSINUATING! You made it a point to make it seem as if Mitt was a lowlife tax cheat and didn't carry his load by some white collar lies in his tax returns; thats why you guys keep harping on seeing his tax return forms! "Must be something there proving that Mitt is a tax cheat!"......I'm just rebutting your ingnorance and blind bias that you guys always seem to bank on so much. My point was that he didn't cheat, he just used the tax code to his best advantage, and in actuality his angle seemed to be that he wanted to keep more of his non-employment earnings in order to give to charities he feels are deserving. If the guy was just a self centered egomaniac he would have kept the millions in donations he has made over the years!!!!
He obviously feels that money is best kept away from government in order to best service charitable support. The money he would have paid to government had he paid 38% in tax rates he knows would be basically wasted.
The tax code is the evil, I fully agree, but that was not the focus of what you and the media alike were insinuating concerning Mitt's tax returns. He IS NOT A TAX CHEAT and he IS NOT A RICH PIG WHO DOES NOT CARE about the poor. His actions speak louder than words and while I am not a rabid fan of his for many other reasons, the attacks you guy's make on him aare simply baseless......or simply based on ignorance.

No one said that Romney broke

No one said that Romney broke any laws with his tax returns. What was said is that his tax returns show the basic unfairness of the American tax code. You say it's just fine to pay less taxes on capital gains than the taxes you pay on actual work you do. Most Americans would strongly disagree with you on that point. Work, and not investing (see below) is what made America great.

The claim has been made that investing the the stock market creates jobs for millions of Americans. If true, please explain how that works. Let us say that I buy 100 shares of a stock, maybe Siemens stock (just to keep it relevant) for $100 a share. You buy the stock on the open market from someone else. A year later you sell the stock for $150 a share to another individual and thus, have $5000 in long term capital gains. Now please explain how this created a single job. You bought your stock from person A and sold to person B. Siemens doesn't see a penny of either transaction. The only time a company actually gets money for a stock is when the stock is initially offered. What work was done by the investor in this case? Zero sounds about right. Yes, the investor took a risk, but so do millions of gamblers in Las Vegas every year. At least the gamblers create real jobs at the casinos, restaurants and hotels in Las Vegas or Atlantic City, etc. When you bet on a horse and he wins, you pay full taxes; if you lose, it's your problem. With investing/gambiling on stocks, it's just the opposite; you pay lower taxes on your winning and at the same time, get full tax preferences for your losses and the company you invest in is about as affect as the winner of the Kentucky Derby.

You call the tax system fair. You say anyone can invest thousands in the market. Yes, any RICH person can, because they have plenty of other money to fall back on. Maybe you didn't notice how many middle class people got crunched in the last market crash whereas rich people could take their investment losses and tax preferences as ride out the storm with their reserves. Remember the Bush proposal to start to privatize social security? The reaction of the American people to that proposal was overwhelmingly negative. Just imagine getting ready to retire in early 2009, only to find that your projected income has been cut by 40-50%. Sorry, but the vast majority of Americans do not want their future retirement to be left to the fortunes of the stock market. They want something solid they can depend on.

As for equal opportunity for just anyone to get rich, you are correct in theory, but completely wrong in reality and practice. Of course, we all love to hear those success stories of the poor, underprivileged kid who becomes a millionaire. But we don't hear much about the millions of people who work just as hard and for reasons beyond their control, don't overcome the barriers to success that exist in America. Just the word 'underprivileged' should say alot. If you accept the word as a real description of America, then you cannot at the same time claim that everyone has an equal chance at success. Perhaps you are just too rich, fat, dumb, and happy to understand this. Perhaps you got rich all by yourself and through your hard work. If so, congratulations. But please don't tell me that anyone could have done the same. Yes, could have, but didn't. You say it's because they didn't try as hard as you did, when the reality is that many who manage to 'make it', got a few breaks along the way ... a caring mentor, some good old fashioned good luck, or the basic wealth to carry them through the bad times.

For what it's worth, I too have benefitted from the stock market and from having made good, intelligent guesses at where to invest. I pay my taxes just as faithfully as Mitt Romney or any factory worker or teacher or even Siemens employee. However, I still have enough ethics to realize that the tax system itself is basically unfair and favors those with the most. I pay my taxes (income, property, etc) cheerfully and as I part with my tax money each year, I feel a sense of patriotism rather than a feeling of resentment because I recognize the services that I get for my contribution to my country. In contrast, when I see how managers and executives live high on the hog on the companies dime, I feel ripped off when I buy their products or services. Why should I be paying for first class travel for these people? Why should I pay for expensive national sales meetings? Why should I pay for the liquor bills of these peoples at their so-called sales lunches and dinners? Buying a customer lunch is a bribe no matter how much you want to call it a cost of doing business. I guess if you can't sell your wares on their own merits, if's just fine to take the customer out to a fancy lunch, get him drunk, or whatever else it takes. Of course it's ok. After all, most of these costs get hidden from the public.

Some states are already

Some states are already toast. A good example is California. Broke and whatever good business is left is leaving.
So, you think you're better off now than four years ago?
Like it or not we need someone who understands "money".
Clearly, the current administration does not.
It doesn't matter anymore what party you represent. Even after four years I love how people still blame the previous administration for everything.
If we follow the same path then four years from now none of us will be any better off.
Yeah...good luck with that.

And don't start with the rich

And don't start with the rich don't play by the rules. You think the lowlifes and criminals follow rules better? The cheats and con artists do well sometimes and can even make profits by cheating, but it usually does not work out the best for them in the long haul, and what benefit do you think they provide to the rest of us? I see you getting a little dry in the mouth. Most really successful business men and investers do indeed play by the rules because they have too much to lose if they do not, and besides, they find it plenty easy enough to make fortunes by doing it legally. They are just smarter than the rest of us, so start giving the respect where it is most warranted. W/O these people in the world wide market that we currently have, the USA is toast.

I forgot to add this; He did

I forgot to add this;

He did not earn significant employment income which is obviously taxed far higher, and most of the income he paid taxes on are of the dividend and long term cap gains type, so you can imagine how much he is risking in the equities market........pretty gutsy guy if you ask me and just maybe, the kind of economically talented type we need as president to get us out of the mess we are in.

"all one has to do is look at

"all one has to do is look at the percentage of income that Mitt Romney paid in taxes and then look at your own last income tax form....."

You guys are just too much. The rich and the wise ones do well because they play the game hard and they play by the rules. The rest of us are either too lazy or too dumb to do the same. So what do you want to do? Punish the productive people in the population and reward the slovenly? No one likes too see the filthy rich get even dirtier rich......but what else is there? Giving more breaks to those who are less efficient with the system?......I don't think so, that is money down the drain. If the opportunity is available to all but only the smart ones "work it", well thats just too bad. The smart ones deserve the rewards.......we can all do the same if we learn all the rules and act accordingly, and from these types of responses, you guy's do not have a clue. Mitt payed low tax rates sure, but it was legal and he then donates to charities of his choice in a huge manner..........what is so evil about that?
Oh, by the way how did he lower his taxes to 13-15%? He invested 10's of millions of dollars in dividend paying equities and also sold long term holdings at the long term capital gain rate of 15% (while also getting other legal write-offs).........this is something ALL OF US can do. But do you clueless complainers have the guts to commit most of you life savings in the stock market to get these tax rates? Noooooo you are tooooo afraid of losing it. Mitt commits 10's of millions of his net worth to do this, while propping up the market w/ his wallet, and risking loosing his life savings. I'd say he deserves the tax rate he pays, for helping us all make money in the stock market by keeping his millions in it. You have to say that he is a very firm believer in the American dream, so get over complaining about the tax rate he pays......ALL OF US CAN DO THE EXACT SAME THING IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS.

Why Romney's low income tax

Why Romney's low income tax tax should bother me? I know it's not his fault to pay only 14% while you and I pay 24 to 34%. If it really bothers you, then write to your congressmen and urge them to change the tax code.

On the other hand, if you add the donations that Romney has made in the past, each year his actual "give-out" rate is close to 40% of his income.

The fact is no matter how high Romney pays his taxes, most of us here will continue to pay around 30% until Siemens lay you off.

"This is where a large

"This is where a large percentage of your taxpayer $$$ go."

Large percentage? You don't know what you are talking about. It's a tiny percentage. And why are there so many people on food stamps? Ask the previous administration who's policies put all those people out of work in the first place.

If you want to talk large percentages, all one has to do is look at the percentage of income that Mitt Romney paid in taxes and then look at your own last income tax form. I'm willing to bet that you pay an higher percentage than he does, but that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

How about starting a new

How about starting a new thread for your long winded conversations that have nothing to do with Siemens layoffs????

You may be correct when

You may be correct when comparing public and private schools. When you compare small, single owner businesses to government you may also be correct when it comes to efficiency. However, when it comes to mid- to large-size corporations, the waste is at least, if not greater than, government waste. I've worked for both and have many acquaintances who have worked for both and they all tell me the same thing. Remember that you hear about government waste by exception. When government operates efficiently and effectively, which it does most of the time, you don't hear about it because it's not news. And being more transparent and political, there is always someone around to yell and scream about every inefficiency. Companies don't even bother to hide it any more. All of the lavish spending, bonuses, stock options that have nothing to do with performance or whether the company is making money or not are just considered as part of the cost of doing business.

There are also many excellent public school systems as well as bad ones. And the same holds true for private schools. The problems with the education system in the US are complex and go way beyond any differences between public and private facilities. However, blaming the government for everything is both easy and simplistic, and moreover, is quite in vogue these days. Simply cutting and eliminating government programs will not solve the problems they are designed to deal with. Turning everything over to the states will only force states to raise taxes. Ironically, if this were to happen, the states who tend to be most anti-Federal government would stand to lose the most since they tend to get the highest per capita pieces of the Federal budget. Funny how those who seem to benefit the most from government policies, including all of the tax preferences available to the wealthy, seem to complain the most about government. What do you think all the noise about Romney's taxes is about? No one is saying he broke the law. The problem with his taxes are that they expose all of the ways that people like him can shield their income or have lower tax rates for income that they didn't have to lift a finger for. Somehow it just doesn't sit well with those earning the average income of around %50,000 a year, and who work and sweat for that money, who will probably never even think about retiring before age 65 or having a vacation home, and who wind up paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

The big difference between

The big difference between the public sector and the public is the one thing that keeps private inductry slim and trim. Yes there are always exceptions but in the private sector, the owner (private business) or the controlling board of directors (publicly owned)has control and full blame for hiring/ firing decisions and therefore shoulder the responsibilities of a companies gains or losses. In the public sector the taxpayer is footing the bill and the managers/ directors/ officers are not directly fiscally resposible for losses so the ship is never run quite as tight. Rationalize anyway you want, but when the bottom line is paid for by the taxpayer, things are never run as efficiently as the private sector. The simplest example is private vs public schools; the private schools pay less for techers salaries and per student funding and do a far better job than the public sector. But the public sector is required to accept any and all students you say......well that is precisely the point......the public sector cannot bring its fat ass to do the right thing and throw out the troublsome students or the ones who refuse to make an effort. These students need a separate system for those who fail to adapt to minimum scholastic requirements, but should be given a chance at redemption, while being warned that continued failure will bring them back to the compromised schools. No one should be allowed to disrupt academic endevors under the guise of fair and equal treatment.......adapt or suffer consequences. These are the types of policies that the public sector will never get straight because those responsible are not paying for the bottom line.........the taxpayer is.

That last post was

That last post was frightening, guess it is about time for Halloween!

Ssssoooo, on that cheery post, how about any news of layoffs? October 1 brings a New Fiscal Year to Siemens - any news?

"Talk about unions -- Check

"Talk about unions -- Check out the teacher in Poughkeepsie NY who stabbed another in the hallway 5-10 times with a screwdriver last year. She is still collecting a paycheck! Try that in a private company and you would be fired ON THE SPOT."

OK .. how about a corporate VP who physically attacks an engineering in the lab and is allowed to stay on the job for a few months before enough internal pressure builds up to let him retire gracefully, probably will all benefits intact. How about another VP who made sexual advances against several men and the company took years before they let him go. Since you know about Poughkeepsie schools, you must know about Tarrytown crimes as well. Once again, you only see things on one side and somehow believe that what occurs in private companies is all good, ethical, and proper whereas it is only public employees that get away with stuff. I won't even go into the issue of the same Tarrytown company that knowingly sold potentially HIV contaminated Factor VIII in Asians countries when the sale of that product had been banned in the US.

The point here is that bad things happen in both public and private settings. People are people and it makes little difference where they work. But you choose to only talk about the public sector and live in some sort of fantasy world that says that the private sector is good and pure and clean and almost at the level of being holy. You want to control or eliminate all public workers and at the same time, allow private companies to do anything they choose, regardless of how it impacts others. You say market forces will eventually straighten everything out, but it is hard to find a shred of evidence for that other than a few theoretical publications. You love to attack teachers, but I would like to hear your proposal for teachers without a union. How much would you pay them? What would class sizes be? How about benefits? Are there any circumstances under which a group of employees are entitled to negotiate as a group or even to strike? It's one thing to identify a problem; that's the easy part. It is quite another to come up with an alternative that can stand up to critical scrutiny and will really work in practice. For instance, the idea of year-round school has been talked about for years and has gained virtually no support from the general public. I hope you are not suggesting that the evil government of 'them' will impose such an unpopular thing on the American public against their will. Do you really think that our problems in education are simply a matter of the number of teaching days each year? If so, then you believe our shortcomings are due to quantity of education and not the quality; a position that is simply not accepted by most people in the educational business.

What could possibly cause such a bias against public employees (the evil ones who are part of the 47 % who believe they are entitled to living) and yet such acceptance and blindness to anything that private enterprise (the guys wtih the white cowboy hats)? Unlike such extreme positions, I agree that unions have done many bad things as well as the good things they have done for the American worker. I don't believe that the solution is to simply outlaw all unions as many on the right believe. Less drastic modifications would be far preferable to wholesale destruction of unions which might make us more competitive with China, but would also make us more like China in terms of workers and their working conditions and pay. Since I would hate to think that you have been brainwashed, I will simply chalk it up to someone who probably subsists on a diet of funny cigarettes, cheap wine, and low quality lunch meats.

I agree; unions have done a

I agree; unions have done a lot of good.

I also agree dropping tenure would help a lot. What would teachers do the other 180 days? Humm,,,,, maybe the school year could be extended. It is year round in Japan and many other countries. Sure as all heck the students coming out of school now a days are not up to par with other countries.

Talk about unions -- Check out the teacher in Poughkeepsie NY who stabbed another in the hallway 5-10 times with a screwdriver last year. She is still collecting a paycheck! Try that in a private company and you would be fired ON THE SPOT.

I agree the preventing of pollution is a good move. (By the way -- the EPA was formed under NIXON)

You are right that costs

You are right that costs can't be passed on to consumers forever. You are also right that there is competition in many industries including the auto industry. There also appears to be collusion among the competitors who seem to raise prices in lockstep and offer special rebates and sales, etc. in lockstep. So much for 'free' enterprise.

The difference between government and private industry is that the government books are pretty much open; private industry books are not. There have been massive anti-government propaganda campaigns that concurrently sing the praises of a free enterprise system that has repeatedly needed to be reigned in by the government due to their economic abuses of power. The restrictions arose as a result of people demanding it; not as an independent cabal of politicans. But you'd say it is government regulations that is killing capitalism in America. I say I don't want to go back to 10-12 hour a day, 6 day a week jobs (imagine how this would affect unemployment numbers). I don't want to go back to widespread use of child labor. I don't want to go back to the days when there was no minimum wage. I don't want to go back to the days when any company could dump any of its waste anywhere they wanted to including our rivers, streams, and the atmosphere. I don't want to go back to the days when people were dying due to air pollution from cars, trucks, and power plants. I don't want to have to drive down the Indiana Toll Road and feel like I need a gas mask when I drive by the US Steel plant in Gary, Indiana (the plant is no longer in operation). Maybe you do, but if so, you are completely out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. You object and scream at any sign of power held by the government, yet are willing to give a blank check to the economically powerful companies that still pretty much control our economy.

You complain about teachers who only work 180 days a year (roughly 9-10 months). What jobs are you offering them to cover the rest of the year? There are many problems that have been created by some teachers' unions, but teachers pay is not among them. Simple question .... would you want a teachers job in your district with the pay you'd get? Could you live in your current lifestyle on teachers' pay? Is it the teachers fault that their chosen professions is not a year round job? The biggest problem in education, in my opinion, is tenure and the lack of performance review, with comcommitant financial rewards. Of course, one could argue that there are many apparently tenured people in private industry who never get fired for incompetance either (once again, this is far less transparent to the public than a teacher). Why don't you complain about those people as well? Simple answer: You are just like Mitt Romney's dad when he came back from his tour of Vietnam. You've been brainwashed and, in this case, I must agree with LBJ when he said: a light rinse would have been sufficient.

You just cannot pass added

You just cannot pass added expenses on to the consumer forever. There will come a point where the consumer will no longer purchase from you, but go to a competitor .. It's called capitalism. The Big 3 auto companies tried passing the high cost of union labor ( and poor quality products) on to the customers .... and we know what happened there ... TV's used to be made in the USA RCA, Zenith,,, .. but again, high costs ended that. Have you looked at teachers parking lots lately. Sure they like their union, but when it comes to purchasing a car -- not from the Big 3.

"* so a person can retire at

"* so a person can retire at 45 and start collecting $100K/year. No way did they, our their employer, contribute enough to cover that. So they just tax the next generation."

Many companies allow for early retirement as early as 55. They also penalize those people taking early retirement by paying out less each month. Social security is structured the same way, allowing people to start receiving payments anywhere from ages 62 to 71.

But here is the big difference between private companies that you seem to idolize and the government: Private companies pay out millions each year in the form of 'golden parachutes' to the executives they lay off or fire for incompetance. Private companies pay huge bonuses to executives and unpper management even when they don't make a profit (do you remember what the banks were doing a year after the financial crisis hit?). And what happens to all those costs? The get passed on to us consumers in the form of higher prices. What I don't get is why you have such a big problem with taxes that are used to benefit all Americans (think of things like national defense, road construction, air traffic regulation, etc.) but don't seem to care at all that your every day expenses are being constantly raised to support expensive payments to people who don't need it in the first place and are actually being paid to be incompetant. Can you seriously defend a single bonus paid to anyone at Siemens DX over the past 5 yaers?

Let's get back to the

Let's get back to the point.
Siemens doesn't have the faintest clue what to do with these three companies.
So what they do is layoff and change responsibilities.
Just what they need.
Less people running around not selling what they don't know how to sell.
Then we have quality issues.
What is being done about them?
But it surely won't affect new methods.

I am a public employee and I

I am a public employee and I don't scream that private has it better. I left the private sector purposely to work for a (somewhat) public entity. I sacrificed higher pay and perks private has to offer for the stability, better benefits and retirement of civil service. A few of my former co-workers at Siemens have been laid off since I have left, and I am pretty sure some of them will be laid off before they can retire--this is why I left.
We are all free to make choices: I made my choice for public, you sound like you made your choice for private. Don't whine about the choice you have made...either make a change or shut up.

Your firefighter example is an exception to the rule.

"pensions of civil service

"pensions of civil service employees are ALL way to generous"

Can you give us some numbers to support your claims? What about pensions or 401k contributions that companies make that they just add to the price of their products or services? It's so easy to complain about the government because their books are open unlike private companies that waste tons of money. Should government employees not have any pensions or plans for their own retirement when private employees do?

Please supply some facts to back up your assertions or go back to your tea party.

"that R&D will be

"that R&D will be slowed/halted and layoffs will have to be made if the ACA isn't overturned."

1. How can an R&D organization that hasn't produced anything in 5 years or more be slowed down any more? Is is possible to have it go in reverse?

2. The only effect that ACA could have on DX is that there will now be more testing in the US. That alone should lift all ships in the DX business. Hard to see where testing would lessen under ACA, but don't let facts get in your way.

3. The whole statement would make much more sense and have an element of truth if the phrase 'ACA isn't overturned' were replaced with FDA issue can't be resolved quickly. It looks like someone was confusing three-letter-acronyms. I suspect significant R&D resources have already been consumed to respond to the FDA and I suspect additional resources will need to be diverted from new product development until Siemens satisfies the FDA.

Hey, if you don't like ACA, that's your right. But, at least, have some facts when you argue against it and don't try to blame every problem in the world on ACA. Next thing you know, someone will be blaming the NFL 'refs' on ACA ... you know, NFL costs just went up for healthcare, so they had to go cheap on referees.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.