Thread regarding Staples Inc. layoffs

tragedy of the commons. today's capitalists aren't as smart as Henry Ford.

@OxWAzzv-3oum, I don't disagree with you, so I won't parry. However, I your own statement, you devalued my quotes a mere theories, "regurgitated" from textbook research that, loosely quoted, "hold no real practicality," before moving to more of an ideals-type dialogue.

Here's the reality. Everything that's happening is the result of the "me first" mentality, in which you speak. This won't change. As long as investors invest simply to grow their net worth, the businesses that serve the shareholders are beholden to them. Low-information shareholders think in dollars and cents. Revenues go up - investments go up. The opposite occurs when revenues are down. There's nothing more to it than that. No one cares how money is made, only that it is made.

Staples' current CEO was most likely brought in to do one thing - increase profits at any cost, just like she's done with her current employer, Bain Capital. Why wouldn't she be rewarded for "playing the board," to loosely quote an excerpt from your previous statements, if it leads to profit?

Do I like the concept of "money over people?" No. However, the idea of essentially losing money to accommodate ideals isn't realistic.

And, yes, I do have an understanding of the Federal Reserve Act, which has lead to this "too big to fail" concept that has led to this race of businesses clamouring to become the biggest and baddest. while raising barriers to entry for smaller businesses, such as moms-and-pops-type businesses. But, it doesn't change anything.

Staples can make a killing by eliminating its retail sector completely, growing B2B, and raising barriers to entry, disbarring smaller companies from having the opportunities to compete. Investors won't care about the thousands of families that will be impacted by these moves. They'll only care about how much money the moves will bring them. That won't change.

The only way, aforementioned, people will fare in this scenario is to equip themselves to work elsewhere in the case of their inevitable unemployment. @OxWAzzv-3jbm mentioned overall work shrinkage in a productive economy, or lean economy. However, as that's an extremely complicated subject, I won't expand on those particulars. I will mention, nevertheless, that people must be able to adjust to our ever-changing economy, devoid of opportunities - or with shrinking opportunities, if they want to survive, or at least survive without government aid.

It would be nice to turn back the clock, but we're here now. Considering the things in motion today - Staples possibly selling retail to Office Depot, and Office Depot talking to Amazon, all in a grand effort to make moves without government scrutiny, we must brace for what that means for us, because if such moves were to be blocked, "business" will find a way around it, which is what's happening today.

In theory excellent. In practicality, um, not so much.

this is my parry. history has already shown that pure capitalist theory doesn't work, that's why virtually all countries abandoned it over the past 200 years.

it's really not very hard to figure out that as you become more productive, you require less hours of work. If you produce more, you need more hours to consume. The simplest solution to the current economy is to convert existing 40-hour workweek legislation to a 32-hour workweek. There is a REASON we had a 40-hour workweek since 1936 (oh, yeah, that' s right, the Great Depression ended about one year later).

In a productive economy, work shrinks over time.

It has to.

@OxWAzzv-2zhg, we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's more that just retail that is at stake here.

While I appreciate the nod to Adam Smith and knowledge of economic theory, I fail to see original thought in the brief treatise. A little too laissez-faire and "regurgitronic" in its construct with a whiff of overconfidence in the American economy that preceded the Great Depression as espoused by Coolidge's, "The business of America is business" sentiment.

Nevertheless, I do love educated rebuttal and I thank you for it.

I do, however, take exception with your closing sentence but at the same time appreciate it for helping advance my initial thought:

"Anyone impacted by Staples' future moves will simply need to be willing to seek employment that may be out of their score of education or experience."

In theory excellent. In practicality, um, not so much.

Did you ever think that perhaps the reason more people don't have the "score of education or experience" of which you speak may be due to the financial cost to attain such? Have you seen the debt numbers associated with higher education? Did you ever think that perhaps the public education system is a failing government bureaucracy? That perhaps the way the higher education system primarily bases entrance from the score on a 1/2 day test taken on a Saturday is a judge of someone's academic and intellectual ability is not the slightest bit flawed? That an investment banker makes more than teacher is a little bizarre considering the banker is playing with "house money" and if they lose there is no cost to them? (Again, see the Federal Reserve Act)

Sure, one can lay out the doctrine of capitalist theory and say that each one of has the same opportunity as any other.

Thus a Kennedy has the same opportunity as a child born to unwed mother and who is given up for adoption because the job she had a Staples was eliminated due to the 12 year mismanagement of the organization by the previous CEO and the ongoing mismanagement of the current CEO. The same for a child born to married middle class parents. Again, um, not so much. (Note: theoretical examples for effect only.)

One could say that there are many options online, community college, etc. which people can take advantage of if they only "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps". Well, what if they don't have the "bootstraps" because no one ever took the time to teach them.

How is it justifiable and with repeatable practice that CEOs and C-Level Executives of large companies who continually fail and drive companies into bankruptcy walk away with millions?

How is it justifiable that members of Congress have the best healthcare coverage in the world and yet they continually attempt to lessen ours?

It's more than retail at stake here. It is the very fabric of the cloth that weaves the Stars and Stripes together. It is the decline American Dream and disappearance of the hope that dream once propagated. It is the rise of apathy and the concept of "me first" rather than "we first".

So, regardless of the trolls, the naysayers, the lookers to the past, and all those who choose by their constitutional right to respectfully disagree with me, I still choose until my last breath leaves my body to work towards an America and a World that will be better, safer, and prosperous for us all.

@OxWAzzv-2zhg, I look forward to your parry.

@OxWAzzv-2qcl - could not agree more. But you and I know that it'll never happen.

@OxWAzzv-2qcl, your sentiments are appreciated. However, this isn't about America. This is about business, and a business is only loyal to itself and its profits.

Consumers are the primary driver of the shift we see in retail. As consumers and business option to make more and more purchases online, or replace the goods they used to purchase with a single good (an electronic), retail stores can't compete, at least not in its current form (brick and mortar).

Aforementioned, your sentiments are appreciated, and many people share them, especially those employed in retail, their friends, and family that may be impacted by the shift - or those that simply like the idea of shopping in a retail establishment. Nevertheless, the glory days of retail have come and gone, and the time is now to move forward towards novelty.

Note, the selling of retail, or the complete closure of retail, will only create "frictional" unemployment. Economically speaking, people's livelihoods will only be impacted in the short-term as they seek employment elsewhere in retail, or in a new trade. The closure of a retail establishment, or establishments in totality, won't lead to total unemployment (where people in the industry being abolished can never find new employment). Anyone impacted by Staples' future moves will simply need to be willing to seek employment that may be out of their score of education or experience.

It's not about "survival". It's about utter and complete failure.

More importantly it is about holding those accountable to task for the complete destruction of a company and the tremendous loss of jobs not only within the stores themselves but along the entire chain of supply to those stores.

You speak @OxWAzzv-1ljj as if it is all some child's board game and the people who are negatively impacted are mere pawns to moved about and cast aside by the players.

We can no longer afford to sit idly in this country and pretend that it is ok for people to ruin other people while walking away unscathed and all the wealthier for it. Have we not learned enough from the farce that is the Federal Reserve Act? (Look it up America.)

Capitalism and the 1% be damned. The bonuses and pay outs that those at the top are going to get from this "fire sale" should be redistributed to those who are losing their jobs do to the failings of upper management. If the folks at the top weren't wise enough to save and invest properly through the years then so be it. Let them live the life they have created for others. Better yet, force them to live for 2 years at the economic level of the most harshly impacted employee.

Perhaps, America, it's time for a real change.

Staples can survive without the Sycamore deal, as long as it rids itself of retail. If this deal doesn't materialize, Staples may still attempt to sell its retail operations via fire sale (most likely to Office Depot or Amazon - or both). Considering retail is the only channel losing money, the company can become solvent by simply selling or closing its retail channel completely.

Ouch! Someone just got schooled!

"They chose Delaware because it's probably close to where their counsel is or something along those lines. Saves them from having to fight suits all over the country. "

Wrong!

There are two major reasons for Delaware's dominance of the corporate incorporation business. One reason is the bi-partisan political consensus in Delaware to keep the Delaware corporation statute modern and up-to-date, and to rely on Delaware's corporate law specialists for advice in how to do this. As a result, law students at every law school in the United States study the Delaware corporation statute and the decisions of Delaware courts interpreting that law.

Corporations want to operate under modern laws that clearly spell out what they can and cannot do. But other states could enact such laws, or simply copy Delaware's. So the Delaware corporation statute can't by itself account for Delaware's success in attracting corporate incorporation.

The other major reason corporations choose to incorporate in Delaware is the quality of Delaware courts and judges. Delaware has a special court, the Court of Chancery, to rule on corporate law disputes without juries. Corporate cases do not get stuck on dockets behind the multitude of non-corporate cases. Instead, Delaware corporations can expect their legal disputes to be addressed promptly and expertly by judges who specialize in corporate law.

Part of the bi-partisan political consensus in Delaware is to appoint and confirm the best qualified corporate law experts to the Court of Chancery. And part of the legal culture in Delaware is to honor appointment to the Court of Chancery as the highest and most respected form of public service.

Additionally, For corporations, there is no state corporate income tax for companies that are formed in Delaware but do not transact business there (but there is a franchise tax).

Dude, you must work at Staples. You clearly have no idea about business. Your ridiculous, "The lawsuits are a common occurrence in this type of thing. I wouldn't worry about it too much", comment clearly shows your lack of savvy and acumen. The Board is underselling the value of the assets.

Hey, I've got a bridge you can buy in Brooklyn and set up toll booths on it so you can make millions.

The lawsuits are a common occurrence in this type of thing. I wouldn't worry about it too much. They chose Delaware because it's probably close to where their counsel is or something along those lines. Saves them from having to fight suits all over the country. They already got the FTC to agree to waive the purchase date and go ahead and call it done deal. So, in the famous last words of Gary Gilmore, "Let's do it."

you go hungry!

bwow bwow bwow!

so Sycamore deal pushed forward in spite of almost guaranteed stockholder lawsuits? the situation must have been more desperate than it sounded, rats doing anything to cash out.

Seems corrupt to me. It is the White House of the North.

Could well fall through:

"On the same day that the agreement with Sycamore was reached, Staples’ board of directors adopted an amendment to the company’s by-laws that designated the Court of Chancery in Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for any stockholder legal actions related to the transaction. Staples is clearly expecting some form of class action shareholder lawsuit and, already, at least five law firms have issued statements saying they are investigating the Staples’ board for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and underselling the company. The announcement of a formal shareholder lawsuit is just a matter of time."

-Analysis: Staples – Getting things done in private

https://www.opi.net/analysis/analysis-staples-getting-things-done-in-private/