PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Goldman Sachs Is Firing Employees In The US So It Can Hire 1,000 In Singapore


KILLER_CLOWN
06-28-2011, 10:54 PM
Goldman Sachs Is Firing Employees In The US So It Can Hire 1,000 In Singapore

Goldman Sachs is going to fire employees in the U.S. and some other countries so that it can hire 1,000 in Singapore, where it's cheaper.

Charlie Gasparino heard the news from people who were briefed on the hiring in Washington. He says Goldman gave Washington the heads up because hiring offshore is likely to cause a backlash.

He didn't give a specific timeline, or say which units would be hit, but here's what's going to happen, according to Gasparino:

Goldman is so concerned about the potential for criticism that the firm’s representatives have been alerting staffers of lawmakers in Washington of the hiring spree in recent weeks as a way to mollify any concerns they may have about previously undisclosed plans to add 1,000 jobs to the firm’s Singapore office, according to people in Washington with direct knowledge if the matter...

The jobs in Singapore are likely to be “high-paying, skilled positions in sales and investment banking,” the same types that are likely to be cut in the firm’s domestic operations, according to one person with knowledge of the matter. This person added that the firm has recently briefed people in Washington about the new overseas jobs because it “is afraid of the fallout” as it plans to slash $1 billion in costs over the next year — a move that will mean a significant, though still undetermined number of layoffs across its operations, though people close to the firm expect the biggest hit to come from the US.

The layoffs come at an interesting time. Banks are fighting tough regulations like capital requirements that they say will stem growth. Preparation for the regulations require banks to free up capital -- like the $1 billion Goldman plans to slash in the coming year.

Goldman's planned layoffs and offshore hiring are exactly the opposite of what Washington wants of course. Unemployment is already too high. And offshore hiring that's a result of something the government is requiring will result in headlines that look bad for both Goldman and Washington.

So this news of the adverse effects that capital requirements will have on employment at Goldman Sachs should help the bankers' as they argue against the requirements in coming months. That's why this looks like a political move to discourage Washington from adding capital requirements above the 7% that Basel III regulations will enforce.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-is-firing-employees-in-the-us-so-it-can-hire-1000-in-singapore-2011-6#ixzz1Qdb9zG9c

durtyrute
06-29-2011, 10:22 AM
That's one of many things that I don't get about the government. Whether dem or rep, if you really "care" about this economy and the citizens of the country, why do you allow businesses to continue to do business offshore? The same way I don't understand why the pres will say, "I care about peoples health so we will change the labeling on cigs, but we will still allow companies to sell them and sell alcohol, but we will ban weed because that's uber dangerous". "And remember, we are here to do what's best for us......oh I mean you"

Hydrae
06-29-2011, 10:55 AM
That's one of many things that I don't get about the government. Whether dem or rep, if you really "care" about this economy and the citizens of the country, why do you allow businesses to continue to do business offshore? The same way I don't understand why the pres will say, "I care about peoples health so we will change the labeling on cigs, but we will still allow companies to sell them and sell alcohol, but we will ban weed because that's uber dangerous". "And remember, we are here to do what's best for us......oh I mean you"

How is it the governments place to tell businesses where they do that business?

Easy 6
06-29-2011, 11:01 AM
This issue with the big banks is Obamas biggest failure by far IMO, he holds a conference & says 'its time to hold these banks accountable' & i swear to God 10-14 days later theres a news piece saying 'Goldman Sachs/Fannie Mae/whoever sets another new record for bonuses'.

They're either slapping him in the face & daring him to actually do something or its a wink-wink 'you know the deal baby! situation.

durtyrute
06-29-2011, 11:21 AM
How is it the governments place to tell businesses where they do that business?

They can tell anybody else what to do. They can tell you to income taxes, they can tell you to go to school, they can tell you to have your kids vaccinated, they can tell you you can't feed homeless people in the park....lol, they can tell you not to walk down the street naked, they can tell you how fast you can drive, they can tell you to pay property taxes even though you don't own the property. Anyway the list goes on, but with what I suggested it wouldn't hurt anybody, it would just create jobs. What's wrong with that?

penchief
06-29-2011, 08:59 PM
More corporate tax cuts! It's the only way to keep jobs in America! - Corporate establishment (and its republican lackeys)

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:01 PM
More corporate tax cuts! It's the only way to keep jobs in America! - Corporate establishment (and its republican lackeys)

Hmm, I will remember they are Repub lackeys as Immelt and GE pay 0 taxes as he hob-knobs all over the world with Obama.

penchief
06-29-2011, 09:19 PM
Hmm, I will remember they are Repub lackeys as Immelt and GE pay 0 taxes as he hob-knobs all over the world with Obama.

Corruption is throughout both parties. But let's not act like one party hasn't aggressively advocated corporate welfare over the other party. It's still that way. Sure, there are corporate lackeys in both parties. But the republican party has been completely bought and paid for. It started in earnest with Reagan and they are so thoroughly dogmatic about it now that you can't even get more than a couple to go against the grain even when it is in the best interest of the people.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 09:55 PM
Corruption is throughout both parties. But let's not act like one party hasn't aggressively advocated corporate welfare over the other party. It's still that way. Sure, there are corporate lackeys in both parties. But the republican party has been completely bought and paid for. It started in earnest with Reagan and they are so thoroughly dogmatic about it now that you can't even get more than a couple to go against the grain even when it is in the best interest of the people.

Completely bought and paid for? I've heard it all now.

penchief
06-29-2011, 10:06 PM
Completely bought and paid for? I've heard it all now.

You don't need to hear it from me. All you have to do is listen to those who represent the republican party. They make the case for corporate welfare loud and clear every time they open their mouths. When was the last time they opposed anything that went against the corporate establishment. Republicans have greased the skids for corporate welfare for over three decades now. The party's financial advantage has a direct correlation to their corporate lackey status.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:11 PM
You don't need to hear it from me. All you have to do is listen to those who represent the republican party. They make the case for corporate welfare loud and clear every time they open their mouths. When was the last time they opposed anything that went against the corporate establishment?

And here I thought it was a Democractic controlled House and Senate that approved the Wall St. bailouts, GM Bailouts and Stimulus plans, oh and let us not forget QE's I and II.

stevieray
06-29-2011, 10:15 PM
And here I thought it was a Democractic controlled House and Senate that approved the Wall St. bailouts, GM Bailouts and Stimulus plans, oh and let us not forget QE's I and II.

doesn't matter to dems, they'll just try to claim their end of the turd isn't as bad.

..like it really matters.

penchief
06-29-2011, 10:22 PM
And here I thought it was a Democractic controlled House and Senate that approved the Wall St. bailouts, GM Bailouts and Stimulus plans, oh and let us not forget QE's I and II.

Of course they did. I didn't support all of the bailouts. I think that a lot of people felt there weren't a lot of options. I'm not letting anyone off the hook.

I'm simply pointing out which party advocates for corporate interests in the face of all else that is holy and which party takes political heat every time it tries to step in front of that runaway train.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2011, 10:25 PM
GS want more of that state capitalism.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:26 PM
Of course they did. I didn't support all of the bailouts. I think that a lot of people felt there weren't a lot of options. I'm not letting anyone off the hook.

I'm simply pointing out which party advocates for corporate interests in the face of all else that is holy and which party takes political heat every time it tries to step in front of that runaway train.

LMAO, you should do stand up.

Both parties suck the corporate tit. Just one likes to pretend it doesn't

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:27 PM
Chuck Schumer, Democrat, NY, NY city, Wall St.


Nah, he doesn't do anything for the Wall St. firms...hates them, fights them at every turn....ok I can't stop laughing....

dirk digler
06-29-2011, 10:28 PM
Bought and paid for:

A new report out today finds that Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was busy last year buying up Goldman Sachs High Yield Bonds worth up to $50,000 a pop while pressing strongly to stop an SEC investigation into potential wrongdoing at Goldman Sachs.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:32 PM
Bought and paid for:

A new report out today finds that Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was busy last year buying up Goldman Sachs High Yield Bonds worth up to $50,000 a pop while pressing strongly to stop an SEC investigation into potential wrongdoing at Goldman Sachs.

Older article but still on point I think...

http://www.alternet.org/story/40482/

BucEyedPea
06-29-2011, 10:47 PM
Bought and paid for:

A new report out today finds that Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was busy last year buying up Goldman Sachs High Yield Bonds worth up to $50,000 a pop while pressing strongly to stop an SEC investigation into potential wrongdoing at Goldman Sachs.

They own Dems too. In fact Dems have have been in the pocket of the big banks and financiers for a long time and in some ways more. You have to get past this one party is cleaner than the other.

penchief
06-29-2011, 10:52 PM
Chuck Schumer, Democrat, NY, NY city, Wall St.


Nah, he doesn't do anything for the Wall St. firms...hates them, fights them at every turn....ok I can't stop laughing....

You're trying to assign incorrect motives to my words. Just because I believe that our economy is ass-backwards doesn't mean that there isn't a place for investment. The problem is that that the market should be a reaction to the real economy and it's tangible factors instead of manipulating the real factors that drive an economy.

petegz28
06-29-2011, 10:53 PM
You're trying to assign incorrect motives to my words. Just because I believe that our economy is ass-backwards doesn't mean that there isn't a place for investment. The problem is that that the market should be a reaction to the real economy and it's tangible factors instead of manipulating the real factors that drive an economy.

Oh how your colors change when a Dem gets thrown in the mix!!

chiefzilla1501
06-29-2011, 10:54 PM
That's one of many things that I don't get about the government. Whether dem or rep, if you really "care" about this economy and the citizens of the country, why do you allow businesses to continue to do business offshore? The same way I don't understand why the pres will say, "I care about peoples health so we will change the labeling on cigs, but we will still allow companies to sell them and sell alcohol, but we will ban weed because that's uber dangerous". "And remember, we are here to do what's best for us......oh I mean you"

Maybe instead of punishing corporations for sending jobs offshore, we should make it more attractive to create jobs on shore.

Case in point... the tax on corporate jets. Are you serious? Think about how many jobs are created through the manufacturing and servicing of those planes, and then think about how many of those are going to move offshore where the investment is more attractive.

Businesses are in the business to make money. If we force our companies to produce domestically and it's unreasonably more expensive, that does a lot more harm than it does good. And it also means higher prices for us, the consumer.

chiefzilla1501
06-29-2011, 10:57 PM
More corporate tax cuts! It's the only way to keep jobs in America! - Corporate establishment (and its republican lackeys)

What's the problem with corporate tax cuts?

I think cutting corporate taxes is a great idea. I also think we need to be serious about capping executive compensation. I don't think anyone would have any problem with corporations paying less if they felt like it was being pumped back into the company and not just lining the pockets of the most senior leaders.

penchief
06-29-2011, 11:05 PM
Oh how your colors change when a Dem gets thrown in the mix!!

Not at all. Have you ever heard me say that I wanted to abolish Wall Street? No. How many times in this thread have I said that Dems are also corrupt? Plenty. I just don't think Wall Street should be dictating the conditions. And there is a clear distinction in many of the positions that each party takes.

So your attempt to make this about me is a fail. Even as both parties debate the economy and the environment, it is the republican party who never ever opposes a measure that benefits the corporate establishment. Meanwhile, democrats are painted as anti-business why? Is it because they also advocate for corporate welfare in every case, too?

Why are dems criticized for their stances if they don't disagree with republicans ever? Why do republicans and democrats disagree over regulations, corporate taxes, taxes for the wealthy, the environment, education, health care, or anything like that? If you think there is no difference in the parties in this regard you are just not acknowledging those distinctions. And in nearly every case, there is a commercial interest at stake in the republican party position.

It's much easier for you to argue that they are all the same. Or that I am a hypocrite. That way you don't have to defend the shortcomings of those you rally behind. But there is a difference. While there are plenty of corporate whores in the democratic party it is the republican party that is wholly a vehicle for corporate interests. The republican party is the corporate establishment's mouthpiece. Pick a topic. Any topic.

Hydrae
06-30-2011, 06:45 AM
What's the problem with corporate tax cuts?

I think cutting corporate taxes is a great idea. I also think we need to be serious about capping executive compensation. I don't think anyone would have any problem with corporations paying less if they felt like it was being pumped back into the company and not just lining the pockets of the most senior leaders.

Are you wanting the government to do something about executive compensation? It is none of their business; it is the business of the company owners, the stockholders.

durtyrute
06-30-2011, 07:15 AM
Maybe instead of punishing corporations for sending jobs offshore, we should make it more attractive to create jobs on shore.

Case in point... the tax on corporate jets. Are you serious? Think about how many jobs are created through the manufacturing and servicing of those planes, and then think about how many of those are going to move offshore where the investment is more attractive.

Businesses are in the business to make money. If we force our companies to produce domestically and it's unreasonably more expensive, that does a lot more harm than it does good. And it also means higher prices for us, the consumer.

No need to punish, just keep the majority of the jobs here. We really can't complain about no jobs over here then complain about higher prices as well. The whole thing seems a little screwy to me.

dirk digler
06-30-2011, 08:22 AM
They own Dems too. In fact Dems have have been in the pocket of the big banks and financiers for a long time and in some ways more. You have to get passed this one party is cleaner than the other.

Do you have a link where I said one party is cleaner than the other?

HonestChieffan
06-30-2011, 09:04 AM
Who will these new employees service based in Singapore?
Who were the employees in the US that are being let go serve? Were they even the same sort of job?

GS could cut 1000 jobs in US of one kind that are not needed or are unproductive while expanding in any country anywhere. One is not automatically related to the other.

eazyb81
06-30-2011, 09:52 AM
Wait, so are we supposed to cheer that some evil bankers are getting canned, or jeer that U.S. jobs are going overseas? I'm confused.

By the way, HonestChieffan is spot on; the majority of the U.S. layoffs are in trading and client-facing roles due to the anemic domestic market this year. The new additions in Singapore are intended to help grow revenues in that region, not replace the roles of the former U.S. employees.

Expect many more Wall Street layoffs going forward this year.

ROYC75
06-30-2011, 09:56 AM
Why doesn't the government raise more corporate taxes and drive all jobs away.

donkhater
06-30-2011, 09:57 AM
Companies are playing by the rules and regulations the government sets up. Does it surprise you that politicians don't know squat about the consequences of their actions and votes? NAFTA, corporate taxations, minimum wage and benefits requirements all factor into the decision making of these companies and their bottom line. If our representatives truly despise this type of exodus of jobs they should adjust the rules of the game.

If they are in the pocket of the corporations that benefit from these moves, why should they change anything? The rest of the nation is adequately distracted by their respective demonization of the other party, as has been so aptly demonstrated by the responses in this thread.

Bump
06-30-2011, 10:59 AM
How is it the governments place to tell businesses where they do that business?

because it is a big part of this country's downfall for the common man.

Bump
06-30-2011, 11:00 AM
Completely bought and paid for? I've heard it all now.

are you serious?? THATS WHY

THATS WHY it continues.

Stewie
06-30-2011, 11:03 AM
How is it the governments place to tell businesses where they do that business?

Because tax dollars bailed their asses out? And they're the biggest crooks in the banking business?

Easy 6
07-01-2011, 08:20 AM
because it is a big part of this country's downfall for the common man.

No, no... just let all of them do as they damn well please, dont even think about putting some kind of curbs on the Holy Grail of capitalism, even if it means selling out your own country in the process.

LOCOChief
07-01-2011, 09:12 AM
Banks are fighting tough regulations like capital requirements that they say will stem growth. Preparation for the regulations require banks to free up capital -- like the $1 billion Goldman plans to slash in the coming year.


If a reader were to miss on not understand this point then they really have no clue as to what's going on here.

Frank - Dodd is the worst thing that could have happened to our country.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2011, 09:16 AM
Frank - Dodd is the worst thing that could have happened to our country.

When there is a serious crisis like we have, crime will come not from traditional sources but from officially sanctioned ones like govt —who is looting us. Obama, Franks, Dodd, Greenspan, Bernanke along with the WS players like Goldman-Sacs and their cronies.

LOCOChief
07-01-2011, 09:25 AM
Frank - Dodd will kill the little banks that didn't receive TARP and prop up the big ones that did because that's Obama's dog in the hunt. FACT