https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/meta-lay-off-over-11k-employees HYPERLINK has full article snip "I’ve decided to reduce the size of our team by about 13% and let more than 11,000 of our talented employees go," CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a letter to staff. "We are also taking a number of additional steps to become a leaner and more efficient company by cutting discretionary spending and extending our hiring freeze through Q1." end snip you will slowly hear more of this within tech. Despite the assurances from the WH that all is well, it isn't. Tech is over-employed and right-sizing is happening across the board. Most are well-paid employees so reduced discretionary spending will hurt other businesses. You can only ignore the results of Democrat policies for so long before you need to look around and ask yourself, what happened. Why are so many out of work? Democrat votes have consequences; it's a shame that many still don't understand that
Metaverse has been a pretty bad and embarrassing flop at least in this instance for this specific tech company.
I have no issues with layoffs and cost-cutting. I've had to do it myself after Dodd/Frank was enacted. You can't attack the fossil-fuel sector and think the economy will endure; it won't.
And yet, Meta has nothing to do with the fossil fuel industry. Even in that industry, cost-cutting moves happen no matter what. Even under the Trump administration, coal plants closed, didn't they despite Trump's campaign promise? When it comes to energy, there is a place for fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and green energy. All must work together, not the either/or argument you are attempting to make here.
you need to understand cause/effect Harmful, anti-fossil fuel, Democrat policies caused a negative impact upon the economy. That in turn reduces $$$ in people's hands which in turn reduces on-line revenue which in turn results in layoffs Your Democrat vote got the wave started; like it or not. You can't toss a match into a barn and try and blame the hay for being the cause of the fire. Maybe it works that way in Democrat-land but in the real world, not so much.
I understand it just fine. The problem is that the cause and effect of fossil fuels have to do with the oil and gas industry primarily. There are too many other factors in other industries to cause layoffs than just high gas prices. Take META for instance. This is a social media company, not transportation, or retail sales. or any other industry where transportation is a key or significant component in its business model. The layoffs are made because shares of META have fallen and other factors, not the gas issue that you are trying to lay the blame on here.
Indeed. Running a business is difficult, particularly a large public one like Facebook. If you make some mistakes there are consequences. I don't care for the public social sites personally so I won't miss them if they disappear. My guess is that Facebook management will figure out how to get the company on the right track. I don't know what the right track is since I've never used it.
So, you think people are not flocking to the Metaverse because Biden said some bad words about big oil? LOL! Somehow, in Trump supporters' world, when the free market fails, it is ALWAYS Dem politician's fault. A very convenient worldview.
No, it most likely means advertising revenue is down. The cause for that is certainly tied to the economy in general and the dems have a big hand in the current environment. or so the argument goes...
So, you are blaiming Biden for the lack of advertising revenue on social media platforms in META and Twitter? Advertising revenues are down in Facebook, not because of the economy, but because of something called "brand safe." That is especially true for Twitter and somewhat true for FB. With the election being what it is and everyone having an opinion on it, making their case of their candidate or party, the general advertisers are reportedly not advertising as much until after the election season. In addition, FB and apple now give the capability to content creators to not have them track their data. That is what advertisers want to have, that data. If they don't have that information, then it is too risky for them to advertise, hence brand safe. And yes, I know FB blame the lack of revenue on the downturn of the economy, but that lack of data transparency is more of the key than anything else.
says you. that is your opinion and you cannot possibly back it up. I say if the economy were rolling along like it was a few years ago that you would not see any layoffs at facebook. I'm right and you're wrong.
high gas/diesel/oil prices drives up all costs and gets the inflation ball rolling. Please review the price per gallon and it's trajectory once the harmful, Democrat EO's were signed and then the harmful agency policies took over. We all are now paying the piper for Democrat votes. It really is that simple
that is not true either When it comes to hurting the regular folk then yes, that lands at the feet of Democrat voters such as yourself. The Democrat politicians are what they've always been. It's the Democrat voters who embolden them
The largest US business ad buyer on Meta is heavily invested in oil and gas. On the other hand: Most businesses buying ads are negatively impacted by high fuel costs.
This is an interesting thread, because it demonstrates the conundrum we are facing: The dependence on fossil fuels, which are non-renewable. Even a social media and virtual reality company like Meta depends on cheap oil prices to run profitably. This poses a problem, however. GDP growth is intimately linked to energy consumption: https://www.resilience.org/stories/...-with-gdp-and-mass-a-biophysical-perspective/ In other words, GDP growth needs growth in energy consumption. Assuming a relatively conservative world GDP growth of 3%, world GDP will double in 24 years, quadruple in 48 years. Because of the GDP^0.67 relationship with energy use, energy consumption will double in 35 years, and will quadruple in 70 years. In 100 years, energy consumption will be 7.2 fold that of today. Now, fossil fuel reserves are calculated on TODAY'S energy consumption. Does anyone think that fossil fuels will be a viable energy source when world energy use has quadrupled? Now, 75 years is a long time, but, my children may be alive at that time, my grandchildren certainly will. According to the renewable energy haters, our grandchildren are doomed because apparently you can't run an economy without fossil fuels. What's the solution? I don't know, you tell me. A start may be to save energy. Of course, that's a leftist idea that no real "patriot" would support.
The most likely solution will be us invading an oil rich country and controlling their oil at some point.
So, you think a viable solution is to just steal someone else's stuff? Okay..... Maybe as viable as nuking all other countries, so we can have the remaining oil to ourselves... Boy, am I glad that you are not making policy decisions.
The economy is mixed with labor shortages, new hirings, while inventories rise and consumer confidence is steady with inflation and recession fears mixed in. But what Meta does is not exactly hinge on "economic performance." Most of its content is relatively free other than the phone data each individual has to pay for, and that is outside the scope of META. It hinges on advertising for its profits and revenue primarily and that means selling its ideas to people who will watch it. If they don't have the data to direct their advertising on, then that makes it riskier to do. And being risky is not in the nature of advertisers. The advertisers have already put a hold on Twitter, the major ones that is. Musk has already said he wants to reduce advertising and charge $ 8-a-month subscription fee and allow content creators to charge for theirs. And FB just reported their first loss in revenue in the 2Q 2022 even though the economy has been in a funk for what, over a year? Second, we do not have a command economy. Biden has nothing to do with inflation or the reason why the economy is mixed, not even the so-called "war on oil and gas" propaganda. that is just lazy and uneducated nonsense period. this means that there is no way you are right at all and have no logical basis for that argument. Just MEGA mumbo jumbo nonsense with your head so far up your arse it is n longer funny anymore. Get it now yonker?
Thats what always happens... you really think war over resources is an unlikely scenario? Lmao get real
If you understood corporate taxation, and you don't quite frankly, that investment does not make a hill of beans to the operating income and expenses of that corporation. All they wil have is receive dividend income, which will have an 50% exclusion, generally, or higher depending on facts and circumstances, of the corporate special deduction under 26 USC 243. All you are arguing here is that any income received by a corporation in a form of a dividend will simply be excluded to begin with and has no bearing on the operational income and expenses of its regular business operations. BTW, that company is Disney, is it not? Ironic, isn't it?