Gone fishin
Well-Known Member
I agree lot of CEO's on here out of workI cant wait to bring this thread back 5 years from now, the best part is essentially nothing will have changed by that point
I agree lot of CEO's on here out of workI cant wait to bring this thread back 5 years from now, the best part is essentially nothing will have changed by that point
Most will be retired and some of them dead. What each and everyone of has tried to do is to put together the most accurate model possible of what Fedex will look like in the coming years for the benefit of the next generation so that they may better plan for their future because sometime in their lives they're going to have to try to make some money and what we have tried to do is to give a clear picture of what the prospects of achieving that goal will be working for Fedex. That's important giving that I have always been amazed at the number of people who mistakenly believed that Fedex is a federally commissioned operation.I agree lot of CEO's on here out of work
I agree,but at the same time these are our visions and could be totally wrong. It's not as if someone is going to change their lives over someones idea of the companies future.Most will be retired and some of them dead. What each and everyone of has tried to do is to put together the most accurate model possible of what Fedex will look like in the coming years for the benefit of the next generation so that they may better plan for their future because sometime in their lives they're going to have to try to make some money and what we have tried to do is to give a clear picture of what the prospects of achieving that goal will be working for Fedex. That's important giving that I have always been amazed at the number of people who mistakenly believed that Fedex is a federally commissioned operation.
I agree,but at the same time these are our visions and could be totally wrong. It's not as if someone is going to change their lives over someones idea of the companies future.
As far as being prepared for change ,that goes with every job.
As long as the wealthy want to expand their wealth there will be jobs. How many and what do they pay are the questions. People can rail against the wealthy all they want but we'll never get jobs from the poor.No job is secure anymore, ever check home selling sites like zillow or homes.com? There are literally pages of foreclosed homes, in the state we are in nothing is secure or guaranteed. Quite frankly everyone bitching on this forum (Van included) is lucky that we are making money and have a place to live
As long as the wealthy want to expand their wealth there will be jobs. How many and what do they pay are the questions. People can rail against the wealthy all they want but we'll never get jobs from the poor.
except for cheaper 3D printers.I cant wait to bring this thread back 5 years from now, the best part is essentially nothing will have changed by that point
This time he lasted just under 3 days. What about all the "I'm sick of being alone...I'm sick of going to the movie theater every weekend..." And personally saying his goodbyes to all those members. What a drama queen.He just lost any credibility that he had.
Wut a joke.
Don't let him forget it.This time he lasted just under 3 days. What about all the "I'm sick of being alone...I'm sick of going to the movie theater every weekend..." And personally saying his goodbyes to all those members. What a drama queen.
Hopefully?You're right, hopefully the almighty rich will screw the workforce so bad that a couple generations from now everyone has to work 5 part time jobs just to eat.
As long as the wealthy want to expand their wealth there will be jobs. How many and what do they pay are the questions. People can rail against the wealthy all they want but we'll never get jobs from the poor.
A man with a 5th grade education told me everything I needed to know about the American economic system........." The American economy is driven by one thing and one thing only..........the ability of poor people to get credit"......... Enough said.Wow!!!! you like the koolaid, don't you? Until the poor have spending money, the wealthy won't have income. The poor will ALWAYS create jobs with demand. Supply alone doesn't create the number of jobs necessary to maintain the wealthy for any length of time. Ford knew that, and actually paid his workers enough to buy the product, even though at that time the auto was a luxury item. Only when the masses have enough to create a demand, the wealthy aren't needed.
What ever gave you the idea that only the wealthy create jobs? That is right wing foolishness. More people of low and moderate income create jobs than the wealthy. Think about A plumber who goes out on his own, is successful enough to hire an assistant, and pay for an answering service. Same goes with every entrepreneur that started a restaurant.
I can't believe how many fall for the lie that the wealthy need more so they will create jobs. When pay goes up for the rest of us, we start buying more than just the bare necessities. That creates many times the jobs that just meeting the basics creates.
The line about the wealthy was made up about the same time as Reagan and voo-doo economics and the trickle down theory. Tax cuts for the wealthy over the past 3 decades has accomplished nothing but huge deficits for the country. You want a vibrant growing economy? Look back at the 50s and 60s. High taxes that actually encouraged the wealthy to invest instead of taking profit out of the economy and pocketing it. The wealthy paid lower effective rates when they invested profits. The invested back into their business, saved on taxes, but in general had to live a slightly more modest lifestyle, while the profit went into buying new equipment, expanding, and yes, paying higher wages to attract better talent. The investment in facilities, equipment, expansion and personnel created jobs to fill those investments, and thus created demand for goods. The period of forced reinvestment because of high taxes was the time of greatest growth, and this period of low taxes on profit is only encouraging taking the profit out of a business, and spending it on items that do little for the economy, since there is no new demand for goods when profit is taken out of the economy.
That it got you revved up to write all that is reward enough for me, lol. But to your point...anyone who can pay someone else to assist him isn't poor. You guys are so hung up on the 1% you can't see the forest for the trees that you can't seem to see it's a matter of degree, but it still takes money most don't have to pay someone. I'm working class poor, thank you FedEx, and I can't support another person. Even my wife has to work for us to make ends meet. Not that there's anything wrong with that other than it would be nice if we had enough to pay off debt and enjoy a vacation or two while saving for our retirement.Wow!!!! you like the koolaid, don't you? Until the poor have spending money, the wealthy won't have income. The poor will ALWAYS create jobs with demand. Supply alone doesn't create the number of jobs necessary to maintain the wealthy for any length of time. Ford knew that, and actually paid his workers enough to buy the product, even though at that time the auto was a luxury item. Only when the masses have enough to create a demand, the wealthy aren't needed.
What ever gave you the idea that only the wealthy create jobs? That is right wing foolishness. More people of low and moderate income create jobs than the wealthy. Think about A plumber who goes out on his own, is successful enough to hire an assistant, and pay for an answering service. Same goes with every entrepreneur that started a restaurant.
I can't believe how many fall for the lie that the wealthy need more so they will create jobs. When pay goes up for the rest of us, we start buying more than just the bare necessities. That creates many times the jobs that just meeting the basics creates.
The line about the wealthy was made up about the same time as Reagan and voo-doo economics and the trickle down theory. Tax cuts for the wealthy over the past 3 decades has accomplished nothing but huge deficits for the country. You want a vibrant growing economy? Look back at the 50s and 60s. High taxes that actually encouraged the wealthy to invest instead of taking profit out of the economy and pocketing it. The wealthy paid lower effective rates when they invested profits. The invested back into their business, saved on taxes, but in general had to live a slightly more modest lifestyle, while the profit went into buying new equipment, expanding, and yes, paying higher wages to attract better talent. The investment in facilities, equipment, expansion and personnel created jobs to fill those investments, and thus created demand for goods. The period of forced reinvestment because of high taxes was the time of greatest growth, and this period of low taxes on profit is only encouraging taking the profit out of a business, and spending it on items that do little for the economy, since there is no new demand for goods when profit is taken out of the economy.
And P.S. The wealthy don't need more but they are driven to always want more. Don't ask me why, I don't know. Look at Fred S. He could have quit a long time ago and spent his days enjoying himself doing whatever he pleased. The company is his world though. It's like boxers or actors who stay around too long. They don't have to, but their success allows them to rub shoulders with the world's elite. Fred dines with Presidents after all. Once you're out to pasture you're never regarded the same way. Too much to give up and that's why you see the wealthy hard at it, creating new companies, employing hundreds of thousands. They aren't robots, they're humans who've achieved much and want more. Doesn't mean the end result is admirable, but our economy works because those at the top demand effort in exchange for their financial support. Until you come up with a better system it is what it is.That it got you revved up to write all that is reward enough for me, lol. But to your point...anyone who can pay someone else to assist him isn't poor. You guys are so hung up on the 1% you can't see the forest for the trees that you can't seem to see it's a matter of degree, but it still takes money most don't have to pay someone. I'm working class poor, thank you FedEx, and I can't support another person. Even my wife has to work for us to make ends meet. Not that there's anything wrong with that other than it would be nice if we had enough to pay off debt and enjoy a vacation or two while saving for our retirement.
Even John friend. Kennedy said, and I have both heard him say it plus have seen it in writing, that when you reduce taxes the resulting economic activity actually increases gov't revenue. Your high tax strategy only encourages business to hide profits in shell corporations overseas. Furthermore if you look at Democrat run cities they're a mess. Not to mention dangerous. I don't have all the answers but I'm 100% certain the Democrats who tax and spend don't either and we're at a time in our country where the spending has to be brought under control. Those who think we can continue adding trillions to the debt forever are in denial because they can't bring themselves to admit all the spending didn't fix everything and believe if only we spend more everything will turn out ok. Madness.
It's called competition. UPS will lose market share to Ground unless they reduce prices. That's the growth. The only way I can see Express going away is if we lose too much to Amazon delivering it's own. More likely a scaled down Express with Ground being the main opco at some point.
As absurd as this might sound, I was on a ground delivery with a few boxes post-surgery eyeware for the lasik clinic on my route, and an Express semi dropped a crate the size of a MRI machine right in the parking lot.Not the meat and potatoes freight.
I would say the benefit levels 5X greater than Ground's, but it's not really fair to multiply by 0.
I agree to a point. People want things quicker and they will pay for it. My rt has doubled with p 2You hit the nail on the head. Express is not going away. It's the face of the corporation. Sure it's gonna change. I agree probably shrink in size and may lose top billing to Ground. Corp will never give up complete control of it's premium services. FO P1 SO are the money makers. Talk about cost savings, lose the XS and P2 to ground. Ba Da Bing
As long as the existing Express infrastructure gets it to the correct airfield and hub before FO deadline does it really make a rats ass difference who the final courier is? Except when you have events like I described a few posts up.Bingo. Ground will not replace Xpress high priority shipments but it's not the high growth area X is so obsessed with.You guys have nothing to worry about going forward but the expansion of Xpress headcount in the coming years will not be as large as it has been in past years and much of that will be part timers.