McClatchy To Cut Salaries and 1,600 Jobs

Hard times.

LONDON -- U.S. publisher McClatchy Newspapers Inc. said Monday that it will reduce its workforce by 15%, or around 1,600 full-time equivalent employees, and cut wages for remaining staff as part of its previously announced restructuring plans. The cuts will be made through severance programs, attrition and further outsourcing of some function and will begin by the end of the first quarter. McClatchy said it expects to incur severance costs of around $30 million. Chairman and CEO Gary Pruitt will take a 15% cut in his base salary and won't receive a bonus for 2008 or 2009. Other executive officers will see their salaries fall 10% and also won't get bonuses through 2009.

Comments

[Dusty]

Our local paper had a 10% staff reduction recently and everyone still on had to take a one week unpaid furlough per quarter. It one of the few that are still running a profit.

They have really good market penetration on their subscriptions, but they made a major shift to concentrating on local and regional coverage over five years ago along with up-to-the minute on-line coverage.

That's made a big difference, something the majors have to face. Anyone can do the national and the international news and it can be gotten anywhere (along with the opinion and analysis on it) but good up to the minute local is tougher to find.

[mark l.]

drudge is running a banner, declaring:

"G10: Global economy 'approaching' pick-up...", so all we have to do is 'calm down' and not freak out on our respective leaders, ignoring the fact that these are the same leaders that brought us to the precipice.

I'm hopeful, but I am also a realist.

After this all shakes out, there will be winners and losers.
The losers are easy to pick out-govts and individuals who are invested in business and infrastructure.

The winners?
This is where the media is drawing a blank.
for starters, I'd take a look at the trend for where money has been collecting over the past 10-15 years.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/04/01/worlds-millionaires-have-50-trillion/

interesting read, as one takes a look at the collection pools of money:

the implications are clear, wealth is like fielding an army...the more money, the more power you hold. The distinction that occurs is how one chooses to wield their 'army'. Take Warren Buffett, whose wealth is largely a product of investements in employment and infrastructure. Rupert Murdoch? another infrastructure investor.

now we come to the Soros', whose income in not based on appreciating capital or investments in infrastructure, but upon finding weaknesses in existing systems, and exploiting them. Welcome to the world of hedge funds. It is no mystery that he would support democrats push towards socialism. In their msiguided obsession to tax 'the rich, who happen to work', they miss a fundamental flaw in their understanding of the nature of the way the world works.

Their problem occurs because they fail to see individuals who have existing wealth as the 'actual rich'. No surprise that soros would champion the current system of socialism, as it ignores those who hold the very wealth that can manipulate entire countries economies.

so...
the winners, the people who are systematically scooping up the bailout money that is owed to them? the same people who are sure not to show up and collect their winnings all at once, instantly killing the 'golden goose'. the same people who have been accumulating wealth on the grandest of scales for quite some time. the same people who will liquidate all of their physical holdings in business at the first sign of trouble.

trust me, if the great depression is upon us, the people who still hold the most substantial(easily mobilized) part of the world wealth will be making money as the world around them crumbles. They just have to find the weaknesses of the system, and bet on them to lose.

The ultimate back-up plan, in case the g-10 is wrong?

Wealth tax.

IF the world banks go around and coordinate who has the money, sitting on the sidelines, with no 'skin in the game' of production, only wealth accumulation, a 20% tax could probably produce 10-18 trillion dollars. The money is out there and at present the govts of the world are busy paying down what is owed to the 'real' wealth. The result is that they will be able to marshall their larger armies to leverage even more in the future. Even if we get out of this short term situation, we are speeding on our way to an oilgarchy, which will hold all the wealth, while our govts continue to increase their debt.

I hope it doesn't come to this, but the option should be considered, in case the g-10 is wrong.