There seems to be proposal here that HP should continue to employ people to produce and sell desk top computers to a general public that has moved on to using lap tops and smaller computers. So lets remove all these latter items from the shops so that these 27000 people can still have jobs. Of course to do so we would have to make the thousands of people employed redundant.

Perhaps we should go back to using paper and quill pens.

   You've proven the underlying point of my post. Why the need to grow and grow? What is so bad about having a point where you stop and say "this is us now, we make enough money to re-invest in product development, we all earn good money, have good pensions etc, this is enough". I'm not saying growth is bad, "end of". I'm saying it's not constantly sustainable forever, for ANY organisation. Take Facebook for example, launching at being "worth" $100 billion, where the hell have they got that figure? And how do they expect to increase their worth from that to make investors more money? Oh yes, by triyng to rinse the small people, probably charge users for the service, people will stop using it, they'll panic and up the price, more people will stop using it and then there'll be redundancies, and the cycle starts again...

   Bruce, I don't think your logic stands a lot of examination. Shares are sometimes sold in businesses to raise money to build and grow a company and it's profits to re-invest, grow. Should this be stopped? As it is a gamble do you want the banks to finance this business? Charging interest that makes it impossible for people to borrow so no new developments and we get stuck in the Middle Ages. This argument apart, to dispense of 8% of a workforce is a hell of a decision and a lot of families are going to be badly affected- not good in any way. I hope it is run of a period of many months to transfer those affected into new roles at other firms.

   Got to keep the shareholders happy CMA! If only the rich people weren't so greedy, there would be no need for anyone to be poor. Personally, I don't blame banks for the recession, I blame whoever had the idea of selling shares in Businesses. For me, this is what is to blame. It's not feasible for every company to continuously increase profits forever, at some point you've got to accept no more growth, no more profit, and to be happy with breaking even. This can't happen though, because the already multi-multi-multi-millionaires need more return on their investments. Who cares if 27,000 people will now not have a job, which will mean a bigger drain on Governments around the world, and less people with money in the first place to actually buy their products...as long as they can get some more money to fuel their Bentleys eh? Do they really think that any of those 27,000 people will now ever buy an HP product? I highly doubt it! I know I wouldn't! But what do I know? I'm just a billionaire orphan with some funky gadgets...

   A profitable company makes people redundant so they can make even more profit, increasing unemployment rates and worsening the recession.

Brilliant idea.