He would fire 100 percent of the work force of the old companies and rehire a small fraction of the fired employees.
In a nutshell, he woulf have fired perhaps 400,000 people and rehire 100,000 of them.”
This is not at all how a company like Bain Capital operates. Bain has two lines of business: venture capital and private equity. The venture capital line invests in start-ups, the most successful of which was probably the office products supplier Staples. Many of these start-ups were, inevitably, failures but some were very successful. This line is where most of the “job creation” occurs. The private equity line invests in troubled or failing companies and tries to make them profitable. Even when this type of investment succeeds, job losses are almost always inevitable because a large part of the problem with such firms is that they have labor costs that are too high to support their profitable operation (too many workers and/or wages that are too high). The question raised by Romney's campaign claim and that Romney needs to answer clearly is this: did the venture capital line create 100,000 more jobs than the private equity line destroyed? Romney claimed in one of the recent debates that the 1000,000 figure was “net.”
I know how a company like Bain works, if he’s being perfectly legal and moral. And, yes, cutting corporate driftwood or retail drift wood is perfectly moral, as having a company that has ten percent of its workforce and is viable is better than having no company and no workforce, because they were unwilling to make the hard decisions.
But some people here are suggesting that Bain did more than just corporate raiding, but that they were involved in shady areas.
I was only suggesting, if Bain wasn’t toeing the line, what they may have been up to.