Omaha Forums

On KFAB this am they keep running a bit of an interview with Earnie Goss (Sp?) He states in this bit that for every Conagra job that Omaha looses there will be a ancillary job lost also.

I always that thought that when the discussion of job creation takes place that the assumption was for every 4 or so now jobs added there was a support job created also. If this is correct or even close how can it be 1 : 1 for job loss but around 4:1 for job gains?

Anyone hear any "New" Rumors?

A buyout of ConAgra? (like what happened to First Data)

or

The layoff number being closer to 1800?

Brad wrote:Anyone hear any "New" Rumors?

A buyout of ConAgra? (like what happened to First Data)

or

The layoff number being closer to 1800?

Haven't heard that but it would not be out of the realm of possibilities.

nebugeater wrote:On KFAB this am they keep running a bit of an interview with Earnie Goss (Sp?) He states in this bit that for every Conagra job that Omaha looses there will be a ancillary job lost also.

I always that thought that when the discussion of job creation takes place that the assumption was for every 4 or so now jobs added there was a support job created also. If this is correct or even close how can it be 1 : 1 for job loss but around 4:1 for job gains?

Maybe. When companies downsize by introducing outsourcing, sometimes the external labor will still be onsite, at least partially. For instance, if a team of 10 is outsourced, several folks on the team might be retained to oversee the outsourced group, and some of the outsourced team might continue to be based out of the office location rather than oversees. So that team of 10 might still end up being 5 in Omaha. I don't know the model that CAG is using going forward, but different outsourcing models have different impacts on the local economy.

riceweb wrote:

nebugeater wrote:On KFAB this am they keep running a bit of an interview with Earnie Goss (Sp?) He states in this bit that for every Conagra job that Omaha looses there will be a ancillary job lost also.

I always that thought that when the discussion of job creation takes place that the assumption was for every 4 or so now jobs added there was a support job created also. If this is correct or even close how can it be 1 : 1 for job loss but around 4:1 for job gains?

Maybe. When companies downsize by introducing outsourcing, sometimes the external labor will still be onsite, at least partially. For instance, if a team of 10 is outsourced, several folks on the team might be retained to oversee the outsourced group, and some of the outsourced team might continue to be based out of the office location rather than oversees. So that team of 10 might still end up being 5 in Omaha. I don't know the model that CAG is using going forward, but different outsourcing models have different impacts on the local economy.

What I read into this is that for every 1 (or 4) jobs created there will be a hair styles, Retail cashier, Waiter, Car wash attendant, cab driver, school teacher, etc type job added or lost.

nebugeater wrote:

Brad wrote:Anyone hear any "New" Rumors?

A buyout of ConAgra? (like what happened to First Data)

or

The layoff number being closer to 1800?

Haven't heard that but it would not be out of the realm of possibilities.

Connelly sold out hillshire to tyson. Maybe he'll do the same with ConAgra.

Should we move this into the business forum?

RNcyanide wrote:Should we move this into the business forum?

Probably belongs there, but I think we have had a few guests sharing information too so I haven't been in a hurry to move it. I haven't talked to the admin or other moderators about it.

Yeah, because it is in the rumor forum, members and non-members can still post anonymously, so we probably ought to keep it here

I agree, we should keep this thread in the Rumors Forum for the time being.

I wouldn't be at all shocked to see ConAgra shred off some brands that aren't performing well and concentrate on the most efficient money makers. Overall revenue might go down, but profitability will increase.

One thing that they talked about is the idea of adding new product lines. That would help keep Omaha's base important as we have the labs here.

nebugeater wrote:On KFAB this am they keep running a bit of an interview with Earnie Goss (Sp?) He states in this bit that for every Conagra job that Omaha looses there will be a ancillary job lost also.

I always that thought that when the discussion of job creation takes place that the assumption was for every 4 or so now jobs added there was a support job created also. If this is correct or even close how can it be 1 : 1 for job loss but around 4:1 for job gains?

I was sick of Ernie Goss 10 years ago. This guy and his bogus predictions have been flying around for years. I still have not forgot how every time the city has a bogus bad idea project they round up Ernie and get him to tell us how much it will help the cities economy. Seems to me that Hal Daub and his spin doctors rounded up Ernie to help sell us the ridiculous B.S idea that if we built a big convention center that people would be coming to Omaha from all over the country to hold their conventions. Sounded like total B.S at the time and for good reason it was total B.S. This guys opinion is worth no more then mines or anyone elses in fact its worth alot less because I believe his opinion can be bought.

iamjacobm wrote:I wouldn't be at all shocked to see ConAgra shred off some brands that aren't performing well and concentrate on the most efficient money makers. Overall revenue might go down, but profitability will increase.

One thing that they talked about is the idea of adding new product lines. That would help keep Omaha's base important as we have the labs here.

They did mention Orville Redenbacher's and I think Peter Pan as brands they are considering selling off. They should probably do away with SlimJims too, because they're are horrible.

nebugeater wrote:

riceweb wrote:

nebugeater wrote:On KFAB this am they keep running a bit of an interview with Earnie Goss (Sp?) He states in this bit that for every Conagra job that Omaha looses there will be a ancillary job lost also.

I always that thought that when the discussion of job creation takes place that the assumption was for every 4 or so now jobs added there was a support job created also. If this is correct or even close how can it be 1 : 1 for job loss but around 4:1 for job gains?

Maybe. When companies downsize by introducing outsourcing, sometimes the external labor will still be onsite, at least partially. For instance, if a team of 10 is outsourced, several folks on the team might be retained to oversee the outsourced group, and some of the outsourced team might continue to be based out of the office location rather than oversees. So that team of 10 might still end up being 5 in Omaha. I don't know the model that CAG is using going forward, but different outsourcing models have different impacts on the local economy.

What I read into this is that for every 1 (or 4) jobs created there will be a hair styles, Retail cashier, Waiter, Car wash attendant, cab driver, school teacher, etc type job added or lost.

That is a very real thing. One of the more fascinating economic concepts to me.

To break the quote line... It depends on the type of job. Manufacturing tends to bring the most support jobs with it, I believe.

Ricketts was interviewed at the Harvest of Harmony and the way he worded it "it's unfortunate that ConAgra is moving their HQ to Chicago" it sounded like it is a for sure thing, any updates on this or is he just blowing smokes.

...it is a sure thing. It seemed like it was a sure thing months ago.

http://www.omaha.com/money/converted-wa ... 3f9f2.html

Here, let's rub some salt in those wounds.

RNcyanide wrote:http://www.omaha.com/money/converted-wa ... 3f9f2.html

Here, let's rub some salt in those wounds.

I know, apparently we know where the world herald stands on ConAgra's decision.

daveoma wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:http://www.omaha.com/money/converted-wa ... 3f9f2.html

Here, let's rub some salt in those wounds.

I know, apparently we know where the world herald stands on ConAgra's decision.

Every detail of this whole deal just makes it more and more insulting.

Wait, why would people who supported Jobbers Canyon be mad that they are moving into similar digs elsewhere? Out of all the possibilities, I'm happy to hear they are moving into a downtown core. Their previous CEO did what he did. There is nothing to change the past. I'm glad they are making a better choice now.

In my opinion, with regards to their relationship with Omaha, I would like to see them "right their wrong" so to speak by making it as easy/smooth as possible for Omaha to re-develop on part of their campus. Ideally, as much of the campus as feasibly possible. That is the only possible way for us to start "taking back" what many people feel they took away from us as a city.

Seeing over a thousand of those DT jobs be eliminated while still having the campus layout remain the exact same would be beyond disappointing. Now if THAT happens, then I can see a case for being extremely upset with ConAgra for hurting downtown.

I don't care what forward things they're doing now. They literally could end all poverty in Chicago and I would still be mad at them.

I could not agree more. Moving into a warehouse in downtown Chicago is a slap in the face to Omaha and salt in the gaping wound that WAS Jobbers Canyon. There is no bright side to any of this.

F**K Mike Harper and F**K CONAgra.

I'm equally mad at the city and business leaders of the time, and the apparent majority of the public at large, for letting it happen back in 1987-1988. ConAgra's recent decision to move to a similar, albeit larger, historic urban Chicago setting further cements the fact that it was a HUGE, stupid, short-sighted mistake to destroy Jobbers Canyon. The Omaha Development Foundation greased the wheels to acquire the property and force the owners to sell so ConAgra could have their way.

It will be more salt in the wound if nothing happens soon to transform the sleepy campus into something much more beneficial to Omaha.

So their only reason for moving was to attract a younger generation? That makes no sense at all.

PotatoeEatsFish wrote:So their only reason for moving was to attract a younger generation? That makes no sense at all.

Sure it does. ConAgra's going after the elite millennials, highly educated (Ivy or similar) younger workers who are highly prized and can work anywhere and who tend to prefer working in bigger, more diverse and more progressive places than Omaha.

SeattleHusker wrote:

PotatoeEatsFish wrote:So their only reason for moving was to attract a younger generation? That makes no sense at all.

Sure it does. ConAgra's going after the elite millennials, highly educated (Ivy or similar) younger workers who are highly prized and can work anywhere and who tend to prefer working in bigger, more diverse and more progressive places than Omaha.

Who will probably be hired at lower salaries than those they laid off.

RNcyanide wrote:

SeattleHusker wrote:

PotatoeEatsFish wrote:So their only reason for moving was to attract a younger generation? That makes no sense at all.

Sure it does. ConAgra's going after the elite millennials, highly educated (Ivy or similar) younger workers who are highly prized and can work anywhere and who tend to prefer working in bigger, more diverse and more progressive places than Omaha.

Who will probably be hired at lower salaries than those they laid off.

They'll probably make more given the cost-of-living difference and maybe more than that.. We (former Omahans) live in Seattle and I have seen jobs that paid $90K in Omaha fetch $140K to $170K here. But it's important to note that we're not talking UNO grads. The typical big employer here (and even some smaller ones) all but require top five MBAs for professional positions.

Fortunately for the Omaha economy, I can't foresee any other large company pulling up stakes.

According to the cost calculator: http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-livin ... -wa/106000

To have the same quality of life in Seattle as someone with a $100,000 in Omaha

Someone in Seattle would have to make 185,000 a year to have the same quality of life as someone making 100,000 in omaha. Thw difference in wages between the two areas is about 10-15%. You will take a substantial quality of living decrease by leaving omaha for seattle..

Have done a little reading about these "EDGE" funds that ConAgra is getting. Apparently the tax credits were suspended b/c Illinois has a $9 billion annual deficit and is over $150 billion in debt. ConAgra was able to get the incentives based on what amounts to a handshake deal this summer between the Governor and CEO that was "grandfathered" into the program before the funds were suspended.

This hurts Omaha and Nebraska no doubt, but damn the more you look into state debt the more rosy Nebraska's future looks. If anyone ever comes after these debt laden states things could get really interesting.

I do think these comments just show that there was nothing Nebraska or Omaha could have done to keep them. ConAgra was gone the day this CEO was hired.

SeattleHusker wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:

SeattleHusker wrote:

PotatoeEatsFish wrote:So their only reason for moving was to attract a younger generation? That makes no sense at all.

Sure it does. ConAgra's going after the elite millennials, highly educated (Ivy or similar) younger workers who are highly prized and can work anywhere and who tend to prefer working in bigger, more diverse and more progressive places than Omaha.

Who will probably be hired at lower salaries than those they laid off.

They'll probably make more given the cost-of-living difference and maybe more than that.. We (former Omahans) live in Seattle and I have seen jobs that paid $90K in Omaha fetch $140K to $170K here. But it's important to note that we're not talking UNO grads. The typical big employer here (and even some smaller ones) all but require top five MBAs for professional positions.

Fortunately for the Omaha economy, I can't foresee any other large company pulling up stakes.

I work for a fortune 500 company in the sales division in the D.C. area---and while what you say about salary differentials is true, my experience with Ivy League MBA types runs the gamut from 'scary brilliant' to "how TF did he/she graduate" (we jokingly refer to them as "Ivy League Stupid"---especially if they're "legacies"). Top employers have become wise to the Ivy League label, and are just as likely to draw from decent state schools. With the exception of top law firms and a few other professions, the Ivy League lost its shine decades ago. Job interviews and work history are much more important than your alma mater.

Regarding Con Agra's troubles, I think it's a classic case of corporate ossification. The world changed, Con Agra didn't. Lack of vision? Complacency? Laziness at the top? Who knows…..

iamjacobm wrote:Have done a little reading about these "EDGE" funds that ConAgra is getting. Apparently the tax credits were suspended b/c Illinois has a $9 billion annual deficit and is over $150 billion in debt. ConAgra was able to get the incentives based on what amounts to a handshake deal this summer between the Governor and CEO that was "grandfathered" into the program before the funds were suspended.

This hurts Omaha and Nebraska no doubt, but darn the more you look into state debt the more rosy Nebraska's future looks. If anyone ever comes after these debt laden states things could get really interesting.

I do think these comments just show that there was nothing Nebraska or Omaha could have done to keep them. ConAgra was gone the day this CEO was hired.

Next term if the dems win the white house or control of the house, you will hear big states that are swimming in debt start making noise about federalizing their debt out of "fairness" or some other buzz word that will be used to bleed the rest of the country.

More states are in deep debt. Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Connecticut, per capita, our richest state has less than half the funds it needs to cover currently acknowledged pension costs. Cali is going south, and none of these states are willing or able to gut their political structures to build a debt resistant state government like Nebraska has.

Trust me, we need to be watchful for attempts at grabbing our money. Either by grabbing our industries like the CAG deal or by using their congressional muscle to bleed us through the fed.

Joe_Sovereign wrote:

This is a great image. Where did you findit?

That photo was just in the Sept. 27, 2015 OWH article....see Jobbers Canyon thread in Photogrphy and Videos for link. I wish it showed the rest of the Jobbers buildings to the south. I love how that rail line looped around the east end.

The original uncropped photo:



BONUS: Here's a photo looking northeast from 10th and Howard providing an idea of just how massive these buildings were (and notice the Portland-esque John Deere signage... Omaha had EVERYTHING necessary to be "hip"... until Mike Harper and CON-Agra took it away from us for absolutely no reason whatsoever):

Wow, thanks for posting those pictures.

Here's another one showing the entire area:

Here are a couple more photos: These are from the late 1930's:

Jobbers Canyon


Downtown Omaha




Here is a link to over 300 more pictures from the timeframe:

http://photogrammar.yale.edu/search/res ... th_stop=12

The real tragedy is we could have had Heartland of America Park and the Lake and Jobbers Canyon at the same time. If you look at this map you could have had the Park and Lake on one side of 8th street and the Jobbers Canyon district on the other.

skinzfan23 wrote:Here are a couple more photos: These are from the late 1930's:

Jobbers Canyon


Downtown Omaha




Here is a link to over 300 more pictures from the timeframe:

http://photogrammar.yale.edu/search/res ... th_stop=12

The density of the city back then is amazing. It is remarkable that even with all the recent infill we aren't near 50% the density the city had 80 years ago.