cue bangles music-- Just another layoff filled monday, oh, oh, oh....

I wonder why?!?! Coudl it have to do with WAY over priced items? I was looking for a simple button up business shirt. The cheapest they had was a van huesson for $40. Kohls has the same shirt for $20. Everything at Macy's is WAY too expensive.

@jklug80:

I don't think that Macy's necessarily has offensive prices, but in my opinion quite a bit of its clothing is way too pricey for the quality or branding.

I think that their pricing is a relic from the time when Macy's was a big deal New York brand name. They lost that when they started buying up stores like the Burdine's chain in Florida. Newsflash Macy's, people who shopped on the Burdine's sales racks (myself included) are not interested in paying $90 for a pair of pants.

I wonder if any of these companies ever stop to wonder if firing people might actually hurt the economy instead of helping it.. hmmmmmm....

@jklug80: Macy's is just one giant Dutch auction. Everything my wife buys there has been marked down at least 4 times and is selling at 25% of original sticker. After that happens on EVERY visit over the course of 2-3 years, I don't see how anyone pays full price for any of it.

Also, we've found stuff at Ross for around 15% of Macy's price...while Macy's was STILL selling the same item.

@Davan: I wonder if the companies ever top to think that keeping 7,000 people active on a payroll during a depression is the best thing to keep their profits up and their stock from tanking?

The big question here is how will this affect the malls? I mean, if I can't go someplace to overpay for modern trends while drinking a starbucks latte with greasy hands from the forced lotion application by an intrusive kiosk vendor, how else will I fill my afternoons? We need to petition congress to bail them out. Think of the children.

@skizsrodt: the closest mall to me actually has 2 Macys. Even when these 7000 people had jobs I was hard pressed to find someone to help me ring stuff up.

@snowburnt: yeah, this will leave the stores ... staffed by imaginary people?

@snowburnt: I was going to say the same thing. When Macy's bought and closed Filenes they just put in another Macy's. What genius planning that was, now I can buy the exact same overpriced stuff in two locations only 100 steps from each other.

@Ash78: For real. Macy's has like 20 clearance racks in every aisle it seems like. I'm surprised people even buy original price stuff there given how many markdowns there are.

@einstoch: Oh, jeez. Unemployed people don't buy stuff, from Macy's or anywhere else. I don't know where you are thinking profits are going to come from.

@aguacarbonica:
No doubt! I miss Burdines. I went into Macy's once after they changed the Burdine's in Tampa...haven't been back!

I don't know how stores like Macy's survive with Target and Walmart around .The pricing has got to kill these stores .I think this is just another sign that people way over spent .

But what do these stores think their customers are really making or what they can really spend .

Is Macy's going for a niche market or they simply had a lot of loyal customers who can't spend .

@u1itn0w2day: if target will offer quality name brands such as Polo, Lauren, Jones NY, INC, etc at a price that is affordable then I will definitely buy from there. I am just not going to spend $30 for a Mossimo dress.

One less job I can fall back on. Oh, wait, I was already banned for life from working for them because I tried to unionize the local store. Also, 1/4 my current pay.

@u1itn0w2day: They go for the market of people who are "too good to shop at Wal-Mart or Target." You know the people. The ones that would rather overpay for something just because they are classy for joints like Wal-Mart or Target. I don't mean the ones that don't shop at Wal-Mart because it is evil and the way it treats its associates or anything like that, but the ones that can't be associated with the people that have to shop at Wal-Mart.

Like anyone was buying overpriced jeans at Macy's anyway.

@billbillbillbill: And don't they say it's better to lay people off on Fridays? Because it's less likely to result in workplace violence?

@bobpence: ha! And here I thought my retail store was the only one who swung the banhammer at the threats of unionizing.

I know I'm crazy, but I dare to dream that the locally-based department store could come back. All those economies of scale aren't doing Macy's/Federated a lot of good now, are they? Give me back G. Fox in downtown Hartford CT, a Strawbridge & Clothier in Philly, and a Rich's in Atlanta.

@ceilingFANBOY: I thnk your right .

I know people who refuse to buy generic anything even though stuff like taste and nutrition in food is about the same .I've even seen similar luggage sets advertised at Kmart and Target for 20-40$ and see a similar set at Macy's and other for 60-100$ .
It's all in a name I guess.

@u1itn0w2day: Stores LIKE Macy's (but not necessarily Macy's) survive because they sell things that Target and Wal-Mart don't -- suits. higher-end shoes. china.

I love me some Target, but Target cannot dress me for work and Target's shoe department is not going to do it for me.

I rarely shopped at department stores (other than Nordstrom's) when I lived near Chicago -- I went to DSW for shoes. I went to particular outlets or boutiques for suits. I could usually get more selection and often better deals and specialty retailers.

But now that I live in a much smaller metro area -- 350,000 people -- department stores are the ONLY place I can get shoes for work. (And there actually are little boutiques that carry expensive name-brand shoes ... but they're all for clubbing or at least for someone else's workplace!) They're the ONLY place that carries basic women's suits. They're the ONLY place that carries cocktail dresses that isn't prom- or wedding-oriented.

I do shop online, or hit DSW when I visit my parents, but some things you've got to try on, sometimes you need something faster, sometimes you just want some shoes. Department stores do still fill a need.

I have bought a whopping three things there since Macy's took over Marshall Fields. All three were on a massive sale markdown. The only reason I even step foot in there is because my other options are Target, JcPenney or Younkers.
If I lived in civilization I would never set foot in a Macy's.

@summerbee: That's a myth (or a seen from Office Space, take your pick). I've seen most layoffs happen after the weekend, when the mgmt types have had a chance to talk about it, or the IT/security folks have had a Sunday to lock down equipment or resources, etc.

Maybe Macy's shouldn't have bought out, and then gutted Marshall Fields. Many Chicagoans here (me included) refuse to shop at there. Having protesters at the Macy's entrance pretty much sums it up.

mrs. e and I were trolling the local Expo store which is going out. She had been to the local macy's that is closing. She saw a model of four slice toaster that we bought at sears on sale for $39.99 for $79.99 less the 30% mark down. Big woopie.

We agreed that the customer base for Macy's and Expo is feeling the pain since those rich folks have stocks that crashed or lush corporate bonuses going down the tubes. This is the segment of society that slums at Macy's and deems only to send a nanny or maid to Walmart, etc...

@larrymac808: I'm right there with you. I'm trying really hard to keep it local.

Perhaps they spent too much money advertising one day sales, all of which had preview days.

@ThinkerTDM: First off: Macy's doesn't care about helping the economy, and has no altruistic motives whatsoever in that regard. Disabuse yourself of the notion that they would choose a course of action that would cost them money but help the people, the country, whatever. A choice between doing the "right thing" and the bottom line isn't really a realistic choice. Not everything is like "It's a Wonderful Life".

Secondly, If Macy's isn't doing whatever they can for those to whom they are beholden, their stockholders, the board could (would) be sued and a new one seated.

Thirdly, laid off people do spend money, they just have much less discretionary income. They buy food, gas, pay their utilities, etc. Most people have savings, or get unemployment, or have private/family loans, or find new jobs or some combination of the above. We've had recessions before. If everyone who has ever been laid off remained a non-spender, we'd have lost our economic health many, many years ago.

@fratgirl: They should all swing the threat of the banhammer where unions are concerned.

Call me crazy and callous, but I'm not sure this whole consumer spending and credit downturn is necessarily such a bad thing.

Yes, it does suck that a lot of people are losing their jobs.

It seems that a lot of the retail that is sinking is possibly due to people now spending within their means and not buying as much useless crap they don't need. Look at what is down: restaurants, overpriced coffee, overpriced dept. stores, consumer electronics, etc. Grocery stores, on the other hand, are up.

Just saw a report this morning that the savings rate is up, as folk "batten down the hatches" and actually accumulate an emergency fund that they should have had all along. And the bank deposits they are mailing in are good for the banking system, as they slowly recapitalize.

Available consumer credit is way down, with reports everywhere of banks slashing limits, even with consumers with a good payment history. Again, is this such a bad thing? When anybody with a pulse and no late payments can easily accumulate revolving credit limits in excess of their annual income, isn't it a GOOD thing that that credit is being pulled back? It never should have been extended to begin with.

Yes, new car sales are down, but traffic isn't. It appears to me that folks are just driving their old cars longer. Again, is that such a bad thing? (Okay, if you make cars for a living, it is, at least in the short term.)

The big question is: As economic resources shift away from being used on pointless excess, will the available labor pool shift more productive spending? As consumer credit (unproductive debt) sinks, will loans to businesses for capital projects (productive debt) increase?

If housing was overpriced, a downturn was ripe for the happening. If you are looking to purchase a home, more home for your money is a great thing.

If people spend less money on consumer products, that means they have more cash available for taxes also. (Assuming they are still employed of course.) All that funding to replace the nation's rapidly aging major infrastructure has to come from somewhere...

@Eyebrows McGee: As a concept, yes, I'd agree, but that's a different thing from the survival of individual stores. Here on the other side of our state, my Macy's is the former Famous-Barr--the quality of Target, the chicness of a downmarket Talbot's, and the charm of K-Mart. The closest thing to an upmarket department store is the Carson's cousin Bergner's under the Bon-Ton chain, which just cut 1100 jobs, and which is largely pretty damn stodgy as well. Our Herberger's-turned-Bergner's couldn't survive even pre-recession. I wouldn't buy my basic women's suits or nice dresses at any department store in my area; they're all online purchases or apparel-only chains (I don't need to suit up as much as you, but I do buy 'em, and I've never found a bearable suit worth the alterations in a department store here). And I can dress for work from Target as well as Nordstrom's/Field's/etc., fortunately, none of which are nearby (and RIP Field's anyway). Ultimately, I'd miss my local Target a lot more than any local department store.

And I'm wondering if that's pretty much what's happened in the money-losing areas--the less upmarket locations of department stores may be too close to the nice Target markets and short on multiple-suit buying clientele, and if the Targets have the advantage with more fun stuff the way they do here (the designer lines, Go International, etc.), I can see why the department stores lose out to Target.

@wee0x1B: I agree that Macy's (and every corporation) has to answer to stockholders. However, I was referring to the "top" decision makers here. While it may seem smarter in the short term to let people go, you just can't let other struggling businesses keep their employees so you can make money.

I am not saying that a corporation (and by this, I mean the people who make the decisions) need to throw themselves under a bus and try to save the world. However, they have to realize that if they want to be doing business in 5 years, they need to look at the big picture. They have to think ahead, and use some sort of strategy.

However, I am a little confused at you that this is like "every other recession". We have had very few recessions where so many things have come together, all at once.

You are right, people do spend during a recession, and when they are laid off. However, if you are in a business where you rely on discretionary income (read: 99% of businesses), then you can't go around with your magical sunglasses and hope that people spend what little they may have on your items.

@wee0x1B: Really? I studied communication in graduate school, and I swear we read about a meta-analysis that actually looked at several instances of company layoffs and concluded that Monday layoffs are correlated with workplace violence. Granted, correlation is not causation...and it's not like I remember the source. So, you can pretty much completely ignore this message if you'd like.

@floraposte: "Ultimately, I'd miss my local Target a lot more than any local department store."

I can definitely agree with that.

(And Jones New York suits fit me well, and like every department store in creation carries those, so I can usually manage a suit even if the store itself is no great shakes. But department stores ARE very hit-and-miss unless they're really big, since they try to be all things to all people. I miss Casual Corner.)

Like I told my girlfriend, Macy's is on my 2009 deathwatch and I couldn't be happier. My hatred for Macy's (Federated Department Stores) grew when they force-closed all the Stern's stores in NJ/NY to turn them into Macy's. Everyone knew how superior Stern's was, but Macy's did their thing here, and across the US. Bye Macy's, turn the lights out before you leave the mall.

@Eyebrows McGee: I understand that .Sometimes there are limited choices and actually Macy's capitalized on that .

Perhaps the trouble with Macy's is that they didn't carry enough of the stuff and prices that Target and Walmart have . I just can't picture Macy's as a Saks Fifth Avenue but they are definately different than Target and Walmart .

I don't know about anyone else but every time I go to Macy's (junior dept) I have been able to buy cute clothes for way cheap. I'm talking like a 60$ Rampage blouse for a penny! I also managed to have a shirt ring up a 0.00$ I got a way cute Ralph Lauren coat that was 220$ for 25$ I also go after bathing suit season and have been able to get two-pieces that were orginally 80$ a piece for under 5 bucks. These are brand names too. You just have to be willing to stand and go through racks and racks of stuff. You also have to pay attention to the coupons too.

I would rather have a paper cut and lemon juice poured on it then go to Macy's.

@scgirl_212: I *can* find good deals at Macy's... but generally it's not worth the hassle when you can just go to Herbergers or anywhere else in the universe.
The 5 Macy's in my area have the same problem- clothing and shoe departments are poorly staffed, and there are more clothes on the floor than on the racks. If they even have the shoes you want in your size & the right color, they can't find one of the shoes.

Good riddance to the company that destroyed our beloved Marshall Fields/Daytons.

@Eyebrows McGee: "Stores LIKE Macy's (but not necessarily Macy's) survive because they sell things that Target and Wal-Mart don't -- suits. higher-end shoes. china."

Yes, and I'd add that, to survive, Macy's needs to have the high-end atmosphere to go with high-end prices. Nice dressing rooms, informed sales people, no hassle of finding someone to ring up what you've decided to get, attractive displays that entice you to browse, etc. When I'm spending some serious money (on suits, formal dresses, wedding gifts, or shoes) I want to enjoy the time I spend making the purchase.

Most of the Macy's I've been to recently (in the past 4 years) have presented me with a bunch of shopping frustrations that I've been totally fine with at Target, etc, which was disappointing in a Macy's. Not to sound snobbish, but I think when your product costs more, the customer expects more. *Especially* now when you can get the products directly from the designer or manufacturer online.

@wee0x1B: Why shouldn't retail staff be allowed to unionize?

@ThinkerTDM: You say they need to look at the big picture, and about doing business in 5 years. However I do not think they will have trouble finding the same skillset in workers 5 years from now. They lose nothing, then, by letting them go and hiring new people when they are needed.

@Jerome Espino:

As I mentioned before, I'm from Florida and they killed Burdine's. AT that point I had been to Chicago once and pretty much fell in love with Marshall Field's. Imagine my seething hatred when I returned to Chicago only to find the same thing happened! That was actually when I vowed never to spend my money at Macy's again. They have destroyed two amazing department stores and replaced them with empty snobbery. If they ever put their grimy hands on Dillard's, I will start an internet campaign against them.

I hope this isn't in the shoe dept in the Manhattan location. That's an entire floor of shoes, staffed by 2 people as it is. I always thought if they hired more people, they would sell more shoes, as I've left a few times empty-handed, having waited an entire 20 minutes or more to try on shoes.

@wee0x1B: I am generally center-right, and though more liberal a decade ago, I was never a union fanboy. It made sense in this case, though; people were really getting screwed over.

One woman who was either influential or simply loud-mouther agreed to help management by opposing the unionizing effort, so long as she could from Housewares (small appliances, non-china plates) to Domestics (towels, sheets). She had worked herself ragged with the repetitive chore of making sure the picture frames on display matched the piles of boxes beneath them on a few long tables. This increased sales over the default "dammit I can't find this frame" approach.

When the union gave up, she got her transfer to Domestics -- which also was given the frame sub-department.

I was wondering why the Chanel Beaute (cosmetics/skincare) counter at the Macy's here in Fort Wayne, which is a really busy Macy's, closed yesterday.

They told me that Von Maur got local-market exclusivity for Chanel cosmetics (but not fragrances, which they will still carry). Not surprisingly, the Chanel counter folks were getting let go, too. Guess I know one source of the layoffs...

@aguacarbonica: Kaufmann's was another swallowed up by Macy's store. I purchased a beautiful interview suit there for.. a whopping 30$ because it was on a clearance rack. I can still use it thankfully though since I haven't changed sizes enough to make it not fit. They used to have so many good deals, especially if you needed business type workwear. Now that stuff is harder to find than ever around here, unless you want to pay astronomical prices. With Macy's the price is so high and the quality has definitely gone downhill from the Kaufmann's days as well. If something in there was a good deal it would have to be 80-90% off to even qualify.