Agreed, and frankly the talk of 4,000 jobs lost is really minuscule in the grand scheme of things. 4,000 total, but 1/3 in the US, means about 1,300 jobs in the states, and the other c. 2,700 jobs spread across Asia and India, where the populations of those countries combined is over 5.3 Billion. By contrast the US has about 311 Million. So, we're talking about .000004% of the US work force, and .0000005% of the combined populations of those other two global areas.
To put things in perspective, in May 2012 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate (by Govt figures) is 8.2%. *Note; Don't get me started on the REAL unemployment rate which needs to account for all those who gave up long ago looking for a job and those who've exhausted their unemployment benefits, not to mention those who were ineligible and those who never applied. But to prove a point, assume that to lose 1,300 jobs here in the US would increase the unemployment figure to 8.2000004%. Now you see how insignificant it really is - it amounts to about 26 jobs in each state, if it were spread evenly across the country.
Where it hurts most is in the concentrated areas that the company has a presence, so please don't mistake my comments for being insensitive. Even one job lost is another one that has to be replaced, but in that same May, 2012, 69,000 new jobs were created, so the 1,333 lost is .193% of that figure. In the long run, it will be a positive for the company and the economy since as it gets stronger and grows, it will likely employ more, perhaps even hiring in total considerably more than it is letting go now. Also, most of the jobs cut were in upper management, so the benefit is that more lower-wage employment could open up. The downside risk of not cutting those jobs is that the company suffers even worse decline and is forced to lay off more. In December 2010 Motorola's employee force was 60,000, so you see it could be far worse.