Instead of guessing.. a small business owner says why not hiring...

[sparky]

but those risks aren't equitable


For instance the same regulatory fine that would tank a sole proprietor migfht be scoffed at by a larger corporation as justification of the crime

~S~

 

[editec]

I do not doubt that some businesses might not be hiring new employees because of unknowns.

I do doubt that most businesses aren't hiring becuase of that.

Most are not hiring, I suspect, because they do not see a whole lotta potential in this current economy.

It's even simpler than that.

Most aren't hiring because for most business is down and new hires are simply not justified

Yeah, we agree on that.

 

[chanel]

Every situation is different. Uncertainty is a huge factor but it's simply a matter of supply and demand. Many of our friends are builders. Construction is down. My husband just hired a new guy because he has a few big projects lined up for the winter. But he made it clear to him that this may be a temporary gig because last year he barely had enough work for the guys he has. Believe it or not, laying off people, sucks.

 

[DaGoose]

As the saying goes, "It's better for the economy to have 100 people with $1,000 to spend than one person with $100,000 to spend". This is "Trickle Up Economics".

Henry Ford understood that when he paid his employees much higher wages than any other industrialists in his day. He understood that if people had money to spend they would buy his products, build houses and furnish them with goods.

The biggest reason hiring sucks so bad right now is that due to the stagnant wages in the middle class there's simply no demand. If there was demand businesses would be hiring regardless of the regulations.

 

[California Girl]

This guy sucks at management. While I am only responsible for a small $11M annual service business, I hire people to serve my customers. If I don't. My customers will go elsewhere. Period.

AND we have a winner.

The reason businesses aren't hiring right now is because they have no reason to. The customers aren't there to justify hiring more people, because not enough people have enough money to spend to buy the things/services that the new employees would provide.

It's really that simple.

Actually, YaWank didn't say it was HIS business, only that he is responsible for it. Business owners and business managers... two different things. Nor would any smart business owner say another business owner 'sucks' at management with absolutely no detail about that business owner's business.

YaWank is, as always, making judgments about things that he does not have enough information to make a rational judgment about.

He's a moron. And, for agreeing with his bullshit, so are you. I am, however, not at all surprised that this is the case. Party over country and all that - SOP for the left.

 

[RDD_1210]

This guy sucks at management. While I am only responsible for a small $11M annual service business, I hire people to serve my customers. If I don't. My customers will go elsewhere. Period.

AND we have a winner.

The reason businesses aren't hiring right now is because they have no reason to. The customers aren't there to justify hiring more people, because not enough people have enough money to spend to buy the things/services that the new employees would provide.

It's really that simple.

Actually, YaWank didn't say it was HIS business, only that he is responsible for it. Business owners and business managers... two different things. Nor would any smart business owner say another business owner 'sucks' at management with absolutely no detail about that business owner's business.

YaWank is, as always, making judgments about things that he does not have enough information to make a rational judgment about.

He's a moron. And, for agreeing with his bullshit, so are you. I am, however, not at all surprised that this is the case. Party over country and all that - SOP for the left.

I love that a trust fund baby with no clue what its like to have to make it on your own is going to lecture others about making judgements without having enough information.

 

[healthmyths]

you wrote: Good lord man, take an economics class."

Why are you demeaning me?
I'm just sharing as you Obama supporters frequently do "anecdotal stories", i.e. about pink slipped people that and "real" meetings that never occurred.
And yes I have some modicum knowledge of business having started several AND some college courses in economics.
While I am not as obviously knowledgeable as you,
I do understand that the concept of periculum praemio ratio and why should ANY business hire people when the anti-business climate and with validation from the government itself..
"The research finds that the total costs of federal regulations have further increased
from the level established in the 2005 study, as have the costs per employee.
More specifically, the total cost of federal regulations has increased to
$1.75 trillion, while the updated cost per employee for firms with fewer
than 20 employees is now $10,585 (a 36 percent difference between the costs
incurred by small firms when compared with their larger counterparts)."
Office of Advocacy - - The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms | SBA.gov

But as my old Latin teacher use to say:
"Sed stultum videri ore aperiendo probant!"

 

[Skull Pilot]

you wrote: Good lord man, take an economics class."

Why are you demeaning me?
I'm just sharing as you Obama supporters frequently do "anecdotal stories", i.e. about pink slipped people that and "real" meetings that never occurred.
And yes I have some modicum knowledge of business having started several AND some college courses in economics.
While I am not as obviously knowledgeable as you,
I do understand that the concept of periculum praemio ratio and why should ANY business hire people when the anti-business climate and with validation from the government itself..
"The research finds that the total costs of federal regulations have further increased
from the level established in the 2005 study, as have the costs per employee.
More specifically, the total cost of federal regulations has increased to
$1.75 trillion, while the updated cost per employee for firms with fewer
than 20 employees is now $10,585 (a 36 percent difference between the costs
incurred by small firms when compared with their larger counterparts)."
Office of Advocacy - - The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms | SBA.gov

But as my old Latin teacher use to say:
"Sed stultum videri ore aperiendo probant!"

please learn how to use the quote function.

 

[asterism]

This guy sucks at management. While I am only responsible for a small $11M annual service business, I hire people to serve my customers. If I don't. My customers will go elsewhere. Period.

AND we have a winner.

The reason businesses aren't hiring right now is because they have no reason to. The customers aren't there to justify hiring more people, because not enough people have enough money to spend to buy the things/services that the new employees would provide.

It's really that simple.

That's false. Innovation is being stifled. Plenty of people have enough money to spend on things they either need or want.

 

[asterism]

and of course you are a business owner and can hire people at will right?
And of course you think believe there should be MORE rules and regulations right?
You have NO problem with every decision you make being done in the context of is this action in compliance with the millions of local/state and trillions of Federal rules and regulations?
In other words you have NO problem with the government being YOUR BOSS because you have NO capacity to be responsible and you NEED your BOSS to put a cop on every corner, a baby-sitter in your office to make sure YOU do the right and responsible decision?

You have NO problem having a nanny state telling YOU how many bathrooms you must provide your employees??

I don't recall saying any of those things. I also do no OWN this business. I simply am charged with running a portion of it. However, rather than worrying about what "might" happen, I simply get my job done. You GOPers are excellent at being afraid of everything that might be around the corner. Fortunately, not everyone is the same as you. Remember WMD?

So the decision to take a risk is not yours. Nothing wrong with that, but you cannot use your job as a validation of the leftist view.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, YaWank didn't say it was HIS business, only that he is responsible for it. Business owners and business managers... two different things.

No, for purposes of this discussion they are the exact same thing. A business owner makes sound decisions on hiring because his profits will suffer if he doesn't. A manager makes sound decisions on hiring because the business' profits will suffer if he doesn't, and he is likely to be out of a job himself. Either way, the principles behind why a business hires or doesn't remain the same, and he is in a position to understand those principles.

Nor would any smart business owner say another business owner 'sucks' at management with absolutely no detail about that business owner's business.

We had details pertinent to the subject under discussion. The business owner claimed that he was not hiring people because of uncertainty about regulation. Now, that doesn't absolutely prove that he sucks at management. He could, instead, have been lying to make a political point. (Something you would, of course, have a lot of sympathy for.)

Either the business can meet the demand for its products or services efficiently with the staff it has or it can't. If it can't, it hires people -- uncertainty be damned. If it can, then it doesn't, and no changes to regulations will affect that in the slightest. It is simply a wasteful and stupid business decision to hire someone if you don't need that person's work, and it is a shortsighted and stupid decision NOT to hire someone if you DO need another employee.

Really, everything else is peripheral.

 

[asterism]

so you don't have to worry about making payroll or risking your own assets... you are just a lowly peon!

I happen to own a business.

If I have enough business to warrant a new hire then I will hire someone using the current costs to make my decision.

If I need a person today because my staff can't keep up with the demand for my products and/or services then I will not wait to hire thereby risking my customers' satisfaction and the possibility of losing their business.

So you see if a new hire is warranted a prudent business owner will hire regardless of the uncertainty of future costs because a prudent businessman won't hire until he knows his additional expenses will bring in additional revenue.

If a business owner says he won't hire because of the unknown future costs and lets the quality of his customer service decline then he won't be in business very long.

True but there is more to business than just serving existing customers with existing products.

 

[asterism]

As the saying goes, "It's better for the economy to have 100 people with $1,000 to spend than one person with $100,000 to spend". This is "Trickle Up Economics".

Henry Ford understood that when he paid his employees much higher wages than any other industrialists in his day. He understood that if people had money to spend they would buy his products, build houses and furnish them with goods.

The biggest reason hiring sucks so bad right now is that due to the stagnant wages in the middle class there's simply no demand. If there was demand businesses would be hiring regardless of the regulations.

There is all sorts of demand, there just isn't huge expectations of increasing demand. That's usually where innovation steps in, but uncertainty in increased costs, lack of capital for new small businesses exploring new concepts and the government intrusion into the marketplace is stifling innovation.

 

[LoneLaugher]

so you don't have to worry about making payroll or risking your own assets... you are just a lowly peon!

I happen to own a business.

If I have enough business to warrant a new hire then I will hire someone using the current costs to make my decision.

If I need a person today because my staff can't keep up with the demand for my products and/or services then I will not wait to hire thereby risking my customers' satisfaction and the possibility of losing their business.

So you see if a new hire is warranted a prudent business owner will hire regardless of the uncertainty of future costs because a prudent businessman won't hire until he knows his additional expenses will bring in additional revenue.

If a business owner says he won't hire because of the unknown future costs and lets the quality of his customer service decline then he won't be in business very long.

True but there is more to business than just serving existing customers with existing products.

You said something........but it had no meaning. Can you say something else?

 

[Dragon]

True but there is more to business than just serving existing customers with existing products.

Yes, there is also anticipating future customers and/or future products. But in all cases, how the economy is doing, and how much consumers are spending, drives all these considerations.

For example, if the economy is booming, and you are a maker of consumer electronics, you might anticipate that there will be an increased market for smart phones in the coming months, and you would adjust your hiring and other business decisions accordingly. On the other hand, if the economy remains slumped, you would not reasonably anticipate that this increased market would exist, and you would, again, adjust your business decisions accordingly.

Regarding innovative products, we've had this discussion before. Consumer demand in general (although not, obviously demand for specific products that people have never heard of before) drives innovation, too -- or anyway, drives the introduction of innovative products to the market. (I suppose people can invent things any old time.)

The technology for television was fully developed by the late 1920s. In the U.S., however, it was not introduced to the market until the late 1940s, two full decades later. Why? Because in between we had twelve years of the Great Depression and four of World War II. When the demand for it existed, it was introduced and became a success -- commercially, anyway. (No comment about its artistic merits.)

Consumer demand drives prosperity. Equality of income, or at least relative equality, drives consumer demand. Our economic problems at this time come from the fact that we have too much income inequality.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Isn't this like saying it isn't racist I have a black friend. The finacial industry was the least regulated under Bush and that caused the crash of the economy. Regulations improve consumer confidence and as a matter of fact regulations have saved many companies as well as the financial industry after the crash of 1929.

 

[asterism]

True but there is more to business than just serving existing customers with existing products.

Yes, there is also anticipating future customers and/or future products. But in all cases, how the economy is doing, and how much consumers are spending, drives all these considerations.

True. How much is your cable TV bill? Business is WAY UP for cable TV in this area. That presents an opportunity. Cell phone usage is skyrocketing, another opportunity.

For example, if the economy is booming, and you are a maker of consumer electronics, you might anticipate that there will be an increased market for smart phones in the coming months, and you would adjust your hiring and other business decisions accordingly. On the other hand, if the economy remains slumped, you would not reasonably anticipate that this increased market would exist, and you would, again, adjust your business decisions accordingly.

There's more to it than that. During the last recession, there was increased demand for less expensive costs. E-commerce exploded then because people could get the same products for less money. That fueled the increased demand for products previously unavailable to most.

Regarding innovative products, we've had this discussion before. Consumer demand in general (although not, obviously demand for specific products that people have never heard of before) drives innovation, too -- or anyway, drives the introduction of innovative products to the market. (I suppose people can invent things any old time.)

The technology for television was fully developed by the late 1920s. In the U.S., however, it was not introduced to the market until the late 1940s, two full decades later. Why? Because in between we had twelve years of the Great Depression and four of World War II. When the demand for it existed, it was introduced and became a success -- commercially, anyway. (No comment about its artistic merits.)

The TV wasn't introduced because the national delivery method had not been developed yet.

Consumer demand drives prosperity. Equality of income, or at least relative equality, drives consumer demand. Our economic problems at this time come from the fact that we have too much income inequality.

Horseshit. My income doesn't have anything to do with whether my neighbor buys a new plane. His income doesn't have anything to do with whether I buy a new hot tub. Neither of our incomes have anything to do with the homeless guy begging for beer money.

Assuming I make 5 times your salary, how does that affect you?

 

[Full-Auto]

You wrote"If a business owner says he won't hire because of the unknown future costs and lets the quality of his customer service decline then he won't be in business very long."
If his costs of providing customer service quality increases because healthcare costs,EPA,OSHA, i.e rules and regulations require additional expenses, he obviously then won't hire and as you said won't be in business!
DUH! That's what the idiot Obama doesn't understand cause as a community organizer he NEVER had to make payroll. He worked for non-profits that received donations!

Good lord man, take an economics class. Regulations that apply to all business reflect ceteris paribus and therefore don't affect competition. I thought risk was why owners received profit, ie, they take the risks, they reap the rewards, as opposed to the wage slave. If you have no tolerance for uncertainty, you might as well get a government job.

You have failed to undermine anything that he posted. Did you see the word competition in his statement?

 

[Full-Auto]

should I add that the legislation treats businesses differently dependent upon size?

 

[pete]

So many "experts" that are not capable of creating jobs, don't care to hear from what people that CAN and DO hire people have to say!
Read here for a small business owner's reasons for NOT hiring!

He doesn't know what his employee costs will be!
"The man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why he refuses to hire anybody. His business is successful, he says, as the 737 cruises smoothly eastward. Demand for his product is up. But he still won’t hire.
Because I don’t know how much it will cost,” he explains. “How can I hire new workers today, when I don’t know how much they will cost me tomorrow?”

He’s referring not to wages, but to regulation: He has no way of telling what new rules will go into effect when. His business, although it covers several states, operates on low margins. He can’t afford to take the chance of losing what little profit there is to the next round of regulatory changes. And so he’s hiring nobody until he has some certainty about cost. "

I don’t understand why Washington does this to us," he resumes. By "us," he means people who run businesses of less- than-Fortune-500 size.

“Invisible,” he says. “I know there are things the government has to do.
But they need to find a way to do them without people like me having to bump into a new regulation every time we turn a corner.”
He reflects for a moment, then finds the analogy he seeks.
“Government should act like my assistant, not my boss.”

Carter: Economic Stagnation Explained, at 30,000 Feet - Bloomberg

Exactly what is happening, but the assholes on the left want you to think if we take from the rich we can create jobs. What jobs they dont have any legit businesses. Make government bigger oh that will help the deficit!!!
What business owners should do is band together and put both feet down and TELL the government lay off or we to will move operations o China!!