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

[healthmyths]

You wrote"
We need to get the percentage of total income taken by the richest 1% down to something like 8 or 9%, instead of 25%. Only then will real prosperity be restored."
FACTS.
Please down load this spreadsheet from the IRS...
SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Size of Adjusted Gross Income
ONCE you do if you are an honest person check my numbers and correct me if these are incorrect:
There were 142,245,060 returns filed in 2008.
To reach your statement that "top 1%....instead of 25%."
1 % of returns equaled 1,424,506.
The tables didn't break down to 1% so I used the below:
$500K over $10m incomes from 898,912 returns.
These 898,912 returns gross income was reported as $1,468,581,384,000
Total income reported to IRS by all returns: $8,262,860,170,000
The % of total gross $8.2 trillion in income of top 1% returns is 17.77%

NOTE: NOT the 25% you claimed!!! but 17.7%!!!

And the Total taxes paid by top 1% :$342,919,049,000
As a % of income paid by top 1% :23.35%

And these filthy evil, 1%ers... disgustingly ... PAID 33.24% OF all the taxes paid.

So PLEASE refute these FACTS OK?
You were wrong the filthy wealthy bastards have 17% and PAID 33% of total revenue!

 

[Listening]

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, I recently read an article about a fellow who owned a mining company in Alabama (this is from memory). He had everything he needed to start another mine (permits and all). He attended some kind of eco protest and decided it just wasn't worth it.

He could have put some people to work...but didn't.

 

[oreo]

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

Here is the BEST explanation yet as to why business is not doing anything.

And it comes from a DEMOCRAT--CEO

“I’m saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime. A lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, ‘Oh God, don’t be attacking Obama.’ Well, this is Obama’s deal, and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America.”

“The guy [Obama] keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe ‘we ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest or hold too much money.’ We haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.”

“Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.”

--Steve Wynn--of Wynn's resort and casino--Las Vegas, Nevada.

Steve Wynn's Anti-Obama Rant - Is He Right? | BNET



One Big Ass Mistake America

 

[rightwinger]

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, I recently read an article about a fellow who owned a mining company in Alabama (this is from memory). He had everything he needed to start another mine (permits and all). He attended some kind of eco protest and decided it just wasn't worth it.

He could have put some people to work...but didn't.

Sorry....I don't feel sorry for him

Mines have to meet strict ecological and safety standards. We have repeatedly seen the carnage that happens when they don't

 

[healthmyths]

you maybe thinking of this:

“If they want to create jobs, provide health insurance, and increase revenue,” Bryant said in reference to the federal government, “they need to back down on the regulatory burden. It’s like pulling an iron ball with a chain. I’m not saying to make it go away—just the stuff that’s not pertinent or useful.”

Terry Douglas, who owns two mines in Jasper with Bryant, said it costs them about $250,000 per mine in permit fees alone and that paperwork and regulatory inspections are a constant presence (as well as an additional revenue strain). When asked about typical concerns surrounding coal mining—including companies skirting health and safety regulations—Douglas said it “doesn’t make sense” to let safety lapse and risk losing miners to illness or injury when it would only cost more to train new personnel.
“We take care of our equipment and take care of our people,” Douglas said. “The regulations make coal miners out to be criminals; but we’re not outlaws. Coal mining is an art. I have a civil engineering degree; Ronnie has a mining engineering degree. It’s not wildcat whiskey we’re making; this is drinking whiskey we got.”

Bryant pointed to less stringent environmental regulations in countries such as China, saying that the U.S. is falling behind even though it has abundant resources. “But you can’t get to them,” he said, adding that while there are concerns over dwindling wildlife populations, “people are becoming the endangered species.”

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, regional administrator for EPA’s Southeast Region, attended the Birmingham public hearing but could not be reached for comment.
Businessman Ronnie Bryant Tells Feds – ‘I’m Just Quitting’ | TheBlaze.com

 

[healthmyths]

YOU WROTE "We have repeatedly seen the carnage that happens when they don't"

"Repeatedly " "CARNAGE"??? What an ignorant idiotic statement!
Once again the SCREECH of "hyperbole"!!

BUT do the FACTS mean anything to hysterical hyperbolism prone ignorant people evidently like YOU??

The fatal work injury rate for mining to 19.9 per 100,000 in 2010
Mine Safety and Health Administration

The facts are:

“Fishers and related fishing workers” 200 deaths per 100,000 people
For loggers, the fatality rate was 61.8 per 100,000
aircraft pilots and flight engineers, 57.1 per 100,000.

Wow miners rate of death 10 times LESS then fishers, 3 times less then loggers/and aircraft pilots!!!
The Most Dangerous Jobs in America - NYTimes.com


MSHA - Protecting Miners' Safety and Health Since 1978
Go to this web site: MSHA - Mine Data Retrieval System (as developed by PEIR) Home Page


BUT when do FACTS matter to the hysteria crowd.."

 

[healthmyths]

you wrote"forced one American to sign a loan document that they could not afford to pay for?"

Idiot! NOT ONE word in any of my post said, indicated the borrowers were forced?
Where in the world did you get THAT hypocrisy?
Once again for the simple minded..
A) ACORN lawsuits FORCED banks to make loans on penalty of boycotts!
B) Congress FORCED banks to make loans by CRA!
C) BANKS balked because the FDIC punishes banks that make unsecured loans!
D) Enter Fannie/Freddie with the "full faith and credit" of U.S. backing toxic mortgages!

WHERE in any of that were idiots who did NOT care if they defaulted were forced?
Geez they were happy to buy 3 , 4 properties flip and walk away!
And because supposedly "compassionate" slobs like you thought YOU were helping them get into homes??? These people were UNQUALIFIED BUT in Demos like Frank/Dodd/Obama THEY were voters... you don't remember "Motor Voter" do you?
Your ignorance and those of your ilk is not only appalling BUT EXTREMELY Dangerous!
Deal with FACTS .. again I NEVER SAID borrowers were FORCED!
Total LIE by you!

 

[editec]

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~

Likewise, true.

 

[rightwinger]

you maybe thinking of this:

“If they want to create jobs, provide health insurance, and increase revenue,” Bryant said in reference to the federal government, “they need to back down on the regulatory burden. It’s like pulling an iron ball with a chain. I’m not saying to make it go away—just the stuff that’s not pertinent or useful.”

Terry Douglas, who owns two mines in Jasper with Bryant, said it costs them about $250,000 per mine in permit fees alone and that paperwork and regulatory inspections are a constant presence (as well as an additional revenue strain). When asked about typical concerns surrounding coal mining—including companies skirting health and safety regulations—Douglas said it “doesn’t make sense” to let safety lapse and risk losing miners to illness or injury when it would only cost more to train new personnel.
“We take care of our equipment and take care of our people,” Douglas said. “The regulations make coal miners out to be criminals; but we’re not outlaws. Coal mining is an art. I have a civil engineering degree; Ronnie has a mining engineering degree. It’s not wildcat whiskey we’re making; this is drinking whiskey we got.”

Bryant pointed to less stringent environmental regulations in countries such as China, saying that the U.S. is falling behind even though it has abundant resources. “But you can’t get to them,” he said, adding that while there are concerns over dwindling wildlife populations, “people are becoming the endangered species.”

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, regional administrator for EPA’s Southeast Region, attended the Birmingham public hearing but could not be reached for comment.
Businessman Ronnie Bryant Tells Feds – ‘I’m Just Quitting’ | TheBlaze.com

I must say....that is one of the most laughable posts I have read in weeks

You want us to emulate the safety and environmental regulations of CHINA? God....haven't we learned anything?

Doesn't make sense to let safety lapse and risk miners? Haven't we already heard that for 75 years and seen the results as mining companies cut corners to maximize profits? In a poor economy, miners will line up to find jobs. Coal companies know this and will assume the risk

 

[asterism]

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.

How are those increased debit card fees improving consumer confidence? How is the micromanagement of the FDIC closing small banks because they don't fit the big bank model improving consumer confidence?

This game was played in 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to fix this and it had vast bi-partisan support. What happened?

what regulation forces banks to raise debit fees and micromanaging to close small banks? and who is doing this miceomanging? small banks clsed because they were left holding the bad mortgage in the mortgage scams by big banks.

Frank-Dodd and the law of unintended consequences caused debit fees to raise. The new FDIC procedures are closing healthy banks without an inordinate amount of bad mortgages. The problem is that the stress tests are based on a model fit for big banks and the capital requirements are based on assumptions that just don't apply to small banks.

 

[asterism]

Consumer demand for cable TV is growing! Demand for cellular service is growing too. That's not cannibalistic. It's not a zero sum game.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. Demand across the board is not growing, or not growing significantly compared to population growth. That being the case, it IS a zero-sum game. I don't deny that demand for cable TV is growing, but if that's true, then it means that demand for other products is shrinking, as that is the only way growth in demand for cable is compatible with sluggish demand overall.

Absolute consumer demand, not consumer demand rates. There is still today an escalating demand for consumer products because the population is increasing.

Everything really should be normalized for population growth or decline. That's why I like to use growth in per capita GDP as the correct measure rather than growth in aggregate GDP.



There was one, yes. It was brief and mild. It followed after the immediate postwar boom, and proved an unimportant hiccup in the prosperous decades that followed.



You, by yourself, are not able to keep someone's wages down. This requires collective action and the main culprit is the government, at the behest of big business. Nevertheless, you profit by the fact that wages have been kept down -- except that, if you're a small business owner, most likely the loss of consumer market is hurting you more than low wages are helping.



To use a more relevant illustration, if innovations in production methods allow your employees to double productivity per person-hour, then they should have a 100% raise. (Of course, you, by yourself, can't be expected to do this -- your competitors would eat you. It has to be economy-wide.) Otherwise, over the whole economy, buying power will not keep pace with productivity, and we will run into the problem we're experiencing now.

An alternative to a 100% raise would be a 50% price cut -- same thing in effect. Or some mix and match of the two. But what's actually happened is that all or most of the gains have gone to the top. That's unsustainable.



Most manufacturing unions are still in place. The reason that unions have declined in strength is because manufacturing jobs have been lost to a combination of automation and outsourcing, and the service jobs that have replaced them have not been unionized, due to hostile government policy that makes it harder to do this.

Unions are not "pricing themselves out of the market." Consider that the wages for outsourced labor in some third-world country typically run ten percent or less of their American counterparts. This is not a wage that Americans can survive on, and there is no way that American workers can compete. The difference between union and non-union wages is trivial by comparison.

There is not less demand for "relatively unskilled labor," because that describes a lot of service work. There is, however, less bargaining power on the part of workers. Manufacturing work used to pay shit, too -- until industry was unionized.



The tax system HAS been flattened, and the total share of taxes paid by the upper end has increased ONLY because the total share of the income of the upper end has increased EVEN MORE. The percentage of their income paid by the very rich has gone down, not up, and that, not what percentage of the total tax revenues they pay, is the relevant statistic.



From 1940 to 1980, real per capita GDP grew at a rate of approximately 4.25% per year. From 1980 to the present, it's grown at a rate of just over 2% per year. If the economy had continued to grow at 4.25% per year, it would now, after thirty years, be 1.5 times as big now as it is, approximately. The pie is smaller because of the policy shift, but the share of it taken by the very wealthy is larger.



Oh, yes, but you're missing the important point here. Why was it necessary for all that credit to be extended to consumers in the first place? Because they weren't being paid enough to buy enough to keep the economy growing WITHOUT borrowing, or by borrowing responsibly (e.g. for big purchases like cars or homes).

Using what means? Taxation? Stifling innovation?

What happens to my employees when I'm told I cannot make more money?

Taxes on the rich do not stifle either innovation or investment; that's a myth.

The most effective way to redistribute wealth downward, to answer your question, is by driving wages up. This can be done through a combination of changed government policies to more aggressively enforce labor rights, changes to tax structure and banking regulation to steer investment into productive enterprises instead of financial shell games, and a short term massive government stimulus program to get the ball rolling. That's exactly how the Great Depression was brought to an end and four decades of unprecedented prosperity inaugurated.

Wow! When has more government control over the economy ever produced these results? And what is the benefit of overpaying anyone?

1940-1980, as I said. As for "overpaying" anyone, obviously the contention I'm making is that at present, most people are seriously UNDERpaid. My measure for that is that they aren't being paid enough to generate the consumer demand needed for real prosperity.

The Great Depression ended only after an entire generation got much more financially prudent and then rationing caused extreme pent up demand, not massive government stimulus. The easy credit of the last few decades was not a necessity, it was foolishness. Necessity did not cause the size of the average house to double. Necessity did not cause the per-capita spending on luxuries to increase.

Higher wages come with more valuable marketable skills. Otherwise, it's unsustainable as demonstrated by companies like GM, Amtrak, the Postal Service, and Eastern Airlines.

 

[editec]

How are those increased debit card fees improving consumer confidence? How is the micromanagement of the FDIC closing small banks because they don't fit the big bank model improving consumer confidence?

This game was played in 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to fix this and it had vast bi-partisan support. What happened?

what regulation forces banks to raise debit fees and micromanaging to close small banks? and who is doing this miceomanging? small banks clsed because they were left holding the bad mortgage in the mortgage scams by big banks.

Frank-Dodd and the law of unintended consequences caused debit fees to raise. The new FDIC procedures are closing healthy banks without an inordinate amount of bad mortgages. The problem is that the stress tests are based on a model fit for big banks and the capital requirements are based on assumptions that just don't apply to small banks.

That's interesting,

Can you give us examples of that?

The vast majority of retail banks are innocent of this disaster in my opinion.

Basically its six large commercial banks that are controlling this economy.

 

[daveman]

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

It makes him envious, so you should give some of your money to him. That would be "fair".

 

[Dragon]

The Great Depression ended only after an entire generation got much more financially prudent and then rationing caused extreme pent up demand, not massive government stimulus.

Excuse me, but that's simply counter-factual. The rationing did contribute to the postwar demand, but it was not the main cause of it; the main cause is that for four years we had full employment at good wages. Those who could not, during the Depression years, get a job, found one either in the military or working in a defense industry, or in the civilian economy that surged, too, due to the improvement in demand that occurred during the war itself.

Demand is the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. Desire to buy is pretty much a constant. Ability to buy is a variable. During the war, there was less to buy because of rationing than after it, but many Americans could actually buy MORE than BEFORE the war, rationing or no rationing, because they had money, whereas before the war they didn't.

The best way to stimulate demand is not to take goods off the market, it's to put money in people's pockets, and that's exactly what the massive government spending to fight World War II did. After the war, the military was cut back and many servicemen were discharged. Many people who didn't understand the key role demand plays in the economy feared a return to Depression conditions. But because people had been working for four years at good wages, they had money in the bank, and that meant demand was high -- even higher because there had been a shortage of consumer goods during the war. So factories quickly retooled to produce consumer goods instead of military goods, and after a short period of high inflation and economic confusion, the boom was on.

But the important thing to understand is that the government spending surge was not the permanent fix. That was just the jump-start. The permanent fix was the rules changes that were put in place over the course of the Depression and the war: labor-friendly government policies that encouraged unions, high taxes on the rich with full deductions for investment in productive enterprise, and regulation of the banking industry and securities. This is what narrowed income gaps and led to more than three decades of prosperity never equaled before or since, long past the time when the stimulus provided by the war spending was over.

The easy credit of the last few decades was not a necessity, it was foolishness. Necessity did not cause the size of the average house to double. Necessity did not cause the per-capita spending on luxuries to increase.

What I mean by "necessity" is that if that had not happened, we would have had the Great Recession twenty years earlier. As happened in the 1920s, we put off the evil day with credit.

Higher wages come with more valuable marketable skills. Otherwise, it's unsustainable as demonstrated by companies like GM, Amtrak, the Postal Service, and Eastern Airlines.

Again, you need to think in the aggregate rather than in individual terms. An individual can acquire more valuable marketable skills and increase HIS wages, but that does not increase ALL wages.

No. Higher wages across the board do not come with more valuable skills. They come with a tighter labor market, regardless of any intrinsic value of the skills. (Actually, the intrinsic value of the skills, measured by the sale value of any goods or services produced, is the ceiling for wages -- have to pay less than that in order to make a profit -- and otherwise has no impact on them at all.)

Government policy shapes the supply and demand for labor, as does industry action. For example, in the 19th century when the railroads were being built and the nation was industrializing, the government encouraged unlimited immigration from Europe and Asia, which created a labor glut and drove wages down. Today, we have something similar happening in policies that encourage outsourcing and the look-the-other-way policy on illegal immigration. At the same time, government hostility to unions has broken organized labor's strength and hurt labor's bargaining position, and that, too, drives wages down. It has NOTHING to do with any inherent value of the labor.

A reversal of these policies would drive wages up across the board. And that is what we need.

 

[Gadawg73]

you wrote"forced one American to sign a loan document that they could not afford to pay for?"

Idiot! NOT ONE word in any of my post said, indicated the borrowers were forced?
Where in the world did you get THAT hypocrisy?
Once again for the simple minded..
A) ACORN lawsuits FORCED banks to make loans on penalty of boycotts!
B) Congress FORCED banks to make loans by CRA!
C) BANKS balked because the FDIC punishes banks that make unsecured loans!
D) Enter Fannie/Freddie with the "full faith and credit" of U.S. backing toxic mortgages!

WHERE in any of that were idiots who did NOT care if they defaulted were forced?
Geez they were happy to buy 3 , 4 properties flip and walk away!
And because supposedly "compassionate" slobs like you thought YOU were helping them get into homes??? These people were UNQUALIFIED BUT in Demos like Frank/Dodd/Obama THEY were voters... you don't remember "Motor Voter" do you?
Your ignorance and those of your ilk is not only appalling BUT EXTREMELY Dangerous!
Deal with FACTS .. again I NEVER SAID borrowers were FORCED!
Total LIE by you!

Where is that one American that was forced to buy a home he could not afford?
Where is he?
Dumbass, personal responsibility is what caused the meltdown. Lack of it.
CRA loans were about 15% of the total market you fool. Of that 15% of the total market they accounted for about 4% of the total dollar amount loaned. Now CRA was a bad bill but are you trying to tell me that 4% of the entire mortgage market accounted for the meltdown?
The meltdown happened with high end loans and CRA loans averaged less than 200K nationally. 760K+ average loans bundled and given a AAA Moodys rating is what caused investors to invest in those bundled mortgages. Nothing to do with the idiots at FMAE and FMAC. Now Bush did advise of the instability of both of those programs and that should have been listened to and Frank did influence the bad decision making in not listening to the Bush regulators. I know Moe. I have been a consultant to the banks for the last 5 years after the big mess. Banks were the main problem and NO ONE, no regulation or law anywhwere forced banks to loan the massive amounts, the specilative amounts, to DEVELOPERS, that caused the big meltdown. These loans were for VACANT LAND.
Dude, you watch too much Limbaugh and Hannity. They are JOKE.
I vote Republican, own 3 corporations and have investigated over 20 bank failures here in Georgia alone.
NO ONE forced any of these banks to do a damn thing. They were happy to do it. For years they got rich doing it. ESPECIALLY the low loans as the margins were higher for them.
Try again.

 

[rightwinger]

YOU WROTE "We have repeatedly seen the carnage that happens when they don't"

"Repeatedly " "CARNAGE"??? What an ignorant idiotic statement!
Once again the SCREECH of "hyperbole"!!

BUT do the FACTS mean anything to hysterical hyperbolism prone ignorant people evidently like YOU??

The fatal work injury rate for mining to 19.9 per 100,000 in 2010
Mine Safety and Health Administration

The facts are:

“Fishers and related fishing workers” 200 deaths per 100,000 people
For loggers, the fatality rate was 61.8 per 100,000
aircraft pilots and flight engineers, 57.1 per 100,000.

Wow miners rate of death 10 times LESS then fishers, 3 times less then loggers/and aircraft pilots!!!
The Most Dangerous Jobs in America - NYTimes.com


MSHA - Protecting Miners' Safety and Health Since 1978
Go to this web site: MSHA - Mine Data Retrieval System (as developed by PEIR) Home Page


BUT when do FACTS matter to the hysteria crowd.."

Hyperbole?

We have seen hundreds of miners killed in mining accidents. We have seen devastation of the environment caused by low cost mining techniques. We have seen workers who were lucky to live past their thirties

What changed? Those pesky mining regulations that the conservatives want to abandon in order to cut costs

And you want the US to emulate China?

Go fuck yourself