The No Job Gov't.

[froggy]

Rep. or Dem. neither is making job creations a top priority.

 

[gekaap]

Cool story bro.

 

[boedicca]

Rep. or Dem. neither is making job creations a top priority.

The Govn't doesn't create jobs.

The best it can do is not do the things that destroy job creation in the private sector.

In the early 1900s, total government spending was 7% of GDP. Now it is over 42%.

This is why we are not creating jobs.

You want jobs?

- Descope government to essentials
- Cut spending dramatically
- Reform accounting to the accrual method
- Pass a balanced budget amendment
- Cut Taxes

These will free the private sector to CREATE JOBS.

 

[gekaap]

Why do we have to blame government for the economy not creating jobs? I think the fault is on the business sector. It's not like they enjoy creating jobs. Employees cost money. The real problem is that our country is caught in the grip of a business system that favors the country having a high unemployment rate.

 

[xsited1]

Rep. or Dem. neither is making job creations a top priority.

Obama has been creating a lot of government jobs.

 

[Mr Natural]

The government could cut corporate taxes to zero and eliminate every single regulation on businesses and that would do nothing to change the fact that foreign workers will work for a fraction of what their American counterparts will.

 

[BlindBoo]

How's that NA Free Trade agreement (deal) working out for ya?

You know products being freely traded between North American countries. Products that used to be built here by American workers are now being built in foriegn countries and shipped back here (that's the free trade part) and sold for about the same price as it was before, but the bottom line is profits are up.

Support services work the same way.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why do we have to blame government for the economy not creating jobs? I think the fault is on the business sector. It's not like they enjoy creating jobs. Employees cost money. The real problem is that our country is caught in the grip of a business system that favors the country having a high unemployment rate.

You just don't get it do you?

A business will hire when a new employee will add more to the bottom line than he costs the employer.

The problem is that the economy sucks right now and there is not much need to hire since in all likelihood a new employee will cost more than he can add to the bottom line.

The only sector of the economy that doesn't care about the bottom line is the government and we have all seen where that gets us.

 

[Bern80]

Why do we have to blame government for the economy not creating jobs? I think the fault is on the business sector. It's not like they enjoy creating jobs. Employees cost money. The real problem is that our country is caught in the grip of a business system that favors the country having a high unemployment rate.

That's rather nonsensical. How is it beneficial to a business for people to not have disposable income? Businesses dont' get a feeling one way or the other over creating jobs, i don't think. Though I would think the fact that they have to hire more people would be a sign that their business is doing well and growing.

While we shouldn't blame government for not creating jobs (because that's not their job). We can certainly blame them for policies that discourage job growth.

 

[boedicca]

Rep. or Dem. neither is making job creations a top priority.

Obama has been creating a lot of government jobs.

At great cost! And some of those were only SAVED.

 

[gekaap]

You just don't get it do you?

I get it perfectly. But you're basing your arguments on some faulty presumptions.

A business will hire when a new employee will add more to the bottom line than he costs the employer.

Not really true. A business will hire a new employee when there is necessary work to be done, and when it would be less cost effective to not hire someone in order to accomplish the necessary tasks. Let's say you have a company that manufactures widgets. As the public demand for widgets increases, the need for the company to produce more widgets also increases. But the company does not necessarily hire more workers. If the company can streamline efficiency to produce more widgets without increasing labor costs, then it will do so and will avoid hiring more people. This is the kind of thing we are seeing nowadays, with greater reliance on self scan checkouts, automated phone systems that make you press "1" several times before finally giving you to an operator to answer your question, etc.

The problem is that the economy sucks right now and there is not much need to hire since in all likelihood a new employee will cost more than he can add to the bottom line.

The economy is not great, no doubt. But the economy has been recovering for some time, yet jobs have not been increasing. This, it seems to me, is because after slimming down so many jobs, businesses have discovered that they can maintain production without the additional costs of rehiring all the people they've laid off. So, they're going to keep on as they are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You just don't get it do you?

I get it perfectly. But you're basing your arguments on some faulty presumptions.

A business will hire when a new employee will add more to the bottom line than he costs the employer.

Not really true. A business will hire a new employee when there is necessary work to be done, and when it would be less cost effective to not hire someone in order to accomplish the necessary tasks. Let's say you have a company that manufactures widgets. As the public demand for widgets increases, the need for the company to produce more widgets also increases. But the company does not necessarily hire more workers. If the company can streamline efficiency to produce more widgets without increasing labor costs, then it will do so and will avoid hiring more people. This is the kind of thing we are seeing nowadays, with greater reliance on self scan checkouts, automated phone systems that make you press "1" several times before finally giving you to an operator to answer your question, etc.

The problem is that the economy sucks right now and there is not much need to hire since in all likelihood a new employee will cost more than he can add to the bottom line.

The economy is not great, no doubt. But the economy has been recovering for some time, yet jobs have not been increasing. This, it seems to me, is because after slimming down so many jobs, businesses have discovered that they can maintain production without the additional costs of rehiring all the people they've laid off. So, they're going to keep on as they are.

The principle stands.

A business owner makes nearly all decisions based on a cost analysis. It's not rocket science.

If spending 100K on a widget machine will benefit the business more than spending 100K hiring new people then guess what? Business owners have no obligation to hire more people than they need.

And all the libbies who are so pro tech and scientific advancement and all that crap seem to think that a self checkout is a bad thing. Tell me how many engineers, computer techs, and assembly workers, etc were involved in the design, construction installation and upkeep of those systems?

A lot more than the one or two cashiers that were replaced.

And you can say all you want that the economy is recovering and it very well may be. We have not seen too bad of a hit in our business but it's the opinion of the vast majority of our customers that nothing is really getting better and that's the yardstick that actually means something to me not what idiots like Paul Krugman say.

 

[cutter]

Rep. or Dem. neither is making job creations a top priority.

Obama has been creating a lot of government jobs.

At great cost! And some of those were only SAVED.

Government jobs are fine as long as you tax each worker enough to cover their own wages.If you don't then we have to pay them

 

[gekaap]

How is it beneficial to a business for people to not have disposable income?

Because nowadays the economy is not about disposable income so much, as it is about allegedly necessary expenditures. Think, for a moment, about what in your life you could do without. A place to live? Food? These are pretty much necessities, obviously. What about your car? Theoretically not a necessity, but how are you really going to get around and get back and forth to work without a car? Have you any real idea how you would get by without your own transportation? Okay, how about your cell phone? Luxury? Is it really? How are you going to function well without communication? What happens when work tries to get a hold of you and they can't? What happens when you get stuck behind a massive accident and are late to work, and you can't call in to let them know? It's a bad job market, you're easily replaced. Are you really going to do well without your cell phone?

Alot of things that are supposedly luxuries have been forced into society as new necessities. And many accepted necessities have become more expensive, or have garnered greater expenses associated with them. I'll use clothing as an example. I've long noticed that the quality of clothing in the past decade has gone down, in terms of its ability to last. To give you a personal story, I have some old shirts that are about 12 years old. I was still a teenager back then, just out of HS, and I've always had a certain affinity for certain comic heroes. So when I happened to find these three particular shirts each depicting certain characters, I decided to buy all three as if they were a collectors set. But, I didn't preserve them as such, I wore them like any other clothes. I still have those shirts, they're in great condition. I don't really wear them nowadays since they don't suit my more mature approach to life now. But the point is that they've been washed machine dried hundreds, maybe a thousand times, packed and unpacked, etc. and they hold up great. But that quality can't be found today. I have to replace my clothes alot more now than once upon a time. I'm only using clothing as an example, but a great deal of how business is done nowadays has become dependent on circumventing disposable income for necessary expenditures.

Businesses dont' get a feeling one way or the other over creating jobs, i don't think. Though I would think the fact that they have to hire more people would be a sign that their business is doing well and growing.

Nowadays, it's more a sign that you're doing something wrong. The business sector is more interested in getting the work done without having to hire more people. If that means you have to stand in line a little longer, they're okay with that. And because you don't have any other choice, you accept it.

While we shouldn't blame government for not creating jobs (because that's not their job). We can certainly blame them for policies that discourage job growth.

But is it really government policies that discourage job growth? Or is it modern business practices and culture?

 

[gekaap]

A business owner makes nearly all decisions based on a cost analysis. It's not rocket science.

Which is exactly my point.

If spending 100K on a widget machine will benefit the business more than spending 100K hiring new people then guess what? Business owners have no obligation to hire more people than they need.

Which is exactly my point. If the business does not hire people because they find it in their interest to maintain a smaller employee roster, then that cannot be blamed on the government.

And all the libbies who are so pro tech and scientific advancement and all that crap seem to think that a self checkout is a bad thing. Tell me how many engineers, computer techs, and assembly workers, etc were involved in the design, construction installation and upkeep of those systems?

Obviously not enough to not make it worth the investment for the business. Which means that employment remains lesser because of the reliance on technology. Again, the lower employment is not the fault of the government.

A lot more than the one or two cashiers that were replaced.

You've already admitted that companies will apply apply a cost/benefit analysis mindset to their decision making. One or two cashiers is alot cheaper than expensive technology and the services of highly trained techs and engineers to maintain the technology. So you're contradicting yourself.

And you can say all you want that the economy is recovering and it very well may be. We have not seen too bad of a hit in our business but it's the opinion of the vast majority of our customers that nothing is really getting better and that's the yardstick that actually means something to me not what idiots like Paul Krugman say.

When did I say anything about Paul Krugman?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The government could cut corporate taxes to zero and eliminate every single regulation on businesses and that would do nothing to change the fact that foreign workers will work for a fraction of what their American counterparts will.

I wonder if they divide 21 by 3 they get .14?

 

[Bern80]

Because nowadays the economy is not about disposable income so much, as it is about allegedly necessary expenditures. Think, for a moment, about what in your life you could do without. A place to live? Food? These are pretty much necessities, obviously. What about your car? Theoretically not a necessity, but how are you really going to get around and get back and forth to work without a car? Have you any real idea how you would get by without your own transportation? Okay, how about your cell phone? Luxury? Is it really? How are you going to function well without communication? What happens when work tries to get a hold of you and they can't? What happens when you get stuck behind a massive accident and are late to work, and you can't call in to let them know? It's a bad job market, you're easily replaced. Are you really going to do well without your cell phone?

Alot of things that are supposedly luxuries have been forced into society as new necessities. And many accepted necessities have become more expensive, or have garnered greater expenses associated with them. I'll use clothing as an example. I've long noticed that the quality of clothing in the past decade has gone down, in terms of its ability to last. To give you a personal story, I have some old shirts that are about 12 years old. I was still a teenager back then, just out of HS, and I've always had a certain affinity for certain comic heroes. So when I happened to find these three particular shirts each depicting certain characters, I decided to buy all three as if they were a collectors set. But, I didn't preserve them as such, I wore them like any other clothes. I still have those shirts, they're in great condition. I don't really wear them nowadays since they don't suit my more mature approach to life now. But the point is that they've been washed machine dried hundreds, maybe a thousand times, packed and unpacked, etc. and they hold up great. But that quality can't be found today. I have to replace my clothes alot more now than once upon a time. I'm only using clothing as an example, but a great deal of how business is done nowadays has become dependent on circumventing disposable income for necessary expenditures.

While the above is really not the problem, you have unknowingly hilighted the actual problem. The problem that our society is getting dumber. Most products aren't any more truly necessary today than they were years ago. So who's fault is it really that people are buying them anyway? Did marketing executives find come to some great discovery in how to dupe people into buying things? Do individuals bare no accountability for not being responsible consumers?

What you said before simply isn't factually accurate. Don't you see how counter intuitive it is to say it's in the best interest of business for the people who consumer their products to not have the money to buy them?

Nowadays, it's more a sign that you're doing something wrong. The business sector is more interested in getting the work done without having to hire more people. If that means you have to stand in line a little longer, they're okay with that. And because you don't have any other choice, you accept it.

There are very few things you don't have a choice about. You are just as culpable for that outcome as the business because you have either a) refused to acknowledge there's a choice where one exists or b) you have decided the wait is worth it to you. If it wasn't and enough other people felt the same way the business will act accordingly.

Labor like any and every other comodity also responds to the laws of supply and demand. I have worked in call centers and when call volume goes up we took on more service reps. I have worked in production and when clients demand their orders in a timely manner we have to hire the extra people to build the product to meet those demands.

But is it really government policies that discourage job growth? Or is it modern business practices and culture?

Or is it modern human culture? Yes it really is government policies. Government produces about a hundred pages A DAY of new business regulations. Those regulations make it more expensive for business to do business. That hurts their ability to create jobs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A business owner makes nearly all decisions based on a cost analysis. It's not rocket science.

Which is exactly my point.



Which is exactly my point. If the business does not hire people because they find it in their interest to maintain a smaller employee roster, then that cannot be blamed on the government.

I never blamed it on the government. The opinion around here is that businesses should hire now because people are out of work.

Obviously not enough to not make it worth the investment for the business. Which means that employment remains lesser because of the reliance on technology. Again, the lower employment is not the fault of the government.

Reliance on tech opens up employment in other fields and increases employment over all.

You've already admitted that companies will apply apply a cost/benefit analysis mindset to their decision making. One or two cashiers is alot cheaper than expensive technology and the services of highly trained techs and engineers to maintain the technology. So you're contradicting yourself.

Not necessarily. Tell me what does an employee cost over a career in taxes, workman comp, liability, salary, etc etc. A self checkout could very well be cheaper.

 

[Mr Natural]

The government could cut corporate taxes to zero and eliminate every single regulation on businesses and that would do nothing to change the fact that foreign workers will work for a fraction of what their American counterparts will.

I wonder if they divide 21 by 3 they get .14?

And I wonder if you would eat shit, little man.

 

[ba1614]

Why do we have to blame government for the economy not creating jobs? I think the fault is on the business sector. It's not like they enjoy creating jobs. Employees cost money. The real problem is that our country is caught in the grip of a business system that favors the country having a high unemployment rate.

Well of course, everything is the fault of greedy businesses! If they would all just get with the program and join the unions we could all live harmoniously!