Why Jobs Aren't Being Created

[The Rabbi]

I saw this this AM in the WSJ. You may not be able to access the whole thing but search for it as it is available. It is all anyone needs to know in a nutshell: The cost of hiring employees far outweighs any expected benefit their employment might confer. That is all anyone needs to know. That and the fact that this situation is the creation of Team Obama with help from other and past pols.
Michael P. Fleischer: Why I'm Not Hiring - WSJ.com

 

[topspin]

Please get some republicans with a pulse, I want my gridlock back.

 

[blastoff]

It's a very interesting article and IMO should be required reading for everyone in D.C. - regardless of party affiliation - as I firmly believe very few in congress or others who influence legislation have a clue how the results impact businesses and their workers.

In the linked example it costs a guy's business $74K to employ someone whose gross pay is $59K. And the $59K nets out at only $44K after taxes, withholdings, and whatnot.

If you haven't clicked the link you should.

 

[Claudette]

Very interesting indeed.

Like you K I don't think the Clowns in DC have a clue how what they do affects business.

Business is in business to make money. If the overhead is to high and they aren't making money they will not be hiring or expanding the business. Common sense. Oh wait, I forgot, ain't any of that in DC. Jeeze.

 

[rdean]

These are the fruits of Republican policies finally coming home to roost.

When disastrous policies are put in place, it takes three or four years for them to show up in an economy as big as the US economy. It's called "momentum".

 

[loosecannon]

the solution is obviously to reduce wages and benefits as necessary......

reaching toward parity with wages in Mexico, China and India

 

[zzzz]

That is why the temporary job services are exploding all over the country. A company can hire employees and employ them for years as temps and not pay unemployment taxes, health benefits, low wages and fire them without cause. Yes, some may need to be trained but as the manpower pool continues to stagnate trained employees will become more and more available. This is the future of the American workforce.

 

[uscitizen]

It's a very interesting article and IMO should be required reading for everyone in D.C. - regardless of party affiliation - as I firmly believe very few in congress or others who influence legislation have a clue how the results impact businesses and their workers.

In the linked example it costs a guy's business $74K to employ someone whose gross pay is $59K. And the $59K nets out at only $44K after taxes, withholdings, and whatnot.

If you haven't clicked the link you should.

Like the EX CEO of HP?

 

[saveliberty]

I think many businesses have been pleasantly surprised at the productivity they have achieved with fewer employees. No rush to add at this point. We have a new hire that works two hours in the morning five days a week changing oil. He replaces a perosn who was here all day. Losign a parts person next month and will most likely just replace with a half time person. Some how I don't think we are that unusual.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here's a great article in today's WSJ on why jobs aren't being created, aptly entitled, "Why I'm Not Hiring"

Michael P. Fleischer: Why I'm Not Hiring - WSJ.com

 

[VaYank5150]

I saw this this AM in the WSJ. You may not be able to access the whole thing but search for it as it is available. It is all anyone needs to know in a nutshell: The cost of hiring employees far outweighs any expected benefit their employment might confer. That is all anyone needs to know. That and the fact that this situation is the creation of Team Obama with help from other and past pols.
Michael P. Fleischer: Why I'm Not Hiring - WSJ.com

Obviously, YOU are not in the business of hiring employees, if you believe the exhobinant costs of hiring them is recent and only the creation of the Obama administration. You really should try eductaing yourself BEFORE you post.

 

[Annie]

Here's a great article in today's WSJ on why jobs aren't being created, aptly entitled, "Why I'm Not Hiring"

Michael P. Fleischer: Why I'm Not Hiring - WSJ.com

That was the link in the op.

 

[WillowTree]

I saw this this AM in the WSJ. You may not be able to access the whole thing but search for it as it is available. It is all anyone needs to know in a nutshell: The cost of hiring employees far outweighs any expected benefit their employment might confer. That is all anyone needs to know. That and the fact that this situation is the creation of Team Obama with help from other and past pols.
Michael P. Fleischer: Why I'm Not Hiring - WSJ.com

I watch some of the business channels. same thing, thousands of jobs and corporations headed oversea.. gobama gobama gobama!

 

[uscitizen]

Not hiring employees because the market will not support it.
A coinsumer driven economy remember.

No jobs no spending,
No spending no new jobs.

 

[saveliberty]

Not hiring employees because the market will not support it.
A coinsumer driven economy remember.

No jobs no spending,
No spending no new jobs.

Many roads to consumer spending. What I see now is, consumers will wait for the bargain. Deflated prices due to low demand. Once employers shed their higher priced employees, this will be achievable.

 

[Avatar4321]

Jobs aren't being created because no one is creating jobs. Everyones sitting on their butt expecting someone else to create the jobs. The President. The wealthy. Whomever.

Stop waiting on others and do it yourself.

 

[Mr Natural]

Not hiring employees because the market will not support it.
A coinsumer driven economy remember.

No jobs no spending,
No spending no new jobs.

Many roads to consumer spending. What I see now is, consumers will wait for the bargain. Deflated prices due to low demand. Once employers shed their higher priced employees, this will be achievable.

"Prosperity through lower wages!"

 

[Douger]

If I had a business in the fallen empire, and wanted to expand, I'd head to Central America.
OH WAIT.
Never mind.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I saw this this AM in the WSJ. You may not be able to access the whole thing but search for it as it is available. It is all anyone needs to know in a nutshell: The cost of hiring employees far outweighs any expected benefit their employment might confer. That is all anyone needs to know. That and the fact that this situation is the creation of Team Obama with help from other and past pols.
Michael P. Fleischer: Why I'm Not Hiring - WSJ.com

Obviously, YOU are not in the business of hiring employees, if you believe the exhobinant costs of hiring them is recent and only the creation of the Obama administration. You really should try eductaing yourself BEFORE you post.

There is great uncertainty as to future employment costs that has been created by this administration..... Is the cost of hiring a complete product of Team Obama? Of course not. But it isn't the smartest thing to create in bad times an air of uncertainty that retards growth. That they have done.

 

[Sinatra]

The attack against job creation is growing at an alarming rate - and has been reached all new levels within the last few years.

Increased regulation and accompanying taxes are stifling the present business climate in America, as well as inhibiting its future growth. These taxes and regulations are put upon in layers of local, state, and federal levels.

The long established production industries have been decimated in great part by the legacy costs inflicted upon them via the unions.

Unions are destroying America. No offense to our union workers in here - past and present, but the great machine that is the union centralized power structure has been crippling the economy for far too long and is now aggressively moving the nation toward a European socialized economic model that will forever negatively alter the potential of future generations of Americans.