California, Illinois, New York: Three Worst States For Business

bitterlyclingin

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
423
Points
98
(And what state, perchance, bequeathed Barack Hussein Obama to the people of the United States?)

"By Ameet Sachdev

Tribune reporter

9:42 a.m. CDT, September 19, 2011
Illinois ranked among the three worst states for business, according to a survey of U.S. corporate executives released Monday.

Nearly one quarter of the survey's 322 respondents said Illinois had one of the least favorable business climates, according to Development Counsellors International, which specializes in economic development and tourism marketing.

Taxes and high costs were among the factors that contributed to the state's poor showing in the survey. California was deemed to have the worst business climate, followed by New York and Illinois."


Illinois among worst states to do business: Survey - chicagotribune.com
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
And no doubt their defined "Best states" for business will be?

Any State where the working classes have no expectations of making a decent living wage, any worker safety or right to collective bargaining, any that have or real pollution guidelines and the national leadership is easily bribed.




.
 

GHook93

Aristotle
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
20,150
Reaction score
3,508
Points
290
Location
Chicago
And no doubt their defined "Best states" for business will be?

Any State where the working classes have no expectations of making a decent living wage, any worker safety or right to collective bargaining, any that have or real pollution guidelines and the national leadership is easily bribed.

.
What's good for business is good for the employee and the worker! When Uncle Sam takes money out of a business's pocket (via fees, taxes, regulations, compliance accounting, lengthening the sales process etc), worker bee heads roll!

It's not an us vs the corps!!!
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
Let's see, just going by the Wikipedia articles on each state:

"As of 2010, the gross state product (GSP) is about $1.9 trillion, the largest in the United States.[71] California is responsible for 13 percent of the United States' gross domestic product (GDP). As of 2006, California's GDP is larger than all but eight countries in the world (all but eleven countries by Purchasing Power Parity).

"New York's gross state product in 2010 was $1.16 trillion, ranking third in size behind the larger states of California and Texas.[37] If New York were an independent nation, it would rank as the 16th largest economy in the world behind Turkey. Its 2007 per capita personal income was $46,364, placing it sixth in the nation behind Maryland, and eighth in the world behind Ireland.

"The dollar gross state product for Illinois was estimated to be US$652 billion in 2010.[53] The state's 2010 per capita gross state product was estimated to be US$45,302,[53] and the state's per capita personal income was estimated to be US$41,411 in 2009."

All of that doesn't seem too bad to me, for "the worst business climate in the country."
 

Wicked Jester

Libsmackin'chef
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
11,924
Reaction score
1,890
Points
153
Location
So. Cal, Malibu!
(And what state, perchance, bequeathed Barack Hussein Obama to the people of the United States?)

"By Ameet Sachdev

Tribune reporter

9:42 a.m. CDT, September 19, 2011
Illinois ranked among the three worst states for business, according to a survey of U.S. corporate executives released Monday.

Nearly one quarter of the survey's 322 respondents said Illinois had one of the least favorable business climates, according to Development Counsellors International, which specializes in economic development and tourism marketing.

Taxes and high costs were among the factors that contributed to the state's poor showing in the survey. California was deemed to have the worst business climate, followed by New York and Illinois."


Illinois among worst states to do business: Survey - chicagotribune.com
Liberal policies of over taxation and regulation, have taken the worlds 7 largest economy here in California, down to third world status in record time.

It's disgusting.:evil:
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
What's good for business is good for the employee and the worker! When Uncle Sam takes money out of a business's pocket (via fees, taxes, regulations, compliance accounting, lengthening the sales process etc), worker bee heads roll!
False. Businesses lay off workers not when their taxes go up, but when their sales go down. It's all driven by the market for the goods or services they produce and sell. Conversely, businesses hire workers not when their taxes go down, but when their sales go up to the point they can't meet demand efficiently with existing staff.
 

GHook93

Aristotle
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
20,150
Reaction score
3,508
Points
290
Location
Chicago
CA, IL and NY have had great infrastructure in place. They used to be business friendly and the States to be in. That doesn't go away overnight. HOWEVER, bad policies errode the climate. I guarantee few new companies are looking to move to these three states!

Let's see, just going by the Wikipedia articles on each state:

"As of 2010, the gross state product (GSP) is about $1.9 trillion, the largest in the United States.[71] California is responsible for 13 percent of the United States' gross domestic product (GDP). As of 2006, California's GDP is larger than all but eight countries in the world (all but eleven countries by Purchasing Power Parity).

"New York's gross state product in 2010 was $1.16 trillion, ranking third in size behind the larger states of California and Texas.[37] If New York were an independent nation, it would rank as the 16th largest economy in the world behind Turkey. Its 2007 per capita personal income was $46,364, placing it sixth in the nation behind Maryland, and eighth in the world behind Ireland.

"The dollar gross state product for Illinois was estimated to be US$652 billion in 2010.[53] The state's 2010 per capita gross state product was estimated to be US$45,302,[53] and the state's per capita personal income was estimated to be US$41,411 in 2009."

All of that doesn't seem too bad to me, for "the worst business climate in the country."
 

GHook93

Aristotle
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
20,150
Reaction score
3,508
Points
290
Location
Chicago
What's good for business is good for the employee and the worker! When Uncle Sam takes money out of a business's pocket (via fees, taxes, regulations, compliance accounting, lengthening the sales process etc), worker bee heads roll!
False. Businesses lay off workers not when their taxes go up, but when their sales go down. It's all driven by the market for the goods or services they produce and sell. Conversely, businesses hire workers not when their taxes go down, but when their sales go up to the point they can't meet demand efficiently with existing staff.
FALSE, businesses layoff workers for a variety of reasons, but one reason is external condition that raise the bottomline and lower profits. Regulation and taxation does that!
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
FALSE, businesses layoff workers for a variety of reasons, but one reason is external condition that raise the bottomline and lower profits. Regulation and taxation does that!
No. There is only one reason for a company to lay off workers: because the workers are no longer needed. As long as the employee is producing goods that the company can sell at a profit, the job will continue to exist. If costs go up, but a market for the goods still exists, the company will find other ways to save money or may at worst raise prices. But as long as the work is needed to produce goods that can be sold, the job will continue to exist, because the work will still be needed.
 

Wicked Jester

Libsmackin'chef
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
11,924
Reaction score
1,890
Points
153
Location
So. Cal, Malibu!
FALSE, businesses layoff workers for a variety of reasons, but one reason is external condition that raise the bottomline and lower profits. Regulation and taxation does that!
No. There is only one reason for a company to lay off workers: because the workers are no longer needed. As long as the employee is producing goods that the company can sell at a profit, the job will continue to exist. If costs go up, but a market for the goods still exists, the company will find other ways to save money or may at worst raise prices. But as long as the work is needed to produce goods that can be sold, the job will continue to exist, because the work will still be needed.
LMAO!

You don't know much about business, do you?

When it comes down to the fact that there are no other ways to save money, that's when layoffs begin.

I owned two restaurants. Twice I chose to lay off a couple of employees, instead of passing the costs on to my customer base in a very competetive business......Basically, myself and other employees had to pick up the slack. It's just the way it is.

When states like California make it too expensive to do business through taxation and over regulation, that's when companies move to more business friendly environments, like Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Utah, etc.
 
Last edited:

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
You don't know much about business, do you?
Yes, actually, I do.

When it comes down to the fact that there are no other ways to save money, that's when layoffs begin.
Show me one business that has ever laid people off when the market for its product or service was strong, so that it didn't have excess payrolls. Name the business, and the time it happened.
 

Mr Clean

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
15,972
Reaction score
3,967
Points
290
And no doubt their defined "Best states" for business will be?

Any State where the working classes have no expectations of making a decent living wage, any worker safety or right to collective bargaining, any that have or real pollution guidelines and the national leadership is easily bribed.




.

You mean like China, India, Pakistan, etc?
 

Wicked Jester

Libsmackin'chef
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
11,924
Reaction score
1,890
Points
153
Location
So. Cal, Malibu!
You don't know much about business, do you?
Yes, actually, I do.

When it comes down to the fact that there are no other ways to save money, that's when layoffs begin.
Show me one business that has ever laid people off when the market for its product or service was strong, so that it didn't have excess payrolls. Name the business, and the time it happened.
Read my edited post.

I did it a couple of times in my restaurants, to avoid passing the added costs on to my customer base, in a very competetive business......Myself and my employees simply picked up the slack.......I've also been layed off as a young chef, for the very same reasons.

Your claiming that there is only one reason for business to lay off, is absurd.
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
Read my edited post.

I did it a couple of times in my restaurants, to avoid passing the added costs on to my customer base, in a very competetive business......Myself and my employees simply picked up the slack.......I've also been layed off as a young chef, for the very same reasons.
If you and your other employees were able to pick up the slack, then the ones you laid off were not needed. You could offer the same service to your customers with reduced staff.

If people were coming through your door to the point where you could not seat everyone or could not wait on everyone's table, then you would have hired more people, regardless of cost.

And if you hired people that you didn't need to hire based on the amount of business you had -- well, then it's no surprise you aren't still in business.
 

Wicked Jester

Libsmackin'chef
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
11,924
Reaction score
1,890
Points
153
Location
So. Cal, Malibu!
Read my edited post.

I did it a couple of times in my restaurants, to avoid passing the added costs on to my customer base, in a very competetive business......Myself and my employees simply picked up the slack.......I've also been layed off as a young chef, for the very same reasons.
If you and your other employees were able to pick up the slack, then the ones you laid off were not needed. You could offer the same service to your customers with reduced staff.

If people were coming through your door to the point where you could not seat everyone or could not wait on everyone's table, then you would have hired more people, regardless of cost.

And if you hired people that you didn't need to hire based on the amount of business you had -- well, then it's no surprise you aren't still in business.
Yes they were needed, it just wasn't econimically feasible to keep them......Therefore, my back of the house staff had to work a lil' harder, and I had to come in a coupe hours earlier......It's called running a business, and maintaining a bottom line.

I'm not in business anymore because I retired. Sold the restaurants and cashed in.

Christ man, you're real good at trying to project your BS, when it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

Like I said, your pemise that there is only ONE reason to lay off, is fucking absurd.
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
Yes they were needed, it just wasn't econimically feasible to keep them......Therefore, my back of the house staff had to work a lil' harder, and I had to come in a coupe hours earlier......It's called running a business, and maintaining a bottom line.
If your back of the house staff could work a little harder to take up the slack, and you could do so by coming in a little earlier, then no, they WEREN'T needed -- wanted, maybe, so you could work less hard, but as you say, that's running a business; the owner of a small business always works harder than any of his employees if he wants to succeed. If they were actually needed, as opposed to just desired, you would have gone out of business.
 

Wicked Jester

Libsmackin'chef
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
11,924
Reaction score
1,890
Points
153
Location
So. Cal, Malibu!
Yes they were needed, it just wasn't econimically feasible to keep them......Therefore, my back of the house staff had to work a lil' harder, and I had to come in a coupe hours earlier......It's called running a business, and maintaining a bottom line.
If your back of the house staff could work a little harder to take up the slack, and you could do so by coming in a little earlier, then no, they WEREN'T needed -- wanted, maybe, so you could work less hard, but as you say, that's running a business; the owner of a small business always works harder than any of his employees if he wants to succeed. If they were actually needed, as opposed to just desired, you would have gone out of business.
Yes, they were needed.....Had they not been needed, I would have never hired them in the first place. Working 14-16 hours a day took its toll, but it was the only choice to remain competetive and profitable in a very competetive business.......When you're a solely owned fine dining establishment competing with fine Dining corporations like Puck and The Patina Group , you have to do what you have to do.

You just don't get it.....You're so stuck in your liberal mind, that you will never get it.
Just like you absurdly stating there is only ONE reason to lay off......You just don't get it.
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
Yes, they were needed.....Had they not been needed, I would have never hired them in the first place.
Since you obviously got by without them, that's obviously not true.

Look, I've run a business before as well. I never had any employees. I worked very long hours and was reasonably successful until I decided the hell with it. I would have liked to hire someone else to take over half of the shit I was doing, but I didn't NEED to -- obviously.

Actually, one of the distinctions between a struggling business and a successful one is that the successful business can engage in a little luxury, like hiring people it doesn't absolutely need. In your business, if the food could get cooked promptly and well, the tables waited on promptly and politely, and the place kept clean and stocked, you had all the people you needed. Maybe not all you would have liked, but that isn't the same thing.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top