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

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,075
Reaction score
4,572
Points
280
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
 

VaYank5150

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
1,064
Points
138
Location
Virginia
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
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.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,075
Reaction score
4,572
Points
280
Well you evil millionaire business person!

You need to pay the 5% millionaire surtax so your payment can go to extremely well justified Federal expenditures like these:

- $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job
- The (NIH) spent nearly $442,340 to study male prostitutes in Vietnam and their
social setting.
- A university study of how much alcohol college freshmen women require before
agreeing to sex!
- $700,000 federal grant to examine "greenhouse gas emission from organic dairies,
caused by cow burps.
- The National Science Foundation spent $250k to Stanford to study how Americans
use the Internet to find love.
- (ATF) spent over $20,000 in taxpayer money "to unravel the anonymity of
a 2,500-year-old mummy."

And this is a well run appropriate use of your tax dollars?
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
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. :cool:

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.
 

VaYank5150

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
1,064
Points
138
Location
Virginia
Well you evil millionaire business person!

You need to pay the 5% millionaire surtax so your payment can go to extremely well justified Federal expenditures like these:

- $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job
- The (NIH) spent nearly $442,340 to study male prostitutes in Vietnam and their
social setting.
- A university study of how much alcohol college freshmen women require before
agreeing to sex!
- $700,000 federal grant to examine "greenhouse gas emission from organic dairies,
caused by cow burps.
- The National Science Foundation spent $250k to Stanford to study how Americans
use the Internet to find love.
- (ATF) spent over $20,000 in taxpayer money "to unravel the anonymity of
a 2,500-year-old mummy."

And this is a well run appropriate use of your tax dollars?
Beats this:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Monday that he would be watching congressional debate this week on the alternate engine, which he called an "unnecessary and extravagant expense." Since the start of the fiscal year, the department has been funding the engine on a month-to-month basis -- to the tune of $28 million each month -- despite its stated desire to cancel the program.
 

VaYank5150

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
1,064
Points
138
Location
Virginia
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. :cool:

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.
I know. I have only hired 6 people in FY11, which started October 1st, 2010.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,075
Reaction score
4,572
Points
280
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??
 

VaYank5150

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
1,064
Points
138
Location
Virginia
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?
 

pgm

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
510
Reaction score
34
Points
16
Location
South Florida
The problem with this is it is anecdotal evidence. I'm sure it's accurate for his case and many others. But even in the best economic times, most small businesses are not hiring. Even in the best economic times, they complain about the costs of regulations. So, he has a legitimate problem, but it isn't a new problem. It doesn't explain why unemployment is so high now.
 

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,142
Points
1,830
If a business owner who is barely keeping his doors open today in this shitty economy knew exactly how much it would cost him for the next 5 years to hire new employees,
would he hire people tomorrow ?

The answer of course is no.

Most business owners will hire when they need to hire.

With the state of the economy not many need to hire. I think some people are using the low need for new hires to further a political agenda.

Gee imagine that.
 
Last edited:
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,075
Reaction score
4,572
Points
280
so you don't have to worry about making payroll or risking your own assets... you are just a lowly peon!

WMDs??
Are you talking about the Liberation of 28 million people IN SPITE of traitors like you and the below idiots who repeatedly encourage the terrorists by giving terrorists hope the USA would be as cowardly as Obama has been when it comes to going after terrorists?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in th dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"



Aiding and abetting the enemy means encouraging the thugs they are doing the right thing in killing 87,000 Iraqis, bombing schools and using mentally challenged kids as suicide bombers.. AND YOU encouraged that behavior? You encourage the terrorists like Obama did by complaining about our troops air raiding??
You think that is how you win wars when your C-I-C encourages the enemy and calls your troops killers?
AND Then YOU probably have NO problem with this statement.. you are very anxious to keep the terrorists alive so they can kill more troops..
4. Insulting the Military

“Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
 

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,142
Points
1,830
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.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,075
Reaction score
4,572
Points
280
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!
 

Avorysuds

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
13,834
Reaction score
1,658
Points
245
Location
Eugene Oregon
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
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.
So do you just hire endless amounts of people or you hire what your boss allows? Or more, what your boss can see as worth it in an uncertain future.
 
Last edited:

snjmom

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
678
Reaction score
106
Points
78
Location
st louis mo
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.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
Well, this is a perfect example of anecdotal information, with the added bonus of being anonymous and overly vague.

I know some business owners feel this way, but everything I've seen is that weak or uncertain consumer demand has a far larger effect than regulatory risk in explaining current high unemployment.
 

FactFinder

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
207
Points
83
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
and...you can blame that on a do nothing Congress. Anyway I think this is a bunch of broo hah ha for being risk averse and wanting to hold onto crap otherwise known as hoarding.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
22,075
Reaction score
4,572
Points
280
Again.. another anecdotal story but it repeats the contention..

Why I’m (Still) Reluctant to Hire

Consider this situation:

You interview someone who has been out of work for 11 months. Let’s say he was in his previous job for 20 years, and now he’s regularly being told by job screeners that he is overqualified for the available position. In a good market, this person would not be available. You think it might actually be a good opportunity to bring someone valuable to your company — even though, because of his experience, you will have to pay him more money than you are accustomed to paying. You think it might be worth the shot, but your company is still in a precarious situation after the last few years. What do you have to lose, beyond the salary? Actually, you have quite a lot to lose. In fact, if it doesn’t work out, you could easily end up paying more in unemployment compensation than you do in salary.

If the new hire spends more than 30 working days with you but you have to let him go either because it’s not a good fit or because you were overly optimistic about the economy, he is eligible to collect unemployment. That, at least, is how it works in Illinois; the rules vary by state. Many people don’t realize that the government is not paying the bill for most of that compensation; companies are. The more people a company lays off, the more it pays in unemployment premiums. (I explained how this works in a previous post.)
In the above example, taking a chance on this person could cost a company $20,000 in increased unemployment premiums over the following three years
So what could the government do to encourage hiring? Here are two small suggestions:

First, stop punishing businesses for giving someone a chance. How about giving employers a six-month window before the company becomes liable for someone’s unemployment compensation? How about five months? Or four? But not 30 days. Of course, employees shouldn’t be punished either. If they are already collecting unemployment when they take a job, they should be able to resume collecting it if the job doesn’t work out –- but not at the expense of the business that gave them another chance.

And second, make the E.E.O.C. dismiss frivolous claims quicker. We all know that there are bad bosses doing things that need to be dealt with, but the example I’ve given is not uncommon — and it puts an unnecessary strain on small businesses that don’t have a legal department or even a human resources person for that matter.

Why I'm (Still) Reluctant to Hire - NYTimes.com
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
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.
 

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,142
Points
1,830
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
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top