Think Walgreens would consider the move were it not for Obamanomics? There is a reason that small businesses aren't hiring and growing. You continue to spout the same old liberal leftwing rhetoric as if it is business's fault for the economic policies being implemented. Sorry but that isn't reality. I only see more diversion and never an answer to a direct question. that is what liberals do, divert, distort, and throw out red herrings.
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the ******* irony in that." - Justin Halpern
Do you even understand what Walgreens is considering? They were acquired by a Swiss company. They aren't going to close any stores, they aren't going to fire any US staff. All they are going to do is change their legal status from a US corporation to a Swiss corporation, which will let them exploit a huge tax loophole (possibly $4 billion over 5 years). This is happening just 2 years after they took a big tax credit from the state of Illinois.
Their obligations under the ACA won't change. They aren't affected by Keystone. They weren't acquired by a Swiss company because the CEO got a 4% tax hike this year. None of the stuff you posted is relevant to this possible change of its tax home.
Walgreens isn't a "small business." They're the largest pharmacy chain in the US. They had nearly $1 billion in sales last year with over 8000 stores. They've been acquiring other chains and expanding.There is a reason that small businesses aren't hiring and growing.
And you apparently continue to do anything you can to dump on the economic indicators that *might* show that Q2 will be in positive territory, and that Q1 was an anomaly.You continue to spout the same old liberal leftwing rhetoric as if it is business's fault for the economic policies being implemented....
What are you going to say if Q2 shows a healthy increase in GPD?
Last edited by Visbek; 07-02-14 at 09:46 AM.
While retirements explain part of the drop in labor force participation, one can't conclude that most or all of the drop is benign. At least some share of people who are pursuing education might actually have a preference of working. Education, of course, should provide them with greater labor market flexibility.
Most importantly, even as total employment is approaching pre-Recession levels (the recession began in 2007 Q4), a number of indicators remain quite problematic. Data related to the duration of unemployment, the share of long-term unemployed, broader unemployment measures, and information about people not in the labor force remain notably worse than they were just prior to the recession. Put simply, structural unemployment (jobs-skills mismatch) is greater than it was prior to the recession. Structural unemployment is more difficult to address than cyclical unemployment, as it has causes that go beyond the strength of the economy. Some of its remedies are long-term in nature e.g., education/training, and those remedies depend, in part, on fiscal investments that can be constrained by overall fiscal realities (e.g., deficits) and priorities.
Yes, I will continue to "dump" on Obama because he is clueless and has no concept as to how the private sector works. Only a true liberal will ignore actual economic policies and results picking and choosing which policy or which result supposedly supports their point of view. Such low standards you have. After the recession we had we should have seen 7+% economic growth but not under Obama where 2% is acceptable.
What am I going to say? It should have been better and would have been better because the base is so low.