• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Tells Companies to 'Step Up' and Hire Workers

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
President Obama urged businesses to "step up" and hire workers, pressing banks and other corporations to do more to help an economy that he said would take "several years" to recover fully.


He said businesses and banks that reaped the rewards of extraordinary measures to pull the country out of a deep recession had a responsibility now to invest hordes of cash into U.S. jobs.

"It is time for companies to step up," Obama said.

"American taxpayers contributed to that process of stabilizing the economy. Companies havebenefited from that, and they're making a lot of money, and now's the time for them to start betting on American workers and American products."
News Headlines

This is what's wrong with Obama. He doesn't understand what makes businesses tick, economies grow. The man's ignorance is damned scary.
 
This is what's wrong with Obama. He doesn't understand what makes businesses tick, economies grow. The man's ignorance is damned scary.

Actually he understands it far more than you do it seems.
 
Actually he understands it far more than you do it seems.

Yes, he keeps giving breaks to companies the donated to his campaign and unions to avoid the mandates of Obamacare, at least until after the 2012 election cycle... That way the employment situation isn't in the toilet completely.
 
This is what's wrong with Obama. He doesn't understand what makes businesses tick, economies grow. The man's ignorance is damned scary.

Just another way to demonize big business.

Businesses don't hire workers unless and until they need them. As much as President Obama would like to make corporate jobs part of a massive entitlement program, I sure hope that ain't happenin'.
 
Exactly Maggie. Companies hire when it's profitable to do so. Just because some sectors of the economy, and some direct industries were "saved" by Obama, doesn't mean they are now in a position to create new jobs that are economically sustainable. That's how the business world works. You hire when it makes sense over the long term health for your business.
 
Step up and hire people even though you don’t need them. Didn’t we try that with Bamas stimulus spending? That worked so well that now he wants private business to do another stimulus package? First he bankrupts America now he wants to bankrupt private industry, God help us.
 
Step up and hire people even though you don’t need them. Didn’t we try that with Bamas stimulus spending? That worked so well that now he wants private business to do another stimulus package? First he bankrupts America now he wants to bankrupt private industry, God help us.

1. I'm pretty sure he didn't bankrupt America.
2. I'm pretty sure he's not trying to bankrupt private industry. His argument is that some companies keep their employment levels low to make ridiculous profits when they could give people jobs.

It's funny to me that the same people who bitch about unemployment levels under Obama don't give responsibility to the people who can hire but chose not to in order to get make ridiculous profits.
 
1. I'm pretty sure he didn't bankrupt America.
2. I'm pretty sure he's not trying to bankrupt private industry. His argument is that some companies keep their employment levels low to make ridiculous profits when they could give people jobs.

It's funny to me that the same people who bitch about unemployment levels under Obama don't give responsibility to the people who can hire but chose not to in order to get make ridiculous profits.

Companies do not hire people they don't need. Many of these companies are probably just holding their own in not laying off people and making an investment there.

Edit: Perhaps the better route for a Commander-in-Chief would be to say to large companies: "Now is the time to invest in the future and invest in the American economy -- to grow your business."
 
Last edited:
This is what's wrong with Obama. He doesn't understand what makes businesses tick, economies grow. The man's ignorance is damned scary.

I thought you were of the opinion that business is what makes economies grow? So I guess Obama is saying he needs businesses to grow the economy? I think you two are actually in perfect agreement, unless Obama should shift his focus away from businesses when looking at the economy, or that businesses should not hire more people?
 
Businesses don't grow just because someone tells them to. That being said, Obama's frustration is understandable.
 
What is a companies primary function? To make money for it's shareholders. All else is secondary. I am not saying that is good, or bad. I am saying that's the way it is.

You can't change the nature of the beast by telling the beast to 'step up'.

When companies need workers, they will hire them. When they don't, they won't. It doesn't get much simpler than that... and the President doesn't seem to understand that.
 
Companies do not hire people they don't need. Many of these companies are probably just holding their own in not laying off people and making an investment there.

Edit: Perhaps the better route for a Commander-in-Chief would be to say to large companies: "Now is the time to invest in the future and invest in the American economy -- to grow your business."

I think he said exactly what he should have said.
 
From a political standpoint where far more than economic interests are involved (social welfare, need to build support for re-election, etc.), it makes sense for the President to call upon companies to hire. After all, most of the nation's jobs exist in the private sector.

However, at the company level, economic and financial considerations drive hiring. For a company to take on new workers, it needs to be reasonably confident that aggregate demand for its products/services will grow at sustained levels at which productivity increases from capital equipment won't be able to meet that demand growth. Capital investments represent one-time costs. Hiring represents a stream of recurring costs, hence greater risk. That is why increases in capital equipment expenditures typically lead increases in hiring when the economy is coming out of a recession.

A company needs to have the financial resources and cashflow available to take on new workers (salaries and benefits entail recurring expenditures). Some companies are in such a position and are hiring. Some are not. Indeed, as is the case with most economic recoveries, the current recovery has been uneven. Some sectors have been growing more rapidly than others. A few e.g., housing-related, remain still sluggish or even contracting. Some reductions in taxpayer subsidization for the housing industry e.g., the federal government plans to stop providing financing for highest-leverage housing purchases via rolling back the qualifying limit, could provide further headwinds.

Furthermore, the long-term has some significant risks. With respect to the U.S., household debt remains extremely elevated. The nation's federal debt has risen rapidly on account of the recent financial crisis/recession (the increase as a share of GDP is actually par for the course for housing bust-driven recessions/systemic financial crises), wars, and gradually increasing structural pressures associated with the aging population/mandatory spending programs. The general absence of balanced budgets at the state level--not balanced when long-term health/pension commitments are considered--has put a substantial strain on states' finances.

Fiscal consolidation will more than likely unfold down the road, even if the current Congress and President may more or less punt when the decision to raise the debt ceiling arrives (by punt, I mean that modest spending reductions would be specified, with more ambitious fiscal consolidation measures being defined as goals or limits, but not policy changes). If the debt ceiling is not raised in a timely fashion, a debt/currency crisis could erupt in a worst-case scenario e.g., if the U.S. actually defaults. If the U.S. avoids default by sharply rationing spending, a fresh economic contraction would likely materialize. If the U.S. punts and then does little down the road, the risks of a debt crisis would be on the increase. Absence of a credible fiscal consolidation plan would likely lead to a downgrade in the U.S. credit rating in the 2012-2014 timeframe and higher interest costs. The altered risk profile would amplify the challenges of fiscal consolidation, making the task more urgent and more difficult. Hence, fiscal consolidation is more likely than not in the medium-term and beyond.

What happens when fiscal consolidation occurs? There is a contractionary effect. That means aggregate demand will grow more slowly than would be the case without the need for fiscal consolidation. For firms, that means slower revenue growth. For households, that could mean slower income growth and that situation could interact with extreme levels of household debt that persist. Tax hikes, and some measure of tax hikes are likely, also reduce after-tax profits and personal incomes. Therefore, if businesses are looking to the medium-term and beyond in their strategic planning, there are some compelling reasons for caution. One should bear in mind that in an era of slower revenue growth for firms (again the effects would be uneven on an industry-by-industry basis) strategic errors made by companies would be more costly due to a reduced margin for error, pressure for cost-savings would be higher, and better targeting of customers (not every customer is profitable) would be important, etc. Resource allocation and hiring decisions will be made in such a context and the result will probably be slower hiring than would otherwise be the case. Of course, some professions would be in higher demand e.g., health care professionals (for which the U.S. might eventually have to import labor to reduce that industry's chronic excessive cost growth problem).
 
When companies need workers, they will hire them. When they don't, they won't. It doesn't get much simpler than that... and the President doesn't seem to understand that.

I think he understands that.

When some businesses start making excessive profits in part because of low employment, then they should be called out for it and that's what is happening here. It's funny to me how everybody besides big business is expected to make sacrifices in a poor economy, but corporations are exempt because "that's just how they work."
 
This sounds like a 3rd-grade teacher asking her class, "children, tell me some things that would make businesses do better?"

And Obama gave a very 3rd-grade response.

I swear, the man understands nothing.
 
I think he understands that.

When some businesses start making excessive profits in part because of low employment, then they should be called out for it and that's what is happening here. It's funny to me how everybody besides big business is expected to make sacrifices in a poor economy, but corporations are exempt because "that's just how they work."

did not say they are or should be exempt from 'making sacrifices' as you call hiring new workers in this case.

I simply said it doesnt work that way. Unless they NEED the workers, they will not HIRE the workers, regardless of how insane their profits might be. That is how it works.
 
Businesses don't only hire people when they absolutely need to. I think many businesses are being more cautious than they need to be regarding hiring at the moment. I have no problem with what Obama said.
 
From a political standpoint where far more than economic interests are involved (social welfare, need to build support for re-election, etc.), it makes sense for the President to call upon companies to hire. After all, most of the nation's jobs exist in the private sector.

However, at the company level, economic and financial considerations drive hiring...

excellent analysis.
 
did not say they are or should be exempt from 'making sacrifices' as you call hiring new workers in this case.

I simply said it doesnt work that way. Unless they NEED the workers, they will not HIRE the workers, regardless of how insane their profits might be. That is how it works.

I think hiring workers in place of multi million dollar bonuses would be considered sacrifices.

It doesn't work that way? Exactly, and people just accept that for some reason because corporations exist as some holy entity that should not be forced to change. I could say the same for unions. They work to get teachers and police officers great salaries, benefits and pensions and yet they are constantly told to change during poor economies and make sacrifices.
 
Businesses don't only hire people when they absolutely need to. I think many businesses are being more cautious than they need to be regarding hiring at the moment. I have no problem with what Obama said.

A business that hires people when they are not needed, unless they are certain that in the near future the workers will be needed, is asking for failure.
 
If Obama wants more Americans to work, he should direct them to move to China and take a huge pay cut.

Yeah, that's it.
 
I think he understands that.

When some businesses start making excessive profits in part because of low employment, then they should be called out for it and that's what is happening here. It's funny to me how everybody besides big business is expected to make sacrifices in a poor economy, but corporations are exempt because "that's just how they work."

A business is not obligated to hire people simply because it can afford to do so.
 
If Obama wants more Americans to work, he should direct them to move to China and take a huge pay cut.

Yeah, that's it.

Unfortunately, thanks to unions, this is true.
 
When some businesses start making excessive profits in part because of low employment...

Putting aside the debate over what constitutes "excessive" profits, what if a firm's profits are largely the result of process improvements that led to greater efficiency e.g., lower cost of production and the firm is already capable of meeting expected demand for its products for the foreseeable future? Hence, the firm has no competitive need to add productive capacity (labor or otherwise). Should the firm still be expected to hire workers in that situation? Such a move would only reduce profits (labor costs + reduced selling price if the firm produces larger quatities of goods than is justified by market demand and then has to cut prices to move inventory).

Let's take things a step further. What if the industry itself is growing slowly, hence the firm largely gains market share only by taking it from its existing rivals. By adding productive capacity e.g., hiring workers, the firm would need to gain additional market share. If the firm cuts prices to try to gain market share, what if competitors follow and a price war erupts. All firms in the industry would wind up in a lose-lose situation. Profits would merely be passed on to customers (lower costs for consumers) and the industry would be weakened. Under such circumstances, layoffs could follow, especially if production cannot be reduced to levels more consistent with market demand.
 
Back
Top Bottom