• 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

Erod said:
Unfortunately, thanks to unions, this is true.
Click to expand...

Or companies looking for much bigger profits so they can pay their executives gazillion dollar bonuses for saving them craploads of money for finding workers who are willing to do the job for peanuts.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
A business is not obligated to hire people simply because it can afford to do so.
Click to expand...

Nobody is obligated to do anything, but every other organization and all citizens are held to higher standards than corporations.
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know this isn't the first time you've been told this, but companies don't employ any more people than they need. That's just how businesses work. Get over it.

I can't believe how alien the idea of a company making money is to most Liberals.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Businesses don't grow just because someone tells them to. That being said, Obama's frustration is understandable.
Click to expand...

He's not frustrated. :rofl

He's saying this, because he knows he has to put on a show. If he is frustrated, her needs to look in the mirror at the asshole that's killing the job market.
 
theplaydrive said:
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."
Click to expand...

How do you define, "excessive profits"? Are you aware that those, "excessive profits", are used to re-invest in the company and keep the company going, vice closing the doors and putting everyone in the unemployment line?
 
Whovian 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.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is what Obama was saying. I don't think he was encouraging businesses to hire people even if they can't afford it.
 
donsutherland1 said:
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).
Click to expand...
If the reduction in profits doesn't harm the function of the company and its ability to grow, then they can and should hire more people.

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.
Click to expand...
Like I said, they should hire more people when it won't harm the function of the company and its ability to grow. Many companies had to stretch their employees thin when the economy tanked and I would argue they "needed" to hire more people then to provide quality service. Now that the economy is getting better, some companies are still stretching their employees thin when they can afford to hire more people - this is what I have a problem with. When I see CEO's with $10 million compensation, I have a problem.
 
muciti said:
How so? I am not sure what you mean.
Click to expand...

Unions are the largest group of organizations that are constantly encouraged to change the way they function for the economy.
 
Wiseone said:
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?
Click to expand...

See, this is what's wrong with your assessment. You think businesses just magically make money. You really should take an economics 101 course, maybe sit down with a few small business owners and discuss with them how they work.
 
apdst said:
How do you define, "excessive profits"? Are you aware that those, "excessive profits", are used to re-invest in the company and keep the company going, vice closing the doors and putting everyone in the unemployment line?
Click to expand...

Excessive profits are the kind that enable CEOs to make $15 million dollar salaries instead of hiring people who actually need money. I also want to make clear as others don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing corporations have a "responsibility" or "obligation" to anything, I'm arguing that they should in order to help the job market.
 
theplaydrive said:
Unions are the largest group of organizations that are constantly encouraged to change the way they function for the economy.
Click to expand...

Unions are the largest group of organizations that slam corporate profits, demonize business, and demand more jobs.
 
apdst said:
I know this isn't the first time you've been told this, but companies don't employ any more people than they need. That's just how businesses work. Get over it.

I can't believe how alien the idea of a company making money is to most Liberals.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said was new to me and it has nothing to do with what I've argued, so I'm not sure what you're doing here.
 
Whovian 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.
Click to expand...
Krhazy said:
I don't think that is what Obama was saying. I don't think he was encouraging businesses to hire people even if they can't afford it.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of 'afford', it's a matter of 'need'. Regardless of the companies ability to 'afford' additional workers, if they do not 'need' the workers, they will not hire the workers. Not unless they are sure they will need the workers in the near future.
 
MaggieD said:
Unions are the largest group of organizations that slam corporate profits, demonize business, and demand more jobs.
Click to expand...

This spin has nothing to do with what I said. Try addressing the point next time.
 
theplaydrive said:
Excessive profits are the kind that enable CEOs to make $15 million dollar salaries instead of hiring people who actually need money. I also want to make clear as others don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing corporations have a "responsibility" or "obligation" to anything, I'm arguing that they should in order to help the job market.
Click to expand...

If you don't like how a business rewards it's workers, don't do business with them. Don't invest in said company. Other then that, what they do is their own damned business and not yours.
 
Whovian said:
It's not a matter of 'afford', it's a matter of 'need'. Regardless of the companies ability to 'afford' additional workers, if they do not 'need' the workers, they will not hire the workers. Not unless they are sure they will need the workers in the near future.
Click to expand...
I just don't agree with that. Companies hire people they don't need all the time. The office environment is often the epitome of inefficiency. Companies cut back to the bare essentials during recessions, but it always returns to the way it was.

Take the legal field for example. Five years ago firms would have incoming classes of dozens of people every year. They would have enormous internship programs and give their interns $50-a-day lunch budgets. After the recession, they not only stopped hiring, but fired many attorneys. Internship programs that consisted of 30 law students in 2006 were cut down to 3.

Of course, demand for legal services has dropped due to the economy and the less money people have to spend on legal fees. But to a large extent, this is just companies being much much more cautious than they would be otherwise. Companies hire employees they don't need all the time---when trouble hits, they lay them off. When it doesn't, they stay on the payroll. If companies didn't take similar risks in many areas our economy would really be terrible.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
He's not frustrated. :rofl

He's saying this, because he knows he has to put on a show. If he is frustrated, her needs to look in the mirror at the asshole that's killing the job market.
Click to expand...

Come on apdst. You know, that the despite the liberal that I am, that I'm not anti-business. But let's be fair here.

When businesses don't hire even though they can, it's not their fault. But it's somehow Obama's fault that they don't and that the unemployment rate is 9%.

If you're going to say it's the nature of the beast to not hire until they need to, that's fine, but at least let's be consistent and stop blaming Obama for the jobs picture. Corporations are sitting on a pile of liquid cash, so they have the resources but aren't hiring. That's fine, I don't blame them. But I don't see the need to repeatedly demonize Barack for the jobs picture either since the resources are there for hiring, it's just not happening yet.
 
MrVicchio said:
If you don't like how a business rewards it's workers, don't do business with them. Don't invest in said company. Other then that, what they do is their own damned business and not yours.
Click to expand...

Conversations like this are about ethics and contributing to society so you're comment is nonsensical. If you can't handle them, see the door.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Come on apdst. You know, that the despite the liberal that I am, that I'm not anti-business. But let's be fair here.

When businesses don't hire even though they can, it's not their fault. But it's somehow Obama's fault that they don't and that the unemployment rate is 9%.

If you're going to say it's the nature of the beast to not hire until they need to, that's fine, but at least let's be consistent and stop blaming Obama for the jobs picture. Corporations are sitting on a pile of liquid cash, so they have the resources but aren't hiring. That's fine, I don't blame them. But I don't see the need to repeatedly demonize Barack for the jobs picture either since the resources are there for hiring, it's just not happening yet.
Click to expand...

This is my point. Obama is blamed for the unemployment rate, but the businesses who can employ people are not.
 
theplaydrive said:
If the reduction in profits doesn't harm the function of the company and its ability to grow, then they can and should hire more people.
Click to expand...

It hurts the people that MATTER in the business world. Here's a hint, it's not the workers, it's the shareholders. THOSE are the folks that matter.

Let's take two companies, both make cogs. One hires more workers at a loss of profit in response to Obama and one increases efficiancy and I have to go now tornado warning, bye
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom