• 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

MrVicchio said:
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
Click to expand...

oh ****.
...........
 
theplaydrive said:
What do you mean? Is this not a place for opinions or have I come to the wrong forum?
Click to expand...

You have every right to express your opinion. Just realize your opinion may not be shared by everyone. And just because YOU expect certain behavior of the business community, doesn't mean it has to or should be that way.
 
Whovian said:
oh ****.
...........
Click to expand...

lol... That's exactly what I thought. I was just reading along and suddenly, "Holy Crap!" That was by far the best conclusion to a post in this thread so far.
 
this absurd expectation by Obama tells me he is focused on but one job being retained


he wasted his mandate
at the time when he owned the white house the congress and the senate
could have pushed thru immigration reform, expanded medicare to cover all citizens, eliminated anti gay provisions, and created a program where government was the employer of last resort ... critical to keeping the consumer economy growing
but he did none of that when he had the opportunity

now he faces the loss of his own job because of that obvious failure to timely act

the only thing which will keep him in office is that the republicans can find no one to do any better
 
Whovian said:
You have every right to express your opinion. Just realize your opinion may not be shared by everyone. And just because YOU expect certain behavior of the business community, doesn't mean it has to or should be that way.
Click to expand...

I haven't said anything that would even suggest I believe any of this.
 
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.
Like I said, they should hire more people when it won't harm the function of the company and its ability to grow.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in some sense of "should" you're right.
But generally, businesses are run more conservatively than that.
Rather than hire when it doesn't hurt them, they wait and hire when it actually helps them.


A lot of businesses are set and ready to expand just as soon as there's demand enough to support the expansion.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Perhaps in some sense of "should" you're right.
But generally, businesses are run more conservatively than that.
Rather than hire when it doesn't hurt them, they wait and hire when it actually helps them.


A lot of businesses are set and ready to expand just as soon as there's demand enough to support the expansion.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I'm very aware of how most businesses tend to run and I'm only arguing in the "should" sense. My main point was to comment on the hypocrisy of some people in 1) Blaming Obama for unemployment without holding any corporations responsible. 2) Demanding other organizations/people change their behavior (unions and teachers for example) while not demanding the same of business.
 
Whovian said:
oh ****.
...........
Click to expand...


It went south of us, no rope on the ground. Got some video, hope it turns out of nice green skies and heavy rain. Didn't get a lot cause the cell was less the 2 miles from us and I have no sight line to my South East. I love weather, I love severe weather, don't much care to die being stupid cause of a rain wrapped tornado catching me off guard.

All's good now.
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can handle if just fine. You're talking political theory trying to apply it to private sector industry.
 
MrVicchio said:
I can handle if just fine. You're talking political theory trying to apply it to private sector industry.
Click to expand...

I'm talking ethics and ideas about contributing to society and applying it to the private sector industry - this is a common application.
 
theplaydrive said:
I'm talking ethics and ideas about contributing to society and applying it to the private sector industry - this is a common application.
Click to expand...

Except that what your talking about doesn't work. It sounds all nice and warm fuzzy here in a debate forum... it doesn't survive the Real World.

Back to my point about the Two Cog Companies.

Cog Company Acme is run by you, and you apply your standard of "Hiring at the cost of some profit" and Company Cogworks, run by me looks for ways to increase profits, draw in investors and lower costs to the consumer.

Which company will draw in investors? The one that gives away investors money to "hire more people" or the one that increases the ROI for those that invest money?

I'll tell ya what happens, your company loses investors. People don't invest in companies that throw away profits.
 
theplaydrive said:
Excessive profits are the kind that enable CEOs to make $15 million dollar salaries instead of hiring people who actually need money.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't explain, "excessive profits".


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...

And, you want the government to enforce that responsibility?
 
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%.
Click to expand...


Through over-regulation, threats of higher taxes, job killing regulations, yes he is. Believe it, or not, the drilling ban didn't create a single job.

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...

If Obama's anti-business agenda wasn't injecting so much uncertainty into the private sector, these companies would be spending that money, rather than rat-holing it in preparation for Obama's next dumbass move. The drilling ban is a good example. If I hadn't had as much cash in savings as I did, I would be out of business by now. The only problem, is that that money is nearly gone and no relief in sight. This time next year, I might have to put 5 men on the street, without a job and go find a job for myself. The reason these companies are sitting on that money, is so they can keep the doors open in the future, because they don't know how much more Obama is going to **** up the economy. If he raises taxes, they're going to need that money to pay them.

Wasn't it you that said that the government can't create jobs, but it can institute policies that effect job creation? You and I agreed on that, if I recollect.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
This is my point. Obama is blamed for the unemployment rate, but the businesses who can employ people are not.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that it's not Bush's fault that the economy went into the ****ter?
 
MrVicchio said:
Except that what your talking about doesn't work. It sounds all nice and warm fuzzy here in a debate forum... it doesn't survive the Real World.

Back to my point about the Two Cog Companies.

Cog Company Acme is run by you, and you apply your standard of "Hiring at the cost of some profit" and Company Cogworks, run by me looks for ways to increase profits, draw in investors and lower costs to the consumer.

Which company will draw in investors? The one that gives away investors money to "hire more people" or the one that increases the ROI for those that invest money?

I'll tell ya what happens, your company loses investors. People don't invest in companies that throw away profits.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about throwing away profits. I'm talking about not taking a $15 million dollar bonus when you can afford to hire people who need the money. I'm talking about companies whose quality of service is down because they are down to the bare minimum of employees (something investors also don't want to invest in), but who take that $15 million instead of hiring more regular employees.
 
theplaydrive said:
Okay, "selfish use of profits" is probably better for this example.
Click to expand...


Well, this is a free country and if those companies want to pay a CEO $15 million, then that's their right...and I see no reason to change that.
 
apdst said:
Through over-regulation, threats of higher taxes, job killing regulations, yes he is. Believe it, or not, the drilling ban didn't create a single job.



If Obama's anti-business agenda wasn't injecting so much uncertainty into the private sector, these companies would be spending that money, rather than rat-holing it in preparation for Obama's next dumbass move. The drilling ban is a good example. If I hadn't had as much cash in savings as I did, I would be out of business by now. The only problem, is that that money is nearly gone and no relief in sight. This time next year, I might have to put 5 men on the street, without a job and go find a job for myself. The reason these companies are sitting on that money, is so they can keep the doors open in the future, because they don't know how much more Obama is going to **** up the economy. If he raises taxes, they're going to need that money to pay them.

Wasn't it you that said that the government can't create jobs, but it can institute policies that effect job creation? You and I agreed on that, if I recollect.
Click to expand...

the purpose was to prevent future massive oil spills

how many of those were prevented, in the wake of the deepwater tragedy
 
justabubba said:
the purpose was to prevent future massive oil spills

how many of those were prevented, in the wake of the deepwater tragedy
Click to expand...

So you agree with Bill Maher when he said, "**** your jobs"?

Libbos can't exactly bitch about the lack of jobs, when The Messiah directly killed job with dumbass decisions.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

When a company increases its cost structure, it needs to at least offset those costs to the extent that it covers its cost of capital. That's why expectations concerning the magnitude and persistence of growth in aggregate demand for its products/services are so important. Failure to pay attention to the cost structure--and such complacency takes hold during long periods of economic expansion--lead many companies to face crises when the economy slows/contracts or industry growth slows as profit squeezes or losses develop. In such cases, painful restructuring often becomes necessary. Some companies don't survive.

Today, many companies are hiring. Others are still laying off workers. Regularly reported industry statistics show where hiring is/is not taking place. Some year-to-year statistics (April 2010-April 2011):

Professional business services: +3.1% (many of these workers are "knowledge" workers and the same pattern holds true for other knowledge-intensive industries)
Financial Services/Insurance: -0.5% (still contracting from the scale reached, in large part, on account of the housing bubble and related financing activities)
Durable Goods: +3.0% (manufacturing has rebounded; durable goods have benefited from capital investment by businesses and export growth)
Logging: -6.1% (housing-related contraction continues)
Mining: +13.0%! (huge growth in demand for commodities domestically and internationally as economic activity recovers and the rapid growth in the BRICs continues)
Construction of Buildings: -2.3% (real estate-related contraction--commercial and residential--continues)

At last word, there were 3.124 million job openings nationwide. Mismatches between skills (job requirements and skills of the unemployed), geographical mismatch (between location of job openings and residence of unemployed), etc., limit how quickly overall employment will increase. Aside from industry developments, one should keep in mind that some states are at full employment so to speak e.g., Nebraska had a 3.6% unemployment rate in March. Others have very high unemployment rates e.g., Nevada had a 13.2% unemployment rate in March.
 
apdst said:
Well, this is a free country and if those companies want to pay a CEO $15 million, then that's their right...and I see no reason to change that.
Click to expand...

I agree, they have the right to do what they want just like teachers/police officers and unions have the right to fight for whatever salary they can get. Neither of these rights, however, has any bearing on people's different ideas of what people should or should not sacrifice. Moreover, neither of the rights has any effect on the fact a CEO who takes $15 million instead of hiring 300 people also contributes to the 9% unemployment rate.
 
apdst said:
So you agree with Bill Maher when he said, "**** your jobs"?

Libbos can't exactly bitch about the lack of jobs, when The Messiah directly killed job with dumbass decisions.
Click to expand...

what Obama did was prevent another propect of a deepwater disaster. that was a wise decision

in doing this he prevented the loss of jobs/income as had been experienced in the prior oil spill
 
theplaydrive said:
I agree, they have the right to do what they want just like teachers/police officers and unions have the right to fight for whatever salary they can get. Neither of these rights, however, has any bearing on people's different ideas of what people should or should not sacrifice. Moreover, neither of the rights has any effect on the fact a CEO who takes $15 million instead of hiring 300 people also contributes to the 9% unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

Salaries are based on the value of the employee. That CEO might be making the company a billion dollars. Those 300 people might only make the company a million dollars. I'm sure you can do the math.
 
justabubba said:
what Obama did was prevent another propect of a deepwater disaster. that was a wise decision

in doing this he prevented the loss of jobs/income as had been experienced in the prior oil spill
Click to expand...

So, Obama actually saved jobs by banning drilling? :lamo
 
apdst said:
Salaries are based on the value of the employee. That CEO might be making the company a billion dollars. Those 300 people might only make the company a million dollars. I'm sure you can do the math.
Click to expand...

And they might not be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom