• 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!

'Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone'

apdst said:
How could he possibly alienate a large chunk of Americans?
Click to expand...

During an economic downturn, a man with a company refusing to hire people for political reasons may turn a lot of people off. It may not as well; but let's not pretend as if there wouldn't be some mechanism for people to be upset here. The guy is free to do as he wants, others are free to view him as a childish jerk and not do business with him, others are free to view him for a stand up American.
 
apdst said:
How could he possibly alienate a large chunk of Americans?
Click to expand...

Those that choose not to do business with him because they don't like the message?

Why exactly use your business as a platform to criticize anything unless it's people that kills puppies or something.
 
Ikari said:
During an economic downturn, a man with a company refusing to hire people for political reasons may turn a lot of people off. It may not as well; but let's not pretend as if there wouldn't be some mechanism for people to be upset here. The guy is free to do as he wants, others are free to view him as a childish jerk and not do business with him, others are free to view him for a stand up American.
Click to expand...

I understand that point, but what I'm getting at is that your average consumer doesn't deal with transportation companies. Because of the nature of the industry he's involved in, it's doubtful that he will alienate that many people.

And, while I agree that this is bad business, the odds are in this guys favor that most--if not all--of his customers agree with him.
 
apdst said:
I understand that point, but what I'm getting at is that your average consumer doesn't deal with transportation companies. Because of the nature of the industry he's involved in, it's doubtful that he will alienate that many people.

And, while I agree that this is bad business, the odds are in this guys favor that most--if not all--of his customers agree with him.
Click to expand...

Well as I said before, I doubt that his protest will have any real impact. He's free to do so of course, but as you say here it's just not on an aggregated level that would cause actual disruption.
 
iliveonramen said:
Those that choose not to do business with him because they don't like the message?
Click to expand...

That's possible, but as I just noted, he doesn't serve the average consumer. The people he does serve are businesses, themselves and they have a job to do and will most likely have to put their political opinion aside, if they even disagree with him.

Why exactly use your business as a platform to criticize anything unless it's people that kills puppies or something.
Click to expand...

Any business man will use their business to criticize anything that interferes with their ability to make money. You think green companies would criticize fossil fuel producers?
 
Unless you can predict the future, making such ironclad statements like that is asking for trouble. What if some of his people take sick leave, get hurt, etc...then he has to eat his words, lol.
 
iliveonramen said:
Those that choose not to do business with him because they don't like the message?

Why exactly use your business as a platform to criticize anything unless it's people that kills puppies or something.
Click to expand...

The only reason I can think of for why someone would put their livelyhood at risk for a political message, or ANY message, is because they must feel that the importance of the message out weights that of the profit.

If we had a LOT more people like him, free markets MIGHT actually work.
 
That's possible, but as I just noted, he doesn't serve the average consumer. The people he does serve are businesses, themselves and they have a job to do and will most likely have to put their political opinion aside, if they even disagree with him.
Click to expand...

Sure...but we're talking about a guy that said he will not hire anybody until Obama is out of office. What happens if someone quits? If the economy recovers and business picks up?Is that rational? If this guy is irrational is it possible some people that are potential clients are irrational? He apparently is not willing to put political opinion aside...unless you think liberals are more rational than this guy.

Any business man will use their business to criticize anything that interferes with their ability to make money. You think green companies would criticize fossil fuel producers?
Click to expand...

Sure they would, in a heart beat, because fossil fuel producers are their direct competitors. Would green companies criticize say SUV drivers? No they wouldn't because they could eventually be someone that buys their solar panels. This would be like criticizing SUV drivers...Democrats make up a large portion of voters, voters for Obama made up over half of voters in 2008.

This is America, the guy of course can say anything he wants to, at the same time, it's perplexing that his business would the medium he would use.
 
kamikaze483 said:
This isn't the thread for it, but I would love to discuss why you consider the current system inefficient.
Click to expand...

Health care is an essential service with inelastic demand. There are three for-profit middlemen between the patient and the solution : health insurance, healthcare facility, and pharmaceutical. To compound the problem, health insurance choices are tied to a specific employer, and the entire plan changes when a worker changes jobs.

If health insurance was not currently employer-specific and someone argued that it should be, that person would be laughed out of the room.

The system is inefficient, and the rising costs are unsustainable.
 
KevinKohler said:
Unless you can predict the future, making such ironclad statements like that is asking for trouble. What if some of his people take sick leave, get hurt, etc...then he has to eat his words, lol.
Click to expand...

That isn't new hiring. A technicality, I know, but still.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure...but we're talking about a guy that said he will not hire anybody until Obama is out of office. What happens if someone quits? If the economy recovers and business picks up?Is that rational? If this guy is irrational is it possible some people that are potential clients are irrational? He apparently is not willing to put political opinion aside...unless you think liberals are more rational than this guy.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out to Kevin, replacing an employee isn't a new hire. Not to mention, you have no way of knowing that the guy isn't over-staffed and could stand to lose a few people.

The economy isn't recovering, as long as Obama is in office. You might was well accept that reality.

Most Libbos are waaaaaay behind this dude in the rationality department. :rofl



Sure they would, in a heart beat, because fossil fuel producers are their direct competitors. Would green companies criticize say SUV drivers? No they wouldn't because they could eventually be someone that buys their solar panels. This would be like criticizing SUV drivers...Democrats make up a large portion of voters, voters for Obama made up over half of voters in 2008.
Click to expand...

Currently, in this country, any businesses biggest competitor is the government.

This is America, the guy of course can say anything he wants to, at the same time, it's perplexing that his business would the medium he would use.
Click to expand...

You're just made because he's referrencing Obama. If someone had done this when Bush was in office, you would be like, "Right-on!!!".
 
apdst said:
That isn't new hiring. A technicality, I know, but still.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a good point. I wasn't thinking of it in terms of expanding business....now that I think of it in terms of actual expansion, rather than mere survival, it makes the statement...almost WORSE, lol. It's like saying, yeah, I'm gonna let my business go to HELL if I actually start getting busy again...unless we replace Obama...
 
Either way, whatever. If we had more people for whom principles mattered more than money, we would never have been put into this situation in the first place. We need more people like this guy.
 
I'm in the healthcare business, and while I see a myriad of problems (foremost is high delivery cost) I do not see the system as inefficient in terms of delivery- most of the time. Almost all the time. I am not a doctor. My business provides healthcare in the home- but I can get a patient admitted, diagnosed, and treated- even elective surgery on the same day. I don't find that inefficient in terms of delivery of services. And I do have indigent patients- and they are treated no differently, except for the elective surgery.

In terms of payment and "middle-men," the patient normally deals directly with the provider in terms of clinical need, and directly with the health insurer in terms of cost and payment. There are not three separate "middle men" for the average insured patient. For the uninsured patient, they do deal with the pham. companies and the hospitals for costs and payment, but this happens after treatment is rendered. And payment terms are always flexible- and most of the time, the hospital and providers expect to take a lot of loss on the arrearage.

I still don't see inefficiency either way. It can inefficient for the providers, but not for the patient.
 
It is his right.

A dry cleaner/seamstress/shirt laundry business in my city located in the high income earning section of the city was blaring right wing hack radio all day. Collectively many people stopped taking our business to this indoctrinated owner.

Surprise ... the guy 6 blocks away provided better service, was polite and better prices. Although politically progressive and libertarian he is more open to various pov.

The parking lot is empty at the other place. Their choice and our choice.
 
Dion said:
It is his right.

A dry cleaner/seamstress/shirt laundry business in my city located in the high income earning section of the city was blaring right wing hack radio all day. Collectively many people stopped taking our business to this indoctrinated owner.

Surprise ... the guy 6 blocks away provided better service, was polite and better prices. Although politically progressive and libertarian he is more open to various pov.

The parking lot is empty at the other place. Their choice and our choice.
Click to expand...

I go to my cleaners to get my clothes cleaned. Odd concept I guess, but that's the kind of consumer I am.

;)
 
You're just made because he's referrencing Obama. If someone had done this when Bush was in office, you would be like, "Right-on!!!".
Click to expand...

I haven't been posting on her very long but no I wouldn't. I would be saying what I'm saying now...why would you potentially alienate any customers.

I may like the message if it was about Bush. Just like you're correct that I don't like the message because it's Obama. It doesn't change the fact I would never (if I was a business owner) do something like that.
 
kamikaze483 said:
I'm in the healthcare business, and while I see a myriad of problems (foremost is high delivery cost) I do not see the system as inefficient in terms of delivery- most of the time. Almost all the time. I am not a doctor. My business provides healthcare in the home- but I can get a patient admitted, diagnosed, and treated- even elective surgery on the same day. I don't find that inefficient in terms of delivery of services. And I do have indigent patients- and they are treated no differently, except for the elective surgery.

In terms of payment and "middle-men," the patient normally deals directly with the provider in terms of clinical need, and directly with the health insurer in terms of cost and payment. There are not three separate "middle men" for the average insured patient. For the uninsured patient, they do deal with the pham. companies and the hospitals for costs and payment, but this happens after treatment is rendered. And payment terms are always flexible- and most of the time, the hospital and providers expect to take a lot of loss on the arrearage.

I still don't see inefficiency either way. It can inefficient for the providers, but not for the patient.
Click to expand...

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters

amednews: Health care ranks lower in U.S. than in other countries :: July 6, 2010 ... American Medical News
 
j-mac said:
Oh see, this is where you libs take forefathers like Allenski to the extreme. You think just because he makes a statement that he would have to fore go business that would benefit him because all of the sudden he can't hire anyone.....hahahaha...Too funny.
Click to expand...

Yet he says he intends to hire new people as soon as Obama is gone. Why would he want to do that?
 
The thing is Congress controls the legislation, not Obama.
So Obama could be gone and we could still have the same set of goobers passing the objectionable legislation.

If the guy isn't planning on hiring anyone soon anyway, then this is just good marketing. If not, then it's kind of dumb to make business decisions based on emotions.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The thing is Congress controls the legislation, not Obama.
So Obama could be gone and we could still have the same set of goobers passing the objectionable legislation.

If the guy isn't planning on hiring anyone soon anyway, then this is just good marketing. If not, then it's kind of dumb to make business decisions based on emotions.
Click to expand...

Yeah and the Democrats still own two-thirds of the government.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think the government should arrange its policies on the basis that some people are bad businessmen. The free market will take care of that problem.
Click to expand...
Wow, suddenly you think the free market is a good thing. :lol:
 
misterman said:
But the business owner specified Obama.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because he's the Democrat holding one-third. Not to mention, he's the one that's promised to by-pass Congress at every available oppurtunity to promote his crazy agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom