Hello:

I'm a businessman. You SHOULD listen to me. I make sense. Instead, you listen to politicians. I don't know why.

I HIRE people when I can't meet the demands of my marketplace... It's no more difficult than that. I DON'T hire because somebody gave me a tax break to hire somebody. If I did, what's he going to do? Sit around?? If I don't have work for him, I'm going to go broke and won't be ABLE to file a tax return to claim my credit...

Does "uncertainty" have anything to do with it? NO! When I have a customer clamoring for service, I don't look into the tax code to see if I should HIRE somebody... NOBODY does. Really - NOBODY! Certainly, you can SEE the logic in what I say, even if you're NOT a businessperson...

That's not to say that lower taxes won't be beneficial in the long run, but it has NOTHING to do with hiring people NOW. Demand is what will cause me to HIRE, just like DEMAND will cause every other employer to hire.. Demand is NOT created by lower taxes. Demand is created by putting cash dollars in the pockets of consumers... If that means EXPANDING unemployment, then DO it. If it means EXPANDING the distribution of food stamps, then DO it.

Cutting the deficit doesn't cause me to hire either... Can you imagine?? Somebody comes looking for work, and I tell him that I need to see how much the country owes before I can hire him... Nahh... That don't happen in the real world.

excon

You make great points and I agree completely. I don't know anyone that hires someone simply for a tax break... are you kidding? That is a joke, isn't it? Tax breaks are not the answer but then again, I don't think the government really has any answers or cares if they do... just as long as it looks like they're trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

I'm a businessman. You SHOULD listen to me. I make sense. Instead, you listen to politicians. I dunno why.

1) I HIRE people when I can't meet the demands of my marketplace... It's no more difficult than that. I DON'T hire because somebody gave me a tax break to hire somebody. If I did, what's he gonna do? Sit around??? If I don't have work for him, I'm gonna go broke and won't be ABLE to file a tax return to claim my credit...

2) Does "uncertainty" have anything to do with it?? NO! When I have a customer clamoring for service, I don't look into the tax code to see if I should HIRE somebody... NOBODY does. Really - NOBODY! Certainly, you can SEE the logic in what I say, even if you're NOT a businessperson...

3) That's not to say that lower taxes won't be beneficial in the long run, but it has NOTHING to do with hiring people NOW. Demand is what will cause me to HIRE, just like DEMAND will cause every other employer to hire.. Demand is NOT created by lower taxes. Demand is created by putting cash dollars in the pockets of consumers... If that means EXPANDING unemployment, then DO it. If it means EXPANDING the distribution of food stamps, then DO it.

4) Cutting the deficit doesn't cause me to hire either... Can you imagine??? Somebody comes looking for work, and I tell him that I need to see how much the country owes before I can hire him... Nahh... That don't happen in the real world.

excon

---

On the original quote I have added line numbers to make it easier to understand what Im addressing.

1) Maybe I missed something. When I listened to the speech the other night I didn't hear that the tax credit was specific to new hires in general. Only to those that had been unemployed for more then 6 months.

Again maybe I missed something.

2) Uncertainty has to do more with investment then it does with hiring on a short term. If you need the extra help I don't think as has been the case you jump right out and hire someone right away. The norm has been to work your existing workforce a little more as in overtime until a certainty that the business can support a new worker. That's not to say that hiring someone right away is bad practice. But until certainty is achieved there is really no place for a new position.

3) Demand is created by revenue. And the more in the consumers pockets the more likely they are to spend it. Tax breaks have the advantage of giving the money back to the source rather then to some giant company that won't make it past the 2 year mark.

4) Cutting the deficit can be a good thing. It strengthens the dollar and provides confidence in the marketplace. A weak dollar leads to inflation and can cause uncertainty. We need that strong dollar. Then as consumers return to the marketplace via jobs and personal spending everyone has a shot at making it in the marketplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

I'm a businessman. You SHOULD listen to me. I make sense. Instead, you listen to politicians. I don't know why.

---

Ex we listen to those who say something, politicians speak to us through the media, businessmen get on with doing what they are doing. It doesn't mean we agree with politicians

Quote:

---

I HIRE people when I can't meet the demands of my marketplace... It's no more difficult than that. I DON'T hire because somebody gave me a tax break to hire somebody. If I did, what's he going to do? Sit around?? If I don't have work for him, I'm going to go broke and won't be ABLE to file a tax return to claim my credit...

---

You are right, tax shouldn't drive the business, how many times have I said it. A government only has so many tools available. Tax, subsidy, Interest rates, leglislation. So how does it create jobs? Mainly by adding to the government workforce. A government uses tax breaks to put more money in the hands of the public in this case an employer, hoping that they will use this money to expand their business, but what is really happening is that business are cutting their losses and expanding their profits. This is what uncertainty does.

Quote:

---

Does "uncertainty" have anything to do with it? NO! When I have a customer clamoring for service, I don't look into the tax code to see if I should HIRE somebody... NOBODY does. Really - NOBODY! Certainly, you can SEE the logic in what I say, even if you're NOT a businessperson...

That's not to say that lower taxes won't be beneficial in the long run, but it has NOTHING to do with hiring people NOW. Demand is what will cause me to HIRE, just like DEMAND will cause every other employer to hire.. Demand is NOT created by lower taxes. Demand is created by putting cash dollars in the pockets of consumers... If that means EXPANDING unemployment, then DO it. If it means EXPANDING the distribution of food stamps, then DO it.

---

So what you are telling us is you want the government to use subsidy as a stimulus, problem is that uncertainty you disregard works against the government because the consumers apply the same philosophy, they are uncertain, so they keep the money to protect themselves from an uncertain future. There's that word again you want to ignore.

Quote:

---

Cutting the deficit doesn't cause me to hire either... Can you imagine?? Somebody comes looking for work, and I tell him that I need to see how much the country owes before I can hire him... Nahh... That don't happen in the real world.

Excon

---

Cutting the deficit isn't about you, excepting that someone has to pay for this mess sooner or later. Putting another billion or two in the hands of consumers won't soak up the excess capacity that exists in the economy. That's the problem, business won't hire until demand increases substantially. Something structural has to happen. It may be that your currency has to take a real dive so that those cheap goods from China aren't so cheap anymore, then what you make will be more competitive and when you sell more overseas production and jobs will expand. How do you do this? Well, you sell off the currency instead of spending trillions supporting it and use the money to pay down the deficit. Adjust your equity ratio that is what a business man would do.

Fact is too many politicians have never actually had a real job in their lives... much less ran a business. They don't have a clue about what it takes to do that and turn a profit... and if you can't turn a profit... you certainly won't be hiring others.

Its not about a temporary break this year... its about what you can count on being obligated to for the next 5 or 10 years...

Ex I couldn't agree more. I hire only when I need employees and for no other reason. We have been able to at least maintain around 150 people average so far but I am worried, very worried. Sometimes it is hard to clear my mind and go to sleep. Why, other than the obvious reasons I worry about my people.

Stringer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Fact is too many politicians have never actually had a real job in their lives....much less ran a business. They don't have a clue about what it takes to do that and turn a profit...and if you can't turn a profit...you certainly won't be hiring others.

Its not about a temporary break this year.....its about what you can count on being obligated to for the next 5 or 10 years.....

---

Smoothy many startup business fail for the same reason and I think this is forgotten in the rush for stimulus, sometimes those who are subsidised have no business acumen.

Politicians don't have the answers, they don't even have the right questions because we are all sailing in unchartered waters. It has been seen before when the population apply reverse psychology to a government policy, the government stimulates and expects spending, the public say no way and save. I recall a long time ago in my own nation when the government put the breaks on and applied a credit squeeze, very different times, but the people said borrow now, it will be harder later, and the sales of new vehicles skyrocketed.

What it comes down to is expectations and confidence, the crisis we have now isn't so much a financial crisis as a crisis of confidence, business doesn't have confidence and so isn't hiring, isn't building inventory. Tax incentives used to be a way of attracting an investment, investment implies a market and the market has tanked. Investors aren't stupid, they can see this and business sees it in their order book

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Smoothy many startup business fail for the same reason and I think this is forgotten in the rush for stimulus, sometimes those who are subsidised have no business acumen.

Politicians don't have the answers, they don't even have the right questions because we are all sailing in unchartered waters. It has been seen before when the population apply reverse psychology to a government policy, the government stimulates and expects spending, the public say no way and save. I recall a long time ago in my own nation when the government put the breaks on and applied a credit squeeze, very different times, but the people said borrow now, it will be harder later, and the sales of new vehicles skyrocketed.

What it comes down to is expectations and confidence, the crisis we have now isn't so much a financial crisis as a crisis of confidence, business doesn't have confidence and so isn't hiring, isn't building inventory. Tax incentives used to be a way of attracting an investment, investment implies a market and the market has tanked. Investors arn't stupid, they can see this and business sees it in their order book

---

True... some business owners don't have the instincts they need to be successful and would fail even in a booming economy, but succeeding in a poor one requires both good instincts, and good business sense, along with a lot of good luck. But politicians essentially set the rules for the game to be played... and those rules in and of themselves can make it easier, or impossible to be successful in business. And recently with all the blame business for everything that has been going on in this country... they have been making it impossible for business.

There is a degree of interrelation... but you have to look at it from the business owners perspective... you aren't going to hire someone if you can't reasonably expect to be able to keep them long term for whatever reason. Between the expense of finding and hiring, there is the training and learning curve to be productive... and the outlay of benefits... including the cost of what you pay into the unemployment fund when you have to let them go... its cheaper to hunker down and wait it out... eventually things will improve. How long that takes politicians do have a major influence in.

The move to cut regulation is sensible, there are many barriers and disincentives for business, but it still takes the willingness to take a risk and some people are not risk takers, particularly in the face of poor economic conditions.

Banks are only going to lend with certainty so instead of tinkering the government should be willing to guarantee business loans for a time to assume some of the risk. Such incentives don't cost money, at least not immediately, and are no worse than the incentivising of housing which got us into this mess or the semi-nationalisation of the auto industry

Hello again,

Here's some more of what you should listen to me about... Politicians talk about bringing the jobs back... But, they AIN'T coming back, no matter WHAT the politicians do. They ain't coming back because it's cheaper to manufacture stuff over seas... After WWII, and the worlds factories were destroyed, we were the only ones who could make stuff - and we did. When the world caught up, they were willing to work for a lot less than our guys would, so the jobs left.. The only jobs that stayed were the ones that foreigners couldn't do.

So, if we're going to create jobs, we need to create some in a NEW industry, cause we can't compete in the old ones anymore... It's not like we've never done it before. When the Japanese started taking our car manufacturing, we turned to chips and high tech stuff.

We need to do that again... Space? Green technology? I don't know. Yup, it's going to take some MASSIVE government investment... Don't be disturbed by my use of the word "investment".. That's how you get ahead - by investing in stuff.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

So, if we're gonna create jobs, we need to create some in a NEW industry, cause we can't compete in the old ones anymore... It's not like we've never done it before. When the Japanese started taking our car manufacturing, we turned to chips and high tech stuff.

We need to do that again... Space?? Green technology? I dunno. Yup, it's gonna take some MASSIVE government investment... Don't be disturbed by my use of the word "investment".. That's how you get ahead - by investing in stuff.

excon

---

Ex perhaps you haven't heard of globalisation. That is where your american companies opted to take their technology and manufacture in a low labour cost country and the process goes on endlessly. When China becomes too expensive they will move to Pakistan or Africa. As far as the Japanese taking your car industry goes, you did that to yourselves along with all the other industries you poured into the reconstruction. I hope you don't expect me to have sympathy for you.

You have lost the race already in green technology, the smart solutions are out there already because your politicians weren't willing to recognise the changing environment. Want a new industry, invent fusion power generation, hover cars, modular housing, something that isn't there right now, not some incremental change to existing technology. Find something that has to be sold in volume. The biggest change you have to make in your economy is to abandon the idea that your minimum wage should remain low as an incentive to employ. No, you pay more and demand productivity, this will get your economy moving again, when you get your workers above subsistence level.

Well, we can't invest in shovel ready jobs because they don't exist. Give a half a billion dollars to a "green job" creator and they'll just file bankruptcy. How about guitars? Nope, might harm a tree. Passenger jets? Not in South Carolina.

What do we have left? Ah yes, unions. Let's invest in unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What do we have left? Ah yes, unions. Let's invest in unions.

---

Hello Steve:

Stop being snarky! They'll close this thread too. What do YOU think our next big industry should be?? Unless, you think they're going to reopen that refrigerator plant down the road... We're in a NEW era. Ideas?? (Don't say fire extinguishers)

excon

LOL, if we have to worry about them closing threads for being snarky then AMHD is hopeless.

First let me correct something, demand isn't created by putting cash in our pockets. Well, to those who have no concept of finances it might create some demand, but if you put cash in my pockets I'm gong to pay some bills. How much did we spend on "stimulus" and how much demand did it create?

Nor is demand is created by mandate or wishful thinking i.e. "green jobs" (see Solyndra). Demand is created by offering a service or product that people need or really want. I don't NEED compact fluorescent bulbs nor do I want them. I don't need an electric or hybrid car and I can't picture people around here trying to pull a horse trailer with a Chevy Volt. I may want solar panels but I don't need them or the cost associated.

I don't know what the next big thing will be but you can't just put more government dollars in people's hands and hope for the best. People are still tightening down and hanging on to their money precisely because of the uncertainty of the economy. More expensive wishful thinking by the feds is not going to change that.

Hello again, Steve:

Investment is one thing. Stimulus is another we need BOTH. I opt for space. I mean we got lots of NASA unemployed rocket scientists... We got those unused launching pads..

Hey... Want to go into business with me... We could use fire extinguishers as rocket motors to save money. You got an in there... How about it?

excon

Your garden variety extinguisher only holds 195 psi charge and makes a terrible mess. We could bump it up to CO2 which could be around 850 psi, but that would be a climate disaster. Either would take a lot of extinguishers so you might bump up production slightly. But hey, as soon as all states adopt the latest NFPA standard my industry (and the scrap metal industry) will see a boost because we won't be able to service anything made before 1984.

Regulations are a pain but in our case they do help us stay in business... while driving up the price of everything from food to gas to those plastic baggies you store weed in.

Business people don't care about regulations or taxes. They care about money. They don't care about people and jobs. They care about money. They aren't creating jobs, because they are making money.

Its crazy believing they want anything but more money. Calling a business man a job creator is crazy, since they want to make money whether you do or not, and with or without you, whatever is cheaper.

If they need a few more bucks, then you get laid off. Ever notice that stocks go up when workers get canned?? Wonder why that is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If they need a few more bucks, then you get laid off. Ever notice that stocks go up when workers get canned???

---

That's why Bank of America is laying off 30,000 employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

That's why Bank of America is laying off 30,000 employees.

---

Good example, they have to raise some attorney fees quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Stop being snarky! They'll close this thread too. What do YOU think our next big industry should be??? Unless, you think they're gonna reopen that refrigerator plant down the road... We're in a NEW era. Ideas??? (Don't say fire extinguishers)

excon

---

Just my opinion. If you could kep the enviromentalists away and get a mass of land in the desert. You could start an algae farm. They look fairly proising and you can create bio fuel from it. Imagine what you could do with a few square miles of it growing.