patrick.net

shrekgrinch says

Looman said the signs were not meant to indicate he is refusing to hire employees to make a political point. Rather, he insists policies advocated by the Obama administration make it impossible to hire anyone in the current economy.

Sounds very inconsistent. He says it's "not political". He says though he is REFUSING to hire, a conscious choice. And he's advertising this fact quite publicly and blaming individuals, so it is political.

Or is it that his company is "hampered"? Meaning he's simply not profitable? Maybe he should declare bankruptcy then and get it over with. I thought you folks believed in "survival of the fittest" quite rigidly and obviously this guy can't cope where other people are sitting on MOUNTAINS of money. Frankly I'm not sure why we should listen to this sour-grapes loser any more than we should listen to some dude whining about how his RE-flipping scheme went in the toilet.

I sit a top a mountain of money because cash feels great on the bare ass. Think about that next time you go to the ATM.

What rubbish, the guy owns a Crane Business that I assume received a huge boost from the Construction Bubble that was powered by the Finance Bubble.

He wants his bubble back from the "Ownership Society" policies of the last decade.

There is no mountain of cash, look on the other side of the balance sheet. Corporations are borrowing mountains of cash at very low interest rates in case the banking system freezes up again. Huffington post doesn't know what they are talking about. Not an unusual situation there.

If there's no "mountain of cash" where are the bonus payouts coming from? Fictitious accounting or not, CEO are still getting payouts of 10 million and more.

Since when does sitting on extra cash create an obligation to hire someone (ie spend it)?? I'm a small business and I'm sitting on about $1,700,000 in cash (sometimes called profit). My business goal is to make more profit. I will consider hiring when doing so will generate more profit. I am absolutely NOT in business to create jobs for other people. When did that contorted idea of business become mainstream? I will hire another person when doing so will earn me considerably more than their salary + vacation + medical insurance + unemployment insurance + FICA tax + medicare tax + the myriad of other taxes and expenses incurred as an employer. Until that condition exists, my "pile of cash" is a buffer against my own unemployment --- because as the owner, I am not eligible for unemployment benefits although I am forced to pay the tax on MY salary.

STUPIDEST logic ? yes I said "stupidest".
Convincing home owners that it is IMMORAL to walk away from an upside down mortgage or convincing business owners to HIRE USELESS STAFF !
Can you say cal trans ?

Bill W says

Since when does sitting on extra cash create an obligation to hire someone (ie spend it)?? I'm a small business and I'm sitting on about $1,700,000 in cash (sometimes called profit). My business goal is to make more profit.

That's actually correct. And it's why tax breaks to businesses do NOT lead to increased employment.

Vicente says

If there's no "mountain of cash" where are the bonus payouts coming from? Fictitious accounting or not, CEO are still getting payouts of 10 million and more.

“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

Figures like 10 million in a large corporation is chump change. The top 200 companies all have more then 40 billion in revenue.

It's all about demand for jobs that can't be outsourced. No demand for those type of jobs, no domestic hiring.

tatupu70 says

Since when does sitting on extra cash create an obligation to hire someone (ie spend it)?? I'm a small business and I'm sitting on about $1,700,000 in cash (sometimes called profit). My business goal is to make more profit.
That's actually correct. And it's why tax breaks to businesses do NOT lead to increased employment.

Actually, your conclusion is incorrect. Taxes are a big part of my employment expenses. When taxes are lowered, my profit opportunity increases. An employee is overhead. When that cost of that overhead is lowered by less taxes, that total employee cost may indeed dip below the income that that employee can generate. When that happens, it makes sense for me to hire. So, lower taxes DO create more OPPORTUNITY for hiring. But taxes are not the only factor. WAGES are the largest cost and the primary reason that we have so much outsourcing overseas. It's about the cost of that employee relative to the income attributable to that additional hire ... regardless of the composition of that cost (wages, taxes, benefits, etc.)

No, Bill, raising your personal income taxes will not prevent you from hiring more people, unless you're dumb. You will still weigh the cost of the employee against the profit they will bring - and even if your share of that profit is taxed at a higher rate, you will hire the person if it will earn you more money.

Now, I'd agree if we're talking about taxes and other expenses your business would have to pay simply for hiring someone, regardless of the profit they bring in.

As for outsourcing of jobs - there are two ways of looking at it. One way is your way - American workers cost too much! They should learn from the Indians and Chinese, who will work for much less and tolerate the wholesale destruction of the water, land, and air because the alternative is starving.

The other way of looking at it is quite different. Yes, you can make a higher profit margin by shipping those jobs overseas. And yes, it will appear that you are raising their standard of living. Actually, you are supporting the very system that oppresses those people (oppress may seem like a strong word in some cases, but in others it is clearly an understatement). You could also increase your profit margin by having slaves. If it was legal, would you do it?

Probably, right? That's the CEO mentality. MY money, who gives a shit about how I get it into my wallet.

As for your basic premise that free cash does obligate you to hire, you're missing the point. Our society has been under assault by the wealthy and power hungry. Rules have been changed to rig the system and *that's* why some people have so much more money than their contributions to society warrant.

What the rest of us are talking about is not your obligation ... but rather our own duty - to ourselves, to our society - to rerig the system to screw YOU over for a change. Remember, while the laws today say you're entitled to your huge share of the pie, we have the numbers and if people actually got out and voted we could change the rules. Our constitutional rights have been tramped quite a bit over the last decade, though fortunately we generally get to exercise our basic freedoms. You too will still have your basic freedoms if we succeed in rewriting the laws on the books so we can take your money and put it to good use. If I had my way, every multi-millionaire who hasn't worked hard enough (I mean sweat and stress work, not investment 'work') to earn his millions would get to keep all his personal freedoms ... but he'd live in a one room box in the ghetto. And the government would take his money and spend it on something useful for society.

Not that our current government would do that. This administration and this congress has been bought out by the wealthy class and would never do the right thing.

Bill W says

Actually, your conclusion is incorrect. Taxes are a big part of my employment expenses. When taxes are lowered, my profit opportunity increases. An employee is overhead. When that cost of that overhead is lowered by less taxes, that total employee cost may indeed dip below the income that that employee can generate. When that happens, it makes sense for me to hire. So, lower taxes DO create more OPPORTUNITY for hiring. But taxes are not the only factor. WAGES are the largest cost and the primary reason that we have so much outsourcing overseas. It's about the cost of that employee relative to the income attributable to that additional hire ... regardless of the composition of that cost (wages, taxes, benefits, etc.)

Actually, I'm not incorrect.

An employee is not necessarily overhead. CEO is overhead. Someone on the manufacturing floor is mostly direct labor with some overhead costs.

Further, I said tax breaks to business which it seems you interpreted to mean tax breaks on labor. Lowering a businesses income tax rate does nothing to change the total employee cost. And will not encourage hiring. period.

As to your point about the cost vs. income attributable to a hire--it sounds nice, but how do you figure the "income" attributable to a hire? Companies hire when demand increases. When there is lost business or potential lost business; or when overtime is too high. Then they hire.

INVISIBLE OUTSOURCING

zzyzzx says

If the homeowner isn't insulted by your offer...you didn't bid low enough!!!

O/T - your sig line is a howl, zzyzzx.

Bill W says

WAGES are the largest cost and the primary reason that we have so much outsourcing overseas.

I agree. Shame on greedy Americans for not being willing to work for $2 a day.

And on the subject of outsourcing, the best way to reduce it is to make outsourcing as expensive as possible for corporations, I mean JOB CREATORS.

First, you put tariffs on imports

Second, you put quotas

Third, you deny companies who outsource govt. contracts

Fourth, you bar outsourcers from claiming any tax deductions or subsidies

Fifth, you make up a whole bunch of B.S. regulations to extract more money from companies who outsource. Raise port fees for instance. Require the ships they use to import products to be "environmentally friendly."

Here's my problem with the "job creators".

I'd be OK with "profits first" if they weren't so high and mighty about theirs the ONLY RIGHT WAY to do things. It's a classic example of a man with a hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail.

Police? Privatize
Fire? Privatize
Water rights? Privatize

I don't like the current level of worship for CEO's who make thousands of times their employees. Financial media treating their every word like it's handed down on stone tablets.

And even when the JOB CREATORS make profits, those profits are not going to the shareholders. They are getting the short straw.