Teabaggers call for business owners not to hire anyone

Page 1 of 9 [ 136 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

21 Oct 2011, 10:35 am

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/ ... share_post

Quote:

I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.

Ichinin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,653
Location: A cold place with lots of blondes.

21 Oct 2011, 10:47 am

It might as well say:

Quote:

I, an American sociopatic c**t, part of the class that don't pay enough in tax so everyone can have a decent life, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person because i'm a big ret*d religious rightwing dickhead.

I hereby declare that i am a complete selfish ass.

_________________
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)

IDontGetIt
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 499
Location: Cheshire, UK.

21 Oct 2011, 10:52 am

So I guess we're not talking about the Urban Dictionary definition of teabagger then...? :lol:

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Oct 2011, 10:54 am

Read -Atlas Shrugged-. The business people decided to go on strike. They closed their doors and disappeared.

ruveyn

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

21 Oct 2011, 11:00 am

ruveyn wrote:

Read -Atlas Shrugged-. The business people decided to go on strike. They closed their doors and disappeared.

ruveyn

That must have murdered their profit margins.

I have some friends who are small business owners. They hire people when one of two things happens.

1: Business requirements exceed the ability of their existing team to respond, which means that either they will overwork their existing team members and risk losing them, or they will be unable to respond to customer demands and lose potential business

2: An obvious scenario arises where adding an additional worker means making more money.

One of them is currently interviewing for another customer service rep for the holidays strictly because long experience tells him that the team they have now will be inadequate to fulfill customer needs in november and december, and they need to get the new person trained before the holiday rush.

So if any business owner decides that they want to commit financial suicide to spite the president, I say go right ahead.

Obres
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

21 Oct 2011, 11:04 am

ruveyn wrote:

Read -Atlas Shrugged-. The business people decided to go on strike. They closed their doors and disappeared.

ruveyn

If they actually did this, all they'd be doing is dropping the barriers to entry that keep them on top. A few "entrepreneurs" will try to make a point, but if they actually did this they'd lose everything and the rest of the world would keep on going just fine without them. I'd like to see it happen. It won't be nearly as disastrous as they (and apparently you) would like to think, and in fact it would boost competition in the long run, redistribute wealth... hell, that could be just what the economy need. I'm not sure I see a down-side to this, aside from the fact that it won't actually happen

YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

21 Oct 2011, 11:11 am

Not gonna happen.
Businesses are motivated by money. They are without morals. They will hire and fire based on whatever increases profit. Any business that does otherwise will not survive.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

21 Oct 2011, 11:46 am

Refusing to hire does not = failure of business.

In a hostile climate, a business can focus on survival and slow growth. Why risk when the system is out to see you fail?

Right now, the nation needs millions of new jobs to be created. Those with the means are being treated as the bad guy just for existing. They do not exist to create jobs for people. They exist to make money and accumulate wealth from their success.

I propose that if Obama got his desire to make it illegal to "discriminate" against unemployed people, you'd see hiring grind to a halt. Even if you hire an unemployed person, another unemployed person could accuse you of discrimination and the EEOC inquiry will result in legal costs even if the EEOC quickly determines there is no merit to the accusation.

The only way hiring will be done after such a situation would be for employers to turn to recruitment rather than applications. It might seem like splitting hairs, but if you "recruit" a person, you seek them out and ask them to come to work for you. Government can not mandate who you seek to recruit. If you accept applications, government can mandate who you must consider as an applicant.

Hiring will go much slower and job creation will be limited to how badly an employer needs a position filled.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:

21 Oct 2011, 11:47 am

YippySkippy wrote:

Not gonna happen.

Too late. It already has, although not on a universal scale. Some business owners would rather go out of business than hire more people, especially if those people are unionized.

YippySkippy wrote:

Businesses are motivated by money.

This, I agree with. People go into business to make money.

YippySkippy wrote:

They are without morals.

Tell that to the owners of the mom-and-pop operations in your area. Go ahead and tell the owner of the local burger stand that both he and his business are immoral. Tell it to the veterinarian, the physician, and the dentist, too. Being a business owner does not make a person immoral ... unless you happen to be a pimp, a drug dealer, or a person that sells child pornography.

YippySkippy wrote:

They will hire and fire based on whatever increases profit. Any business that does otherwise will not survive.

This is not immoral. If firing half of the employees means that the other half can continue working - especially when the alternative is to keep paying all employees until the business runs out of money - then that is what must be done.

Businesses are not there to provide jobs to the unemployed; they are there to provide income for the owners. Having a job is not a right, it is a privilege.

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

Last edited by Fnord on 21 Oct 2011, 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

21 Oct 2011, 11:47 am

ruveyn wrote:

Read -Atlas Shrugged-. The business people decided to go on strike. They closed their doors and disappeared.

ruveyn

I love that book. It's such a sociopathic insight in to the mind of someone who doesn't know how economics works. It's like watching Plan 9 from outer Space, but a book.

Last edited by Gedrene on 21 Oct 2011, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

21 Oct 2011, 11:55 am

zer0netgain wrote:

Refusing to hire does not = failure of business.

In a hostile climate, a business can focus on survival and slow growth. Why risk when the system is out to see you fail?

It depends very much on your business.

Where i work - which is not at all small - we hired an additional person onto my team because a new contract includes billable hours for an additional person.

Leaving that money on the table would be moronic. Wouldn't kill the business, but would be stupid.

At my friend's web store, the customer service team they have right now will not be enough people to handle the volume of business they typically get around the holidays. Not hiring another CSR would mean customers waiting in the hold queue and getting pissed off. It would mean the existing team dealing with angrier customers than usual. It would mean long hours and short breaks. They risk losing both customers and valuable employees. Not hiring a seasonal worker would be a bad idea.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Oct 2011, 12:08 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

There are only two ways for a business which relies on employee productivity to grow: pay for more labour (either new hires or extended hours), or increase productivity.

A refusal to create more work is, perforce, a concession to stagnation.

Businesses don't hire because they have money to spare. They hire because the law requires it (e.g. workplace safety requirements) or because they require increased production. Plain and simple.

_________________
--James

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

21 Oct 2011, 1:38 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Businesses don't hire because they have money to spare. They hire because the law requires it (e.g. workplace safety requirements) or because they require increased production. Plain and simple.

And the former of those two can destroy a business. Compliance with requirements of law yields no gain for a company but consumes resources.

Increase in production is a matter of supply and demand. If the economy is good, demand is increasing and that provides the opportunity for growth in productivity. In a bad economy, you can't expect much growth in productivity and you would only hire more people once you grew productivity to a point where existing staff is no longer able to meet the demand in an efficient manner.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

21 Oct 2011, 1:40 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Read -Atlas Shrugged-. The business people decided to go on strike. They closed their doors and disappeared.

ruveyn

In the unpublished sequel -Atlas Rethinks his Untenable Position- they are reduced to incest and cannibalism in the Gulch because none of them knows the first thing about hard work and agriculture. It never came out because it was too much like
-The Hills have Eyes-

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:

21 Oct 2011, 2:10 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Read -Atlas Shrugged-. The business people decided to go on strike. They closed their doors and disappeared. ruveyn

In the unpublished sequel -Atlas Rethinks his Untenable Position- they are reduced to incest and cannibalism in the Gulch because none of them knows the first thing about hard work and agriculture. It never came out because it was too much like -The Hills have Eyes-

Please provide a link for this alleged work, as it does not seem to be listed on the Ayn Rand Institute website or anywhere else on the Internet.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Oct 2011, 2:13 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

I don't disagree--so statutorily mandated employment levels should always be examined with a critical eye.

Should airlines be required to engage a minimum number of flight attendants? Of course, because there is a direct impact on passenger safety in the event of emergency. Those emergencies happen incredibly rarely, but we are content to see airlines saddled with the labour cost, and to pass that cost on to travellers because we see a higher value in safety.

Should businesses be required to comply with "no one work's alone" occupational health and safety rules? Again, there are direct impacts to safety--this time worker safety.

There are other types of regulation that I am quite happy to see disposed of. But the assessment should always be directed, critical and evidence based.

As for productivity, actually a slumping economy is the best time to realize productivity gains. In boom times, when cash is plentiful and your order book is full, the easiest thing to do is put on a back shift and keep the mill running 24/7. Slack times are the times that you try to squeeze an extra dozen units out of the shifts that you already have.

_________________
--James

Page 1 of 9 [ 136 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

Teabaggers call for business owners not to hire anyone Post Reply New Topic

Teabaggers call for business owners not to hire anyone