Why Small Business Isn't Hiring, And Won't Be Hiring

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 3:23 PM GMT
    http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-small-business-isnt-hiring-and-wont-be-hiring-2011-7

    The low job growth in the U.S. isn't a "soft patch," it's a sea of quicksand. In a nutshell, here's the situation: 2/3 or more of all job growth comes from small businesses starting up and expanding; only a third or less of new jobs come from Corporate America or government expansion.

    As recent reports have shown, Corporate America has been on a hiring spree--overseas. From the point of view of globalized Corporate America, why hire anyone in a slow-growth market like the U.S.? It makes sense to hire new employees in fast-growing markets where the corporation is reaping its growth and most of its profits.

    As for government hiring: the game of expansion based on explosively rising debt or Federal stimulus spending is over. To live within their means, local goverment and related agencies will have to shed jobs, as labor accounts for 80% of government expenses.


    His reasoning (more explanations at the link):

    1. The high costs of cartel healthcare, a.k.a. Sickcare in the U.S. Corporate America and small business share one millstone: the absurdly high costs of healthcare in the U.S., which have been pushed onto the employers more as a historical accident than out of rational policy.

    2. Politicos and employees don't understand small business. How many politicos started a business from scratch and are still running a small business of 25 or fewer employees? Basically none. How many employees understand what it feels like to be skating close to the edge of emotional and financial collapse, month after month?

    3. Local government views small business as tax donkeys. Local government sees small business as one thing and one thing only: a captive source of extra revenue via higher licensing fees, junk fees, permits, surcharges, etc. Local government thinks small business is captive, but the local politicos and fiefdoms are forgetting every small business owner has an option: it's called closing down, and opting out of the rat-race of higher taxes and costs.

    4. Litigation nation. Employees and others can take a turn at the lawsuit lottery wheel, and if they "win" then you lose. The stress alone is deadly. I know many employees think the owner is exploiting them, and that is a reality for undocumented workers and others. But the number of business owners who are trying to do right by their workers far exceeds the exploiters.
    Meanwhile, the cost of "protection" against lawsuits keeps rising, too.

    5. The "flexible, free-lance/ independent contractor" model of employment which has been lauded for the past decade as the key to America's rising productivity has some serious downsides--and I should know, as I've been a free-lancer for 20 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 3:38 PM GMT
    Of these "reasons", only number is valid. The others are a series of excuses because if there was demand, those businesses would have reason to stay open.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 5:40 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidOf these "reasons", only number is valid. The others are a series of excuses because if there was demand, those businesses would have reason to stay open.

    They are all valid. When there is demand the businesses will hire, only more overseas. And if the NLRB had their way, even large business would go overseas more (e.g. Boeing case). I don't think there will be significant job growth in the US until this administration is history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 5:44 PM GMT
    Time to double tax companies that send jobs overseas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 5:45 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOf these "reasons", only number is valid. The others are a series of excuses because if there was demand, those businesses would have reason to stay open.

    They are all valid. When there is demand the businesses will hire, only more overseas. And if the NLRB had their way, even large business would go overseas more (e.g. Boeing case). I don't think there will be significant job growth in the US until this administration is history.


    Incorrect. The majority are a series of excuses used to maintain the gross inequality of wealth and income in this country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 8:22 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOf these "reasons", only number is valid. The others are a series of excuses because if there was demand, those businesses would have reason to stay open.

    They are all valid. When there is demand the businesses will hire, only more overseas. And if the NLRB had their way, even large business would go overseas more (e.g. Boeing case). I don't think there will be significant job growth in the US until this administration is history.

    Incorrect. The majority are a series of excuses used to maintain the gross inequality of wealth and income in this country.

    Even you can't believe what you write. Following your "reasoning":

    So a business that sees an opportunity to grow will deliberately not grow for the express purpose of maintaining class inequality? Overheard in a small company executive office "All the sales projections look great, we know the material costs, supply chain looks good, employee hiring costs, including health care premiums, and we see a positive impact on the balance sheet. Oh, but wait, if we hire workers to fill the demand, we will improve their financial status. No we don't want to do that. Screw the balance sheet. It's really better to keep them unemployed."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 11:38 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidTime to double tax companies that send jobs overseas.


    That would lead to a trade war (and probably depression) - and a much more complicated tax code. How do you figure this would work? And are you aware of Smoot-Hawley?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 11:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOf these "reasons", only number is valid. The others are a series of excuses because if there was demand, those businesses would have reason to stay open.

    They are all valid. When there is demand the businesses will hire, only more overseas. And if the NLRB had their way, even large business would go overseas more (e.g. Boeing case). I don't think there will be significant job growth in the US until this administration is history.

    Incorrect. The majority are a series of excuses used to maintain the gross inequality of wealth and income in this country.

    Even you can't believe what you write. Following your "reasoning":

    So a business that sees an opportunity to grow will deliberately not grow for the express purpose of maintaining class inequality? Overheard in a small company executive office "All the sales projections look great, we know the material costs, supply chain looks good, employee hiring costs, including health care premiums, and we see a positive impact on the balance sheet. Oh, but wait, if we hire workers to fill the demand, we will improve their financial status. No we don't want to do that. Screw the balance sheet. It's really better to keep them unemployed."


    You realize you just undid your own argument and the argument of the OP. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 11:51 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOf these "reasons", only number is valid. The others are a series of excuses because if there was demand, those businesses would have reason to stay open.

    They are all valid. When there is demand the businesses will hire, only more overseas. And if the NLRB had their way, even large business would go overseas more (e.g. Boeing case). I don't think there will be significant job growth in the US until this administration is history.

    Incorrect. The majority are a series of excuses used to maintain the gross inequality of wealth and income in this country.

    Even you can't believe what you write. Following your "reasoning":

    So a business that sees an opportunity to grow will deliberately not grow for the express purpose of maintaining class inequality? Overheard in a small company executive office "All the sales projections look great, we know the material costs, supply chain looks good, employee hiring costs, including health care premiums, and we see a positive impact on the balance sheet. Oh, but wait, if we hire workers to fill the demand, we will improve their financial status. No we don't want to do that. Screw the balance sheet. It's really better to keep them unemployed."


    You realize you just undid your own argument and the argument of the OP. icon_lol.gif

    Only undid it for someone who would actually believe the completely ridiculous scenario that I presented.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 12:12 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOf these "reasons", only number is valid. The others are a series of excuses because if there was demand, those businesses would have reason to stay open.

    They are all valid. When there is demand the businesses will hire, only more overseas. And if the NLRB had their way, even large business would go overseas more (e.g. Boeing case). I don't think there will be significant job growth in the US until this administration is history.

    Incorrect. The majority are a series of excuses used to maintain the gross inequality of wealth and income in this country.

    Even you can't believe what you write. Following your "reasoning":

    So a business that sees an opportunity to grow will deliberately not grow for the express purpose of maintaining class inequality? Overheard in a small company executive office "All the sales projections look great, we know the material costs, supply chain looks good, employee hiring costs, including health care premiums, and we see a positive impact on the balance sheet. Oh, but wait, if we hire workers to fill the demand, we will improve their financial status. No we don't want to do that. Screw the balance sheet. It's really better to keep them unemployed."


    You realize you just undid your own argument and the argument of the OP. icon_lol.gif

    Only undid it for someone who would actually believe the completely ridiculous scenario that I presented.


    Nope. The key element of your ficticious story is that there is demand. Three decades of right-wing economic policy has destroyed the American consumer market. Until people get back to work, the right-wing "intelligentsia" will use any and all other excuses to deflect blame from their economic pogroms, which have impoverished the country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 1:25 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Nope. The key element of your fictitious story is that there is demand. Three decades of right-wing economic policy has destroyed the American consumer market. Until people get back to work, the right-wing "intelligentsia" will use any and all other excuses to deflect blame from their economic pogroms, which have impoverished the country.



    The government needs to take more money from the business owners so that they can give it to the people who can then spend it at the business owner's shops so the business owners can give it to the government....


    No. Corporations and the wealthy need to pay their taxes, so the government can fund a WPA and get people working who will in turn purchase goods and service from small businesses which will in turn hire more people to meet demand and then (as they have after every other recession) the government can stop the program as the private sector generates enough to demand and consumers to keep the cycle going.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 1:27 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOf these "reasons", only number is valid. The others are a series of excuses because if there was demand, those businesses would have reason to stay open.

    They are all valid. When there is demand the businesses will hire, only more overseas. And if the NLRB had their way, even large business would go overseas more (e.g. Boeing case). I don't think there will be significant job growth in the US until this administration is history.

    Incorrect. The majority are a series of excuses used to maintain the gross inequality of wealth and income in this country.

    Even you can't believe what you write. Following your "reasoning":

    So a business that sees an opportunity to grow will deliberately not grow for the express purpose of maintaining class inequality? Overheard in a small company executive office "All the sales projections look great, we know the material costs, supply chain looks good, employee hiring costs, including health care premiums, and we see a positive impact on the balance sheet. Oh, but wait, if we hire workers to fill the demand, we will improve their financial status. No we don't want to do that. Screw the balance sheet. It's really better to keep them unemployed."


    You realize you just undid your own argument and the argument of the OP. icon_lol.gif

    Only undid it for someone who would actually believe the completely ridiculous scenario that I presented.


    Nope. The key element of your ficticious story is that there is demand. Three decades of right-wing economic policy has destroyed the American consumer market. Until people get back to work, the right-wing "intelligentsia" will use any and all other excuses to deflect blame from their economic pogroms, which have impoverished the country.

    I agree that the demand is not there so businesses are not hiring. You have contradicted your inference above that businesses were not hiring to maintain class inequality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 3:34 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    No. Corporations and the wealthy need to pay their taxes


    A person earning $200,001 is not "wealthy" and already pays more than enough in taxes. icon_rolleyes.gif


    $200,001 is more than 97% US households bring in each and 50% of US households only bring in 1/4 of that amount.

    And the average US worker who had a job, not counting the 10+% who are unemployed, saw their wages rise by 1%, whereas the average CEO saw their compensation rise by 32%.

    So what do you call a household that brings in more money than 97% of the other US households? Wealthy? Affluent? Rich? Prosperous?

    Whatever it's called, it's time for them to pay more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 3:39 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidI agree that the demand is not there so businesses are not hiring. You have contradicted your inference above that businesses were not hiring to maintain class inequality.


    It's not an inference, it's a fact:

    JP Morgan Chase "Eye on the Market"Profit margins have reached levels not seen in decades. The challenge, which we have discussed many times before: what is driving these margins? One useful way to deconstruct profits is to measure them from peak to peak, and analyze what changed. As shown in the first chart, S&P 500 profit margins increased by 1.3% from 2000 to 2007. There are a lot of moving parts in the margin equation, but as shown in the second chart, reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in margins. This trend has continued; as we have shown several times over the last two years, US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.


    Prior to the recession, increasing profit margins were overwhelmingly due to reductions in wages and benefits. Over the past two years, income growth has gone to corporate profit, not the workers who produced the income. And the outcome—as summarized by JP Morgan, not by some dirty hippie socialist—is that "US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP."

    http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/44821/files/07-11-11_-_EOTM_-_Twilight_of_the_Gods__PWM_.pdf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 3:57 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidI agree that the demand is not there so businesses are not hiring. You have contradicted your inference above that businesses were not hiring to maintain class inequality.


    It's not an inference, it's a fact:

    JP Morgan Chase "Eye on the Market"Profit margins have reached levels not seen in decades. The challenge, which we have discussed many times before: what is driving these margins? One useful way to deconstruct profits is to measure them from peak to peak, and analyze what changed. As shown in the first chart, S&P 500 profit margins increased by 1.3% from 2000 to 2007. There are a lot of moving parts in the margin equation, but as shown in the second chart, reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in margins. This trend has continued; as we have shown several times over the last two years, US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.


    Prior to the recession, increasing profit margins were overwhelmingly due to reductions in wages and benefits. Over the past two years, income growth has gone to corporate profit, not the workers who produced the income. And the outcome—as summarized by JP Morgan, not by some dirty hippie socialist—is that "US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP."

    http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/44821/files/07-11-11_-_EOTM_-_Twilight_of_the_Gods__PWM_.pdf

    Yes, but this does not support your original contention in this thread that job growth is soft because of an intent to maintain the gross inequality of wealth and income in this country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 4:33 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidI agree that the demand is not there so businesses are not hiring. You have contradicted your inference above that businesses were not hiring to maintain class inequality.


    It's not an inference, it's a fact:

    JP Morgan Chase "Eye on the Market"Profit margins have reached levels not seen in decades. The challenge, which we have discussed many times before: what is driving these margins? One useful way to deconstruct profits is to measure them from peak to peak, and analyze what changed. As shown in the first chart, S&P 500 profit margins increased by 1.3% from 2000 to 2007. There are a lot of moving parts in the margin equation, but as shown in the second chart, reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in margins. This trend has continued; as we have shown several times over the last two years, US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.


    Prior to the recession, increasing profit margins were overwhelmingly due to reductions in wages and benefits. Over the past two years, income growth has gone to corporate profit, not the workers who produced the income. And the outcome—as summarized by JP Morgan, not by some dirty hippie socialist—is that "US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP."

    http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/44821/files/07-11-11_-_EOTM_-_Twilight_of_the_Gods__PWM_.pdf

    Yes, but this does not support your original contention in this thread that job growth is soft because of an intent to maintain the gross inequality of wealth and income in this country.


    People paying themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of expanding their business and, therefore, hiring and, rather, downsizing to keep the profits moving solely to themselves are intending to maintain gross inequality. They are also not doing their shareholders justice as you eventually run out of things to cut.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 9:31 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidPeople paying themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of expanding their business and, therefore, hiring and, rather, downsizing to keep the profits moving solely to themselves are intending to maintain gross inequality. They are also not doing their shareholders justice as you eventually run out of things to cut.

    Makes no sense. You're suggesting on one hand that businesses are against growth to maintain their financial position at the expense of workers. You don't seem to understand that their position is enhanced by growing their business. Then you acknowledge they are not growing their business because of the economy, i.e. demand not there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 12:48 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPeople paying themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of expanding their business and, therefore, hiring and, rather, downsizing to keep the profits moving solely to themselves are intending to maintain gross inequality. They are also not doing their shareholders justice as you eventually run out of things to cut.

    Makes no sense. You're suggesting on one hand that businesses are against growth to maintain their financial position at the expense of workers. You don't seem to understand that their position is enhanced by growing their business. Then you acknowledge they are not growing their business because of the economy, i.e. demand not there.


    I never suggested they were against growth. I'm saying their greed has them is such that they will put short term profits ahead of growing their business and when the economy contracts, they will shed workers to ensure that they continue to rake in their outsized compensation. I have 30 years of American business history supporting my contention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 12:55 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPeople paying themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of expanding their business and, therefore, hiring and, rather, downsizing to keep the profits moving solely to themselves are intending to maintain gross inequality. They are also not doing their shareholders justice as you eventually run out of things to cut.

    Makes no sense. You're suggesting on one hand that businesses are against growth to maintain their financial position at the expense of workers. You don't seem to understand that their position is enhanced by growing their business. Then you acknowledge they are not growing their business because of the economy, i.e. demand not there.

    I never suggested they were against growth. I'm saying their greed has them is such that they will put short term profits ahead of growing their business and when the economy contracts, they will shed workers to ensure that they continue to rake in their outsized compensation. I have 30 years of American business history supporting my contention.

    You can use the term "greed" because it supports your social agenda, but for large businesses, it's all about preserving or increasing shareholder value. CEOs are answerable to the Board as well as the shareholders. If a business chooses to layoff workers, not hire workers, or outsource jobs overseas, instead of blaming the business, the real issues to consider are the strength of the economy, the tax policies, and any tax or regulatory uncertainties. The same general issues apply to small businesses as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 1:41 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPeople paying themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of expanding their business and, therefore, hiring and, rather, downsizing to keep the profits moving solely to themselves are intending to maintain gross inequality. They are also not doing their shareholders justice as you eventually run out of things to cut.

    Makes no sense. You're suggesting on one hand that businesses are against growth to maintain their financial position at the expense of workers. You don't seem to understand that their position is enhanced by growing their business. Then you acknowledge they are not growing their business because of the economy, i.e. demand not there.

    I never suggested they were against growth. I'm saying their greed has them is such that they will put short term profits ahead of growing their business and when the economy contracts, they will shed workers to ensure that they continue to rake in their outsized compensation. I have 30 years of American business history supporting my contention.

    You can use the term "greed" because it supports your social agenda, but for large businesses, it's all about preserving or increasing shareholder value. CEOs are answerable to the Board as well as the shareholders. If a business chooses to layoff workers, not hire workers, or outsource jobs overseas, instead of blaming the business, the real issues to consider are the strength of the economy, the tax policies, and any tax or regulatory uncertainties. The same general issues apply to small businesses as well.


    Its greed plain and simple. Christian hit the nail on the head.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 3:41 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPeople paying themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of expanding their business and, therefore, hiring and, rather, downsizing to keep the profits moving solely to themselves are intending to maintain gross inequality. They are also not doing their shareholders justice as you eventually run out of things to cut.

    Makes no sense. You're suggesting on one hand that businesses are against growth to maintain their financial position at the expense of workers. You don't seem to understand that their position is enhanced by growing their business. Then you acknowledge they are not growing their business because of the economy, i.e. demand not there.


    I never suggested they were against growth. I'm saying their greed has them is such that they will put short term profits ahead of growing their business and when the economy contracts, they will shed workers to ensure that they continue to rake in their outsized compensation. I have 30 years of American business history supporting my contention.


    Spoken like someone who has little inkling of what it means to run a business or manage resources. By your definition, growth is the result of greed as well - why should anyone be hired who costs more than they are worth? The problem is that this "recovery" has been so anemic - such that it looks like the US is about to head into another recession. The OP explains why.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 3:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPeople paying themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of expanding their business and, therefore, hiring and, rather, downsizing to keep the profits moving solely to themselves are intending to maintain gross inequality. They are also not doing their shareholders justice as you eventually run out of things to cut.

    Makes no sense. You're suggesting on one hand that businesses are against growth to maintain their financial position at the expense of workers. You don't seem to understand that their position is enhanced by growing their business. Then you acknowledge they are not growing their business because of the economy, i.e. demand not there.


    I never suggested they were against growth. I'm saying their greed has them is such that they will put short term profits ahead of growing their business and when the economy contracts, they will shed workers to ensure that they continue to rake in their outsized compensation. I have 30 years of American business history supporting my contention.


    Spoken like someone who has little inkling of what it means to run a business or manage resources. By your definition, growth is the result of greed as well - why should anyone be hired who costs more than they are worth? The problem is that this "recovery" has been so anemic - such that it looks like the US is about to head into another recession. The OP explains why.


    You're Randian talking points are increasingly vapid and tired.

    I've been a head of development, responsible for all income to mid-sized nonprofit. If we didn't get the money in, people wouldn't get paid, services wouldn't be provided, etc. So don't tell me that I don't know what it means to run a business or manage resources. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 3:58 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    No. Corporations and the wealthy need to pay their taxes


    A person earning $200,001 is not "wealthy" and already pays more than enough in taxes. icon_rolleyes.gif


    $200,001 is more than 97% US households bring in each and 50% of US households only bring in 1/4 of that amount.

    And the average US worker who had a job, not counting the 10+% who are unemployed, saw their wages rise by 1%, whereas the average CEO saw their compensation rise by 32%.

    So what do you call a household that brings in more money than 97% of the other US households? Wealthy? Affluent? Rich? Prosperous?

    Whatever it's called, it's time for them to pay more....

    ....while 50% of households continue to pay no income tax. Yeah that's fair.

    The problem is - and you and the rest of the liberals know it - that the highest income tax bracket starts at $200,001, so every time a liberal / Democrat / socialist says "the millionaires and billionaires should pay more" the vast majority of those people that they are talking about are people making under a million dollars.

    If you and the rest of the left want to tax "millionaires and billionaires" more, then at least be honest about it and create another top tax bracket that actually starts at $1 million.



    A distinction without a difference. If you earn $200,000 annually and have assets commensurate with that income, 99% of the time you are a millionaire.

    As you well know, I'm for creating additional brackets. The issue isn't so much those who make $200k but those who make $4B and pay 15%.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 3:59 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPeople paying themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of expanding their business and, therefore, hiring and, rather, downsizing to keep the profits moving solely to themselves are intending to maintain gross inequality. They are also not doing their shareholders justice as you eventually run out of things to cut.

    Makes no sense. You're suggesting on one hand that businesses are against growth to maintain their financial position at the expense of workers. You don't seem to understand that their position is enhanced by growing their business. Then you acknowledge they are not growing their business because of the economy, i.e. demand not there.


    I never suggested they were against growth. I'm saying their greed has them is such that they will put short term profits ahead of growing their business and when the economy contracts, they will shed workers to ensure that they continue to rake in their outsized compensation. I have 30 years of American business history supporting my contention.


    Great post. You prescribe the recipe for running a successful small business.

    My brother in law who runs a successful dental practice always says that you know a good dentist by the car he drives. A good dentists drives a practical economy car. A bad dentist drives a high end luxury car. Takes a lot of upselling and unscrupulous business practices for a dentist to maintain a life of excess. Living a modest lifestyle means a healthy business with profits that can be passed on to the employees thru increased hiring and higher wages.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 4:00 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidTime to double tax companies that send jobs overseas.


    Dumbest thing I've ever heard. The owners will just leave the country PERIOD then.