Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
zoocrew

Companies have lots of cash but won't hire

Recommended Posts

All the tax breaks and incentives we've given the companies but they are taking the money and hiring outside the US. They are wanting the economy to improve but unless there is spending, there is no improvement. So we cut their taxes so they can build a bigger war chest. Then we cut government spending that gives people and the economy less money, causing companies to hold on to cash even more.

 

Vicious cycle.

 

 

My Link

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News Flash, if a company is making money it belongs to the owners.............they can do with it exactly what they want. :D

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News Flash, if a company is making money it belongs to the owners.............they can do with it exactly what they want. :D

A business owner can make millions upon millions, close down shop, and refuse to spend a dime; and we see nothing wrong with that! But an illegal immigrant making less than minimum wage and spending it to live... God forbid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Companies aren't going to hire anyone until they can predict what it's going to cost them. With the constant change in tax code, health care requirements, etc., it ain't gonna happen. No one knows what the rules of the game are and they are smart enough to figure out that they don't have to play.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hi~ho Silver

Companies aren't going to hire anyone until they can predict what it's going to cost them. With the constant change in tax code, health care requirements, etc., it ain't gonna happen. No one knows what the rules of the game are and they are smart enough to figure out that they don't have to play.

It's the dumbass Government all right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The companies that managed to stay above water, are trying to make sure they stay that way. The economy is very unstable. Another thing is .. people are desperate for work. If you can get one person to do the work of 3, why not ? I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's just the way it is. Human's are very greedy, it's going to eventually be the downfall of mankind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the dumbass Government all right!

 

 

Yep !! They're skeered of that dip weed (being nice) Admin in Washington cause he hasn't finished his job in destroying America... :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry former member but it is not the government's money that they earned, it is their's. They can do with it as they please. And right now that means sitting on it and keeping a cash position until they can look out at least 5 years down the road and see what is coming. Right now all they can see are the anit business policies and regulations put in place or proposed / pending by this administration. So what if they close their doors right now. They will have close with cash on hand rather than trying to follow those rediculus policies and go broke and have nothing to show for it. Plus it makes them look good to the stock market, which I believe you continue to use as a source of "our economy is improving". News flash... just because the stock value of a company goes up, it does not mean that the company is expanding. In this case it is a reflection of the company's books.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So true. I'm glad someone gets it. :good:

 

I do hate to see that companies aren't hiring. I'd like to have been hired while I was out there looking for a job. Everywhere I applied thought $10 an hour was a decent wage for someone with varied experience and excellent skills. Of course, some of those jobs I interviewed for that paid between $8 and $10 an hour, and didn't get, are open once again.

 

News Flash, if a company is making money it belongs to the owners.............they can do with it exactly what they want. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, the current administration is creating an environment that is anti business - for example, the federal government was a huge employer of contractors - it was cheaper in the long run because of benefits and retirement. Most jobs that were not required to be a federal employee by legislation was being farmed out. It gave the offices alot of flexibility in their budgets. Now, that's being reversed. So, companies that provided services to the feds are now really in a pickle. And, quite frankly, our federal agencies are in a pickle because now they can't contract out the work and can't hire anyone to do the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Businesses expand when there is demand for their product or service. Uncertainty surrounding taxes (not sure why folks talk about uncertainty with corporate taxes, if anything they'll go down, there's been no mention of corporate rates increasing!), healthcare (as if these rates haven't been increasing dramatically for the last 20 years anyway), or who the damn president is, these things play a far, distant, second to the simple theory of supply and demand. There's no demand in the marketplace right now for many businesses to feel justified to expand.

 

So where's the demand? Consumer confidence is in the dirt. Consumer credit is dropping precipitously. Savings rates are increasing amongst Americans. Late credit card payments are at their lowest frequency that we've seen in years. Unemployment is 10%. Why are consumers (aka middle class/ upper middle) scared to spend their money? Because they're getting squeezed...they're financing bailouts for companies "too big to fail", they're financing ridiculous tax breaks for the rich, financing entitlements for the poor and illegal, they're (the younger folks) trying to save for their own retirement (SS will be broke) while their payroll taxes go to pay for the SS of the baby boomers. Perhaps most importantly, many consumers don't have the money to spend. Wages have been flat for a looong time.

 

There's no easy way out of this. I would agree that pulling a $1T out of this economy right now is a bad idea (ask FDR how that turned out for him in '37).

 

mrnn

 

And, the current administration is creating an environment that is anti business - for example, the federal government was a huge employer of contractors - it was cheaper in the long run because of benefits and retirement. Most jobs that were not required to be a federal employee by legislation was being farmed out. It gave the offices alot of flexibility in their budgets. Now, that's being reversed. So, companies that provided services to the feds are now really in a pickle. And, quite frankly, our federal agencies are in a pickle because now they can't contract out the work and can't hire anyone to do the work.

 

 

So you want the federal debt to be tackled and then turn around and blame the government for eliminating expenditures?

 

 

mrnn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Businesses expand when there is demand for their product or service. Uncertainty surrounding taxes (not sure why folks talk about uncertainty with corporate taxes, if anything they'll go down, there's been no mention of corporate rates increasing!), healthcare (as if these rates haven't been increasing dramatically for the last 20 years anyway), or who the damn president is, these things play a far, distant, second to the simple theory of supply and demand. There's no demand in the marketplace right now for many businesses to feel justified to expand.

 

So where's the demand? Consumer confidence is in the dirt. Consumer credit is dropping precipitously. Savings rates are increasing amongst Americans. Late credit card payments are at their lowest frequency that we've seen in years. Unemployment is 10%. Why are consumers (aka middle class/ upper middle) scared to spend their money? Because they're getting squeezed...they're financing bailouts for companies "too big to fail", they're financing ridiculous tax breaks for the rich, financing entitlements for the poor and illegal, they're (the younger folks) trying to save for their own retirement (SS will be broke) while their payroll taxes go to pay for the SS of the baby boomers. Perhaps most importantly, many consumers don't have the money to spend. Wages have been flat for a looong time.

 

There's no easy way out of this. I would agree that pulling a $1T out of this economy right now is a bad idea (ask FDR how that turned out for him in '37).

 

mrnn

 

 

 

 

So you want the federal debt to be tackled and then turn around and blame the government for eliminating expenditures?

 

 

mrnn

 

No, not exactly. I was giving a very clear example of the administration's wishy washiness in their job creation attitude. They'll hand out money to folks, but they won't create an environment that keeps jobs around. So, we'll eleminate your contracting job that you work at , but we'll give you unemployment money so that you aren't working. There are alot of businesses that do contracting for the feds in alot of different industries that are looking at the possibility of losing that work. They aren't going to hire folks if there's a chance that they're going to lose part of their business. And, working with the fed contracts is very, very intense. So, when they replace the work in the business arena - they won't need near the personnel to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND, I have a huge issue with the feds cutting jobs that pay people to work and then give money away to folks that don't work. That just chaps me. I would rather the feds create a CCC again then to continue with the unemployment transfer payments, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got that right! Goes along with that "share the wealth" idea except it's sharing the poverty and not the wealth.

 

And, the current administration is creating an environment that is anti business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So where's the demand? Consumer confidence is in the dirt. Consumer credit is dropping precipitously. Savings rates are increasing amongst Americans. You have to wonder why "savings rates are increasing" when the interest paid on savings is pathetic. Even a Money Market account pays less than 2% now. Late credit card payments are at their lowest frequency that we've seen in years. Unemployment is 10%. Why are consumers (aka middle class/ upper middle) scared to spend their money? Why? Because EVERYTHING is costing more now, people are scared they might lose their jobs and finally, they are realizing they don't have to keep up with the Joneses because right now, even the Joneses are cutting back. Because they're getting squeezed...they're financing bailouts for companies "too big to fail", they're financing ridiculous tax breaks for the rich, financing entitlements for the poor and illegal, they're (the younger folks) trying to save for their own retirement (SS will be broke) while their payroll taxes go to pay for the SS of the baby boomers. Perhaps most importantly, many consumers don't have the money to spend. Wages have been flat for a looong time. True. I was a medical transcriptionist back in the mid 1990s, making 10-12 cents a line. Essentially, that is today's current rate as well.

There's no easy way out of this. I would agree that pulling a $1T out of this economy right now is a bad idea (ask FDR how that turned out for him in '37).

 

mrnn

 

I know a painting contractor who did a lot of work for the Department of Defense. That has since gone by the wayside. And with almost no new homes being built in the metro Atlanta area, he doesn't have that to fall back on now.

 

No, not exactly. I was giving a very clear example of the administration's wishy washiness in their job creation attitude. They'll hand out money to folks, but they won't create an environment that keeps jobs around. So, we'll eleminate your contracting job that you work at , but we'll give you unemployment money so that you aren't working. There are alot of businesses that do contracting for the feds in alot of different industries that are looking at the possibility of losing that work. They aren't going to hire folks if there's a chance that they're going to lose part of their business. And, working with the fed contracts is very, very intense. So, when they replace the work in the business arena - they won't need near the personnel to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I miss the days where everyone worked. There was a chicken in every pot. Life was predictable. You can buy furniture and say well I can pay it off in a year. Walking in the office and not fearing lay offs. I have worked since I was seventeen, and I have been laid off officially a year next week. Something has to change... Sounds familiar right....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called waiting for the next shoe to drop. When you cannot predict energy, tax, healthcare, or compliance costs, you cannot make commitments. Holding cash is a defensive position that makes no profit for a company. Y'all do know that profit is the goal of a corporation, right? You do know that corporations must provide a service or product to make that profit right? Hoarding is not an end.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called waiting for the next shoe to drop. When you cannot predict energy, tax, healthcare, or compliance costs, you cannot make commitments. Holding cash is a defensive position that makes no profit for a company. Y'all do know that profit is the goal of a corporation, right? You do know that corporations must provide a service or product to make that profit right? Hoarding is not an end.

 

I think that companies are truly anticipating using the cash. If they were not, they would distribute as dividends to their investors and improve their PR position. I think they are keeping it because they aren't sure what their increased costs are going to be.

 

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a painting contractor who did a lot of work for the Department of Defense. That has since gone by the wayside. And with almost no new homes being built in the metro Atlanta area, he doesn't have that to fall back on now.

 

 

That's 2 posts now in this thread complaining about the federal government cutting costs.

 

You guys do realize that our debt ceiling was just held ransom in order to have the ability to cut those jobs, right? You do realize that it's the proponents of this administration who said, "wait, now is NOT a good time to cut government spending because it will cause a further loss of jobs", right? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth when you question this president because federal jobs are going away.

 

 

mrnn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's 2 posts now in this thread complaining about the federal government cutting costs.

 

You guys do realize that our debt ceiling was just held ransom in order to have the ability to cut those jobs, right? You do realize that it's the proponents of this administration who said, "wait, now is NOT a good time to cut government spending because it will cause a further loss of jobs", right? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth when you question this president because federal jobs are going away.

 

 

mrnn

 

Okay, you are COMPLETELY missing my point. Let me be clearer. I hate the fact that the government is cutting JOBS for essential and constitutionally mandate federal functions and INCREASING the number of folks on the pig's nipple which is not a constitutionally mandated function.

 

Also, it was an EXAMPLE of the federal anit-private business policies.

 

Oh well, never mind. I thought I had picked a clear example of how the administration is anti-business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's 2 posts now in this thread complaining about the federal government cutting costs.

 

You guys do realize that our debt ceiling was just held ransom in order to have the ability to cut those jobs, right? You do realize that it's the proponents of this administration who said, "wait, now is NOT a good time to cut government spending because it will cause a further loss of jobs", right? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth when you question this president because federal jobs are going away.

 

 

mrnn

That wasn't cutting costs. It was moving jobs from outside contractors and hiring more employees to do the work. Probably at a higher cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, you are COMPLETELY missing my point. Let me be clearer. I hate the fact that the government is cutting JOBS for essential and constitutionally mandate federal functions and INCREASING the number of folks on the pig's nipple which is not a constitutionally mandated function.

 

Also, it was an EXAMPLE of the federal anit-private business policies.

 

Oh well, never mind. I thought I had picked a clear example of how the administration is anti-business.

 

 

I understood your example perfectly.

 

Joe has a government contract job putting widgets on a jet. The government, due to cuts, eliminates his position. Joe goes on unemployment. You complain.

 

Joe was paying into the unemployment insurance fund throughout his working life.

The government cut costs, in turn cutting Joe's job, because that's what the Republicans forced them to do by holding our economy hostage during the debt ceiling debate.

You are complaining about the president because that's what Fox News and your PCom friends tell you to.

 

mrnn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that companies are truly anticipating using the cash. If they were not, they would distribute as dividends to their investors and improve their PR position. I think they are keeping it because they aren't sure what their increased costs are going to be.

 

Just my opinion.

 

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

You get it!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: But then again, I had no doubt. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood your example perfectly.

 

Joe has a government contract job putting widgets on a jet. The government, due to cuts, eliminates his position. Joe goes on unemployment. You complain.

 

Joe was paying into the unemployment insurance fund throughout his working life.

The government cut costs, in turn cutting Joe's job, because that's what the Republicans forced them to do by holding our economy hostage during the debt ceiling debate.

You are complaining about the president because that's what Fox News and your PCom friends tell you to.

 

mrnn

 

Okay - now your just wrong. I don't want anyone on a federally funded employment payment. The federal government shouldn't be in the unemployment business.

 

And, if Joe is putting widgets on a JET - then Joe was probably a defense contractor. And, the defense of our country is a constitutional mandated function of the federal government.

 

SO, yes, I have an issue with Joe's job being eleminated from a constitutionally mandated job whilest the federal government is spending money on jobs that support the non-consitutionally mandated payment of unemployment insurance.

 

And, just for the record, I don't watch tv except for House, MD on the DVR. I've only seen teenager movies in the last few years because I've taken my kids. So, no, I don't believe this because of Fox news or my p.com friends. Actually, other than nature girl and WFAL, I'm not sure I have any p.com friends. If I do - I don't know their screen names.

 

And, unlike alot of folks on here - I can support my opinions with logic and facts.

 

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

You get it!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: But then again, I had no doubt. :D

 

You must be my p.com friend that mmrn (or whatever the name is) that he/she was referring to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't cutting costs. It was moving jobs from outside contractors and hiring more employees to do the work. Probably at a higher cost.

 

From personal experience, I can tell you probably. For example - let's say that you have an engineering group that was contracting out the technical work - actual fabrication work. The office is full of engineers that does the design work - but actual fabrication - metal work, wood work, actual fabrication of the circuit boards - was contracted out. Now, they have to do this work in house. I think it's fair to say that the contractors weren't paying their techs and fabricators the same that a federal engineer employee is making. AND, they were already doing full time jobs - so now we've added to their workload - they are working more hours. And, because of union rules, they have to get overtime. OR, they take comp time and then they aren't working on other days. But, because of congressional chokeholds on full time employee funding, this office can't hire the techs that they need to do the work.

 

Another example - during desert storm - the DOD developed a new round for the M1A1. But, during the Clinton administration, they had eleminated the contract with Raytheon to build ammunition and there was no capacity in the private industry to build these new rounds. SO, the engineers were working 24 hours a day - building 6 rounds at a time (or so - maybe it was 8 ) 24 hours a day for MONTHS to ship the rounds over the troops. GREAT use of money, huh?

 

I personally have no problem with the federal government spending money on contitutionally mandated functions. I just personally happen to believe that the federal government has WAY overstepped their bounds in what they are supposed to be doing and took too much of that authority away from the states in the name of fairness. Until that changes, I don't see any big changes in the deficit or debt.

Edited by Just thinkin' hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay - now your just wrong. I don't want anyone on a federally funded employment payment. The federal government shouldn't be in the unemployment business.

 

And, if Joe is putting widgets on a JET - then Joe was probably a defense contractor. And, the defense of our country is a constitutional mandated function of the federal government.

 

SO, yes, I have an issue with Joe's job being eleminated from a constitutionally mandated job whilest the federal government is spending money on jobs that support the non-consitutionally mandated payment of unemployment insurance.

 

And, just for the record, I don't watch tv except for House, MD on the DVR. I've only seen teenager movies in the last few years because I've taken my kids. So, no, I don't believe this because of Fox news or my p.com friends. Actually, other than nature girl and WFAL, I'm not sure I have any p.com friends. If I do - I don't know their screen names.

 

And, unlike alot of folks on here - I can support my opinions with logic and facts.

 

 

 

You must be my p.com friend that mmrn (or whatever the name is) that he/she was referring to.

 

So laying off all the FDA, CDC, EPA, Interior, Education, etc. contractors would be alright? You'd have no issue with creating unemployed people that way. Gotcha.

 

ETA: You do realize that we pay into unemployment insurance, right? It's not a freebie.

 

 

mrnn

Edited by mrnn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So laying off all the FDA, CDC, EPA, Interior, Education, etc. contractors would be alright? You'd have no issue with creating unemployed people that way. Gotcha.

 

ETA: You do realize that we pay into unemployment insurance, right? It's not a freebie.

 

 

mrnn

 

Um, you don't pay in to Unemployment mrnn unless you are an employer. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, you don't pay in to Unemployment mrnn unless you are an employer. :unsure:

 

 

And why is the employer paying that money? Because the worker was employed... It's not a freebie.

 

 

mrnn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why is the employer paying that money? Because the worker was employed... It's not a freebie.

 

 

mrnn

 

Yep, he paid the employee for his time, it's called compensation.............the employer is 100% responsible for paying Unemployment Tax, Federal and State. It doesn't cost the employee one red cent. It is a big freebie!!

 

UE is just one liability the employer has to pay, our labor burden is somewhere between 27 and 30 cents per dollar paid. Yep it's a freebie!!

 

PS, if I don't pay for another employee, I don't have to pay UE tax on them either. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So laying off all the FDA, CDC, EPA, Interior, Education, etc. contractors would be alright? You'd have no issue with creating unemployed people that way. Gotcha.

 

ETA: You do realize that we pay into unemployment insurance, right? It's not a freebie.

 

 

mrnn

 

Department of Ed - yep - I think that the department should be eliminated or dramatically reduced to merely an advisory role.

 

FDA - see a definite argument for interstate commerce

 

CDC - could see justification under the defense of the nation

 

EPA - some functions need to go back to the states - some needs to stay at the federal level

 

Interior - yea - have to put that in the interstate commerce clause.

 

Medicare/mediaid - back to the states

 

HUDD - back to the states

 

Social security, unemployment (obviously they have a hand in this since Congress keeps extending the benefits), etc. - back to the states without federal mandates

 

And, remember, alot of these functions when returned to the states are going to need these experience workers to fill these positions at the state level.

 

 

See - here' s the problem as I see it - you want me to get into a box of you defined principles. But, the problem is that I can think and evaluate the situation and come up with independent and thoughtful decisions. I'm not going to live in a box. I keep a libertarian box with me - but you'll probably never find me actually in it. That's just the way that my daddy raised me.

 

Yep, he paid the employee for his time, it's called compensation.............the employer is 100% responsible for paying Unemployment Tax, Federal and State. It doesn't cost the employee one red cent. It is a big freebie!!

 

UE is just one liability the employer has to pay, our labor burden is somewhere between 27 and 30 cents per dollar paid. Yep it's a freebie!!

 

PS, if I don't pay for another employee, I don't have to pay UE tax on them either. :)

 

And, am I right in my guess that if you didn't have to pay UE insurance that you could pay the employee more?? I wouldn't mind have a 30% increase in my salary to by my own unemployment insurance, save and invest for my own rainy day, or just spend it.

 

Um, you don't pay in to Unemployment mrnn unless you are an employer. :unsure:

 

And I can almost guarentee without doing the research that there is more money paid out in UE in there is in the pot. And, once UE is over - then they go on welfare. And, UE doesn't suppor the food stamp program, WIC, and all of the other programs that folks can apply for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Department of Ed - yep - I think that the department should be eliminated or dramatically reduced to merely an advisory role.

 

FDA - see a definite argument for interstate commerce

 

CDC - could see justification under the defense of the nation

 

EPA - some functions need to go back to the states - some needs to stay at the federal level

 

Interior - yea - have to put that in the interstate commerce clause.

 

Medicare/mediaid - back to the states

 

HUDD - back to the states

 

Social security, unemployment (obviously they have a hand in this since Congress keeps extending the benefits), etc. - back to the states without federal mandates

 

And, remember, alot of these functions when returned to the states are going to need these experience workers to fill these positions at the state level.

 

 

See - here' s the problem as I see it - you want me to get into a box of you defined principles. But, the problem is that I can think and evaluate the situation and come up with independent and thoughtful decisions. I'm not going to live in a box. I keep a libertarian box with me - but you'll probably never find me actually in it. That's just the way that my daddy raised me.

 

 

 

And, am I right in my guess that if you didn't have to pay UE insurance that you could pay the employee more?? I wouldn't mind have a 30% increase in my salary to by my own unemployment insurance, save and invest for my own rainy day, or just spend it.

 

Yep, if I we didn't have to pay for UE, we would have more $ available to pay our employees. BTW, in the last two years our State UE has gone from 0.67% to 7.9%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, if I we didn't have to pay for UE, we would have more $ available to pay our employees. BTW, in the last two years our State UE has gone from 0.67% to 7.9%.

 

Do you know if UE is paying out more than it's taking in at this point? It's my bet that tax payers are shoring up this program at both the state and federal governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if UE is paying out more than it's taking in at this point? It's my bet that tax payers are shoring up this program at both the state and federal governments.

 

Yes I know that, come January I'd be willing to bet on another huge increase in the employer tax rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if UE is paying out more than it's taking in at this point? It's my bet that tax payers are shoring up this program at both the state and federal governments.

 

It's gotten so bad that taxpayers have had to help subsidize the program.....matter of fact, those extensions were held ransom by the GOP in return for extending the Bush tax cuts. Ya know, those tax cuts for the "job creators" who aren't creating jobs.

 

 

mrnn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article a couple/few weeks ago in the AJC that reported some of the state's larger employers have said hiring will never return to previous levels since they've discovered they can simply demand more productivity from existing workers.

 

No uncertainty in that attitude...

 

People without jobs can't spend. Without spending, there's less demand.

 

Since it's pretty clear housing will not be the jobs generator it once was, and simple logic says that the government can't simultaneously cut spending and create new jobs, as was said previously it appears our unemployment rate won't improve anytime soon.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's gotten so bad that taxpayers have had to help subsidize the program.....matter of fact, those extensions were held ransom by the GOP in return for extending the Bush tax cuts. Ya know, those tax cuts for the "job creators" who aren't creating jobs.

 

 

mrnn

 

Don't fret about it mrnn, they'll get it back and then some. As I said UE taxes both fed and state will see huge increases again this year. You need to stop and think about companies that have million dollar payrolls. Lets say there are 500 of them, each paying 8% in UE tax, if the rates go up again the shortfall will be paid back in no time. :D

 

This really hurts small and medium sized companies. It's not as you have pictured in your mind, they will get their money from the companies that are left, those that haven't shut their doors yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it where I work. Once the Navy personnel PCS they are not being replaced. They were supposed to be replaced by Contractors. But as of now 3 have left and they have hired no one. I'm betting it is on the contract since it is prepaid, they won't hire anyone else till it expires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article a couple/few weeks ago in the AJC that reported some of the state's larger employers have said hiring will never return to previous levels since they've discovered they can simply demand more productivity from existing workers.

 

No uncertainty in that attitude...

 

People without jobs can't spend. Without spending, there's less demand.

 

Since it's pretty clear housing will not be the jobs generator it once was, and simple logic says that the government can't simultaneously cut spending and create new jobs, as was said previously it appears our unemployment rate won't improve anytime soon.

 

 

 

While I understand what you are trying to say, please understand this is one person's view. Believe me I would rather be back at full force with our employees.

 

Don't believe everything you hear/read. It seems the fear mongering is driving many people to do drastic things, employers and employees. It's coming from every direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...