First, because his scenario was hiring for people working in jobs not in their expertise.
And because the rational behind hiring him was purely because he took a lower paying job then unemployment.
And actually companies do interview purely to keep abreast of potential hires, even if they aren't interested in filling positions.
Firms may create positions merely to grab an excellent candidate even if they don't have work for them at the current date. Call it denial of talent to competitors.
Hiring more personel, is going to bring in more revenue? That's the dumbest **** I've ever heard of.
You certainly do not have any real world experience.
No it wasn't.
And even if it were, so what? You generally don't hire someone just because. You hire them because you need work done.
That's not what he said.
Not any company I've ever hired for (which includes several very large ones).
Isn't that your whole beef with the scenario in the first place?
It can happen, but that wouldn't be what he was talking about.
No it wasn't. And even if it were, so what? You generally don't hire someone just because. You hire them because you need work done.
That's not what he said.
Not any company I've ever hired for (which includes several very large ones). Accepting resumes and keeping them on file, sure. Interviews, no. Only if actually looking to fill a position. It's a waste of time and resources otherwise. Isn't that your whole beef with the scenario in the first place?
It can happen, but that wouldn't be what he was talking about.
Actually it appears so based on the post.
I would hire someone in a heartbeat who took a lower paying job in a tough economy vs. taking unemployment. It is short term, not long term and in the short term tough choices have to be made. Imagine the interview
“noticed that in last two years you performed tasks outside your area of expertise at a pay level much lower than you were used to getting” Please explain
“yes, there were no jobs in my field available due to the economy so rather than take unemployment benefits I decided it was more important to work doing anything”
What do you think the employer would say next?
Why would you hire someone if they didn't have the expertise in the work you need done? That makes no sense.
Furthermore, hiring them purely because they worked for less is ignoring the realities of your cost structure.
Actually it is. Furthermore, he did not give any other rational.
Whoa. What makes you think they got to you if they had no intention of hiring? If they had no intention of hiring, why bother get the person who actually does the hiring involved? Waste of time.
My whole beef is the notion that he'd hire solely because the guy worked for less. That he'd rather hire him then bear the cost of unemployment tax on his business. That makes no sense. Hire this guy and pay all of these costs or pay next to nothing comparatively for unemployment for this guy.
Then we have interpreted his post differently.
The fool.... The. King of the fools, would be anyone who deludes themselves into willfully believing that no job creation under bush and a huge debt is somehow someway better than 18 millio new jobs under Clinton and a surplus.Two years later? The recession ended in June 2009 yet every month of 2010 the unemployment was higher and since he signed the stimulus 4 million jobs have been lost. There are over 16 million unemployed Americans so what do you think the deficit would be if those 16+ million were working again and paying their "fair share" in taxes? Obama has done nothing to put people back to work as the numbers show and therein lies the problem. It has nothing to do with Bush.
I know how badly you want to defend Clinton but you don't have a clue what the tax rates were under Clinton and what the people actually paid in taxes just like you bought the 22 million number which has been shown to be wrong. Liberalism has made a fool out of you and you refuse to accept it.
you mean Paris Hilton keeping more of HER money? You don't seem to have as much of a concern as to how tax dollars are spent but instead focus on taking more money from individuals who earned it?
Over the past few months I have posted the line items out of the Federal Budget and every time I have done that it is ignored by "radicals" who don't want the facts but instead want to promote class warfare.
The fool.... The. King of the fools, would be anyone who deludes themselves into willfully believing that no job creation under bush and a huge debt is somehow someway better than 18 millio new jobs under Clinton and a surplus.
You are the one looking foolish continuing to ignore the massive job creations under Clinton ....18 million by your numbers and leaving a surplus.. Go on, play ideological ostrich and hide from reality pretending the last decade has been better for most Americans.Since that isn't the topic of this thread that isn't what I am saying at ll but don't let that fact get in the way of your Bush bashing. There was no surplus under Clinton according to the official records just like he didn't create 22 million jobs. Not sure where you get your information but it is making you look foolish. Stop buying the liberal rhetoric and actually get the facts.
You are the one looking foolish continuing to ignore the massive job creations under Clinton ....18 million by your numbers and leaving a surplus.. Go on, play ideological ostrich and hide from reality pretending the last decade has been better for most Americans.
As for your claim of a surplus again I ask you to provide non partisan, verifiable facts of that statement. If there was a surplus then that surplus is required to go against the debt and the debt rose each year of the Clinton term. There was no yearly budget surplus under Clinton and you can get the numbers at the U.S. Treasury Department which is the checkbook of the United States.
And that's using the bogus debt number anyways, which excludes all the unfunded liabilities for SS and Medicare. The accurate debt figure today is $54 Trillion, not $13 Trillion or whatever.
Correction: that is using the deficit and not addressing the debt.
Really? Tell me, can you operate a new oil drilling platform with no new staff when your current staff are completely busy? Tell me, if you hire new staff to run the platform which brings in additional revenue, have those staff brought in more revenue? Say, if an auditing firm just got selected for a massive new audit but didn't have the current staff to run the audit and was in real danger of losing that account because of lack of staff, would bringing in new staff to run the audit generate more revenue? During the holidays, if a retailer does not hire new staff and lines back out the door to the point where customers put back their items and leave, has the lack of additional staff cost revenue?
See above.
You can flee as fast as your legs can carry you from the thread now Apdst.
Conservative
You creid FOUL when I linked to a media source of info on tax and jobs telling me to use the authoritative govt stats. But now, you want to support your own right wing opinion by presenting other right wing opinion from they hyper partisan Heritage Society.
sorry but not buying what either of you are selling.
I am on a plane into new Orleans and it's about to land. I will be back on Friday to pick this up. In the meantime. It's a culinary vacation for my wife and I.
Deficits lead to the debt and regardless of the number, there never was a budget surplus under Clinton nor were 22 million jobs created as Haymarket claims
I agree, no budget surplus. Much of the deficit in the past decade was to reconstitute all of the defense and intelligence cuts made under Clinton.
I do think there was 18 - 22 million jobs created, but it CERTAINLY was not due to tax increases. That is just idiotic. There are so many factors in play with a growing economy and the new industries (computers, software, internet, cell phones) we led the world with.
I do not think increasing taxes right now is beneficial (one side calls it a tax increase, which it would be, while the other side calls is rolling back tax cuts. Same ****ing difference). But I also don't think preserving the tax cuts or even increasing them is sufficient to solve our problems of a languid economy, sufficient to bring the unemployment rate (even if it were accurately accounted for) of 9.8% or whatever back to under 5%. I agree with obvious child that a new industry is needed. I am intrigued by his mention of government lending to loosen up credit.
Finance industry makes a ton of money lending it out, you would think that direct govt loans would be a money making proposition for America, but then again, the people doing the lending will be govt employees....
If you thing private industry on Wall Street bears watching....:shock:
Conservative
You creid FOUL when I linked to a media source of info on tax and jobs telling me to use the authoritative govt stats. But now, you want to support your own right wing opinion by presenting other right wing opinion from they hyper partisan Heritage Society.
sorry but not buying what either of you are selling.
I am on a plane into new Orleans and it's about to land. I will be back on Friday to pick this up. In the meantime. It's a culinary vacation for my wife and I.
Like the great Bernie Sanders asks "when is enough enough"?
As usual, you missed the point.
Perhaps you can send me another PM hackin' on me. However, the point is, you don't hire new personel to operate a drilling rig, if there's no new wells to drill, because no one is buying oil.
That's how it works out here in ther real world. No new business, no new employees. Not: more new tax breaks, more new employees. The latter is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of.
Not at all. You attempted to get a hit on me and you totally screwed it up once again providing me additional areas to whack you.
Perhaps you should read what I wrote. Without additional employees to service jobs, the revenue from those jobs won't come in, ergo, the employees bring in additional revenue. Furthermore, any employee that goes out and gets a new account has generated revenue proving you once again are wrong on everything you open your mouth on.
Then perhaps you should take that up with the person who said it: you.
Run away Apdst. You do it so well.
So, if you were a BCO, you would hire people, that you didn't need, just to get a chicken**** tax credit?
Piece of advise: stay in school, you won't make it in the real world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?