Obama Tells Companies to 'Step Up' and Hire Workers

ThePlayDrive · May 12, 2011

muciti said:
Playdrive- You do not seem to understand the concept of free enterprise. A business has no responsibility to reduce unemployment rates. It is not their responsibility to reduce the deficit. Their only responsibility is to make as much money as possible. That is the point of a business. Otherwise it is a charity. If as a country we want to encourage business to hire, then we need to provide the incentives for them to do so. You cannot blame a business or a person who does what is in its own best interest (legally). Its our responsibility to make sure that it is in a businesses best interest to hire us.

I never said they had a responsibility to reduce unemployment rates or the deficit. Read again, wise one.

I said they share the responsibility for the rates being high, which is true. When you don't hire people when you can, you are partially responsible for unemployment contrary to the belief of many posters in this thread that Obama is solely responsible. Whether or not you have a responsibility to fix that is a subjective ethical concept that the public is free to comment on while simultaneously understanding the concept of free enterprise.

apdst · May 12, 2011

theplaydrive said:
And they might not be.

And, if they weren't, they wouldn't be CEO's anymore and wouldn't be making $15 million.

To justify hiring a person, at any salary, a company must have work for that employee that will eventually make the company money.

It's assinine to suggest that a company hire people, just to hire people.

apdst · May 12, 2011

StillBallin75 said:
Okay, I see where you're coming from. I agree partially.

I believe the government CAN and SHOULD create jobs in certain public sectors, but apart from that, yes the government should focus on policies that allow the private sector to prosper.

That being said, being President isn't just about making lives easier for business.

Not just, but that is one of his reponsibilities. Without private sector businesses, there are no jobs.

You live in La., I'm sure you know how terrible the oil spill was for people's livelihoods down there.

The drilling ban hurt waaaaay more than the spill did.

The drilling moratorium was put in place for a very good reason, and even in the aftermath, he recently opened up leases in the Atlantic and the Gulf Coast for drilling (which is more than any other President has done for drilling in the past two decades), because even HE admitted that we need to use the oil resources we have while developing green technology.

Now, where did you get that piece of propaganda from? :rofl

apdst · May 12, 2011

justabubba said:
yes
look at the incomes which would not have been lost had the deepwater horizon been prevented from operating as it was

It was human error, dude.

ThePlayDrive · May 12, 2011

apdst said:
And, if they weren't, they wouldn't be CEO's anymore and wouldn't be making $15 million.

To justify hiring a person, at any salary, a company must have work for that employee that will eventually make the company money.

Exactly and companies that do have work that employee should hire them. My point is that some companies are stretching their employees in order to keep their $15 million. I think some of them will suffer for that in the end.

It's assinine to suggest that a company hire people, just to hire people.

Well it's a good thing I never suggested that. Phew!

apdst · May 12, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Exactly and companies that do have work that employee should hire them. My point is that some companies are stretching their employees in order to keep their $15 million. I think some of them will suffer for that in the end.

That's what happening. It's just that there aren't enough companies with enough work to justify expanding their labor force.

Well it's a good thing I never suggested that. Phew!

You keep saying it's a company's social responsibility. What else could you have meant?

mtlhdtodd · May 12, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Excessive profits are the kind that enable CEOs to make $15 million dollar salaries instead of hiring people who actually need money. I also want to make clear as others don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing corporations have a "responsibility" or "obligation" to anything, I'm arguing that they should in order to help the job market.

OMFG there it is "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"

It's not the function of any company to help the job market. It's to enhance their own market. Do you understand how the private sector works at all?!!

ThePlayDrive · May 12, 2011

apdst said:
That's what happening. It's just that there aren't enough companies with enough work to justify expanding their labor force.

I think that's what's happening in general. I also know that corporations are in it for profit and that they make more profit when they keep their employment low even when money coming in increases. I think we'll find out who those companies are when their profits end up suffering for lower quality service and the profits of companies that actually hired people when they could don't.

You keep saying it's a company's social responsibility. What else could you have meant?

I never said about hiring people just to hire people.

Edit: I also never argued for "responsibility" either.

ThePlayDrive · May 12, 2011

mtlhdtodd said:
OMFG there it is "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"

It's not the function of any company to help the job market. It's to enhance their own market. Do you understand how the private sector works at all?!!

Yeah, I do. I'm talking about ethics. Anything else?

j-mac · May 12, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Yeah, I do. I'm talking about ethics. Anything else?

The etheical concern for a company is to make profit. Whether this company we are speaking of is a corporation making profit for share holders that are invested through 401K's, or whether they are smaller concerns that are making a profit to sustain future growth, and business, profit is not a dirty word. And to think that someone looks at this laughable statement from Obama as anything but campaigning, Obama has NO hand in what a business does, other than say GM, and Chrysler, but if you think there is some moral responsibilty to share their profits, make less so that they can spread it around, you are mistaken, and it is quite a socialist ideal for you to be espousing here.

j-mac

ThePlayDrive · May 12, 2011

j-mac said:
The etheical concern for a company is to make profit.

This is your opinion. Unfortunately, the conversation doesn't stop with it.

Whether this company we are speaking of is a corporation making profit for share holders that are invested through 401K's, or whether they are smaller concerns that are making a profit to sustain future growth, and business, profit is not a dirty word.

I don't think it's a dirty word. I think you're projecting.

And to think that someone looks at this laughable statement from Obama as anything but campaigning, Obama has NO hand in what a business does, other than say GM, and Chrysler, but

The intent behind his statement was about campaigning. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. However, intention is not measure of truth or validity.

if you think there is some moral responsibilty to share their profits, make less so that they can spread it around, you are mistaken, and it is quite a socialist ideal for you to be espousing here.

I never said there was a moral responsibility and you can't scare me into agreeing with you by misusing the word socialist.

coolwalker · May 12, 2011

He's just trying to boost his ratings. He can ask them all he ants and unless there is adequate profit there, they won't hire anyone; they would be cutting their own throats.

Renae · May 12, 2011

Question for you TPD;

Is it Ethical for a company to risk other peoples money, investors, just increase the number of employee's it has for more altruistic reasons rather then economic ones?

PzKfW IVe · May 12, 2011

PeteEU said:
Actually he understands it far more than you do it seems.

Yes... because businesses just start hiring people for the heck of it.

ThePlayDrive · May 12, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Question for you TPD;

Is it Ethical for a company to risk other peoples money, investors, just increase the number of employee's it has for more altruistic reasons rather then economic ones?

Yes, if the risk is the same as it is when the company gives the same amount of other people's money away to charities or political campaigns.

Obama Tells Companies to 'Step Up' and Hire Workers

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency