• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CBS News: Chronic unemployment worse than Great Depression

I never understood the metnality that 3% in tax reduction would create jobs. Oh yeah it didn't and a similar amount of tax increase won't cost a single job.
 
Shorty said:
Pos rep. I have never understood the mentality that says businesses exist in order to create jobs.
Click to expand...

Then why would you pos rep a post opposing my post where I make the same point?

You have a weird trend of disagreeing with me by agreeing with me. Why do you do that?

I say that the relying on existing business owners to create new jobs when they don't want to or need to is a bad strategy and somehow you disagree by saying you don't understand the idea that businesses exist in order to create jobs.

To Dirk's post, a new business owner would have HAVE to hire people because they don't have any employees. Who is more likely to hire somebody? A business owner with 100 employees who has come to that number by hiring and firing people and reaching a comfortable balance between payroll and revenues? Or a new business owner getting his business off the ground?

I've been saying for years that unemployment is overrated is an overrated statistic. There was a lot of fluff in the economy and people who probably shouldn't have had jobs in the first place in bloated industries and bloated businesses feeding off the bubbles.

Now the solution is new industries and new businesses.

Shorty, read my post and please state why you disagree with my take.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Then why would you pos rep a post opposing my post where I make the same point?

You have a weird trend of disagreeing with me by agreeing with me. Why do you do that?

I say that the relying on existing business owners to create new jobs when they don't want to or need to is a bad strategy and somehow you disagree by saying you don't understand the idea that businesses exist in order to create jobs.

To Dirk's post, a new business owner would have HAVE to hire people because they don't have any employees. Who is more likely to hire somebody? A business owner with 100 employees who has come to that number by hiring and firing people and reaching a comfortable balance between payroll and revenues? Or a new business owner getting his business off the ground?

I've been saying for years that unemployment is overrated is an overrated statistic. There was a lot of fluff in the economy and people who probably shouldn't have had jobs in the first place in bloated industries and bloated businesses feeding off the bubbles.

Now the solution is new industries and new businesses.

Shorty, read my post and please state why you disagree with my take.
Click to expand...

A new business does not HAVE to hire employees simply because it doesn't have any. Both of the companies in your example, the established one and the new one, are equally likely to hire a new employee, IMO. They would do so for the same reason - when the owner(s) realize that the business is not performing as well as it could with another employee.

The absence of employees does not, by itself, create the need for employees.

As to your first question, I find you difficult to understand at times.
 
WakeandBake said:
again, i agree. "getting more teenagers in the work force rather than hanging out...." sounds fine. I expect we disagree on how to do that.
Click to expand...

I've put my idea out their for discussion/ridicule, etc. What's yours?
 
RJKarl said:
I never understood the metnality that 3% in tax reduction would create jobs. Oh yeah it didn't and a similar amount of tax increase won't cost a single job.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?
 
JGDeac said:
Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If the person is worth hiring you hire him whether you are paying 33% taxes or 36%.

To keep you from hiring a $36,000, you'd need to have profits of $1.2M to equal that pay (withotu benfits and taxes).

If that person is worth it, you can still hire him/her with or without that 3%.

Remember it's not 3% of gross sales. It's 3% of taxable income.

If that guy is worth hiring at a 33% tax rate. Hes' worth hiring at a 36% tax rate.

If he's not worth it at 36%, he's not worth it at 33%.
 
This is macro, not micro.

Tax increases reduce GDP. Its debatable to what extent, but Christina Romer - former chief economic adviser to Obama - said in her research that there was a 3x multiplier. Meaning $1 tax increase equals $3 reduction to GDP. GDP correlates to unemployment.

On the micro level, there is always a tipping point where a hiring manager decides to add another employee. If a hiring decision is 50/50, an increase in taxes and the corresponding loss to net profit could definitely sway that decision, even if the loss to net profit is only several thousand dollars.
 
PhDeac said:
Then why would you pos rep a post opposing my post where I make the same point?

You have a weird trend of disagreeing with me by agreeing with me. Why do you do that?

I say that the relying on existing business owners to create new jobs when they don't want to or need to is a bad strategy and somehow you disagree by saying you don't understand the idea that businesses exist in order to create jobs.

To Dirk's post, a new business owner would have HAVE to hire people because they don't have any employees. Who is more likely to hire somebody? A business owner with 100 employees who has come to that number by hiring and firing people and reaching a comfortable balance between payroll and revenues? Or a new business owner getting his business off the ground?

I've been saying for years that unemployment is overrated is an overrated statistic. There was a lot of fluff in the economy and people who probably shouldn't have had jobs in the first place in bloated industries and bloated businesses feeding off the bubbles.

Now the solution is new industries and new businesses.

Shorty, read my post and please state why you disagree with my take.
Click to expand...

Clean energy.
 
Yep. That's the obvious answer. A true investment in clean energy would generate a lot of jobs, but private industry and the government aren't willing to go all out and make a long term commitment even though this is something we should have started 30+ years ago.
 
The government has funded innovations that have led to the creation of new industries in the past.
 
How many greast technological discoveries have been made in Spain over the past 10-15years versus the US?

We already have an established infrastructure for incubation that most countries don't.

Like any other investment in start-ups, we have to expect to lost nine out of ten investments like this. But the one that makes money coudl be the next Google or Facebook.
 
PhDeac said:
Yep. That's the obvious answer. A true investment in clean energy would generate a lot of jobs, but private industry and the government aren't willing to go all out and make a long term commitment even though this is something we should have started 30+ years ago.
Click to expand...

Few industries, if any, receive more funding from venture capital than clean energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top