First you need to establish if record profits have been made during 4 years of stagnant economy. I think that may be slightly media exaggerated but profits have still been made.

#1 Here is how:

A. You staffing was based on x% growth over a certain number of years.
B. Economy slows, slash staffing to as lean as possible since now the forecast is 0 to negative growth.
C. Decreased operating costs > decreased profit from sales reduction
D. Decent profit even during a downturn

Remember, when 20% are unemployed or underemployed, 80% are still employed and can buy your products.

#2 Not hiring surely perpetuates the lake of recovery (not the slowdown) related to consumer spending if the business targets consumer spending. Keep in mind the role of government spending and the government sector in today's economy. For businesses to spend on expansion (material or employees) they need to place a bet on overall economic expansion so they are not wasting their money. Put yourself in their shoes, are you ready to lay out big capital on expansion right now? Has the government done anything to encourage you to lay out big capital on expansion? Are you seeing things in the economy that make you say "I need to go start a business right now!"

Consumer spending really is no different than business spending. Are you seeing anything that makes you want to run out a buy a house, a car, take a vacation? Of course the answer is "yes" to these things to Le HockeyDad because I am under the Obama Cone of Protection.

HockeyDad wrote:

Let me add one more thing. My current home was built in 1910. When I bought it in '93, I removed all the molding, removed all the plaster from the walls and ceilings and replaced it with sheetrock, replaced all the wood windows, removed the stucco from the outside of the house and replaced with siding, removed and replaced the entire roof and rafters, removed and replaced both wood porches. Filled 3 30 yard dumpsters with stuff covered with years and years of lead based paint. If the EPA is right, I should be dead by now, but as I said before, I have no elevated lead levels whatsoever.

dpnewell wrote:

Not really...lead paint is only dangerous if you sand it off and breath it into your lungs systematically. Even then you'd have to do it for weeks before you'd see serious harm to your body (hence the prohibition on contractors).

Asbestos on the other hand is another animal...depending upon the type it can be quite harmful BUT it can also take quite some time before the harm can show itself.

:-k

SMGBobbyScott wrote:

Agree, some exaggeration has been in play, but profits are there and they are big and stashed. Billions, maybe trillions out of play. Has to be a killer.

#1 But I believe that answers A, B, C, and D were more the formula for survival, the "lean" way to stay alive, not the formula for big profits. Sure, simplified, if you lower overhead faster than you lose sales, net gain is the result but that can't last this long. Doesn't really account for big, if not record, profits. Helped my company make it back (see post in R U better off?) but we aren't Exxon.

#2 I cede to you on businesses with mutually dependent relationships with government, way out of my sphere of experience. But I can't shake the naive thought that if they shook loose some money instead of hoarding and hired some folks, it would snowball, or at least make a ripple in that lake (I'm all about metaphors).

And, yes, I am seeing things that make me want to open up a little. is it at all possible the cone enveloped me while I was hanging my head?

frankj1 wrote:

Yes, let's put a work requirement on Food Stamps when there aren't enough jobs to go around...that'll show'em!

SMGBobbyScott wrote:

Yes, let's put a work requirement on Food Stamps when there aren't enough jobs to go around...that'll show'em!

SMGBobbyScott wrote:

Are you saying that there aren't a million jobs with no skills required that the government couldn't have people doing while on "welfare"? Here's the first place they could start, every 5th welfare mom can perform daycare duties while the other four go out and clean public facilities.

Pheloniousmunk wrote:

How do you expect one mother to effectively manage 25 children?

8trackdisco wrote:

[-x
There are jobs out there, maybe not the "ideal" job, but some of those food stamp recipients don't want to take them...I guess they are too good for those jobs. Continueing to extend unemployment certainly doesn't encourage people to take those jobs even though they are capable of working. Many just don't want to work and would rather continue getting assistance. Just like Romney mentioning the 47%, Obama knows there are a huge number of people who just don't want to work, and would rather get the government handouts...and, as I recall, to make unemployment numbers look better they've decided not to include those lazy folks in the unemployment calculations. So I guess that means that about 8.1% of the unemployed population are actually seeking work, but there's probably 3 - 4% more that don't give a crap as long as they keep getting a check from their favorite uncle (Sam).

daveincincy wrote:

An interesting failure in the system is that most of the "non ideal" jobs simply pay less than welfare.

It's really a no-brainer. When presented with only two options, most people are choosing the option which pays more and requires no work, rather than the 30hrs a week job that pays less.

I believe some of the more modern programs are trying to eliminate that binary choice (allowing some welfare while earning income, or the EIC, or a few others), but in all those cases the individuals still fit within Romney's "47%".

victor809 wrote:

Duh. I'm trying to point out the insanity of this EPA Reg. Disturbing a painted surface in a house built prior to '78, even something as simple as driving in a screw, requires EPA training & certification, protective suit, respirator, warning signs, hazardous waste cleanup, etc., or you can face a $11k fine. It was Obama who ordered the EPA to crack down on this, and other stupid regs that burden business, and then we wonder why private sector business isn’t expanding and hiring. Get it now?

dpnewell wrote:

Are you saying that there aren't a million jobs with no skills required that the government couldn't have people doing while on "welfare"? Here's the first place they could start, every 5th welfare mom can perform daycare duties while the other four go out and clean public facilities. Get them working and they might feel differently about spreading their legs and reproducing later in the day......at the very least, minimize the number of hours that they have to reproduce.

The men receiving public benefits? Put them in programs like the CCC. There is still plenty they can do. Then at least the next generation of potential wellies will be accustomed to having someone from their home leave daily to work instead of hanging around the street corners and neighborhood convenience stores, knowing that they don't have to stay in school and do well making something of themselves, because welfare comes with no strings attached.

Pheloniousmunk wrote:

If on welfare or unemployment, both paid out on a decreasing scale. Pay more on the front end, less and less as time goes on. That would maybe not motivate the "non ideal" jobs, but 6 months later, those non-ideals would look significantly better.

8trackdisco wrote:

That reminds me of a joke...I'll clean it up a bit and make it a bit more PC for the sensitive-types.

Do you know how to starve a food stamp recipient?

Hide their food stamps under their work boots.

Thank you...be sure and try the government cheese and tip your waitress or something.

daveincincy wrote: