Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
Your logic is very twisted.....
They were making trillions and laying people off... to make more money. Now that the eco has stalled on them, they have the cash, but nobody to buy.
Nothing is stopping them from creating jobs, the gov doesn't stop them... and uncertainty? Less staff equals more profits, which overall has created less buying power, thus increased costs of good, increasing the overall gross profits, thus stock values go up, and they make more money, without selling a damn thing more. That's how greed works.
If I had a few trillion dollars, yeah I might open a few extra companies, try my hand in a few new markets, expand my current business, improve my production, hire better staff, train them more, etc, etc, etc... oh wait, that is what I do now, I don't really need a few trillion to do that.
My peak is 26 staff, my average is about 10, and between my two companies I have roughly that many on staff today, and I'm sure I could get rid of one or two, but we're actually looking to expand into more cities, so not hiring, isn't going to make my business grow - at all.
It's rather simple how it works.
|
But your staff is creating you money, they are productive, how does walmart hiring more greaters, stock people, cashiers ect make them more money? Which is what you are saying would happen.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to have it all ways. You said if they hired they would make more money, but claim they are doing the opposite to make money. Why would corps fire people when they could make more money hiring people? Because hiring non productive people does not make you money, your stock holders (401k people, you know the middle class) money and does not bring a profit.
And government regulations, new laws, new restrictions and threats of new laws and restrictions sure as hell does slow job growth and create uncertainty.