Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Will these companies hire someone already or are they waiting for more piles of money before they do...?

I'd say we don't need anymore McDonald's restaurants. The other two, I have no idea about though.

[Truean]

Will these companies hire someone already or are they waiting for more piles of money before they do...?

I'd say we don't need anymore McDonald's restaurants. The other two, I have no idea about though.

Agreed, basically, we need good paying jobs.....

That said McDonalds was only one of the companies mentioned, because people know it:
"The S&P 500 gained 22.86 points, or 1.9 percent, to 1,238.25. Rising stocks in the S&P outpaced falling ones by a margin of 20 to 1: only 23 companies traded lower."

Corporations are sitting on piles of money and not hiring:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hoarding-hiring-corporations-stockpile-mountain-cash/story?id=10250559
That's from 2010.... This has been going on for a while....

[sonerohi]

I've figured it out everyone. CEO's are dragons. They are hoarding treasure.

[Aqizzar]

Corporations are sitting on piles of money and not hiring:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hoarding-hiring-corporations-stockpile-mountain-cash/story?id=10250559
That's from 2010.... This has been going on for a while....

Actually, according to Bianco, shareholders will soon start to demand that cordoned off cash be put to work, either through some form of growth initiative or at the very least used to pay out a higher dividend. In either case, it's not expected that the cash being hoarded will at any point translate into rapid hiring.

"Companies slashed their work forces and now find that they could function far more resourcefully than they ever realized possible," Bianco said. "If anything, we could start to see some of the money being used to expand overseas or to acquire other companies. In either case, that does not bode well for job creation. In fact, mergers lead to job reductions unfortunately."

Well no shit.  Of course, one reason why banks are sitting on money is because their books are a bit inflated, due to Federal Reserve policy that lets them borrow unlimited funds at zero-ish percent interest, and then loan it back to the Treasury in bonds at whatever rate those are paying these days.  Why every other company in the country is sitting on money, a economically foolhardy idea, is a different question.

I have my own theory that they're basically doing it because the President is a Democrat and so they are automatically "uncertain" about the economic forecast.  More likely, it's just the virulent attitude of American business schools that the key to success is not growing revenue but shrinking costs, so companies are constantly looking for ways to shed expenses while expanding or at least staying the same size, and payroll is usually your biggest expense.


One of these days, all these politics threads are going to fuse into one hideous conglomeration.  I'm almost starting to think we could do Toady a favor and make a new forum somewhere.

[G-Flex]

"than pretty much any other president" was too strong, I admit.  I formally withdraw that part of the statement.  I still believe he's been harsher than most, especially based on his stances on Wikileaks and Bradley Manning and his obvious double speak between his condemnation for that issue while simultaneously supporting related events, such as the Arab Spring.

What response would you expect out of any other administration regarding Wikileaks? Do you think any would be in support of that? I sincerely doubt it. Saying that he's "harsher than most" because of that is a bit weird, in my opinion, because I doubt a different administration would have come out on a different side of that issue.

[SalmonGod]

"than pretty much any other president" was too strong, I admit.  I formally withdraw that part of the statement.  I still believe he's been harsher than most, especially based on his stances on Wikileaks and Bradley Manning and his obvious double speak between his condemnation for that issue while simultaneously supporting related events, such as the Arab Spring.

What response would you expect out of any other administration regarding Wikileaks? Do you think any would be in support of that? I sincerely doubt it. Saying that he's "harsher than most" because of that is a bit weird, in my opinion, because I doubt a different administration would have come out on a different side of that issue.

He did a full switch on The Patriot Act, and willingly signed an extension even longer than the one sought by republicans.

There has been more intimidation, legal harassment, and active torture of whistleblowers under Obama than anyone else in a long time, and that isn't just because of Wikileaks.  Here's another link.  He's always voicing support for transparency and whistleblowers, but when actually confronted on these things outside of his speeches, he blatantly lies about the circumstances or shows support for whatever action is being taken against dissenting or just plain informative voices.

If you want me to dig up tons of raw info, it will probably have to wait a day or two.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/285-indian-girls-shed-unwanted-names-122551876.html
Isn't it funny how they only name the girls "Unwanted." Like literally, that's their name....

Corporations are sitting on piles of money and not hiring:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hoarding-hiring-corporations-stockpile-mountain-cash/story?id=10250559
That's from 2010.... This has been going on for a while....

Actually, according to Bianco, shareholders will soon start to demand that cordoned off cash be put to work, either through some form of growth initiative or at the very least used to pay out a higher dividend. In either case, it's not expected that the cash being hoarded will at any point translate into rapid hiring.

"Companies slashed their work forces and now find that they could function far more resourcefully than they ever realized possible," Bianco said. "If anything, we could start to see some of the money being used to expand overseas or to acquire other companies. In either case, that does not bode well for job creation. In fact, mergers lead to job reductions unfortunately."

Well no shit.  Of course, one reason why banks are sitting on money is because their books are a bit inflated, due to Federal Reserve policy that lets them borrow unlimited funds at zero-ish percent interest, and then loan it back to the Treasury in bonds at whatever rate those are paying these days.  Why every other company in the country is sitting on money, a economically foolhardy idea, is a different question.

I have my own theory that they're basically doing it because the President is a Democrat and so they are automatically "uncertain" about the economic forecast.  More likely, it's just the virulent attitude of American business schools that the key to success is not growing revenue but shrinking costs, so companies are constantly looking for ways to shed expenses while expanding or at least staying the same size, and payroll is usually your biggest expense.


One of these days, all these politics threads are going to fuse into one hideous conglomeration.  I'm almost starting to think we could do Toady a favor and make a new forum somewhere.

Yeah, and yet, the real question is, what do we hire between 10 and 20 million Americans to do...? Many of my relatives share your theory. You might be right and if you are, then that's sad beyond words....

Businesses should be about providing services people pay for instead of cutting service to the bone which both kills quality and your customer's ability/willingness to pay....

As for the forums, they attract more business for Toady than they cost and other than word of mouth, and the ever so rare newspaper article, are about the only advertising he gets. Internet forums in general are horrible as a rule. However, this one seems to get people attracted around the his game so....

[SalmonGod]

This forum has definitely kept me around longer than the game alone would have.

[Pnx]

Something I've noticed about corruption is that it's a strongly cultural thing.
In most of the developed world bribing police officers is extremely rare, and trying to bribe someone is a significant crime. But in places like some parts of Africa, Russia, or Mexico, police officers will harass people, hold them up, threaten to arrest them, or do other things in search of a bribe.
There are of course a whole load of other forms of corruption, a friend once told me he wasn't an organ donor because in Russia paramedics would let you die so they could sell your organs. Which goes to show that pretty much any aspect of public services can become corrupt.
I'm really not sure what makes corruption so rampant in these countries. Perhaps it's just corruption itself?

[G-Flex]

There are of course a whole load of other forms of corruption, a friend once told me he wasn't an organ donor because in Russia paramedics would let you die so they could sell your organs. Which goes to show that pretty much any aspect of public services can become corrupt.

Not to say this isn't true, but believing something like that because "my friend heard this from people" isn't very reliable, especially with something that's already basically an urban legend.

[Il Palazzo]

There are of course a whole load of other forms of corruption, a friend once told me he wasn't an organ donor because in Russia paramedics would let you die so they could sell your organs. Which goes to show that pretty much any aspect of public services can become corrupt.

Not to say this isn't true, but believing something like that because "my friend heard this from people" isn't very reliable, especially with something that's already basically an urban legend.

Have you ever heard about the Polish "Skin Hunters" case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_Hunters
Well, it's not really Russia, and not really about organ selling, but it's similar enough.
Of course, it was an isolated case* by which people shouldn't make judgements about the whole of our healthcare system and its workers.

*or so we want to believe.

[Pnx]

There are of course a whole load of other forms of corruption, a friend once told me he wasn't an organ donor because in Russia paramedics would let you die so they could sell your organs. Which goes to show that pretty much any aspect of public services can become corrupt.

Not to say this isn't true, but believing something like that because "my friend heard this from people" isn't very reliable, especially with something that's already basically an urban legend.

I should point out he has been the source of some fishy information before.

But this sort of detracts from the point, which is to say, what are the sociological causes of corruption?
And on that point, how do you actually go about fighting corruption, especially when it's so heavily embedded?

[SalmonGod]

I would say that corruption will naturally arise within any social hierarchy.  Some people care about having power and others don't.  Those that do are corrupt, and will naturally invest more energy into competing for disproportionate influence.  Plus, it's a snowballing problem.  Power can be put to use in gathering more power.  This is a fundamental, unremovable mechanism of social hierarchy in any form.

[Vector]

... I care about having power.  Don't you?

[SalmonGod]

Depends on what you mean by having power, I suppose.  I want control over my own life and no one else's.  I actually hate being in positions of leadership.  Giving orders makes me feel like a jerk.

Edit:  Of course, it could be that I've conditioned myself to feel this way for so long that I don't remember ever feeling otherwise.  Trying to be as honest with myself as possible here.  But even as a little kid, I got bullied because I resented people's stupid social dominance sorting processes and refused to take part in them.