Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
#2Editorialized submission headline for a highly editorialized piece. Regardless of the issues at hand, no thanks.
Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
#3Editorialized submission headline for a highly editorialized piece. Regardless of the issues at hand, no thanks.
Agreed.
Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
#4The original WSJ article struck me as disingenuous, but this article seems to just go the ad hominem route.
Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
#5"All his complaining about taxes and benefits is just a smokescreen for his own incompetence."
Actually, I'd call that 'more proof that he's incompetent', personally. I read that yesterday and shook my head at disbelief that a CEO could say such a thing seriously.
Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
#6hn member toxicflavor basically made this point yesterday in about 10 words.
Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
#7As a small business owner I can tell you we are putting of hiring for pretty much the same reasons mentioned in WSJ. Basically you are paying double to hire an employee.
Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
#8He'd much rather hire people who are non-union and paid in cash. Totally off the books. How much more American can you be?
Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
#9As a small business owner I can tell you we are putting of hiring for pretty much the same reasons mentioned in WSJ. Basically you are paying double to hire an employee.
But what's the argument? That there are taxes or overhead? The truth is that you're not hiring for charity in the first place. So if the true cost (burdened cost) of a new employee doesn't make you more than enough money to cover that, don't hire.
Just because the cost of an employee is not the "sticker" price, and is somehow more complicated, doesn't mean that you're being punished to hire people.
Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop
#10The original WSJ article struck me as disingenuous, but this article seems to just go the ad hominem route.
It's true, he didn't spend nearly enough time explaining why the argument was false. But then again, the 2-3 sentences he spent on that was enough. The rest is, I suppose, filler.
But at the same time it makes sense. Blaming the government for your inability to afford employees is just a blame game. You can afford and employee or not. If you're a moderate veteran in business you know the burdened costs so you factor that in.
The article has good detail about how he's blaming the government for his own failing business. He's just trying to egg on the government for more breaks or he won't hire and supposedly the recession will continue.
Maybe he'd like to turn off the HVAC system in the offices to save some money too.
Taxes exist, get over it.