Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

motherjones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#41

Post by icarus_drowning »

Garbage in, garbage out? The original piece wasn't particularly impressive (rather than blame taxes for business problems, why not suggest targeted tax cuts offset by targeted tax increases?), but this somehow manages to be worse.

The ostensible reason the op-ed was crap was that Micheal Fleisher is related to someone who served in the Bush Administration. Now, while I agree that not divulging that information was a mistake on the Journal's part, I hardly think that shores up MJ's argument. It is necessarily fallacious-- his point is wrong because he was wrong in the past, because he was associated with people we don't like, and because his business is in trouble. It is certainly possible that these things might be true, but they have little bearing on the (equally bad) arguments in his op-ed, which are: taxes are slowing job growth-- see, just look at my business!

MJ notes that the original article wasn't worth much comment. Why they decided to then ignore their own conclusion and comment on it anyway is a mystery to me.

The least they could have done was try to raise, rather than lower, the already miserable tone of the debate.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#42

Post by jobu »

icarus_drowning wrote: post #41

Garbage in, garbage out? The original piece wasn't particularly impressive (rather than blame taxes for business problems, why not suggest targeted tax cuts offset by targeted tax increases?), but this somehow manages to be worse. The ostensible reason the op-ed was crap was that Micheal Fleisher is related to someone who served in the Bush Administration. Now, while I agree that not divulging that information was a…

I think Kevin Drum meant the article wasn't worth much comment, but the fact that the WSJ chose to put it on the op-ed page was worth a few comments.

Why did the WSJ publish it? Perhaps it was a poor choice, perhaps it was a slow news day, or perhaps it was a double-cross to destroy Michael Fleischer's credibility with his own words.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#43

Post by [deleted] »

encoderer wrote: post #34
CoryMathews wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes but if I only have 20$ I can get twice as many if they are $.50 instead of $1. Thus he could hire more people if the overhead per hire was lower.

The tax burden in this country is lower than European nations, lower than Japan, lower than Canada. The op-ed is a trite political attack piece (not out of character for the WSJ). Your comments, well, they seem directed towards the half-brained. That is, if you're smart, what your saying is obvious: Obviously Right if you're a conservative, Obviously Wrong if you're a progressive. If you're a true neutral centrist an…

[deleted]

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#44

Post by hjkl »

ZachPruckowski wrote: post #16
hjkl wrote: post #4

The original WSJ article struck me as disingenuous, but this article seems to just go the ad hominem route.

While ad hominem is usually bad, I don't see the problem with using it in response to anecdotal evidence. If your argument is "I, personally, can't run my business while paying employees an average wage!", then "your business was spiraling downwards while before the downturn and well before healthcare reform and wage bumps" seems to be a decent response. Similarly, knowing someone's background is pretty crucial for a…

It does seem unfair to have to respond to an inflammatory anecdotal op-ed with a reasoned non-anecdotal argument, but I think that's the burden of a good faith response.

In that respect, I think Michael Fleisher's background is a good indicator that his piece has a bias, but pointing it out doesn't necessarily negate what he wrote.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#45

Post by run4yourlives »

CoryMathews wrote: post #24
zoomzoom wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, everyone reading the WSJ knows how math works. The point of the article was not to explain math - it was to blame "government" - and Barack Obama - for the lack of private hiring. A political statement gets (and deserves) a political response.

When its government taxes that are causing it to be so expensive why would you blame someone else? Also he is only blaming Obama for the health care price raise not the previous amount.

Also he is only blaming Obama for the health care price raise not the previous amount.

Which is dumb. First, because he buys his health care form a private company, and second, because he's not required to buy it at all.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#46

Post by mikeryan »

CoryMathews wrote: post #30
Tichy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who else should pay the taxes in your opinion?

Its not who should pay them its why so many are needed. Are the programs they are paying for actually needed?

Maybe we should elect a "fiscal conservative" president for 8 years and let him cut the budget...

oh wait.

My biggest issue with your argument isn't that its wrong on its face - its that in the last ~20 years I've never seen a fiscal conservative in gov't both A. reduce taxes and B. reduce spending.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#47

Post by run4yourlives »

thetrumanshow wrote: post #25
CoryMathews wrote: post #20

While I agree his business is doing lousy and thats a huge reason why he cannot hire more, his point still rock solid. The government takes way to much for each employee hired. 33%! The author would realize this is a HUGE problem for employers, but I forget he is only a political blogger. Thus when you hire 3 and a tax rate of 33% + 33% + 33%, you are really paying for 4 people and getting 3. That makes it hard to hi…

Wait for it.. someone is going to again point out that taxes in the US are slightly lower than some other developed countries, and therefore they will imply that since everyone's taxes are high, we should assume that high taxes are perfectly sane.

Sanity isn't the issue. The issue is that in no way do US taxes make you uncompetitive, and therefore, as portion of the total cost of employee retention the point is moot.

It's irrelevant if my apples are 50 cents or a dollar. What's relevant is what everyone else is selling apples for.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#48

Post by jbooth »

zoomzoom wrote: post #21
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #12

I hate the fact that somebody can explain how arithmetic works, and folks will trash them for political reasons. I hated watching the comments on HN when the first article was posted, and I hate watching the reaction today.

Honestly, everyone reading the WSJ knows how math works. The point of the article was not to explain math - it was to blame "government" - and Barack Obama - for the lack of private hiring. A political statement gets (and deserves) a political response.

Additionally, the article's author gave no indication that he knew how arithmetic works.

Round number from memory, paying someone 59k, gov't takes 20k, and healthcare costs 12k, so everything is 100% government's fault. And Obama's fault. Even though he cut the taxes for that employee.

EDIT: Hi downmodders. 100% factual post here. Obama cut your taxes. Sorry.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#49

Post by jbooth »

SamAtt wrote: post #17
Tichy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand that logic. Yes, if I buy an Apple for 1$, it costs double than if an Apple would just cost 0.50$. You are paying for employees what they cost, that is, what the market determines. What are you doubling? (The taxes and whatnot are simply part of the total cost).

The logic is that taxes and other fees are pushing the cost of hiring people over what he's willing to pay. To use your example imagine you only have $1 to your name and you can get by without the Apple. At which point you don't buy the Apple where as if it was $.50 you might buy the Apple because it wouldn't take all your money. I'm not saying his logic is correct but it's not hard to understand

Yeah, except taxes have gone DOWN for that employee under Obama, and healthcare premiums have been skyrocketing for the last 10-15 years (and most of quote "ObamaCare" hasn't even kicked in yet).

So the author is either a total idiot or willfully dishonest. Hence, the article was poop.

Re: Re: yesterday's "Why I'm not hiring" WSJ op-ed and why it was poop

#50

Post by icarus_drowning »

jobu wrote: post #42
icarus_drowning wrote: post #41

Garbage in, garbage out? The original piece wasn't particularly impressive (rather than blame taxes for business problems, why not suggest targeted tax cuts offset by targeted tax increases?), but this somehow manages to be worse. The ostensible reason the op-ed was crap was that Micheal Fleisher is related to someone who served in the Bush Administration. Now, while I agree that not divulging that information was a…

I think Kevin Drum meant the article wasn't worth much comment, but the fact that the WSJ chose to put it on the op-ed page was worth a few comments. Why did the WSJ publish it? Perhaps it was a poor choice, perhaps it was a slow news day, or perhaps it was a double-cross to destroy Michael Fleischer's credibility with his own words.

But its the tone of that response that's the problem. Even if the fact that the WSJ chose to publish it is worthy of comment, its certainly worthy of more thoughtful comment. MJ looks as bad as the WSJ by responding to a clumsy op-ed with such a petty, ad-hom piece.
Post reply on HN