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

51–56 of 56 posts

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

#51

Post by anamax »

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…

> The tax burden in this country is lower than European nations, lower than Japan, lower than Canada.

Actually, it's about the same in terms of dollars per person.

When I buy something, I don't ask "what fraction of my income?". I ask "What value am I getting for my $."

Why should we treat govt any differently?

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

#52

Post by DanielBMarkham »

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.

Let's assume that you are right -- he is making a blatant political point.

It's also true that these things add together. And I believe the reasons he states to be a true indicator of why he's not hiring.

When somebody explains to you why they are not hiring -- and gives you the numbers to back it up, arguing about his politics or opinions of your pet causes is total idiocy. Who cares? Just assume that all those things on his balance sheet are wonderful goodness from above. Assume he's a bigoted moron. Whatever works for you.

Numbers still add together to make totals. And people make decisions (and form opinions) based on those numbers. Arguing about his politics doesn't change any of that. You can't argue yourself into a profit margin.

Next year there will be a new pet cause and a new item on the balance sheet. Maybe these are all great things, maybe the inmates are running the asylum. Probably a great discussion for somewhere else. None of that political stuff is relevant here, no matter how strongly you feel about it. This is the cost of doing business, and this is why he is not hiring. It would have been an entirely different piece without the numbers, but the numbers are true indicators of the nature of his business decision. Ignoring them or having a snit about them is just so much noise.

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

#53

Post by jbooth »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #52
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.

Let's assume that you are right -- he is making a blatant political point. It's also true that these things add together. And I believe the reasons he states to be a true indicator of why he's not hiring. When somebody explains to you why they are not hiring -- and gives you the numbers to back it up, arguing about his politics or opinions of your pet causes is total idiocy. Who cares? Just assume that all those thin…

Did you read the linked article? The guy's business is in the tank. He wouldn't be hiring if the government paid him to hire. Which they might, actually, via tax credits under certain circumstances, I'm not too up on that stuff.

The guy's numbers were ridiculous. The changes to his cash flow, year over year, regarding employees, are dominated by healthcare costs. That's not a government problem (although it arguably should be). To the extent that his cash flow is affected by taxes, Obama cut them.

No wonder he can't run a business.

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

#54

Post by DanielBMarkham »

jbooth wrote: post #53
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's assume that you are right -- he is making a blatant political point. It's also true that these things add together. And I believe the reasons he states to be a true indicator of why he's not hiring. When somebody explains to you why they are not hiring -- and gives you the numbers to back it up, arguing about his politics or opinions of your pet causes is total idiocy. Who cares? Just assume that all those thin…

Did you read the linked article? The guy's business is in the tank. He wouldn't be hiring if the government paid him to hire. Which they might, actually, via tax credits under certain circumstances, I'm not too up on that stuff. The guy's numbers were ridiculous. The changes to his cash flow, year over year, regarding employees, are dominated by healthcare costs. That's not a government problem (although it arguably…

sigh

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

#55

Post by jbooth »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #54
jbooth wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the linked article? The guy's business is in the tank. He wouldn't be hiring if the government paid him to hire. Which they might, actually, via tax credits under certain circumstances, I'm not too up on that stuff. The guy's numbers were ridiculous. The changes to his cash flow, year over year, regarding employees, are dominated by healthcare costs. That's not a government problem (although it arguably…

sigh

You're saying that we should ignore his political affiliations and focus on the numbers he presented.

I'm saying the numbers he presented don't add up to the point he was making unless you add them up totally wrong -- and the point he's making is manifestly political and has nothing to do with anyone's business reality.

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

#56

Post by [deleted] »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #52
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.

Let's assume that you are right -- he is making a blatant political point. It's also true that these things add together. And I believe the reasons he states to be a true indicator of why he's not hiring. When somebody explains to you why they are not hiring -- and gives you the numbers to back it up, arguing about his politics or opinions of your pet causes is total idiocy. Who cares? Just assume that all those thin…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN