quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Time for you to start putting forth some positive ideas -- quit complaining and catastrophizing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
Okay, it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I hope I am able to articulate what I'm thinking...
Most businesses only carry enough employees to accomplish what has to be done to keep up with demands for their product or service. If he was carrying 22 extra employees that his business didn't need the guy was either a saint...which I doubt...or a poor businessman. If those 22 employees were needed to maintain his businesses' level of production or service then he is harming his own business by reducing it's productivity. I'm not sure I understand how cutting his work force by nearly 20%, thereby decreasing production or service by 20%, gives him more money to pay his expenses.
So, was the guy making a smart, necessary business move...or just throwing a tantrum because the guy from "kenya" stayed in office?

Since it looks like his employee costs will be going up, reducing the number of employees he has will effect how much his employee costs rise. Apparently, he's getting started now in building up his reserves for when those costs rise. He's probably already weighed how his income will be effected by the cuts, and has decided that he'll contract for now to be ready for when those costs impact his business. This was a move to get himself ready for a different business environment than the one he is currently operating under, so the number of employees, production, and profit numbers very easily can point to a smaller staff keeping him afloat in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So you don't actually have anything to suggest (or even somebody else's line to parrot) that might address the problems, and are just going to spend the next four years doing Private Frazer, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.

a couple of things..

Vegas has not been having a good time in this recovery (from what i have read), other cities, states have been doing better.. so perhaps some of those jobs were on the chopping block already.. and this was an opportunisitic blame Obama thing, at least in part..

This is not the first time that business has made adjustments in choice between hiring part-time vs full-time workers, this is just a continuation of that and another cost that factors into the choice.. Imo, if it were not for the cost difference, there would not be much reason to have any part-time jobs, I see part time jobs (& independent contractors, casual workers) as a response for many decades of new govt regs, higher costs, etc.. I read this article recently.. on what other businesses are doing in response to increasing costs..
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-law-spurs-shift-hours-022100532.html Health Law Spurs Shift in Hours

If your competition is hiring more or all part-timers (or some other decision like going offshore) and their cost base is lower than yours, most businesses simply have to follow suit just to stay competitive & in business.. or a "Going-out-of-Business Sale" could be in their future..

A guy I had been chatting with for a while said to me last night that he wanted to run off to Canada with me (cuz Obama won).. he is so cute!!!.. I pointed out to him that Canada is more liberal than the US is (that did not matter to him, apparently ).. and I suggested instead that we move to turks & caicos, the bahamas, caymans or some such idylic location.. so its been decided, we will figure out which island we want to go to and he can chase me (& my pussnick) around white sandy beaches all day and night long.. (yes, I will make sure I dont get any of that sand in places it doesnt belong.. )

< Message edited by tj444 -- 11/8/2012 8:38:22 AM >

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Yachtie)

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
Okay, it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I hope I am able to articulate what I'm thinking...
Most businesses only carry enough employees to accomplish what has to be done to keep up with demands for their product or service. If he was carrying 22 extra employees that his business didn't need the guy was either a saint...which I doubt...or a poor businessman. If those 22 employees were needed to maintain his businesses' level of production or service then he is harming his own business by reducing it's productivity. I'm not sure I understand how cutting his work force by nearly 20%, thereby decreasing production or service by 20%, gives him more money to pay his expenses.
So, was the guy making a smart, necessary business move...or just throwing a tantrum because the guy from "kenya" stayed in office?

Since it looks like his employee costs will be going up, reducing the number of employees he has will effect how much his employee costs rise. Apparently, he's getting started now in building up his reserves for when those costs rise. He's probably already weighed how his income will be effected by the cuts, and has decided that he'll contract for now to be ready for when those costs impact his business. This was a move to get himself ready for a different business environment than the one he is currently operating under, so the number of employees, production, and profit numbers very easily can point to a smaller staff keeping him afloat in the future.

I must have missed the part that said he was going to use contracted help to make up for what he was losing in employee production. Or is that just what you are assuming?
To me it still looks like fewer employees equals less production. Less production equals less refenue. Less revenue means he is just shooting himself in the foot because he wants to throw a fit.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
Okay, it's early and I'm not awake yet, so I hope I am able to articulate what I'm thinking...
Most businesses only carry enough employees to accomplish what has to be done to keep up with demands for their product or service. If he was carrying 22 extra employees that his business didn't need the guy was either a saint...which I doubt...or a poor businessman. If those 22 employees were needed to maintain his businesses' level of production or service then he is harming his own business by reducing it's productivity. I'm not sure I understand how cutting his work force by nearly 20%, thereby decreasing production or service by 20%, gives him more money to pay his expenses.
So, was the guy making a smart, necessary business move...or just throwing a tantrum because the guy from "kenya" stayed in office?

Since it looks like his employee costs will be going up, reducing the number of employees he has will effect how much his employee costs rise. Apparently, he's getting started now in building up his reserves for when those costs rise. He's probably already weighed how his income will be effected by the cuts, and has decided that he'll contract for now to be ready for when those costs impact his business. This was a move to get himself ready for a different business environment than the one he is currently operating under, so the number of employees, production, and profit numbers very easily can point to a smaller staff keeping him afloat in the future.

I must have missed the part that said he was going to use contracted help to make up for what he was losing in employee production. Or is that just what you are assuming?

To me it still looks like fewer employees equals less production. Less production equals less refenue. Less revenue means he is just shooting himself in the foot because he wants to throw a fit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Screw that crap. A few here have been doing just that for the past year. Put the truth in front of you and, in the parlance of mnottertail, all you have to say is "asswipe".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.

“David” (he asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) told Host Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that “elections have consequences” and that “at the end of the day, I need to survive.”

“I explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and I’m gonna have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the payroll taxes, the additional health care I’m gonna have to do, and I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner.

I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.”


Right or wrong, as a business owner he too has to make choices. He too shall reap the consequences. His is not a unique story. There are those who think the economy is turning around, that progress is being made. One person even said yesterday that the only reason the economy is down is because of government shrinkage. Not true.

There's a hard lesson on its way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.”