Occupy Wall Street

[Comish]

They aren't hiring because it wouldn't be profitable to the businesses despite helping out the unemployed.

 

 

 

 

Are you insinuating that the primary role of starting/running/expanding a business is to create jobs?

 

We may not want to acknowledge it, but the primary instigator of starting/running/expanding a business is to create a profit. Certainly, an ancillary benefit to the s/r/e is providing jobs and, (if it applies, and by extension) helping the unemployed.

 

But the notion that it is altruism as a motivator that prods someone to undertake the considerable risk and liability that ensues with the launch of a private venture is simply untrue in the majority of cases.

 

Capitalism can offer numerous benefits, but not if emotionalism supercedes business decisions.

[husker_hurdler]

Anybody see the story on 10/11 about a guy with a teepee at Occupy Lincoln?

 

He got served and will be headed to court for having an open flame and lack of ventilation.

[Sub-Husker]

By bye freedom of the press.

 

The LAPD will be preventing the press from covering future evictions at OWS demonstrations.

 

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/11/occupy_la_eviction_lapd_pool_media.php

[johnnyrodgers20]

I am sure nobody noticed that the freeloaders expressing their freedoms were a drain on the economy of the cities. And no one had to pay for this other than the taxpayers. Also notice the hypocrisy in Richmond where the mayor charged the tea party members $8500 for a permit to assemble in their park. When they wanted their money back because he never charged OWS what did this moron do, he audited them. Talk about abuse of power. This idiot should be thrown out of office.

[carlfense]

They aren't hiring because it wouldn't be profitable to the businesses despite helping out the unemployed.

 

 

 

 

Are you insinuating that the primary role of starting/running/expanding a business is to create jobs?

 

We may not want to acknowledge it, but the primary instigator of starting/running/expanding a business is to create a profit. Certainly, an ancillary benefit to the s/r/e is providing jobs and, (if it applies, and by extension) helping the unemployed.

 

But the notion that it is altruism as a motivator that prods someone to undertake the considerable risk and liability that ensues with the launch of a private venture is simply untrue in the majority of cases.

 

Capitalism can offer numerous benefits, but not if emotionalism supercedes business decisions.

I don't think Bye Bye Big XII was arguing that and I certainly would not either. Businesses aren't hiring because it wouldn't be profitable at this time. I won't blame them for that. Similarly, I won't accuse unemployed people of laziness because the jobs do not exist.

[Sub-Husker]

I am sure nobody noticed that the freeloaders expressing their freedoms were a drain on the economy of the cities.

 

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

[johnnyrodgers20]

I am sure nobody noticed that the freeloaders expressing their freedoms were a drain on the economy of the cities.

 

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

 

Ah we don't need anywise ass cracks from you just the facts!!! And you should know what the term little means!!

[It'sNotAFakeID]

They aren't hiring because it wouldn't be profitable to the businesses despite helping out the unemployed.

 

 

 

 

Are you insinuating that the primary role of starting/running/expanding a business is to create jobs?

 

We may not want to acknowledge it, but the primary instigator of starting/running/expanding a business is to create a profit. Certainly, an ancillary benefit to the s/r/e is providing jobs and, (if it applies, and by extension) helping the unemployed.

 

But the notion that it is altruism as a motivator that prods someone to undertake the considerable risk and liability that ensues with the launch of a private venture is simply untrue in the majority of cases.

 

Capitalism can offer numerous benefits, but not if emotionalism supercedes business decisions.

 

Nope, I am not insinuating that the primary goals of business is to create jobs. Their goal is to turn a profit by any legal means possible, of which one is hiring enough workers to where they have the highest productivity with the lowest costs.

 

The jobs aren't there because:

 

A) Businesses are operating to where they turn the best profit. We have too many people so naturally there aren't enough jobs to provide for all the workers.

 

B) Businesses are handcuffed by a minimum wage law and inflation so hiring more workers would put them in the hole [which would be stupid on their part].

 

 

That is what I'm insinuating

[johnnyrodgers20]

I am sure nobody noticed that the freeloaders expressing their freedoms were a drain on the economy of the cities.

 

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

 

And lost in your little answer is the hypocrisy of it all. If it is free for OWS it should be free for the tea party. The cost should be the same Einstein!!

[Sub-Husker]

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

 

Ah we don't need anywise ass cracks from you just the facts!!! And you should know what the term little means!!

 

So you're OK with freedom going by the wayside, if there is a cost to it.

 

And lost in your little answer is the hypocrisy of it all. If it is free for OWS it should be free for the tea party. The cost should be the same Einstein!!

 

The Tea Party has corporate money to back it up.

[Sub-Husker]

B) Businesses are handcuffed by a minimum wage law and inflation so hiring more workers would put them in the hole [which would be stupid on their part].

 

American businesses are also hurt buy the fact that they are the only ones who have to pay for health care, the most expensive and waste ladened health care in the world.

[gobiggergoredder]

B) Businesses are handcuffed by a minimum wage law and inflation so hiring more workers would put them in the hole [which would be stupid on their part].

 

American businesses are also hurt buy the fact that they are the only ones who have to pay for health care, the most expensive and waste ladened health care in the world.

 

Don't forget to add how our horrible diets and morbid obesity are one of the single biggest factors in our unsustainable appetites for health care.

[carlfense]

B) Businesses are handcuffed by a minimum wage law and inflation so hiring more workers would put them in the hole [which would be stupid on their part].

 

American businesses are also hurt buy the fact that they are the only ones who have to pay for health care, the most expensive and waste ladened health care in the world.

 

Don't forget to add how our horrible diets and morbid obesity are one of the single biggest factors in our unsustainable appetites for health care.

Truth.

[Sub-Husker]

B) Businesses are handcuffed by a minimum wage law and inflation so hiring more workers would put them in the hole [which would be stupid on their part].

 

American businesses are also hurt buy the fact that they are the only ones who have to pay for health care, the most expensive and waste ladened health care in the world.

 

Don't forget to add how our horrible diets and morbid obesity are one of the single biggest factors in our unsustainable appetites for health care.

 

Very good point.

[strigori]

Really? 'Handcuffed by minimum wage laws?' Really? I would love to hear the argument for paying a full time worker less than $15,000 a year. Why don't we just do like China and give you a nice shiny quarter for a day's work so the greedy SOB in the boardroom can take that other $57.75 for that 8 hour day and shove it in his pocket?