Bring back consumer confidence …

With Congress being controlled now by the Republicans will this restore a consumer confidence?

IMO I was hoping for a change in both the Senate and Congress but that did happen this time, 2012 could change the majority in the Senate.
The Republican majority now in Congress will help but the turn around in consumer confidence and the confidence of business and America will still take a wait a see attitude. I see little change in employment, business purchasing and building/development project for the next nine months so for many it will be a long winter of hardship both business and individuals. No matter what happens the gearing up for many businesses will be slow to recover and the potential for new construction, development and productivity will take a longer start up time because of being so down in the last 20 months.

What is your opinions on the restoring of consumer confidence and business growth now that there is a balance in the federal system?

First of all, I just want to say that I like a healthy mix of republicans and democrats. One party rule is disastrous and as we have seen the past 2 years, fricken scary.

Government should only play the role of making it desirable and easier for business. Government shouldn't be trying to create jobs. Government has failed miserably in knowing their role.

Ohio's framework for business has become mangled like scaffolding that has fallen over on uneven ground. It's time to build a nice, more even, foundation for business to start building on. The first step to doing that is to look at prohibitive taxes and (gasp) prohibitive regulation. Like it or not, something different needs to happen.

Not for a while.

It shouldn't take too long to know whether a lot of businesses have been sitting one the sidelines waiting to see if things changed enough that they feel confident moving forward with more hiring or other types of expansion.

We've heard that Obama's policies and uncertainty related to his policies have been one of the key driving forces for the lack of private sector growth; now I guess we'll find out if that's true or if it was just so much lip service.

If the GOP doesn't blow it, I expect things to pick up quite a bit next year.

Why would they hire?

They shed workers and profits are going up. Unless they cannot meet demand with their current workforce they have no incentive to hire.

I Wear Pants;543669 wrote:Why would they hire?

They shed workers and profits are going up. Unless they cannot meet demand with their current workforce they have no incentive to hire.

This

I Wear Pants;543669 wrote:Why would they hire?

They shed workers and profits are going up. Unless they cannot meet demand with their current workforce they have no incentive to hire.

Agreed. The recession has forced businesses to be lean and from that they have eliminated a lot of overhead. Technology has also allowed businesses to really cut their workforce and still have the same output.

I actually see a slow, steady climb out of this. Most forecasts don't have jobs returning to 2006-07 levels until the middle of the decade. It will be a long haul, but we will get out of it.
Oddly enough, I don't think government left or right will have much impact other than monetary policy.

I Wear Pants;543669 wrote:Why would they hire?

They shed workers and profits are going up. Unless they cannot meet demand with their current workforce they have no incentive to hire.

Why hire? It's really simple and it involves a word that has become so villified, trashed, and disdained as evil. The word is profit. Without it, there can be NO hiring. Companies do NOT hire when they are losing profits. Companies LAY OFF people in order to cut overhead and expenses so as to remain profitable. It's how business is done. If this disgusts anyone....then move. Move to France. Move to Amsterdam. Just move if capitalism makes you so mad that some people make a ton of money and some go out of business. It is what it is and even socialism fails without it...for as Margaret Thatcher noted, "Socialism is fine as long as you don't run out of other people's money."

The fact that companies are again becoming profitable should be heralded, not derided. For, with profits, come a need for expansion and....ummm....uhhhh....the need for more employees! It's really not complicated, but without profitable companies, there cannot be any hiring. But I understand it because class warfare, envy, and jealousy have been preached by our so-called "leaders" in order to curry sympathy and votes to perpetuate more class warfare, envy, and jealousy.

You misunderstood what I meant completely. I said nothing about capitalism or socialism. France and the Netherlands have capitalistic systems too in many ways.

Companies have been posting solid profits for around a year now.

What we're saying is that they will take these profits and instead of expand, they will simply absorb more profits.

Because of them having to lean themselves down during the recession they've become more efficient and do not currently need more employees. They are posting profits but don't need more workers.

No one was saying profit is bad. It's just that there is no incentive for companies to hire right now. Their profits aren't being hindered by a lack of employees so they will not hire.

I Wear Pants;543746 wrote:Companies have been posting solid profits for around a year now.

What we're saying is that they will take these profits and instead of expand, they will simply absorb more profits.

Because of them having to lean themselves down during the recession they've become more efficient and do not currently need more employees. They are posting profits but don't need more workers.

Let's say you and your family produce beautiful widgets. Matter of fact, you make the best widgets in the State and people come from other states to buy your widgets. Time's been hard on the people that last 3 years, so your widget business is down, but you're scraping by. Maybe you found a substitute ingredient that costs a fraction less. Maybe you've oiled-up your flux capacitor motor needed to make your widget instead of buying a new one. You've scrimped and saved. Now...people are remembering how much they loved your widget and are starting to come back. Matter of fact, they've been talking to their neighbors and now you have even more customers than before. You are just starting to make money and getting comfortable. Maybe you've bought a new flux capacitor motor to replace the one that has been breaking down every other day. You've been making a profit for about a year now. You have a grand decision to make. Demand is up for your widgets. You are working OT to keep up and your family is getting exhausted. You want to expand your operations to make more widgets and sell more because there is a short supply of widgets and you hav a great demand for them. Maybe...just maybe...you decide to not expand, demand increases and with short supplies, you raise your prices and your profitability. You can't keep the stuff on the shelf and you're making money hand over fist. Eventually, the grand decision comes back for a revisit. You decide to expand and hire more employees.

My point is that there is no timeline as to when people decide to expand their business. There are so many more variables to determine. Jobs will come back under the right circumstances, but just because businesses have been profitable for a year does not equal they must hire people. In my example above, the flux capacitor motor maker got an order before your widget factory hired anyone. Maybe the motor maker needed to hire someone to build it? Patience bears fruit.

Show me what industries right now have a shortage of workers.

Where was the patience bears fruit attitude before this election? It was all doom and gloom. Now it's well, you've got to wait?

I Wear Pants;543782 wrote:Show me what industries right now have a shortage of workers.

Where was the patience bears fruit attitude before this election? It was all doom and gloom. Now it's well, you've got to wait?

I'm trying to help here and I get shit. Fine.

Businesses haven't been hiring because there is no demand. Obama and his Keynesian buddies tried to build demand by spending nearly a trillion dollars. Along with that...they came after American's wallets with a phony cap-n-tax scheme, a boondoggle of a health reform plan, and bailouts for unions and whatever other contributors they saw fit. These programs have caused caution in the business community, caution with Americans as their consumer confidence has been spiraling downward, and have created uncertainty in the economy. If there's one thing capitalism can't stand, it's uncertainty. I hope that last night's election helps eliminate uncertainty and the engine of growth will be re-fired. Gridlock = no new government largesse and less taxing and spending schemes.

If the conservatives had lost, then there would be doom and gloom....along with more spending, more taxes, more entitlements, more, more, more and we don't have any more to give.

What I don't know is why if I'm a stakeholder in a business I want that business hiring if I've been seeing growing profits without hiring?

Small businesses are a different thing, I'm not suggesting that they've all been doing wonderful the past year or so but many of the larger companies have. Just look at the stock market and earnings reports. What is their incentive to hire people right now?

What's their incentive?

Perhaps to keep the profits coming...

No business can remain stagnant for too long and remain profitable. It has to change and take chances if it wants to grow at all.

Does this ensure there will be lots of hiring in the near future?

No. Of course not. But the capitalistic pendulum usually swings back and it's long overdue for a swing in the right direction -- all that was holding it back, in my opinion, was the uncertainty of what might come out of Washington that was even worse than health care or cap & trade.

Now they know that's not going to happen. Not this year, not next year; and probably not for the next 6 years unless Republicans totally screw this up. So it gives some peace of mind to those companies that were sitting on the sidelines with investment cash; and by some reports, there's quite a bit of that money out there ready to be invested when confidence is right.

No, we don't know for certain that anything will change -- but we DID know for sure that it wouldn't change if the status quo had been in effect. We got enough reports from business folks saying as much.

Now we at least have a chance...

ptown_trojans_1;543688 wrote:Agreed. The recession has forced businesses to be lean and from that they have eliminated a lot of overhead. Technology has also allowed businesses to really cut their workforce and still have the same output.

I actually see a slow, steady climb out of this. Most forecasts don't have jobs returning to 2006-07 levels until the middle of the decade. It will be a long haul, but we will get out of it.
Oddly enough, I don't think government left or right will have much impact other than monetary policy.

I agree, for the most part. Making businesses "leaner" is a benefit in the long run--it makes things more productive and streamlines our companies, making us more efficient to compete with the rest of the world. There is plenty of short-term pain, but as demand picks up around the world, lean US companies will be better-positioned to profit.

I don't see much that gov't can do to help things at this point. The bigger concern is whether we'll see new wide-ranging policies implemented. These increase business uncertainty, which reduces hiring. The best thing to do is to let businesses know what rules they're playing under so they can get down to creating wealth and jobs. Stability is key.

Gridlock -- in a very weird way -- provides the stability you're talking about.

Writerbuckeye;544064 wrote:Gridlock -- in a very weird way -- provides the stability you're talking about.

EXACTLY! Oddly enough equilibrium in DC - even in the form of gridlock - will signal the private sector it's time to expand.

I agree about the gridlock. Less bills, more time for debate and actual compromise on the bills proposed.

I still think that companies aren't hiring (speaking mostly about larger companies) because they don't need to. They are able to meet current demand and can increase output if called for with their current workforce, so why increase their costs by hiring more workers? And stability isn't the only thing keeping smaller businesses from hiring, I will admit it is one of the factors. Access to capital and loan availability are keeping many from being able to expand or hire.

Part of the loans being hard to come by is the lack of stability. But another, I'd argue larger, part of it is systemic and it's that banks and lending institutions are interested more in the market funds and more complex investment options then they are simple business/personal loans. Until we fix that I think we'll always have a problem getting access to much-needed funds.

I agree that it's more complicated than just getting DC to stop the incessant spending and reckless political agendas like government-mandated health care, etc.

Another thing that needs to shake loose is the topic of this thread....consumer confidence. We're in a vicious cycle right now. Companies have cut overhead (IE: people due to declining sales, advancement in technologies, cheaper offshore labor rates, etc.) to remain p-p-p-profitable. But in doing so those of us lucky enough to still have jobs are watching every penny and very, very nervous about spending because we may be next on the chopping block.

Because we aren't spending, businesses aren't producing. And because businesses aren't producing, they aren't hiring. And because businesses aren't hiring, the workers (consumers) aren't buying.

Now Bernanke thinks the answer is to print more valueless money to "prime the pump." While Bernanke's goal is to drive down interest rates and encourage business to invest and expand, the only thing that this policy is going to do is make what money the consumers are willing to spend worth less and; therefore, reduce the purchasing power of the available outlay. This will mean less goods sold, further cuts in overhead (people), and - of course - dreaded inflation for those of us lucky enough to retain our jobs.

Let's just do away with free trade, eh?

I Wear Pants;544394 wrote:Until we fix that I think we'll always have a problem getting access to much-needed funds.

Arrgghhh...."until we fix that.." That's precisely what got us here. Government tinkering led to government mandating led to government ownership. Every freaking time the government tries to step in and "control" market forces, mandate banks lend to people that have no damn means to pay mortgages, and re-write how business should be done, they have the opposite effect. The idea that "we should fix that" is a mindset that has led us into this economic rat hole and will NOT lead us out. Get the hell out of the way, Uncle Sam, you're blocking progress....unless that is precisely what you want to do, eh?

CenterBHSFan;544621 wrote:Let's just do away with free trade, eh?

No.
That would kill the U.S. economy even more. Like it or not, the world is more connected and eliminating free trade would destroy U.S. and other countries from coming in and establishing plants here.

Take that fucking Global Financing shit a shove it your ass … Bankers, Government and Liberal Assholes. We are America business and America base companies with American know how I don’t want to follow I want to lead the market. I own two companies in diversified markets and in one my line of credit was cut by $100,000 plus and in the other $50,000 in both situations ….. Once that happen I was forced to let people go 5 total.
Risk taker and entrepreneur depend on line of credit to help the bottom line and to reinvest in their companies. This reinvestment and purchasing power of the line of credit helps increase the profit of companies without it many small business are helpless.

What to create jobs…. Simple …… give small business, manufacturing and developer/ contractors back their line of credit …

So you'd support measures which would help to make banks and lending institutions start investing in real tangible goods and businesses again?

I Wear Pants;544761 wrote:So you'd support measures which would help to make banks and lending institutions start investing in real tangible goods and businesses again?

Is providing employment a tangible goods? That “goods” that provides stimulus to the local economy, paying taxes and buy cigarettes and beer. Provides food, clothing and shelter to their family without the entitlement programs of government welfare system. Are working people tangible goods?

Banker and Government Politicians are not risk takers and or entrepreneur, they are clueless to the needs of business and the working efforts of what it takes to make money. Many banker and politician are safety and security driven people that never stepped outside the of thier comfort level …. Educated asshole that can’t apply the education to the real world because they never been there, done that or willing to take the risk.
Risk take vs security ………..see the problem

Extend my line of credit based on my success and jobs will be created…. Or should that be Tangible goods will be created….