Thread: Obama 2012?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Actually, I was pointing out exactly this simple fact - that employers aren't hiring people with the expectation of losing money.

See but that isnt a whole truth either. As i said before businesses do hire for several reasons knowing its a loss but with expectations of an increase in business. Holiday season is a good example of this. However on the average no most employees are hired without much sacrific to profit margin.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Actually it was Bush Sr. who started it.

Nah he fufilled his obligations already. I do have to admit i was indifferent to his presidency but i liked how he drew a line in the sand and responded when it was crossed.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

See but that isnt a whole truth either. As i said before businesses do hire for several reasons knowing its a loss but with expectations of an increase in business. Holiday season is a good example of this. However on the average no most employees are hired without much sacrific to profit margin.

Alright, I should have specified "long term." No viable business is going to, on average, lose money on each employee, over the long term.

Originally Posted by Bubbasam

First off I didn't ignore any important points in your post.
And I'll show you -- let's say that I am an average business (which I am). That means, by your post, (I) "the employer will be making more from each employee than it (I) pays them". If I "pay them" what my "average wage" of 28% of my sales is, that will be $448000. By your post, that means I will be making $448000 from my collective employees. Not true.

So you're making less money with employees than you'd be able to make as a one-man business? Please explain why you hired them then.

Now excuse me if I misunderstood this part of your post "......the employer will be making MORE from each employee........" as being something less than 100%, but maybe you know something about MORE that is somehow LESS than the 100%.

Paying someone $100, and earning $101 off of their work is making a profit. Paying someone $100 and making $200 is making a 100% profit. Is this more clear?

I just don't see it, and I called my accountant and he doesn't see it either. Also, NOWHERE did I say that viable businesses lose money for each employee.

If you disagree with my statement, then that's what you're saying. If you don't make money (or break even) on each employee, on average, then you're losing money on each employee.

But, I have to say you can make up for labor costs in other areas of the business (yes, there are other areas that viable businesses sacrifice to retain good employees).

Please provide an example.

See, it's a puzzle you have to put together to run a business. You don't look at a random chart from a business that sells software to other business that generates charts and graphs that only reflect THEIR data. You have to look locally at demographics, ...............................nevermind.
Now that I've noticed you missed these points.....well let's just say we agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue or post things that seem to go right by you.

Which point did I miss? That you didn't like the measurements that I posted?

Some companies will take losses in labor and construction costs if it cuts overhead by a profitable amount. This is how big department stores can so easily undercut family stores/ each other.

Originally Posted by Langrad

Some companies will take losses in labor and construction costs if it cuts overhead by a profitable amount. This is how big department stores can so easily undercut family stores/ each other.

If the profit from cutting overhead is greater than the cost of hiring labor, then they're making a profit, and therefore, the profit per employee is positive.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

If the profit from cutting overhead is greater than the cost of hiring labor, then they're making a profit, and therefore, the profit per employee is positive.

Thats a single minded theory. The thought process could be to hire the person and try to compensate by cutting other items. Not every employee is hired knowing they will produce more then they are paid.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Thats a single minded theory. The thought process could be to hire the person and try to compensate by cutting other items. Not every employee is hired knowing they will produce more then they are paid.

Possibly, but that's why I said "on average." If, on average, you're losing money for each employee, then you're going to be less profitable with N employees than with N - 1 employees. If this is true, then there's no reason for a company to grow past one employee.