2012 President?

[bleedorange]

There is a lot of animosity running through some of these posts. It's surprising. Not sure if it's anger or envy or what.

[Doug C]

There is a lot of animosity running through some of these posts. It's surprising. Not sure if it's anger or envy or what.

I don't really understand. Could you elaborate?

[Doug C]

my client was found guilty and shot to death while trying to escape. way to open up a sore wound, guy.

True but you gave him the best chance to win a rigged game. Chin up. Jules is, apparently, a smart cookie and wouldn't hire you to represent his interests if you were not capable.

[lost highway]

Class conflict on the VC.

[KevinG]

I don't think this is a fair characterization. It's true that shareholders, who are the owners of corporations, don't necessarily make the corporations' products, but a lot of times workers do own stock in the companies for which they work. So sometimes the people who own the corporation actually do also make the corporation's stuff.

 

I would imagine that the owners of many small to medium-sized business are very much involved in the "making" of their products. From quality control to research and development to choices about what to make and what to stop making, what infrastructure to buy/dump/replace, and perhaps the actual nuts and bolts creation of ultimate product.

 

 

 

Jules appears to be upset. I bet several Colombian families lost their first-borns and/or attractive daughters last night.

 

 

 

Cite one statement where Jules de-valued the people who work for his company.

 

I took his statement to LouieB, where he called him dumb when he [LouieB] said that workers make stuff and business owners just hire, as an offense to people who are not in management or business owners. I took it as saying I could get anyone do work for me [Jules]. I do all the production, they [the workers] are cogs in the machine that I [Jules] created.

 

I would hope that Jules does see the value in his workforce and there is no reason to think otherwise. But the whole his comment to LouieB really IMO came off as smug. Giving more importance to what he does over the workers. LouieB's comment was in the same vain.

 

It is a two way street, both business owners and the workforce are needed to get this economy started. But we are in a cycle as I have stated previously. Not enough jobs > not enough money in the economy > demand for goods goes down > business reduce workforce > not enough jobs, etc.

 

In Wisconsin we have tried tax cut for business with little or no success (now that recall is over, I still don't see jobs pouring in, but to be fair it early). So we need to get more people working. As Jules has stated before, business should not hire as a responsibility to get the economy going, even if they have the ability (e.g. cash). So unfortunately the government is only one with the need and the ability to hire more people. It will help the economy.

[lost highway]

The government is a job creator. When Obama signed the stimulus bill in 2009 it allocated a large amount of money to "shovel ready" projects in our 50 states. As it happens, my home state of CO had it's proverbial shit together with plans drawn up, and budgets sorted out for highway improvements, and light rail expansion. Those funds put a ton of Coloradans to work. There jobs did not exist before and in a few years I will be able to take the train to the airport. In a few months there will be a nicer on-ramp from Santa Fe onto I-25. Long live Karl Marx.

[The High Heat]

Well some people do create/add jobs, so why is it bullshit. Me, for example. I have hired over 100 people in the last 12 months. Where is my recognition and visit from the President?

 

100 new jobs that didn't exist (And are they permanent or temp?) or 100 hires including replacing the people who quit and those who were terminated and/or exterminated?

[LouieB]

Smug or not (not so much really), I was just pointing out that workers make stuff. Without workers nothing gets made (or done.) Simply the classic divide between labor and capital, nothing more. People who work get blamed for everything; they get blamed for NOT working, they get blamed for not being productive enough, they get blamed for asking for too many benefits and wages and decent working conditions, they get blamed for not buying enough, they get blamed for getting sick and old and needing to retire.

 

The dialogue in this country is basically that those "job creators" are the only people who matter and that government does nothing for anyone that is worthwhile. So it is wonderful that Jules created 100 jobs. Now what? (Let's give him a medal and be done with it, since he is the only one who matters.)

 

LouieB

[Doug C]

There is a lot of animosity running through some of these posts. It's surprising. Not sure if it's anger or envy or what.

 

I have noticed that you have been logged on but have not replied to my request for elaboration as to what you meant.

 

Also, clearly Jules has no intention of mentioning anything about the type of jobs hired or whether he is the owner.

 

Of course, neither of you are required to answer but imagine having the same conversation at a pub, or better yet, in line for a Wilco show and the same questions were asked but the askee (is that a word?) just ignored the asker. It would be a tense situation, to say the least.

[LouieB]

I'll meet you in a pub sometime or in line for Wilco. I have done both and had fun both places, although I have frozen waiting for Wilco a few times.

 

LouieB

[Atticus]

The dialogue in this country is basically that those "job creators" are the only people who matter

 

Has anyone said that here?

[Doug C]

Lou, if I ever have that pleasure, I promise to actually converse with you or at least explain why I won't.

[bleedorange]

What is there to elaborate on? A lot of these posts approach the subject with an inherent bias against management, capital, etc., and they're laced with the ugly assumptions that workers mean very little to those that employ them. I think it's sad that this blatant mistrust occurs.

 

I also find it sad that one poster is peppered with ridiculous questions about the nature of his hires and the suspicion that they aren't legitimate or important or the right kind of hires or that he's simply making it up. And I think that this line of questioning comes from a place filled with hostility.

[Doug C]

bleedorange, thanks for elaborating. I understand you now. I personally do not have an inherent bias against management nor do I believe that most employers care little about their employees. I believe in capitalism, after all. My preference is for a Danish/Swedish?etc. (at least Canadian) style system, though, but capitalist, none the less.

 

As far as Jules goes, I do not harbor the suspicions that you mentioned. I simply am interested in what type of hires. Unless it is a goverment security issue, I don't understand the need to not be forthcoming. How can you have a real dialogue otherwise? Again, if you were having a conversation with him face to face and he said that he hired 100 workers in the last 12 months, you would say something akin to, "That's great. What industry? What type of jobs?". That is normal conversation. If he refused to answer, you would think it quite odd. Can you admit that?

 

Thanks again for the dialogue.

[Atticus]

for the record, I don't think a group of syphilitic monkeys could make a damn thing, other than maybe more syphilitic monkeys.

[LouieB]

So the only dialogue that goes on regarding this subject is here? I thought we were tlaking about the world outside of VC. Hey Jules created 100 jobs. Good work. People are asking for details and he doesn't want to give them? Okay.

 

The entire thing about "job creators" is a smoke screen and at this point everyone knows it. It is the same old trickle down economics that has been at issue since the Reagan administration, just a different term. Some people are going to defend it and some are going to attack it. How is that somehow off limits? There is going to be an eternal conflict on this isssue. Clearly there aren't jobs without a demand for goods and services and if people can't purchase goods and serivces if there aren't jobs. The balance between the two is essential, and the struggle for wages and working conditions is also going to continue within that context.

 

LouieB

[bleedorange]

bleedorange, thanks for elaborating. I understand you now. I personally do not have an inherent bias against management nor do I believe that most employers care little about their employees. I believe in capitalism, after all. My preference is for a Danish/Swedish?etc. (at least Canadian) style system, though, but capitalist, none the less.

 

As far as Jules goes, I do not harbor the suspicions that you mentioned. I simply am interested in what type of hires. Unless it is a goverment security issue, I don't understand the need to not be forthcoming. How can you have a real dialogue otherwise? Again, if you were having a conversation with him face to face and he said that he hired 100 workers in the last 12 months, you would say something akin to, "That's great. What industry? What type of jobs?". That is normal conversation. If he refused to answer, you would think it quite odd. Can you admit that?

 

Thanks again for the dialogue.

 

I suppose. Although, if I were put in that situation, I would only answer in generalities. Then again, I always bristle at job talk. To me, it's the least interesting aspect of a person's life. But that's a whole other topic.

[LouieB]

Actually it is pretty humorous to watch both candidates attack each other about jobs. The President of the US of A has very little control over the economy. They can try and get the govermnent to be the employer of last resort to jump start stuff, but clearly even monitary policy doesn't help all that much. Intesest rates have been low for years and that isn't helping. This is a complex issue with clearly NO easy answers.

 

LouieB

[caliber66]

I took his statement to LouieB, where he called him dumb when he [LouieB] said that workers make stuff and business owners just hire, as an offense to people who are not in management or business owners. I took it as saying I could get anyone do work for me [Jules]. I do all the production, they [the workers] are cogs in the machine that I [Jules] created.

How the hell do you get that from Jules's statement?

[calvino]

How the hell do you get that from Jules's statement?

 

Where is my recognition and visit from the President?

 

Jules said the above - I believe it was taken by some as being condescending. Actually Jules should contact his congressman and he just might get that visit - though I have a feeling his business is not in a Democratic district - so the district may not want to advertise the 100 hires ----- I could be completely wrong about that though - my point is, if you want the President to notice - write your Congressman. Jules standing next to the President would be a great picture.

[KevinG]

How the hell do you get that from Jules's statement?

 

I am the king of subtext. I draw lines where others don't even try.

 

So how about the President today and stating the dept of Homeland Security not deporting young illegals. Steps to immigration reform or pure political pandering?

[caliber66]

Jules said the above - I believe it was taken by some as being condescending. Actually Jules should contact his congressman and he just might get that visit - though I have a feeling his business is not in a Democratic district - so the district may not want to advertise the 100 hires ----- I could be completely wrong about that though - my point is, if you want the President to notice - write your Congressman. Jules standing next to the President would be a great picture.

What about either of those quotes is condescending to Jules's employees?

[calvino]

What about either of those quotes is condescending to Jules's employees?

 

Honestly, I take pretty much anything Jules says as condescending - it his M.O. I didn't take it as be condescending against employees, but to the President, while others may have thought it was towards employees. But like I wrote in my first post regarding his hiring comment - it's a good thing, whether they be temporary positions or permanent.

 

We hired two guys this week - unfortunately they probably will be temporary - but it's a start. I am in the trades (HVAC). I don't expect a visit from the President, though.

[LouieB]

Just for the record (whatever the hell that is) I don't at all believe that all employers don't care about their employees. But there is a decidedly anti-union bent in the country at the moment and so why not push back against that. Why not push back against the idea (propigated by he presumptive Republican nominee) that public service unions need to be busted since most private sector unions are already busted (this is not even in dispute, only 6% of private sector workers are in unions) and that we need to bust down the overwhelming benefits public workers get too. Hell just do away with five day work week, eight hour day, and minimum wage while we are at it.

 

Actually I am offended that those of us on the leftish side of the political spectrum are supposed to understand that snarky folks on the right get to express their opinions is in condesending ways, but if we do, we get stepped on. There are actually some rather obvious points of agreement between the left and right which should be explored and dare I say it, negotiated and compormised on, in order for shit to get back on track in this country. Of course management gets to hire and fire people, but workers also have rights and expectations. Speaking in hyperbole is an internet traditioni which in the long run is kind of irritating. So clearly I spouted a bit of Marxist dogma to counteract what I consider some right wing bullshit

 

Okay so that is MY opinion in more than one sentence. It's your turn Jules. What is your real opinion. Not a fake internet opinion or or they one and the same? The economy sucks, neither the right nor left can fix it alone, the government probably can't fix it at all (but it can stop expensive wars and can jump start some segments of the economy to the best of its ability and regulate some businesses such as the banks that clearly need some regulation), and Congress can facilitate an economic recovery if it wants, which it doesnt.

 

But we can't turn this around if the assumption is that only the so called job creators get to call the shots and if workers have to give up their rights. It just doesn't work that way. There is a reason that the right wing super PACs are being flooded with money by the capitalists. It has nothing to do with Obama at all really. He hasn't done a thing to upset the capitalist apple cart (nor really the military or any other established sector of the US) and it sure as shit isn't about abortion, immigrant rights, gay marriage, health insurance for all etc, which are social issues and don't impact the economy one wit. (The insurance companies are loving the affordable health act, since they are going to get the windfall which is why the Repubs are talking about keeping many aspects of it if the Supremes turn it over.)

 

Ultimately we know what this is all about and it is comporate profits. Is it any wonder some of us are suspicious.

 

LouieB

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Where do you think these horrible corporate profits go?