KevinG Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Where do you think these horrible corporate profits go? The profits ain't being used to hire. Nor are is it being used to reinvest back into their company. This goes back to my original point which no one seems to care about, but I will say it again. Businesses are unable (or unwilling) to hire at this time. What is the problem with government stepping in and hiring where needed? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I wasn't avoiding anything, and I was kidding around about the Presidential visit stuff. I said "we make stuff", and I really haven't been around the board since then. I was simply trying to say we are in manufacturing. Also, I've discussed in detail before exactly what I do & what my company does, but I guess it's been a while. Light manufacturing/assembly producing parts for automotive, heavy truck, construction eqp, ag, other misc. mobile equipment. 3 plants in Chicago area, 1 in Mexico. The new hires were new jobs, full-time. Partly due to a competitor's struggles, but more due to increased demand in all of the above industries. I am one of the owners. 3rd generation private business founded by my grandfather. This is more than I want to discuss on a message board, but I admit I brought it up, so it's only fair. 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. You took it incorrectly, and I value each employee greatly (at least the ones who show up and do their job). But yes, I am more important than the operators, and I don't see the issue there. I generate the business, decide when to hire, when to purchase equipment/facilities, what insurance to offer the employees, what 401K plan to offer the employees, how many hours we will work, what we will pay the workers, etc. etc. I'm not patting my self on the back here, it's just the reality of my responsibilities. Of course the operators make the parts and that is important. But they are more replaceable than I am. 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? see above 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 I never said I am the only one who matters. I also didn't say I "created 100 jobs". I said I hired 100 people in the last year. I'm glad we were able to do it, and we've found some great people. We might have to lose 150 next year, you never know. The joys of owning a business. 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. I don't need/want any visits or phone calls or recognition. Although Lou suggested a medal which sounds kinda cool. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 More than anyone could demand to know, Jules. But I suppose as you said, you brought it up. This brings that conversation back to square one; lots of people do what Jules does. They work hard and make difficult decisions, they employ hundreds, some thousands of people. They are a much-needed part of our economy. This does not mean to me that corporations should all have their current tax breaks. Suggesting an end to any of those tax breaks is not a call to "punish job creators" (as we've discussed customers are as much job creators as anything else). My minimal economic knowledge would suggest an increase in corporate taxes could be as likely to drive up prices of goods as it would be to limit the number of people hired. Interestingly enough some of the largest corporations have lobbied the hardest against any change in the tax plan, and they are owned and only sometimes run by people that spend as much time in the Bahamas, or the Hamptons as an office. I can not help but feel that a massive conglomerate with a spendy circle of execs isn't always running a tight ship as far as their bottom line (or is it their top line) is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Actually thanks Jules for being so forthcoming for a change. It sounds like we should be buying stock in your company at this point. You publically traded? LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I think this article kinda sums up a lot of people's feeling on this whole issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/ceo-pay-executive-compensation-up-5-percent-2011_n_1605648.html CEO pay is up 5% and worker wages are up 2.8%. BTW Jules you make a lot more sense (and are a more sensible fellow) when you actually think about what you write rather than being so damn flippant. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 BTW Jules you make a lot more sense (and are a more sensible fellow) when you actually think about what you write rather than being so damn flippant. oh fuck off Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I gotta say Jules always makes me smile. Dude will not be condescended to. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 oh fuck offThank you. I felt that was a shitty gift wrapped insult. I didn't quite know how to express how unsavory i thought the comment was. You summed it up nicely! Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 oh fuck off Ouch, Jules you constantly flippant, you give one line comments and I have award time understanding what point you are trying to make. You come off insensitive and crass. I from your previous post, clearly that is not the case. It was a well reasoned thoughtful argument. Of course you go back with a your regular posts. I am sorry you took offense, but my thoughts remain the same. I think everyone would be better served if we thought about what we wrote. If that makes me a smug pompous ass, then so be it. Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 BTW Jules you make a lot more sense (and are a more sensible fellow) when you actually think about what you write rather than being so damn flippant. in this post you presume to have knowledge of Jules' thought process (or lack thereof). Just because you don't like the content of someone's post does not mean he or she didn't think about the post before posting it. sometimes being flippant takes quite a lot of thought and consideration. Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 If that makes me a smug pompous ass, then so be it. This is the first thing you've posted that I agree with. See, we can find some common ground. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 This is the first thing you've posted that I agree with. See, we can find some common ground. Super, I guess it is beat up on old KevinG day in VC. Clearly, this thread has devolved into a petty name calling and pointless arguments, which is is unfortunate, but not unexpected (as most internet threads tend to do). So instead of exacerbating the problem, can we move the subject to something else? Doesn't anyone want to talk about the elephant in the room of this election? I speak of the amount of money that is being poured into our electoral process. Due to the Supreme Court's Citizen's United more money will be spent in this election cycle than ever before. So what say you all, does money equal speech? Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Ouch, Jules you constantly flippant, you give one line comments and I have award time understanding what point you are trying to make. You come off insensitive and crass. I from your previous post, clearly that is not the case. It was a well reasoned thoughtful argument. Of course you go back with a your regular posts. I am sorry you took offense, but my thoughts remain the same. I think everyone would be better served if we thought about what we wrote. If that makes me a smug pompous ass, then so be it. He is who he is. Or, should I say, his persona here is what he wants it to be. It's the same for all of us, really. There are a some posters here who try to write eloquently and elaborately, who you can tell genuinely want to have a conversation about whatever's being discussed. There are others here who often just wait for opportunities to interject their clever (or dickish) thoughts in response to what's been posted. When done well, both styles can be very entertaining... when done poorly, they can each be annoying. Super, I guess it is beat up on old KevinG day in VC. I chuckled when I saw Jules tell you to fuck off. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Super, I guess it is beat up on old KevinG day in VC. Clearly, this thread has devolved into a petty name calling and pointless arguments, which is is unfortunate, but not unexpected (as most internet threads tend to do). So instead of exacerbating the problem, can we move the subject to something else? Doesn't anyone want to talk about the elephant in the room of this election? I speak of the amount of money that is being poured into our electoral process. Due to the Supreme Court's Citizen's United more money will be spent in this election cycle than ever before. So what say you all, does money equal speech? Sorry bud,,,if it's your time in the bucket,grin and bear it. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Clearly, this thread has devolved into a petty name calling and pointless arguments, which is is unfortunate, but not unexpected (as most internet threads tend to do). Thanks to you. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Thanks to you. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I opened my heart and you called me flippant. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 In fairness, you opened your heart and he called you uncharacteristically not flippant. Oh, hey look, Obama is trying to help out some illegal immigrants. Republicans are pissed about it. Hmmmm.... Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 In fairness, you opened your heart and he called you uncharacteristically not flippant. yeah, this. Be honest, Jules -- it's rare for you to write more than a 10 words of snark, especially in this thread. But you're probably a busy guy with your business and whatnot. Sounds like you have a lot on your plate; we can't expect you to waste time opening up your heart on VC every day, now can we? Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Ahhhh geez, I never saw uncharacteristically not flippant but I did see constantly flippant... I am not in favor of awarding illegal aliens citizenship, whether it's a republican or a democrat. I believe either way it's political pandering. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Wouldn't your belief that it would be pandering confirm how massive the demographic is? Therefore, shouldn't something be done? Also, Obama's executive order would not grant citizenship, just a new kind of work permit/ Visa. This country wouldn't be what it is today without cheap immigrant labor. We might as well show some folks respect, I say. Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Ahhhh geez, I never saw uncharacteristically not flippant but I did see constantly flippant... I am not in favor of awarding illegal aliens citizenship, whether it's a republican or a democrat. I believe either way it's political pandering. so what do you propose we do with a 30 year old that has been here since he/she was 3 years old??? Link to post Share on other sites
calvino Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I am not in favor of awarding illegal aliens citizenship, whether it's a republican or a democrat. I believe either way it's political pandering. With this immigration policy I don't think President Obama is changing his stance (or pandering) on immigration. Is he bringing it up now to get votes - sure - it's his job to get as many votes he can get so he can elected - it's the game of democracy. But if the President hasn't changed his view on immigration with this action - how is it pandering? I do support Obama's action - wish the President's administration and Congress would get off their hands and actually do more... Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Ahhhh geez, I never saw uncharacteristically not flippant but I did see constantly flippant... I am not in favor of awarding illegal aliens citizenship, whether it's a republican or a democrat. I believe either way it's political pandering. You are not understanding what the President's policy is here. He is not granting citizenship to anyone. He, as the head of law enforcement, is merely saying, our immigration enforcement agencies will not actively go and look for illegal immigrants who where brought to the US as children. It is not a priority of the agency, its time a resources are better spent elsewhere. Liken it to when a local municipality decides to not bust someone for a small amount of pot. Is it pandering? Hell yes. Is it the right thing to do? You betcha. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts