Are companies responsible to create jobs?

I read this article on line and thought it may be good for our active board.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42349181/ns/business-world_business/

Well, if jobs don't come from companies hiring people, where else would they come from?

I don't think companies are necessarily responsible for creating and keeping jobs that they don't need. And whether they should or not, the simple fact is that they won't unless forced to. There does need to be a force to counteract the natural business inclination to make cuts wherever possible.

They can be given incentives to but they don't have to.

Very good but very depressing article.

For some reason, this doesn't surprise me. And there goes the paper bag.

Could any of you three play hard ass in a better way?

I seriously doubt any of them knows how to play 'hard ass'. I just don't know if I should laugh or facepalm.

Not hard ass

The one thng I notice about people with weak intellects is they move directly to ignoring the discussion and into personal criticism. The other thing I notice is that the minds on this board agree that companies are not responsible to create jobs. I agree. The government is responsible to create the best climate for jobs. I suggest that we tariff all goods made off shore at the labor content and use minimum wage as the hourly rate.

I don't always agree with people here either but I would hardly call them people with weak intellects.As a matter of fact I happily concede to the fact that there are quite a few here smarter and/or more knowledgeable than I am. Just because they don't think the way you does not make them stupid or less knowledgeable. I don't know what you think playing hardass is but making yourself look like an idiot is not it.

I suggest that we train pigs to fly.

And you're countering these 'weak intellects' with... personal criticism? You don't see the problem there?

While it's true that we need to move more jobs back into the US, simply slapping down tariffs isn't the best way to go about it, especially alone. We'd end up lowering quality of life almost across the board, because there would need to be a sudden, massive reinvestment in American industry--the cost of which would come out of consumers' pockets. Consumers' pockets are pretty empty already, you may have noticed.

What we need to do is shift the profits from economic expansion away from the capital markets and back into the middle and bottom of the economy. If a company expands, its workers should benefit from that expansion. We can manage that by creating tax breaks for jobs and job improvements, and by taxing the everliving fuck out of the financial industry. Then, as needed, we can selectively apply tariffs.

You have a very weak grasp of geopolitics. Mine probably isn't the strongest; I certainly don't claim to be an expert. But I at least understand that the best way to avoid eventual war with China--which we do not want--is to keep them as a trading partner. Than means we have to be careful with tariffs. Despite our military strength, we are primarily a trade-based empire. I don't want us to become an empire on the terms that Britain, Spain, and Rome were empires, because those methods are even further out of line with the values our nation was founded on than our current activities.

Who knows what intellect this is coming from considering you have 3 different people posting from the same account...but maybe all 3 together will equal....nah...probably not.

Come on now, maybe it was a figure of speech - maybe he/she is all one person with three personalities, and the hating social workers thing is come by honestly.

What? It could be true.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)