The deficit has shrunk under Obama. So are you going to start hiring employees that you don't need? Or will you wait to hire until you actually need the employees, regardless of the deficit?

Those questions don't require answers because everyone already knows the answers.

TEC!!!!!!!  EXPLAIN THIS TO YOUR BUDDY!!!!

"If I have the confidence in our government to not raise my taxes to create revenue for their out of control spending, I'd be more inclined to increase my expenses.  As it stands, I don't think they can do it.  I think my personal taxes and my business taxes will increase in order to increase government revenue to fund their projects."

So you're just going to repeat yourself over and over again? Why don't you explain to us how your taxes don't feel "marginal." That way everyone has an idea of the intellectual powerhouse that is miket.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/28/2013 10:30:00 AM (view original):
So you're just going to repeat yourself over and over again? Why don't you explain to us how your taxes don't feel "marginal." That way everyone has an idea of the intellectual powerhouse that is miket.

Exactly.

Mike's condescending remarks, in light of his marginal tax dumbassery, make him the WIS version of this guy:

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/28/2013 10:25:00 AM (view original):
TEC!!!!!!!  EXPLAIN THIS TO YOUR BUDDY!!!!

"If I have the confidence in our government to not raise my taxes to create revenue for their out of control spending, I'd be more inclined to increase my expenses.  As it stands, I don't think they can do it.  I think my personal taxes and my business taxes will increase in order to increase government revenue to fund their projects."

I don't think I can explain this any other way.  He just doesn't like your asnwer, or he doesn't agree with it, so he chooses to reject it as non-responsive.

Don't be mad because I'm not answering you with a number.   The world is multi-faceted.    Everything isn't black/white, one/two or yes/no.   There are grays, fractions and maybes.   You have to be able to understand the big picture.  

Might I suggest some remedial reading night classes?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/28/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Don't be mad because I'm not answering you with a number.   The world is multi-faceted.    Everything isn't black/white, one/two or yes/no.   There are grays, fractions and maybes.   You have to be able to understand the big picture.  

Might I suggest some remedial reading night classes?

Is Mike so dumb he thinks bad_luck was asking for a literal, numerical answer?

I used to run a preschool/childcare center. There were two situations where we would hire staff members we didnt "need".

1. At one point we had 4 classrooms. Now a preschool is different than staffing a Target. If you have 4 cashiers scheduled and one calls in sick you can run with 3. That doesnt work at a preschool... so we hired a 5th teacher, and adjusted them all to work 4-ten hour shifts. The 5th preson then rotated room to room on the others "off" day. Also they came in if someone called in sick.

The bennifits were always having a sub ready to go (and not having to use an outside subbing contractor) and becuase of the 10 hr day many of the parents saw the same teacher at drop off as pick up which was a big plus for them. It also made the staff happier as they were able to easily schedule things like Dr. appointments, car repairs etc. And with the rotating off days you could make use of a 3 day weekend.  (note the assistans in the rooms stayed on the normal 5X8 work week)

2. I pushed to hire from the high school internship program and we created a 15 hr a week posisition. (sometimes we split it between two girls) In the afternoons this person came in, helped get kids off the bus (for our after school program) got afternoon snack ready and helped shut down classrooms at the end of the day, vacum, take out trash etc. All things that would fall on our regualr staff normally. Again, increased moral and made things run much smoother.

We could have goten by with out going to 4X10 and adding a person or with out the extra 15 hour a week spot so we didnt need them.

Both of these things went by the wayside when the economy started to tank.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/28/2013 10:25:00 AM (view original):
TEC!!!!!!!  EXPLAIN THIS TO YOUR BUDDY!!!!

"If I have the confidence in our government to not raise my taxes to create revenue for their out of control spending, I'd be more inclined to increase my expenses.  As it stands, I don't think they can do it.  I think my personal taxes and my business taxes will increase in order to increase government revenue to fund their projects."

I don't think I can explain this any other way.  He just doesn't like your asnwer, or he doesn't agree with it, so he chooses to reject it as non-responsive.

Yeah, I know.   I agree that no one would hire an employee they don't need, the basis of his question, unless they anticipate the need.   You'd only anticipate the need if it was based on a contract or a belief that the economy would get better due to an increase in consumer confidence.  With nothing but bad news, including claims of a rising deficit, out of control spending and Obama's own doomsday proclamations concerning a sequester, that just won't happen.

Yet, because I didn't drop a specific number on him, he just can't figure it out.

I'll answer your question first, tec, and maybe you can explain to him.

Most companies are overstaffed.  They do this to cover for vacations, sick days, basic incompetence, peak demand periods, etc, etc.   If they weren't, boards like this would go silent at noon on Tuesdays except for three unemployed dudes and a night shift worker.   So, in reality, they have employees they don't need already.   But, if you're not overstaffed, you'd hire an employee you don't need in anticipation of the need.    Say your business makes $1000 day.   You have a new contract on the line that will begin next month.   You'll make $1200 a day and your already thin staff will be overworked.  So, in order to properly serve your new customer, you'll need to add a worker.  You hire someone a month in advance for training and evaluation.  They make $100 a day.  You've "wasted" $2000(20x100) in overstaffing but you'll make that back in 10 days next month and your new customer, or old customers, will not suffer because your new employee will be fully trained.   That's a simplified version dealing with set numbers, employees and customers.   That's not real world, in most cases, but it's why a business would hire an employee they don't need.

I guess I wouldn't classify this as an "employee that you don't need".  You're hiring the employee for a specific reason, to ensure adequate coverage of your business needs.  Or in reasonable anticipation of an impending business need.  It's not just a random hire with no purpose behind it.

bad_luck's question seems to imply that he believes that companies either do, or should, randomly hire people for no purpose if they have confidence in the financial health of the government.

That's kind of dumb.

Agreed. We just hired an on call person. Not "needed" in the grand scheme of things, but nice to have for vacation filler/sick calls. It's actually pretty crazy how many shifts a person can pick up in that spot.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2013 10:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll answer your question first, tec, and maybe you can explain to him.

Most companies are overstaffed.  They do this to cover for vacations, sick days, basic incompetence, peak demand periods, etc, etc.   If they weren't, boards like this would go silent at noon on Tuesdays except for three unemployed dudes and a night shift worker.   So, in reality, they have employees they don't need already.   But, if you're not overstaffed, you'd hire an employee you don't need in anticipation of the need.    Say your business makes $1000 day.   You have a new contract on the line that will begin next month.   You'll make $1200 a day and your already thin staff will be overworked.  So, in order to properly serve your new customer, you'll need to add a worker.  You hire someone a month in advance for training and evaluation.  They make $100 a day.  You've "wasted" $2000(20x100) in overstaffing but you'll make that back in 10 days next month and your new customer, or old customers, will not suffer because your new employee will be fully trained.   That's a simplified version dealing with set numbers, employees and customers.   That's not real world, in most cases, but it's why a business would hire an employee they don't need.

I guess I wouldn't classify this as an "employee that you don't need".  You're hiring the employee for a specific reason, to ensure adequate coverage of your business needs.  Or in reasonable anticipation of an impending business need.  It's not just a random hire with no purpose behind it.

bad_luck's question seems to imply that he believes that companies either do, or should, randomly hire people for no purpose if they have confidence in the financial health of the government.

That's kind of dumb.

I think that's exactly the opposite of what he's saying. It was a rhetorical question. The point was that hiring decisions aren't made on the basis of an abstract faith in the financial health of the government (specifically with respect to the debt).

Not being facetious but I don't think I'd be that surprised, assuming a decent-sized staff, in your business.   It's obviously a stereotype but waitresses/servers are often young women. Many with less than any college eduction.  And, in my experience, young women are ridiculously unreliable.   I'd honestly expect, on a 10 person shift employing these women, that at least one would miss virtually every shift.

Posted by genghisxcon on 2/28/2013 10:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/28/2013 10:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll answer your question first, tec, and maybe you can explain to him.

Most companies are overstaffed.  They do this to cover for vacations, sick days, basic incompetence, peak demand periods, etc, etc.   If they weren't, boards like this would go silent at noon on Tuesdays except for three unemployed dudes and a night shift worker.   So, in reality, they have employees they don't need already.   But, if you're not overstaffed, you'd hire an employee you don't need in anticipation of the need.    Say your business makes $1000 day.   You have a new contract on the line that will begin next month.   You'll make $1200 a day and your already thin staff will be overworked.  So, in order to properly serve your new customer, you'll need to add a worker.  You hire someone a month in advance for training and evaluation.  They make $100 a day.  You've "wasted" $2000(20x100) in overstaffing but you'll make that back in 10 days next month and your new customer, or old customers, will not suffer because your new employee will be fully trained.   That's a simplified version dealing with set numbers, employees and customers.   That's not real world, in most cases, but it's why a business would hire an employee they don't need.

I guess I wouldn't classify this as an "employee that you don't need".  You're hiring the employee for a specific reason, to ensure adequate coverage of your business needs.  Or in reasonable anticipation of an impending business need.  It's not just a random hire with no purpose behind it.

bad_luck's question seems to imply that he believes that companies either do, or should, randomly hire people for no purpose if they have confidence in the financial health of the government.

That's kind of dumb.

I think that's exactly the opposite of what he's saying. It was a rhetorical question. The point was that hiring decisions aren't made on the basis of an abstract faith in the financial health of the government (specifically with respect to the debt).

Exactly. Companies don't hire employees they don't need. Demand drives hiring, not the confidence fairy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/28/2013 10:53:00 AM (view original):
Not being facetious but I don't think I'd be that surprised, assuming a decent-sized staff, in your business.   It's obviously a stereotype but waitresses/servers are often young women. Many with less than any college eduction.  And, in my experience, young women are ridiculously unreliable.   I'd honestly expect, on a 10 person shift employing these women, that at least one would miss virtually every shift.

You wouldn't believe how many resumes I get with masters degrees on them. Five of us, including myself, have BA/BS's at my job. We just had an 18 month run of zero turnover. We're kinda the outlier in the grand scheme of the service industry.