Where are those coming from?

i work for an industrial supply house. been in business since 1938. 1938. yes, i said 1938. last year they had the ALL TIME RECORD amount of business. since 1938. there are customers (obviously) and they are spending money.

With the record business last year, did they hire more workers or were the existing workers expected to take up the extra work? If no additional workers were hired, did the employees feel overtasked due to the extra workload?

I'm asking because people seem to think that just because a company has profits they should hire more workers, but if there is no work for them to do why would you hire them?

and we are surpassing that this year. We are staying at the same staffing levels except for dispatch (trucking company), where they did add one person for the additional volume. There IS more work for all of us....ten years ago I started there and sales were 1/4 what they are today. That means the volume of our work has increased dramatically. But they know that we are trapped. There are not many jobs out there, so quitting is not much of an option....so we just kill ourselves trying to keep up.

How about hiring more people so that you don't have to pay the existing ones overtime? Or reducing turnover and sick leave? Or increasing morale and further improving productivity? Or expanding into new markets. There were a ton of folks out shopping yesterday when I went out. Demand appears to be there.
You folks sound like a bunch of republicans.

The poster never said the increased business had resulted in them working overtime and I wanted to know how company reacted (hiring more workers or expecting the employees to work more). I fully agree if there is need for overtime anywhere, there is room for more employment (even part time if it comes to that) at a company, but I wanted to know in this case if it was necessary. As for expanding into new markets, maybe the owners don't want to expand beyond where they're at now; it sounds like the customers are willing to seek them out. Or maybe the increase in business was due to expansion; we don't know from the post. I do, however, stick with my assertion that just because a company is profitable is no reason to hire someone if there is no work to do there. If that's being a Republican, then I guess I am one.

Great find.

Top line growth has been dismal.

Goin' where the taxes AIN'T. Makin' 3 people do the jobs of 25 (while paying those three the wages of two), and all that . . .

Capital strike. That's one strike that must be broken to speed up the recovery.

by corporate American to make a Democratic President look weak for re-election. Corporate America has been striking since he was inaugurated.

Society collapsing when the capitalists go Galt?

of cash they're sitting on ...

and the second panel shows them pushing the eggs out of the nest to make more room for money

Every time a new number comes out that can be spun to Obama's disadvantage, some wise pundit opines that corporations are afraid to hire/invest/expand because they don't like uncertainty, all the while showing record profits and sitting a trillion-dollar mountain of cash.

Really?

I've been passed over for promotions and denied bonuses and raises, and I know people who've been fired outright, specifically because we "don't respond well to uncertainty." It was identified as a professional weakness and was punished accordingly.

But at the corporate level, such intolerance of uncertainty is the greatest virtue and is rewarded with seven-figure salaries and eight-figure bonuses.

A little sauce for the goose, please!

...Obama is not one of "them", the CEO class who likes to play marionette master. Perhaps Obama isn't quite the corporate puppet that many on our side claim him to be - considering how disliked he supposedly is in that world?

I remember hearing about a meeting Obama had with many of the Wall Street bosses and business leaders, right around the time he was elected. My guess is that he said something that proved unsettling to them.

Black"?

Very good toon.

Companies that didn't like him hoarded their profits back then too.

FDR wanted that money put back into circulation so he taxed them heavily on holdover funds effectively telling them to to use it or lose it.

Corporations sunk money back into their businesses to avoid the tax. This often meant hiring more people, paying them more and retooling and expansion, opening up in other locations or splitting operations between several plants. This ended the "raw materials in one door/finished product out the other" type of factory that was once common. Some companies created sub-companies just to supply them with parts so the money wouldn't be taxed. In addition to that companies generously donated to the charity of their choice rather than see the government get it.

The result was a lot of jobs and the profits went back into circulation where they did some good.

thus not much change.

Give the job creators an incentive to hire by lowering their taxes.

And yet it hasn't worked. Hmm.

until I saw what happened in the press with Trayvon Martin. I guess as a straight white woman I assumed we had put a lot of the racial problems in this country behind us. I was wrong. This cartoon should be rec'ced up to a thousand. It completely captures a big problem in this country at this point in time. This and the bizarre refusal to tax rich people.