What would help a company hire more people?

Question

OK, lets assume you are only going to do ONE thing to hire more people. What do you do?

A) a personal tax break for the owner, which is accounted separately than the accounting for the company. Which if the owner makes 200,000 a year, the tax break will yield him an extra 4000 to 6000 dollars a year into his PERSONAL wallet (not corporate wallet).

~or~

B) A government contract worth 2,000,000 dollars to build new widgets that help repair or improve our infrastructure? Especially if he is currently running near 100% efficiency BEFORE the contract is issued.

What will cause the owner to hire more people, a tax break that only affects his personal wealth (not his corporate reserves), or a new contract to make products that are needed?

Bonus question:
Will a tax break given to the owner stimulate the economy more,
~or~
Will a contract for work, that requires labor, outside services, raw materials, and shipping, help the economy more.

Hint:
A personal tax break touches one hand (the owner only), produces NO product. It also requires the owner to spend, which he may not be inclined to do.
A contract touches many hands (the owner, the workers, the vendors, the suppliers, and the shippers), and produces a real product. Money is already being spent, and more money is in more people's and businesses hands.

Which one stimulates the economy and hiring more?
A) a tax break for the rich
B) a contract for infrastructure repairs and improvements

Answer 1

A only increases wealth.

B increases wealth and production.

Answer 2

Infrastructure is a drain, or cost, of operation a nation. The minute you start looking at investments in infrastructure having long-term economic gains outside of what they are intended to produce, you skew the economics of making the correct decision.



It is like having a janitor at a work place. Not having enough leads to problems. Hiring one or two to perform certain functions that weren't being done is necessary and will be noticed. Like repairing old bridges or building a new road through a highly congested area. But, ultimately, you hire too many janitors and the return is no longer there. Now your labor costs have increased to operate your business and you have to pass that along in your prices. Suddenly, you have the cleanest factory in the world, but no one wants to buy because they can get the product cheaper elsewhere.



Your example only seems to make sense to you because you are looking at two idealized cases, one where the big, bad CEO pockets all the money that you have allowed him to keep, and two, the case where a particular company is running at full production and the award of this imaginary contract suddenly requires a new person(s) to be hired.



The concept that is too big for you to understand is that regardless of how the money is given back to the CEO, that money will be more efficiently invested back into the economy than it will by the government taking it and choosing where it will go. Again, the simplified B scenario gives a liberal a big pick-me-up because they are able to point to a short-term, non-sustainable increase that they can take credit for whereas the A scenario requires more understanding of what is actually involved.

Answer 3

Definitely B, "a contract for infrastructure repairs and improvements." Giving the rich more tax breaks and hoping they will be moved to increase hiring is like leaving the gate on the pen for your sheep open and hoping the wolves will exercise some restraint.



Maybe you can outsource parts and supplies for infrastructure repairs, but much of the actual infrastructure repair needs to take place where the infrastructure actually is.

Answer 4

B, of course



A - will line the owner's pocket... free money with no strings attached.

B - creates a demand for more labor.

Answer 5

You lose sight of the fact that money spent by the government,that was taken from the populace to spend on the populace sounds a lot like a perpetual motion machine,it doesn't work,never has. (and if you could invent a perpetual motion machine it would solve our energy problems too)

Answer 6

The only reason a company would hire more people is consumers buying more of what they are selling.

Answer 7

If they had jobs available would be a main point.

Answer 8

was profit in there somewhere?

Answer 9

fvck

you don't expect me to read your entire question

do you ?