It’s safe to say most corporate heads outside of Silicon Valley are Republicans, correct? Is it fair to say that in the behind-closed-doors private donor meetings, these CEOs and corporate board members were encouraged to hire as few people as possible until after the election? Poor employment numbers only help the Republicans.
How crazy is this notion?
It’s not like all companies can hire people and boom, the economy is good. There are economic indicators that show which sectors push the economy. The depressed housing market is still a big factor. That hasn’t changed. Are there contracts and orders that aren’t bring filled because of lack of workers? Are there thousands of open positions in profitable companies that are unfilled? No.
You can justify this, right. I mean, you have some stats to back it up. Because, if the polls I have seen are anything to go by, the US seem pretty finely divided on a Republican/Democrat split and I would guess that corporate heads as a group reflect that split too.
Pretty crazy. Successful business leaders don’t make counterproductive decisions to influence politics - that would make them unsuccessful pretty rapidly.
Good. When it comes to this, I’d rather be crazy than right.
It’s not safe to say that without something to back it up. I would suspect that more that 50% of CEOs would describe themselves as fiscally conservative, but that doesn’t mean a majority (let alone “most”) are Republicans.
Koch Industries: https://kochcareers.taleo.net/careersection/2/joblist.ftl
and its subsidiary Georgia Pacific: https://kochcareers.taleo.net/careersection/22/joblist.ftl
have over a 1,000 job openings currently listed. If your theory was accurate, surely this group wouldn’t be hiring.
Sure they say they are looking to hire, but have they actually hired anybody?
That said, the idea that business owners or CEOs would purposefully hamstring their businesses for years in the hopes that it hurt might thwart Obama’s re-election (and that their competitors wouldn’t “cheat” and hire people in the meantime) strikes me as rather implausible.
That’s because Romney won the debate.
According to Jim Cramer on the Today Show this morning, companies are making record profits without having to hire people to increase their profits. So why have an added expense of hiring people to increase the bottom line when the bottom line is already very, very good?
This report appears to be saying why hire anyone to increase your profits when you already have the money?
I believe a lot of companies are kind of holding their breath on hiring, waiting to see where things go in the economy before they invest in new workers. That is different room what the OP is talking about. I don’t think any single company is in a position to substantially affect the unemployment numbers beyond a fraction of a fraction of a percent, even if they want to.
Besides, if they wanted Romney to be president, CEOs would hire as many people as possible and make them all millionaires.