I would say the 50’s, which is one of the reasons so many businesses that lived through them got themselves into trouble by offering high wages, getting locked into dangerously inflexible union contracts, and becoming very stodgy and inimaginative in their practices. Much of the world was devastated but recovering, fueling American exports and growth. Early consumer electronics was improving, but in a fairly quiet and predictable manner. Even the dawning Cold War was a relatively stagnate situation.
I think s/he is suggesting that you are fishing in this thread. I happen to agree. What you REALLY want to do is try and disprove or dismiss the idea that uncertainty is causing some of the troubles we are going through without actually having to address the points that were raised in the quotes you put in your OP. Seeing as how your philosophy demonstrated in previous threads runs contrary to some of the statements you’ve made in THIS thread, I’d say it’s fairly clear who you are fishing for.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Well, from your quote in the OP: “Small businesses aren’t hiring because they are uncertain of the immediate future, or what directly Obama et al are taking us. They don’t know if their taxes are suddenly going to go up, they don’t know exactly what the costs of the new health care reforms are going to be on them in the short…”
You said it yourself, they aren’t certain of what Obama is going to do, so they aren’t hiring. To which I ask, when were they certain about the future? Certain enough that they would go out and hire people? I proposed a few dates that coincided with when unemployment was going down, do you have some in mind?
“They don’t know if their taxes are suddenly going to go up.” That’s right, but 4 years ago they were certain their taxes wouldn’t go up, presumably because Bush has so good posture.
Great, they hired, life was good, then what?
Simply stated, I reject the notion that “fearing taxes might go up” should out weigh the fear of complete and utter melt down of the financial system.
To suggest that businesses aren’t hiring because Obama causes uncertainty implies that at some point businesses were certain enough to hire. When was that, and why?
[QUOTE=emacknight]
When was that, and why?
[/QUOTE]
The short answer would be ‘all the times the economy didn’t suck’. Why? ‘Because the economy didn’t suck’. 
Well, it’s a false dichotomy. The reason businesses aren’t hiring doesn’t boil down to an either or. They ‘fear taxes might go up’ (plus all the other stuff your statement fails to take into account on the government side) PLUS they aren’t certain about the financial outlook of the entire system. Plus myriad other reasons.
Actually, taxes DID go up under Bush. They rose pretty steadily from (IIRC) about 2004 until he left office. But there wasn’t any uncertainty that they might jump suddenly, or that there might be other unknown costs (such as the questions about what the health care reforms my cost businesses).
Then people complained about how high unemployment was.
-XT
1932 or so. Everyone then was pretty much certain that the economy was in the crapper.
Indeed not.
There always are, and always have been, risks and uncertainty in business. Anything else is a fantasy.
Have there been any surveys of small business owners to confirm that their reluctance to hire/expand is, at least in part, due to their impression of Obama’s policies?
Who needs surveys when we’ve got memes?
The results should be interesting. I expect this:
FOX
Mr. Small Businessman, are you not hiring or expanding your business because of the uncertainty caused by Barak Hussein Obama’s anti-business policies?
MSNBC
Mr. Small Businessman, are you not hiring or expanding your business because of the economic conditions caused by the Bush administration’s incompetence?
CNN
Mr. Small Businessman, are you not hiring or expanding your business because of something Rick Sanchez or Wolf Blitzer said?
HLN
Mr. Small Businessman, are you not hiring or expanding your business because of Lindsay Lohan?
And Congress plays no role here? Is it possible that events, issues and policies of previous administrations (note use of the plural) finally combined into a Perfect Storm? Careful reading of many threads here the past several months seem to indicate this economy has its roots firmly entrenched long before Obama took center stage. While he may have contributed to the ongoing mess to some degree, the scapegoating is rampant.
ACCORDING to the latest data from the National Federation of Independent Business, small businesses were more optimistic in January than they were in December, but the NFIB’s index of business optimism remains at historic lows. Sentiment improved across a range of categories—employment, sales expectations, and credit conditions, for example—but things remain pretty grim. Once more, firms cutting employment outnumbered those adding jobs, which is particularly distressing given the job-creating role small business plays in the economy.
What’s the biggest problem?
“Small business owners entered 2010 the same way they left 2009, depressed,” said William Dunkelberg, NFIB chief economist. “The biggest problem continues to be a shortage of customers.”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/02/small_business
The idea that it’s down to Obama’s policies is just ridiculous righty spin. There is “uncertainty” out there but it’s uncertainty over when and whether business — consumer demand, which is 71% of US GDP – will pick up. Businesses know how much healthcare will cost them in the future (it’ll keep on skyrocketing) and they know that there’s zero chance of any kind of cap and trade bill passing the Senate in the forseeable future. These two issues are the ones the right try and blame “uncertainty” on, basically as a way to try and create as much pressure as possible to block any progess on those issues. Other than that any “uncertainty” is down to the economy being fucked and it being difficult to see how its going to get back to trend any time soon due to consumers being broke, having had a big chunk of their net worth wiped out in the collapse of the housing bubble and who are now saving instead of spending.
Here’s an argument from absurdity to show why what you said bothers me:
I was going to drink a bunch of arsenic yesterday, but I didn’t, wanna know why? It was because I was worried Obama might suddenly raise my taxes. There were a few other reasons, like poisoning and death, but mostly it was the tax thing.
Essentially, to suggest businesses aren’t hiring because they fear what Obama might do is lame, and little more than a cheap political stunt so long as they are also worried about the financial outlook of the entire system.
I believe the expression is, “it’s the fall that’s gunna kill you.” I think the other expression people used to use a lot is that this tactic is “intellectually dishonest.” If you* know that there are a myriad of other reasons, few of which have anything to do with Obama, the respectable thing is to pick some of the large ones first, and leave the political sniping for the pit.
*you in the general sense.
[QUOTE=emacknight]
Here’s an argument from absurdity to show why what you said bothers me:
I was going to drink a bunch of arsenic yesterday, but I didn't, wanna know why? It was because I was worried Obama might suddenly raise my taxes. There were a few other reasons, like poisoning and death, but mostly it was the tax thing.
[/QUOTE]
Um…yeah. Ok. So this is supposed to be an absurd argument that demonstrates…what, exactly?
What can I say…reality must be lame then. Either that, or you are failing to grasp the argument, failing to understand things from a businesses perspective, and, well, simply failing.
Let me give you and example of why, right now, my company isn’t going to hire new people. They are worried about what the loaded cost of new employees (not to mention the folks they already have) will be, because they don’t know exactly what the tax picture will be in the next year or so, and they aren’t sure of what effect, if any, the health care reforms will have on those loaded costs. Now, you might THINK this is ‘lame’, but it’s the way people who actually understand what ‘loaded costs’ MEANS, think. You see, if they hire, oh, say 5 new people, and the loaded costs for those people exceed the companies ability to support them (and make that dirty ‘profit’ stuff), then they will have to lay those people off…and, maybe, lay off some that are currently working for us (like, say, me…which would not be fun).
I believe the expression is ‘appealing to ignorance’ or perhaps ‘assertion from ignorance’…I’m not sure which applies to you in this case, you can pick either if you like. However, before accusing me of being intellectually dishonest, you should really at least make a token effort to understand what I’m saying…and, perhaps to consider that, even if I’m wrong, I THINK that this is the case, so I’m not being ‘intellectually dishonest’. Personally, I think that you have epically failed to even grasp the edges of what I’m actually saying, but I concede that MMV.
-XT
No, I don’t think it’s lame, I think it’s sadly ignorant and reflective of poor judgment. I don’t mean that to suggest that your company shouldn’t consider the cost of new employees. I’m saying that because if their only consideration is “the potential for more taxes in the future” they are neglecting a whole host of other factors. You know, like revenue projections. In other words, who gives a fuck if taxes are going to “suddenly” go up or down 5% if your revenue is going to “suddenly” go up or down 30%.
Let’s consider another real life example at the company I used to work for. It’s a medical research company that uses stem cells. They were happy voting Republican because that made them feel safe and secure about what taxes were going to do. They were so secure they hired a bunch of staff. The research was really promising but they didn’t care, because it’s all about what the taxes will be like in a year, and all you’re concerned about is future taxes. Well, Republicans went and blocked federal funding for stem cell research, all the research dried up, and the researchers had to be fired. Are you able to see how focusing on “tax changes in the future” will ultimately doom you?
According to the US Labor Department the total job losses in 2008 were 2.6 million (the highest level in more than six decades). A lot of those people were hired during the “certainty” of the Bush era. Why were they laid off? Fear of future taxes, because taxes suddenly changed, or because the financial industry collapsed?
In other words, what was the point of being certain about taxes if the fall is going to kill you?
Personally, I’d rather be uncertain about whether health care costs will be high or low than be certain that they’re going to stay high.
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Personally, I’d rather be uncertain about whether health care costs will be high or low than be certain that they’re going to stay high.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, who wouldn’t. The point, however, is that if you are ‘certain’ they will do one thing or the other then you can make plans, predictions and forecasts of your costs. If you don’t know, then it’s harder to make plans. And if there are a lot of things changing, and you are uncertain (that word again) of how it may or may not impact your business and costs, then you are less likely to expand in that environment, and more likely to take a wait and see attitude.
[QUOTE=emacknight]
In other words, what was the point of being certain about taxes if the fall is going to kill you?
[/QUOTE]
Knowing is better than not knowing and trying to guess. Seems obvious to me.
Seriously? Let’s see. By 2008 the Bush administration had run out of steam. There was a recession looming or already here, we had 2 seemingly failed foreign wars, and there was going to be a change in administration regardless, since Bush had already had his two terms (and even if he hadn’t, he was running at like 20% approval by then). Also, people (ordinary types) could see that there was a looming housing crisis soon to impact us.
You see, in the real world there are many factors that can account for a downturn in business, which leads to downturns in the economy and more specifically in the hiring/laying off cycle. The factors impacting us today are different than those impacting us during the end days of the Bush administration.
Seriously, I don’t know what you are getting at. Why do YOU think business isn’t hiring tons of people today? Because the economy sucks? That goes along with the joke I gave upthread…the economy sucks because it sucks? You seem to disbelieve that business is wary of what the additional costs might be for all these shinny new programs the government is advocating, or for the debt that this administration and the previous one piled on, or about the very real prospect of new taxes that might impact ‘the rich’ and business. Ok…so you disbelieve. Find. What do YOU think are the reasons then? Is it a conspiracy by business to make the Dems and Obama look bad? Is the economy bad because it’s bad?
-XT
Just to be sure of what you are saying, would you prefer to know that you will die tomorrow, to just guessing that you might die? Or do you prefer knowing of your death tomorrow to say a 90% chance that you would die tomorrow? Or does your statement not apply to all cases? Maybe not to waste your last day on false hope in the second case. Just trying to clarify your principle there. Not a judgement of any answer.
Well, my preference would be for analogies that are, you know, analogous. However, to answer your loaded question, I’d say…it depends. If I know I’m going to die at some point in the next few years, then knowing exactly when it’s going to happen would help me prepare for it financially as well as on all the other levels I’d need to deal with. That’s really the best answer I can give to that one.
Now, back to the discussion?
-XT
The “end of Bush’s reign” came in January 2009, when the Dow wasn’t at all “peaking”.
If you’re attributing the drop in the DJIA in the last half of 2008 to Obama winning the nomination/election, I strongly urge you to look up articles about Bear Stearns/Lehman Brothers bankruptcy/TARP/AIG/derivatives/the “Great Recession”/etc… you might learn that there were other factors that likely took greater precedence to the market indices than the upcoming election.
To answer the OP’s question… I would say sometime between 1949 and 1967. Um… June 1954, to put a month/year to the question.
You’ll notice that you failed to mention the uncertainty of future taxes, taxes that Obama will likely raise.
Unless you’re trying to suggest that there are other factors business might consider besides sudden changes in tax rates.