Corporations Sitting On $1.84 Trillion Cash

[Fr8monkey]

... SO where are all the jobs that Conservatives say there will be if we give money to the rich?

Link

 

[bathsheba666]

India, China, Vietnam

 

[Cull]

The Chinese shall never let go of their money. MONEY!

I don't find this surprising.

 

[Dachs]

When I see a thread title involving the words "$1.84 trillion cash", I expect to see cash. You know, an actual picture of all that green stuff. Which is sorely lacking in the linked article.

I demand action!

 

[kulade]

When I see a thread title involving the words "$1.84 trillion cash", I expect to see cash. You know, an actual picture of all that green stuff. Which is sorely lacking in the linked article.

I demand action!

Luckily the AP did release the accompanying photograph:

Spoiler :

 

[Tee Kay]

I used to fantasize having having a massive money bin like Uncle Scrooge.

 

[fizikis]

I used to fantasize having having a massive money bin like Uncle Scrooge.

Why did you stop?

 

[Tee Kay]

Why did you stop?

For other fantasies, of course.

 

[really]

I didn't read the article but hovering over the link title says they have $1.8 trillion in profits not cash.

Profits and cash are not the same.

 

[Gangor]

To reply to the OP, I skimmed the link in question, and the author seems to be complaining that corporations don't hire people despite having colectively large cash reserves (correct me if I'm wrong). The reason for this is that no firm will hire people if they're not likely to profit in the transaction. Corporations (and business in general) exist to make a profit, and don't hire people just for the sake of it. Regulations (as mentioned in the forementioned link) cause uncertainty and risk, and therefore reduce the likelyhood of making a profit from the work of any new employees.

If governments want to create more jobs, they must make employing people more profitable. There are several ways to do this:

Reduce regulation - by removing these disincentives to employ people, companies will be more likely to hire new employees.

Spend more money (build roads, pay state employees more, give it away, etc) - more money in the pockets of people who can then spend it creates the opportunity for more jobs.

Reduce taxes - ditto for the previous point, but somewhat more efficient.

Reduce the minimum wage - of course, it's usually not minimum wage jobs governments generally want to create, and this could have repercussions for those already in employment.

Subsidise employment - sounds stupid, unless you consider the cost of welfare payments and the possible unpalatability of some of the other suggestions here.

A sensible government might use some or all of these measures. Of course, spending money or reducing taxes has long term debt repercussions...

 

[civver_764]

I didn't read the article but hovering over the link title says they have $1.8 trillion in profits not cash.

Profits and cash are not the same.

Profits they could be using to give their workers higher compensation or create more jobs.

 

[Godwynn]

Profits they could be using to give their workers higher compensation or create more jobs.

It's hard to give employees higher compensation from profits, if the profits are in the form of receivables.

 

[Gangor]

Profits they could be using to give their workers higher compensation or create more jobs.

Like I just said, to exist jobs must create profit - you've got it around the wrong way

 

[Leonel]

It'll trickle down eventually!

Much the same way that the crumbs from the feast of the bourgeois trickled down to the proletariat during 1910's Russia!

 

[JerichoHill]

Why are companies holding cash

because the economic and political climate is highly uncertain

households are doing the same thing

Sigh.

 

[Disgustipated]

Obama should steal it and give it to teachers and government workers.

 

[Merkinball]

... SO where are all the jobs that Conservatives say there will be if we give money to the rich?

Link

That's not their cash, that's our cash! We need gubmint to require them to hire the unemployed with that money!

 

[Quackers]

It'll trickle down eventually!

Much the same way that the crumbs from the feast of the bourgeois trickled down to the proletariat during 1910's Russia!

1910 Russia wasn't exactly a true free-market..

 

[Integral]

Why are companies holding cash

because the economic and political climate is highly uncertain

households are doing the same thing

Sigh.

what he said. This has nothing to do with trickle-down.

(I'd go on my interest-on-reserves tirade but the article specifically mentions nonfinancial companies.)

 

[Cutlass]

To reply to the OP, I skimmed the link in question, and the author seems to be complaining that corporations don't hire people despite having colectively large cash reserves (correct me if I'm wrong). The reason for this is that no firm will hire people if they're not likely to profit in the transaction. Corporations (and business in general) exist to make a profit, and don't hire people just for the sake of it. Regulations (as mentioned in the forementioned link) cause uncertainty and risk, and therefore reduce the likelyhood of making a profit from the work of any new employees.

If governments want to create more jobs, they must make employing people more profitable. There are several ways to do this:

Reduce regulation - by removing these disincentives to employ people, companies will be more likely to hire new employees.

Spend more money (build roads, pay state employees more, give it away, etc) - more money in the pockets of people who can then spend it creates the opportunity for more jobs.

Reduce taxes - ditto for the previous point, but somewhat more efficient.

Reduce the minimum wage - of course, it's usually not minimum wage jobs governments generally want to create, and this could have repercussions for those already in employment.

Subsidise employment - sounds stupid, unless you consider the cost of welfare payments and the possible unpalatability of some of the other suggestions here.

A sensible government might use some or all of these measures. Of course, spending money or reducing taxes has long term debt repercussions...

Cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting the real value of the minimum wage erode hasn't created jobs in the past. Why should we expect that that previous experience will result in a different outcome this time?