US companies churn out profits but cautious on hiring

[OhioChick]

Source: Reuters

25 Jul, 2011, 03.00AM IST, Reuters

NEW YORK: The sluggish pace of hiring may be hobbling the US economy, but it's not been holding back big US companies' profits thanks to growth overseas and cost controls at home. And that's bad news for the more than 14 million Americans without jobs.

Big businesses would normally be desperate for surging job growth as it would feed into domestic demand but these aren't normal times. Massive growth opportunities overseas, especially inChina and other buoyant Asian economies, have some of the largest American companies on track for record profits, even if they're businesses are mostly treading water in the US.

The message last week from the chief financial officer of one of the nation's industrial giants couldn't be clearer.

"We've driven all this cost out. Sales have come back, but people have not," said Greg Haynes, chief financial officer atUnited Technologies Corp. "It's the structural cost reductions that we have done over the past few years that have allowed us to see strong bottom-line results."

Read more: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/us-companies-churn-out-profits-but-cautious-on-hiring/articleshow/9352498.cms

[defendandprotect]

1. They're knocking down salaries -- leaving workers hanging for jobs -- 21% who need real jobs!!

[OwnedByFerrets]

2. Why hire when you can get MAKE your employees work harder

for the same money. AMERICAN PRODUCTIVITY MY ASS.

[Denver Progressive]

3. Ding! ding! ding!

we have a winner!! :hi:

[No Elephants]

10. Between paying less and working people harder, and offshoring, who needs to hire?

Wake up, America.

[earcandle]

4. without our labor. They can't be American companies if they aren't employing Americans and paying

taxes.

[No Elephants]

11. Bingo. More like anti-American companies.

[buckrogers1965]

5. In moments of despair

I wonder if the companies aren't hiring just to make you democrats look bad.

[christx30]

6. Or they just don't

want to expand or hire because they don't know what taxes are going to do next year. Washington needs to make a friggin' decision.

[No Elephants]

14. I thought that was last year's excuse? What was the excuse in 2009 and 2008? I forget.

568 posts since April 9, 2006? I admire your restraint. I can never seem to break my DU posting addiction.

Are you any relation to christx30? He seems similarly restrained, with only 4 posts since April 5, 2008 and you're both from Texas. Cousins?

Anyhoo, seems pretty clear tax increases are off the table, even closing loopholes. At this point, nobody's proposal, including that of Senate Democrats, includes a revenue component. So, I guess we expect a hiring boom, starting tomorrow?

[christx30]

18. That's me

I just couldn't remember my password or what email I used to register. So I had to start a new account. I do post as much as I can. But I have 2 jobs and work 7 days a week. Plus I have two kids that take up a lot of my time.
Anway...
I'm not saying that the job boom is going to happen. But I know that I wouldn't do anything right now if it were me. I'd be watching them in washington to see what they are going to do before I expanded or hired.

[lunatica]

7. 'you democrats'?

[Auntie Bush]

9. What's this with the "YOU Democrats"? So you're not one of us?

[lunatica]

19. Did you mean to reply to me or to post #5?

[Auntie Bush]

20. Sorry about that! Yes, I should have replyed to post #5. nt

[hack89]

8. Business hates uncertainty

until this debt ceiling issue is resolved businesses won't be making big plans.

[No Elephants]

13. They weren't hiring well before the debt ceiling circus began.

[No Elephants]

12. "These companies" let go of the Dem v. Pub paradigm years ago.

It's been rich (of the world, not only the U.S.) v. everyone else, with the rich using people of both major U.S. political parties to achieve their goals--and people of both political parties have been accommodating them.

[bossy22]

17. well recent surveys say that business isnt hiring

because its uncertain of the recovery.

[BR_Parkway]

15. a big part of the profits are that they got rid of the workers, no that they're

"cautious on hiring"

[bossy22]

16. i don't blame them for doing that

if they can produce the same amount with less workers than its only logical to either lay off workers- it makes the company more efficient. You can't expect a publicly traded company to take on more cost than it needs to. first off its a quick way to find yourself out of business, second of all you arent putting the stockholders first- which is the primary goal of publicly traded companies.