ST Alpha - "they might not raise salaries but they might add staff or keep people on salary they might otherwise not to keep up with the demand -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 156

they might not raise salaries but they might add staff or keep people on salary they might otherwise not to keep up with the demand -- nm

Posted by Beaker (aka anniebecca) Jul 11 '12, 12:17

(No message)

Responses:

[deleted] 27
- Yes, and? -- nm - Reagen Jul 11, 12:28 26
  - [deleted] 2
    - but it's also not what would have been done with the money in the first place. - Reagen Jul 11, 12:38 1
      - [deleted]
  - I think the point is that temp jobs are fine, but spending a billion dollars on - TWuG Jul 11, 12:33 22
    - I don't think anyone's arguing against that. - Reagen Jul 11, 12:35 20
      - I didn't see anyone arguing the money went poof. -- nm - TWuG Jul 11, 12:37
      - [deleted] 17
        
        Ironically, putting a couple billion into the economy might boost it enough to improve Obama's chances. -- nm - TWuG Jul 11, 12:39 4
        
        [deleted] 3
        
        It doesn't need to improve everywhere. Even minor improvements in some localities could be enough - TWuG Jul 11, 12:45 2
        
        [deleted] 1
        
        The likelihood of the alternative is not very high. Ye -- nm - TWuG Jul 11, 13:01
        
        were people going to build a building with their campaign donations? - Reagen Jul 11, 12:39 9
        
        [deleted] 8
        
        Then I don't see why we're bringing infrastructure into this. - Reagen Jul 11, 12:47 7
        
        [deleted] 2
        
        The ad goes poof, but the money goes to producers and creators and reporters, and such. - Reagen Jul 11, 13:02 1
        
        [deleted]
        
        my point was that if someone is donating, it would be better for all to donate to hospitals, and such -- nm - zork Jul 11, 12:50 3
        
        It would be better to use the alternative loosilu posed, which is that it might otherwise sit as liquid assets - con_carne Jul 11, 12:57
        
        well sure. I don't think they were gonna, though. -- nm - Reagen Jul 11, 12:51 1
        
        because the donor is probably seeing a better ROI for themselves in some manner (rather than for society). - zork Jul 11, 12:55
        
        only if you're assuming it would actually be spent otherwise. -- nm - znufrii Jul 11, 12:39 1
        
        [deleted]
      - exactly -- nm - Beaker Jul 11, 12:37
    - [deleted]

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.