If you were the boss in charge of your own company, who would you hire to work for you, Obama or Mit

reply to post by CyberTruth


This is a great question, because politically, I've been slightly leaning towards Obama, although I don't plan to vote for either one. BUT, in the context you lay out, I think I'd be more likely to hire Romney, so this was an eye-opener!

Of course, it depends on the role. I think I'd rather have Obama as an outside sales person, but I'd rather have Romney as a supervisor or manager of some sort.

In all reality, if it were my business, I could find better candidates than both of them! If it were my business, my bread and butter, I wouldn't settle for the lesser of two evils, I would advertise until I found the right person to fill the role. This is what the American Public needs to remember! We don't have to pick one or the other, we can keep interviewing applicants until we get the one that best fills our needs.

reply to post by CyberTruth




That is easy. Obama. At least i can trust him not to ruin the place and place the importance I demand on the environment and individual human rights such as women, immigrants and gays. If you are only pandering to or addressing a small minority of the Nation whether it be white men or rich people you are going to disenfranchise a lot of good people working hard to make it and get ahead too. In fact you are going to shut out most of the Nation if you do not address the poor and the middle class first. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. Whatever his financial skill set is, I have to trust him first.

Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by CyberTruth

 

This is a great question, because politically, I've been slightly leaning towards Obama, although I don't plan to vote for either one. BUT, in the context you lay out, I think I'd be more likely to hire Romney, so this was an eye-opener!

Of course, it depends on the role. I think I'd rather have Obama as an outside sales person, but I'd rather have Romney as a supervisor or manager of some sort.

In all reality, if it were my business, I could find better candidates than both of them! If it were my business, my bread and butter, I wouldn't settle for the lesser of two evils, I would advertise until I found the right person to fill the role. This is what the American Public needs to remember! We don't have to pick one or the other, we can keep interviewing applicants until we get the one that best fills our needs.

I like your answer. I would still choose Obama because like I say it is a trust issue. You need to be able to walk away and know your representative is not going to sell your business out from underneath you. I particularly like your idea of "President recruiting" rather than grooming a nobody with no skill in government to be a media star.

reply to post by CyberTruth

"If you were the boss in charge of your own company, who would you hire to work for you?"

(What type of job?)
With Bamma you'll get an okay effort (real work like heavy lifting and what not).
With Rmoney you'll find someone else doing the job. Someone Rmoney hired himself. Call outsorsing, ladies and gentlemen.

An earlier post mentioned that 70% of Bain acquired companies remain in business. Not exactly true. First, remember that Bain stopped being a venture capital firm a long time ago. Their singular mission is to increase Bain shareholder profits --- period.

Much of the firm's profits was earned from a relatively small number of deals, with Bain Capital's overall success and failure rate being about even. One study of 68 deals that Bain Capital made up through the 1990s found that the firm lost money or broke even on 33 of them. Another study that looked at the eight-year period following 77 deals during the same time found that in 17 cases the company went bankrupt or out of business, and in 6 cases Bain Capital lost all its investment. But 10 deals were very successful and represented 70 percent of the total profits.

reply to post by CyberTruth


I would hire both. Romney to fire the ones I don't like, and Obama to convince the rest they should stay. Of course, the inherent problem is that ROmney will try to fire Obama while Obama tries to convince him to fire himself.

reply to post by CyberTruth


I would hire neither. My employees need a good sense of ethics. But unfortunately they're both lacking in that department.

reply to post by jtma508


So out of 77 deals they looked at... 17 were classed a total failure of the business they bought and 6 were a crap shoot..


That leaves 54 out of 77 in the sample group which succeeded with that smaller minority being a WILD success, as their financial papers state it. Well... I'd call that a pretty successful venture capital firm. Those odds would make it a decent investment from either end of the question by how I read it.

(Corporate raiders...who DO buy to liquidate..wouldn't be categorizing busted business as failures. That IS the point for those companies. There wouldn't have been 54 businesses that succeeded..there would have been *ONLY* the super-success stories with EVERY other one being liquidated and destroyed for profit. That's the difference. )

I would hire neither! In staffing my own company I would want someone who is not set in their ways and who is eager to learn so that I could train them to do their job in the way that I wanted them to do it.

Originally posted by littled16
I would hire neither! In staffing my own company I would want someone who is not set in their ways and who is eager to learn so that I could train them to do their job in the way that I wanted them to do it.

I agree.

Can I see some other applications please?

Originally posted by Ghost375
I would hire Romney for a business.
I would hire Obama for president, if a businessman was running against him.

The ONLY thing scarier than Obama being president, is a businessman being president.

You know what, scratch all I said I didn't really answer your question....

If you were the boss and had to hire either Obama or Mitt to work for you, who would you select and why?

The answer would have to be Obama. Mitt seems like a man who wouldn't listen to my orders.

edit on 1-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

Hiring a businessman to run a country wouldn't be worst thing. Look at Danny Williams. Self-made millionaire that ran the government of Newfoundland. He took one of Canada's poorest provinces, have not province, and made it just about self-sustaining. All the while not taking a salary. In fact, I do believe, he gave the salary he was suppose to receive to charity.

I'd hire Mitt

He's been very successful in his business enterprises and would most likely be successful in this business.

Sadly, Obama won't release his school transcripts, which to me means he isn't proud of them and hasn't really done anything business like.

I would Hire the Both of them, then put them to work cleaning the facilities toilets, floors, windows, ect.... and pay them minimum wage. Just to give them a taste of what the low guy on the pole feels everyday. While we are at it, might as well give them a Huge bill to pay, insurance.

reply to post by CyberTruth


I would look at thier experience and success ratios.

According to the Wall Street Journal

Bain's record during Romneys tenure

77 Companies invested in

22% Closed or filed for Bankruptcey within 8 years

And then you have Pres. Obama...Well Mitt and Ryan have said repeatedly that HALF the DOE investments in new energy have failed?

NOPE...Only 8% failure rate for the DOEs investments in New Energy.

92% success rate for the President in picking good investments, 78% Romney

So it looks like either Mitt Romney can't do math? 8% = 50%? Or he is a liar?

Either way, when I hire someone...and I do regularly...I require honesty and a basic understanding of mathematics as a prequisite to be considered.

Honesty and Math aside...The President, by the numbers, is a better investor than Mitt Romney...82% success rate to 78%.

It would be very hard to consider hiring Mitt, his core skill-set seems to be GREED...and that doesn't do anything for me, he'd likely exploit and abuse customers and embezel from me.

THAT is if I was hiring an employee...President??? WTF? If government was run for profit then you INCREASE REVENUES (TAXES) while REDUCING COSTS ( returning tax dollars to the people in the form of services...roads, bridges, disaster relief etc.) so you can PROFIT your investors (KOCH, ADELSON, etc.)

As an employee or POTUS..no way...he creeps me out.

I would hire Mitt, because Obama would use working time for
Playing GOLF

I need producers and workers not educated idiots who rearrange capital that someone else built and call it their own!

Not a chance in HELL!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


As I mentioned, Bain ceased being a venture capital firm a long time ago. What I cited was from the Wall Street Journal not an internal Bain assessment. 10 deals out of 77 (or 13%) were successful and accounted for 70% of their profits.

My point is that Bain is a business vampire. Financially successful for themselves to be sure but so isn't strip-mining and bottom-trawling.

In his 2009 book The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy, Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as "notorious for its failure to plow profits back into its businesses," being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital was increased by a 1970s court ruling that allowed companies to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, instead of only their "hard assets", in determining how much money was available to pay dividends. In at least some instances, companies acquired by Bain borrowed money in order to increase their dividend payments, ultimately leading to the collapse of what had been financially stable businesses.

reply to post by jtma508
Fair points on that, and I was looking at something a bit different in my point for time frames. I looked up what you're talking about and true enough, it's how others have categorized it.

Having agreed here, I am left wondering why it really matters? Are we suggesting Mitt Romney is going to drain the U.S. of value? For whom? In the direct comparison, we're hiring Mitt to run our Bain Capital and it's the outside world he's drawing from to increase our own 'profit' (economy) at the expense of the rest of the world.

Sounds bad...except that every other nation is doing the very same thing in their OWN best interests....so the competition generally keeps it from getting too one sided. The most obvious example though is China buying Rare Earth's in every known location on the planet. They've done this with a vengeance. It's good for them too....and bad that we let it happen without our own efforts to buy them first.

Romney will likely restore that competition we've lost while watching the Government first spent 8 years attacking everyone.....then 4 more years apologizing for the previous 8 while still doing the same thing for more quietly. If he doesn't? He can be a 1 termer too. Eventually we'll get one that figures out the requirements for a SECOND term. It isn't destroying the economy.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm not an Obama or Romney supporter. But Romney and his crew are pushing his business credentials hard as the reason we should elect him. I've pointed out before that there has been no correlation with private sector business experience of a President and positive economic outcomes for the country. I see the 'deal' we would make with Romney differently than you do. In my perception, WE are the distressed company that he and his 'crew' are coming in to 'fix'. His loyalty is clearly to his benefactors and major donors (as evidenced by his dizzying position changes, his '47 percent comments', his top-ten donor list, etc,). Think of them as his shareholders. His directive, and the vast majority of his business experience, will be to financially benefit his shareholders --- not us. So with a 13% success rate (or 50% if you go back to the 1990's) I'm not so sure I find those attractive odds.

reply to post by jtma508

It's a fair difference of core philosophy and life outlook I believe. There is another analogy we can use when I look at Obama and then I look at Romney. As fair as it is to say they are both Millionaires and have been several times over for awhile, it's also fair to say they ARE different in a major respect for being rich. Romney is *VERY* rich. Romney is rich enough so money simply isn't a factor in his life in any meaningful way we'd know to think about it and hasn't been for so long, I doubt he does recall what that is like. He's been rich long enough to have no fear or desparation of losing it. I.E.......Trying to buy the man, bribe him or curry favor with gifts and promises of retirement homes wouldn't tempt him. It would piss him off and insult him. ....as most Presidents have been.

If you look at my President's thread, I included the estimated Net value of Presidents on Inauguration day going back to Eisenhower. Kennedy takes the cake and the whole damn bakery for net worth....but none have been common men.

Now I tried to stay unbiased and neutral as much as possible...but Libya has changed all that, I took my hard look again and I'm voting for Romney as much by choice now as lack of one. America *IS* a Capitalist nation. This isn't a debate point. It's a simple fact. Many want to change that and that's another matter....it IS what we are right now. That means America IS, in many ways, a big corporation with a budget and shareholders (Each of US). We are, in very real terms, electing a CEO when our economy sucks.

In fact.... We happen to be a very distressed corporation right this moment....and Romney became expert at rehabilitating distressed corporations. It was his job and HOW he made his wealth. His record shows he even had WILD success stories. Where was Obama's wild success on ANYTHING? Any ONE thing? He wrote a couple books. Literally, his best claim to fame for success.

We don't need a writer, dreamer, idealist or philosopher. We need a cut throat American CEO. We need Romney....and Benghazi served to put an exclamation point on the need to pick a side to stick with.