A more patriotic approach needed to fix what ails America's economy

Everyone from Rush Limbaugh to some of my friends like to point out that it is not the role of businesses to provide jobs. In normal times, I would agree.

These are not normal times.

Look, during past wars, businesses refitted their production lines to serve the military. They stopped making goods for civilians in order to supply our soldiers with ammo and other items needed to successfully defend our country. Their missions changed from making profits via the private sector to helping to uphold our way of life. From housewives to Hollywood, everyone was behind the war efforts because losing was not an outcome that served any American's interest.

What I am about to say is the most important point I have made in over 300 posts. The economic crisis we're in might not feel entirely like a national emergency but it is. We should not wait until the enemy is deeply entrenched in every neighborhood across this land before fighting back with everything we have.

Businesses, particularly profitable ones, have a new responsibility and it includes creating jobs just as it involved making tanks instead of cars in World War II. It is no longer acceptable for anyone to say it's not the role of any entity to create jobs. It also isn't constructive to continue to lie about why so many workers were laid off in the first place. Too many corporations over reacted to the recession and exploited millions of their most vulnerable workers, making the recession far worse than it needed to be. That is a fact. It is time for corporations that went too far to make up for their part in bringing down the entire economy, not to mention the personal lives of many good people.

It's the responsibility of government, small and big businesses to work together to restore the American economy. Schools, vocational training centers and banks willing to make loans can also play a positive role. Everything and everyone should take responsibility in some manner, including bloggers and the media.

A true recovery can't happen until unemployment is reduced. We need to throw out the old playbook and figure out a way to get people back to work. That can't be done by businesses pointing the finger at government and government pointing back. It can't be done with the level of partisan politics we're experiencing or the continuing decline in education.

America needs some out-of-the-box thinking that doesn't rely on stereotypes about the role of businesses in a capitalistic society. We would be speaking German if that sort of thinking existed in the past. To say that employers are too afraid to hire because of the uncertainty about the economy is probably true but it's also a trap. It's a vortex that no one can escape. A circular argument that pushes us closer and closer to the edge. Businesses were not exempt in contributing to past war efforts. Why are they now washing their hands of any responsibility during one of the most profound emergencies we have ever faced?

Risk is involved in the operation of any business during up and down times. Those without the stomach for risk probably shouldn't start a company. The excuse that hiring is too risky now is just that -- an excuse. While it might be a justifiable excuse, it is nonetheless an unproductive claim. Profitable companies can't lean on that crutch until the good times return. There will be no good times without companies showing some confidence in America. Government can help lessen those risks, but can't eliminate them. It's going to take brave corporate leaders to chart a new course -- a course that navigates us to safer waters. The profits will return and the stockholders will get paid, but for now, we need a fresh, less selfish approach to doing business.

The fact remains that the private sector provides most jobs in most democracies. With that privilege comes the occasional responsibility to chip in, to do right by society, to give back. Companies hold fund-raising drives for the United Way and other charities, now they need to do a little more for the benefit of the entire country.

We have a domestic war going on. The further collapse of the economy will mean the eventual collapse of a nation. History has proven time and time again that countries without viable economies will implode. Ask anyone on the front lines of this war about the seriousness of our economic woes. They will describe scenarios that might seem unimaginable to most people at this stage of the war.

While I empathize with anyone trying to keep their business afloat with all of the current obstacles in their way, I must say that the time has come for the bigger, more profitable employers to show some faith and start becoming part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Others will follow. I believe in momentum. Businesses that become leaders in this cause will motivate others and stimulate the economy in ways the government can't.

Being frozen with fear while sitting on profits is no longer an option. This is an emergency. A war. All hands are needed on deck. A sense of patriotism that trumps greed needs to emerge, just as it did in past wars. We have to get away from this stuffing-cash-in-the-mattress mentality. Continuing to debate roles and responsibilities just prolongs the conflict and jeopardizes the very thing that most companies and individual citizens treasure -- freedom.

Read what others say about why corporations got rid of so many workers during the recession (far too many in the estimation of some) and why companies are refusing to hire despite bulging profits: "A Sin and a Shame"

Greed is to blame for lack of jobs

This Washington Post columnist, Harold Meyerson, explains how businesses are "defying gravity" while refusing to expand payrolls. More economists and commentators are beginning to see what is causing the economic bottleneck. Once again, it's our old nemesis, greed.

Everything is in place for the economy to grow. Bailout and stimulus packages have been provided by the government. Financial reform will create a more level playing field for businesses. Profits are up. The pool of talented people looking for work has never been more robust. Yet, employers still won't hire because they've learned to make a buck with fewer employees and have shipped many jobs overseas.

What these employers fail to understand is that by shutting the door on American job-seekers they are sealing their own fate. With no money circulating through the U.S. economy, consumers will buy less and eventually profits will go down. These businesses are also burning out their current employees and degrading the quality of whatever it is they are trying to sell. Additionally, many corporations are boosting the economies of places like China, which provides cheap, abundant labor, not to mention inferior products. Oh, and let's not forget that China isn't exactly our friend.

It seems more evident by the day where the blame lies for the lack of true economic recovery and the destruction of the American workforce. It's going to take a unified effort by the government and private sector to save this country. There is no more time to waste on politics and greed. Read more.

Businesses now swimming in cash. So why aren't they hiring?

Nonfinancial companies have $1.8 trillion -- far more than they had just two years ago. Sadly, they aren't spending much of it on hiring jobless Americans. Some business leaders say they aren't confident that the economy is improving, despite profits being up. Way up. So what's it going to take for company leaders to invest in their businesses by hiring more folks? Hiring not only improves the psyche of the America, but it would also help those who have been pulling double-duty in understaffed offices and factories across the country since the start of the recession.

With executive bonuses still flowing liberally, I would guess that CEOs and CFOs aren't cutting back much on personal spending, which leads me to wonder whether they are being truthful in their economic forecasts for their companies or just hoarding profits in order to buy another summer home or exotic sports car. Perhaps they are angry at President Obama and the pressure he's putting on big businesses to clean up their acts. Maybe they are resisting hiring out of some sort of political payback. Or maybe they are sincere in their cautious approach. Could be all of the above.

Whatever the reason for the lack of hiring, it's bringing down the country and a lot of innocent people with it. Employers who have the cash and a need to hire but won't are acting in an unpatriotic manner. Their reluctance to hire is ripping apart families, crushing the real estate market, and hurting retailers and smaller business from coast to coast. State and local governments are suffering because fewer people are paying taxes. Highly profitable companies that aren't filling much-needed positions aren't being fiscally prudent. They are being selfish.

Doing business has always involved a degree of risk. Many companies have been rewarded for taking those risks. But we now seem to be in a new era where innovation is trumped by cutting jobs, where the quickest and only path to profits seem to be in eliminating employees or exporting jobs overseas. If this continues, not only will the American dream fade away, capitalism itself will be at risk. Simply put, without jobs people can't buy things. That fact will cause many more businesses to go extinct. So in a way, businesses that are refusing to hire are sealing their own fates.

Getting back to the concept of risk. Republicans like to argue that cutting taxes allows the wealthy to take risks, to open or expand businesses, which creates jobs. But from what we've seen so far in this modest recovery, bulging profits aren't sparking expansion. Cutting taxes on the rich seems to only grow the deficit and the money pocketed by the wealthy. If there was hard evidence that more tax breaks would create more jobs, I'd say go for it. However, the opposite seems to be true. This is not the Reagan era. The wealthy have enjoyed the fruits of the Bush tax cuts, yet have not increased hiring. So why continue with this strategy?

The mindset of those who are prospering in the recession seems to be to hold onto every dime they earn or get back from Uncle Sam. If businesses want to make a case for more tax breaks, they need to start taking more risks by hiring. I don't say this just to get people back to work, but to illustrate that one hand washes the other. Businesses that hire should get certain concessions. Those that don't, even though they could, should not receive any breaks from the government or taxpayers. In addition, hiring could actually increase profits. I think too many businesses have lost sight of that in the quest to reduce the workforce. There is a price for cutting too close to the bone. Competitors that maintain or grow their businesses could gain a huge advantage over those who refuse to take smart risks. Perhaps this is why smaller, more nimble companies, like Martin Guitars, are weathering the storm. The family-run Martin company has not cut jobs, yet they are still selling quality instruments, innovating and maintaining their position in the market. The company did not panic and as a result are being rewarded.

A new report suggests that there will be one million home foreclosures in the next 12 months. This is another sign of the stagnant job market and unemployment benefits running out. It is hard to find a job when you don't have a home. It's difficult to obtain credit to buy new things in the future when you have been foreclosed upon. Until jobs return, this cycle of pain will continue to ripple through the country and the entire economy. And some believe that we lost so many jobs in this recession that things will never return to normal. So it is in the interest of everyone that profitable companies resume hiring sooner rather than later. Payroll is the top expense for most businesses, but there are other ways for many companies to tighten their belts. Some family-owned businesses are particularly good at cutting costs without cutting jobs, maybe because smaller companies tend to view employees as human beings and not just numbers.

I have long suspected that there were far more layoffs in this recession than there needed to be. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that some job eliminations were a way for companies to raise their stock prices by fattening their profit margins. Wall Street seems to react favorably to slash-and-burn tactics. In this recession, it appears too many businesses jumped on the opportunity to get leaner, whether they needed to or not. The job losses spun out of control. A hundred here, a thousand there soon added up to millions of laid off workers. People who held jobs for decades began collecting unemployment benefits for the first time, and were made to feel bad about it by those on the far right. That travesty continues.

Now that the stimulus money is circulating through the economy and companies are making larger profits, one would think that jobs should return -- not all but far more than we're seeing. However, given human nature, greed and the tendency for some companies to embrace doing more with less, it is probably going to take something more dramatic from the government to force what businesses should be doing on their own by now. It appears that if businesses want to avoid further federal mandates, it would be in their best interest to begin using some of the $1.8 trillion to hire qualified people who have been desperately looking for work. It's up to profitable businesses to help restore America. This is no time for hoarding profits.

Read more in The Washington Post.

Verizon takes aim at White House

The Washington Post has a story today headlined: "Business leaders say Obama's economic policies stifle growth."

Ivan G. Seidenberg, the head of Verizon Communications, said that potential tax increases and new regulations will hurt economic growth and "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S."

The Verizon CEO is chairman of the Business Roundtable, which met in Washington on Tuesday. Seidenberg said that Democrats are creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation." According to the Post, Seidenberg and the Business Roundtable have been an allies of Obama's in the past.

So why the reversal?

It appears it's almost impossible to strike a healthy balance between prudent regulation of businesses and allowing companies the freedoms and perks they say they need to expand. Without expansion, job creation will be slow. But without regulations, economic catastrophes are bound to happen.

It is understandable why Obama is pushing hard in one direction and big business is pushing back. Deregulation has had a lot to do with the economic mess were in. Obama wants to close some loopholes and make sure corporations pay their fair share of taxes. Seems to make sense to me, but then again, I am not a CEO.

Perhaps businesses need to start looking for greater efficiencies so that they don't require handouts and overly friendly policies from the government in order to turn a profit. Almost anyone who has ever worked for a large company knows there is waste. Eliminating the waste is one way to improve bottom lines.

More out-of-the-box thinking is what is needed in business today. Of course, the government should not be working against fair-minded businesses, but some commonsense regulations are needed in order to create a level and competitive playing field. Regulations keep the public safe. They provide boundaries that curtail certain workplace abuses. To think that removing regulations will solve all our problems is shortsighted at best. It would be like removing the referees from football. Sure, the game might be more exciting in some ways without penalties and instant-replay reviews, but the long-term effects would not be positive.

Workaholics aren't good for business

I saw a job ad today titled "Workaholic wanted." I am seeing more of these types of ads where the demands of the job are rudely spelled out. I guess in a depressed job market employers don't feel they have to sugarcoat anything. The ads have a take-it-or-leave-it tone that border on threatening. And most of the employers who take this macho approach won't even bother to respond to your application if you don't sound willing to take a blood oath to work until you drop.

When the economy turns around, I wonder whether anyone will ever want to work for these places that treated people so badly during the tough times of this recession?

I think certain employers, who are sounding more like Southern plantation owners than modern-day business leaders, are shooting themselves in the foot with their total disrespect for the majority of people seeking employment. Advertising for a "workaholic" is like placing a help-wanted ad seeking emotionally unstable people. Anything with "aholic" tacked on to the end of the word is a sign of a potentially unbalanced human being who should not be in the workplace, let alone put at the top of the list of prized job candidates.

The person who placed this ad that I saw today should be removed from his or her job. It's that stupid, trite and shortsighted. There are plenty of better ways to state work-ethic requirements. If using the word workaholic is the best this ad-placer could come up, they shouldn't be involved in recruiting or any form of strategic thinking.

Employers who believe it's cute or effective to demand such traits in applicants will most likely end up with burned out employees in a very short period of time, or ones who move to the next job rather quickly. Ultimately, it does the bottom line little good to have a workforce filled with workaholics and high turnover. It doesn't spark innovation. It douses creativity. It causes illnesses (and lots of sick days) and eventually will eat away at the core of businesses. Look no further than the failing newspaper industry to see where buildings filled with underpaid workaholics lead.

There is a better way.

Instead of seeking workaholics, businesses (including newspapers) should hire smart, responsible folks with relatively healthy minds and grounded lives. People who can keep life, including work, in perspective. Spending 16 hours a day in a cubicle isn't a sign of a good employee. In fact, it's often a sign of someone who is either inefficient with their time or doesn't have the talent to work at a reasonable pace. It could also mean that that person is not functioning well in other areas of life, which can really come back to haunt an employer or colleagues of the workaholic.

Of course, there are times when long days are necessary. Emergency workers often have to push themselves to the brink for a greater good. But that shouldn't be the norm. I don't want a surgeon operating on me who has been working 18 hours straight. I don't want my pilot pulling a double shift.

Any business owner who thinks he or she has found gold in a workaholic is living in an antiquated world. They will create a business environment that produces results contrary to what they thought workaholics would bring to the table. Workaholics are often broken people with limited range and identity issues. It might look good to have a room filled with folks burning the midnight oil, but does it really produce positive results over the long run? Do these overworked employees have time to think, plan or form strategies that will improve business? I am a huge proponent of solid work ethics and living up to one's responsibilities, but I don't support the concept of a proving worth and character via the overtime sheets.

Google does it right. They don't advertise for workaholics. They are more enlightened than your average plantation owner from the 1800s and are a good model for the next decade. They don't go to the whip or find honor in burning out employees. They hire people based on the correct criteria and give them breathing room. That space and life-work balance helps inspire some pretty neat products. Those ideas and products keep the profits flowing and put certain companies, that keep trying to find workaholics, out of business.

Every empire eventually falls

Boy, what a mess Toyota is in. But history teaches us that being No. 1 often leads to disastrous results. Empires don't last forever.

In business, there are countless examples of how companies reach the top then fall from grace, often because of self-inflicted wounds. In certain cases, a top company can recover from turning out a bad product. Look at Microsoft. The Windows Vista operating system was a horrible product. It appears Windows 7 has fixed many of the glitches that Vista harbored, but how the heck did the faulty Vista ever make it to market? And don't people who bought Vista deserve a price break when purchasing Windows 7? Apparently not, according to Microsoft.

I worked for USA Today back in the glory days, when we worked ourselves into the No. 1 slot in terms of daily-newspaper circulation. But as soon as we got to be No. 1, things began to splinter. I first noticed it in the hiring. We weren't going after the best of the best anymore. As a result, the journalism got sloppy. Weak links began breaking. Some well-publicized scandals arose. Eventually, when the recession hit, the page-count went down. Then buyouts forced some of the best talent to leave. The company was further gutted by two rounds of layoffs. I was included in one of those rounds. The parent company, Gannett, got itself into deep debt by making some questionable decisions. When that happens, heads will roll and quality control will fall. Unfortunately, those heads are usually in the lower and middle ranks.

Now when I pick up USA Today, it doesn't resemble the product of 10 years ago. It's thinner. There are mistakes. It's also more expensive. It essentially has become the Toyota of newspapers. Not bad, but there are problems. And the reasons behind that can't all be attributed to the changing industry or the economic downturn. Like Toyota, it might be big enough to survive, but will it ever return to what it was in newsprint, online or some other form?

Read this article by Reuters if you want to learn more about the Toyota situation. It speaks of something called "big-company disease." I believe certain companies that make it to No. 1 begin doing things counter to what got them to the top. Maybe it's human nature to rest on one's laurels or to become corrupt with power. Look at the fall of the Roman Empire. History certainly raises enough red flags. Yet, businesses continue to falter soon after making it to the mountain top. Some fallen companies blame failure on the recession. But when you examine their businesses practices leading up to the recession, you begin to see a pattern of greed and self-destructive behaviors.

The big three automakers in Detroit were on top of the world, producing the best cars, feeding the local economy and wowing people at annual auto shows. Then they got complacent. Bonuses to executives were being handed out like candy. Leaner, more innovative companies came along, ones that placed a higher priority on reliability and fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, customer satisfaction with Detroit was hitting new lows. And to some degree, that continues today. If you go back and read my post from December about Chrysler/Jeep, well, that situation has still not been resolved despite receiving promises from the automaker. It's this type of thing that will steer me, and probably thousands of others, away from Chrysler for the rest of my life.

Then there are the AIGs and Enrons of the world. They take arrogance to a whole other level. Once on top, and nearing monopoly status, these companies not only bring themselves down, but they wreck entire economies, not to mention the financial lives of innocent people. The sense of entitlement at the the top in these types of companies should be, and in some cases is, criminal. Without strict oversight, these abuses will continue.

AOL was one of the most successful start-ups in Internet history. Many people got rich at AOL back in the day. It was a relatively small company that got the lion's share of the Internet-provider market. Then AOL decided to merge with Time-Warner, a media giant. From that day on, AOL started on a path of being a nominal player. They fell behind on broadband and other technologies. Once an innovator, they soon became stuck in a corporate muck. They went from being nimble to being trapped in bureaucracy. Now that they've recently freed themselves up from the corporate beast, it will be interesting to see if they can have a resurgence.

NASA, the premier space agency in the world, put men on the moon. But when pressured to push the envelope and produce more frequent space shuttle missions, the agency literally crashed and burned -- twice. The fault for the first space shuttle disaster was mechanically blamed on bad o-rings. But the real culprit for the disaster was the unreasonably ambitious pressure from above and the agency's desire to keep those who were trying to raise concerns from speaking out. The quest to silence those who were perceived to be obstructionists proved to be a fatal mistake that NASA has never truly recovered from.

If you've ever worked for a big company you might know what it's like to go against the grain. Just because you're in the right doesn't mean you'll be heard. In many places, in fact, you'll be punished for raising red flags. That's another strain of "big-company disease" and it too has a tangible cost.

If your company is No. 2 or 3, or maybe not even a major competitor yet, don't feel bad. It's likely that the work you're doing will be more appreciated. There probably will be more pride in your office and less bashing of those who refuse to stick their heads in the sand. Your company will probably be better situated to recover from this awful recession if it avoided the debt trap.

Avis car rentals had a slogan when they were No. 2. "We try harder," was catchy. I think I rather do business with folks trying harder and doing things correctly than companies who are living off their own fat or who act like they don't need my business.

Sorry, Toyota. You got too drunk on your successes and future ambitions. You cut corners to get to a place where there are no shortcuts. And then you didn't easily fess up to problems that cost lives. You aren't alone in acting badly, but you sure have a lot of work to do to restore your image.

Click here to read more about Toyota, Starbucks and other companies that go astray after reaching the top.