Speaking of Politics as usual

[sirs]

 In many, if not most, their cost is outweighed by the improved productivity of said company.

And you still haven't shown me where that is so.

It's a common sense position, Bt, same as what you're trying.  Otherwise they wouldn't hire janitors in the 1st place.  A business is in it to be a success and make money.  If they weren't making money, they'd not be hiring janitors

And I'd lay off the erroneous misrepresentaion claims, since you won't find one sentence where I accused you of claiming hiring a janitor causes a company to run in the red.  That doesn't help in rebuilding your credibility.  Just FYI

You did it right here.

You first show me that the decision, by one of those "off the top of your head places" to not hire any janitors was done so purely based on how it puts their bottom line into the red.

It was a question......not an accusation.  You do know the difference.  I even went on, IN FULL CONTEXT (yea, who's misrepresenting now?) Or I'll make it easier, they're not hired based solely that they take away from the company's bottom line.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Companies hire janitors when the people in charge of said companies believe that it is in the best interest of the company to hire janitors.

I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Does anyone care about the theoretical hiring of theoretical janitors at theoretical companies?

[BT]

It was a question......not an accusation.

Why ask me to prove something I never claimed?

It's a commen sense position, Bt, same as what you're trying.  Otherwise they wouldn't hire janitors in the 1st place.  A business is in it to be a success and make money.  If they weren't making money, they'd not be hiring janitors

Your claim was that the cost of hiring janitors was outweighed by the increased productivity of the revenue producers. And i asked for proof of that. You seem to be having problems delivering upon your claim.

[bsb]

>>Then again not surprising as you tried to lay it all on Bush's lap, merely because it happened in 2008, even though he had been President since 2001<<

I never said Bush had anything to do with it, sirs. What I've been saying is, neither does Obama.

bsb

[sirs]

>>Then again not surprising as you tried to lay it all on Bush's lap, merely because it happened in 2008, even though he had been President since 2001<<

I never said Bush had anything to do with it, sirs. What I've been saying is, neither does Obama.

Ignoring for the moment, the posts you sure seem to be harping on Bush for, Obama and the Dems absolutely have had "something to do with it".  Socialist Policies, Income Redistribution, Fannie/Freddie, and debt in particular

It was a question......not an accusation.

Why ask me to prove something I never claimed?

Your implication was that Janitors were mere "luxuries".  That they weren't necessary for a company's bottom line, since folks could take out their own trash.  I've never argued that they were necessary, merely that if they didn't help a company's bottom line, they wouldn't have been hired in the 1st place.  The "question" was in referencing an opposite (obviously non-existant) "study" to your continuing erroneous implication that I think they are necessary

[BT]

Your claim was that the cost of hiring janitors was outweighed by the increased productivity of the revenue producers. And you still haven't proven that.

[sirs]

One last time, common sense proves that, or Janitors would not be hired in the 1st place

[BT]

One last time, common sense proves that, or Janitors would not be hired in the 1st place

So your proof is that it is obvious?

[sirs]

If you want to say that the hiring of Janitors is "obvious"....ummm, ok

[BT]

That's what I thought. No answers and no proof.

[sirs]

The proof is that Janitors are hired, and the business doesn't fail

[BT]

The proof is that Janitors are hired, and the business doesn't fail

That wasn't your claim.

[sirs]

It most certainly is.  If the bottom line wasn't being meant, the business would fail.  It doesn't get much more common sensical than that. 

[BT]

Your claim:

The cost is offset by the increased productivity and product of that business, that janitors allow for, as my actual respresentation made clear. 

I am not arguing that janitors do not provide a service to the company, but i would like to see some numbers that back up the claim that their presence increases productivity and revenue.

[kimba1]

that might not be possible. I mention it`s under a unrelated catagory like building maintenance.

such study may not be made.

unless it`s ABM, but that`s cheating since it`s that business best intererst for that research to have a positive result .