Ok. So the rumor mill has it that obese workers are treated unfairly during the hiring process and those already on the job. So what is the problem? Should obese [potential] employees get treated fairly? I mean like, such employees care little about themselves but somehow employers should care more about such workers? That just isn't the real world. Obesity on the job is not only costly to the employee i.e. health risks, job performance but also costly to the bosses that be i.e. increased group health care premiums, lost job performance, moral, etc. Sure there are the few that have valid medical conditions contributing to the weight issues but most of the time obesity points to a lack of self-control. That's simply something employers don't want to deal with. Who can blame them? The bottom line is that having weight issues is a visible sign to hiring managers that you may not be able to a) perform the required duties b) cost the company a bunch of money in health care costs. So if you really want the job [or keep the job you already have] it may be a good idea to demonstrate commitment to one’s own health first. Chances are high the boss will notice which could even lead to new opportunities given the demonstration of commitment to a rather personal challenge such as losing weight. Food for thought.

Although unemployment is trending downward, it is still not enough and not fast enough. So what's the problem? The economy itself...the private sector is simply too private to fix. Deal with it people. This is democracy at work. Isn't that what the masses wanted...to be free of government control? Well here you have it. That's not to suggest that having the government control every element of what employers can and cannot do and when they will do it. Conversely, it is simply a reflection of reality. It is what it is.

Why then do so many people fault the government when jobs are not created fast enough? Unfortunately, too many people are misinformed, miseducated, and others just simply brain dead. The private sector is called private for a reason. The Feds have little control over what goes on in the private sector. Guess what? The private sector knows that very well. Moreover, high or higher unemployment is good for the private sector. People who have jobs are scared to death to quit and put up with a lot of crap to keep a job. Wage increases are virtually unheard of during high unemployment periods. On the contrary, salary cuts are popular during high unemployment periods as is increased levels of unpaid overtime. All this translates into higher profit margins for companies at the expense of workers; most of the time middle class workers.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The private sector has little incentive to post a lot of jobs and hire a bunch of unemployed people when their doing just fine with the workers already on the payroll. If the whiners and complainers really wanted change then they would not have voted the wealthy special interest favoring officials into office during the most recent mid-term elections. Therefore, the real problem is the none other than ignorant voters. Now factor in that the private sector is simply too private to fix and you have a recipe for bad employment news for a while to come. Maybe voters will get smarter -- one day. Keep hope alive!

Who wants to pay more taxes? Of course, no one. So the two-month extension to the employer payroll tax is welcomed news to the ears of employees. Especially middle class workers. The bigger question is whether or not the payroll tax break will actually help or induce employers to add new jobs? While the tax break is a good thing, on its face, especially during the holiday period, the fact of the matter is that no significant job increase will come about because of the temporary extension [two months] of the employer paid payroll tax. It makes for good politics and it is definitely welcomed but -- no new jobs.

Let's face it, during the holiday season, employers do a lot of seasonal hiring anyway to beef up for the holiday season spending which spans Thanksgiving, Christmas and the start of the New Year. Get it? Employers beef up head count because of "demand." A demand for products and services brought on by the social pressures to spend all one has [and then some] on holiday gifts for which it takes most of the following year [for most people] to pay off. Bottom line -- demand equals jobs.

A payroll tax break is only a feel good. Instead of spending a lot of political capital on a payroll tax break, maybe we should try to figure out how to create a climate of product and service demand. You think? Some say government has no role in that matter. That might be a bit of a stretch, since the government has been a part of every major economic boom since modern day economics. Granted, the role of government has not been at the same height as that of the private sector. Then again, in this case the private sector is more so in a wait and see mode. Someone has to do something to keep the tribal members happy. Since, the private sector isn't doing much; the baton has been passed to the Feds.

So while the Feds are doing what little they can [to boost the economy] such as the payroll tax extension, the jury is out on the temporary tax cut extension actually creating jobs. One thing is for sure, current employees, across the country, are certainly glad to have more cash in the wallet during the holiday season.

What do you do when you run out of answers? Well for the Washington bureaucrats - bicker about who should pay for job creation. Surely, we know that the big corps sitting on a few trillion aren't creating jobs. How about Washington, how many jobs are being created there? Last i heard, Washington was cutting jobs like there is no tomorrow. So who pre-tel are these job creators? The ones that created the 120,000 jobs in November? All we know is that big corps haven't been in the job creation game for years now. Moreover, these are fat cats with the cash on the sidelines. Why not have them pay a surcharge? They aren't creating jobs anyway...so why not?

Of course no conversation about job creation is complete without speaking about small businesses, which account for more than half of the jobs in the USA. The whiners complain that a tax surcharge on those making $1 Million or more would effect more than 350,000 small business owners. Ok. Well what about if the tax surcharge specifically applied to those filing C-Corp status. Guess what? That generally doesn't include small business owners. Ooops. Guess i shouldn't spilled the beans huh. News flash, finding a job is still a daunting task for more than 12 million people. Instead of playing politics either the Big Wigs with the cash on the sidelines need to get in the game or guess what...here comes the tax man...and you know you don't want to deal with the tax man. Pick you poison and in doing so decide for yourself who should pay for job creation. If it were me, i think i would probably go with "create a few jobs" option versus "deal with the tax man." But then that's just me.