Target cutting back holiday hiring

  • Article by: JENNIFER BJORHUS , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 8, 2012 - 8:47 PM

The retailer expects to add 80,000 to 90,000 temporary workers for its busy season, reflecting caution about consumers' intentions.

  • 9
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 9 of 9
furguson11Oct. 8, 1211:27 AM

If you gave them another tax break, they would hire more. Promise.

7
15
furguson11Oct. 8, 1211:28 AM

So now I'm wondering if Walmart will be hiring more...

5
5
mn1nativeOct. 8, 1211:35 AM

Which holiday?

8
10
greenboogerOct. 8, 12 1:22 PM

By the time this hits the umeployment rate statistics it will be far too late to retract your vote for Obama.

10
11
madkingchrisOct. 8, 12 2:02 PM

Um, with 1,800 stores, that's like a difference of 1 to 6 part-time employees per store for what, 30 days? Is that really news worthy? Are these hanger-ready jobs Obama is counting on to boost economic recovery?

6
8
russ999Oct. 8, 12 2:03 PM

start selling things made in the U.S.A. All big box retailers have lost my business. I avoid them like the plague.

9
7
ciamanOct. 8, 12 2:26 PM

Starting since 2008 the average American family have lost over $4000,00 in the intervening years. And people whom were making $50 or $60,000.00 now make about $20,000.00 per year. Is it any suprise that people are not going to spend as much money as they use too? And when 47 percent of the college graduates from 2008 and on now live at home with mom and dad. And those people have very little money to spend on anthing! No mystery here folks. Another holiday bust, as is now normal.

10
3
reader2580Oct. 8, 12 4:28 PM

Nothing in the article says anything about consumers spending less money. Target also doesn't say anything about less hours worked. They are simply hiring fewer workers because those already working are willing to work more hours.

4
2
choochoo12Oct. 9, 12 1:12 PM

Why would the prospect of going back to the Clinton era tax rates (when the Bush Tax Cuts expire this year) put a damper on holiday spending and result in LESS jobs? Maybe because the Democrats will be taking money right out of people's pockets which leaves them with LESS TO SPEND which means less jobs?

1
0
  • 1 - 9 of 9

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT