CONFIRMED!: Rich People DO Create the Jobs

[Dragon]

Obviously, Oddball, despite it having been explained to you many times, you still have NO CLUE what is meant by the claim that the rich DON'T "create jobs." You apparently still think it's an assertion that poor or middle class people sign the paychecks. No, it's a dispute about what the words "create jobs" mean.

Would it be a waste of time to explain it again? Probably, but hope springs eternal, so here goes.

Hiring someone is NOT "creating" a job. It's hiring someone. The job -- in the sense of something that needs doing -- has to exist BEFORE the hiring happens. It's that need that "creates" the job. What generates that need? Consumer demand. Consumers create jobs; employers hire people for the jobs that consumers create.

Practically speaking, what does this mean? It means that giving more money (by whatever means) to those who hire people does not "create jobs," it only gives them more means to hire people provided jobs have already been "created" by consumer demand -- means that they don't need, because they already have the means to hire everyone for every job that exists. But giving more money (by whatever means) to consumers DOES "create jobs," which employers will then fill by hiring people.

Employers are not hiring, not because they CAN'T, but because the jobs don't EXIST, and the employers can't "create" more jobs, because consumers, not employers, are the ones that do that.

Just recognize that the person signing your paycheck didn't "create" the job you're getting paid for, and it will all become clear. But you have to get past that hurdle first.

Some of the animals talked of the duty of loyalty to Mr. Jones, whom they referred to as "Master," or made elementary remarks such as "Mr. Jones feeds us. If he were gone, we should starve to death."

George Orwell - Animal Farm - Chapter II

You are making the same mistake as those animals in Mr. Orwell's book.

 

[uscitizen]

Some rich people do create jobs just as some Republicans are smart.

 

[Sarah G]

They don't create jobs. They hire fewer than they need, make them do the work of two people at the lowest rate they can get away with.

That's business. We need jobs that people can be proud of, a fair wage and consistent productivity. The wealthy don't want to do that and they don't care about anything other than the almighty dollar in their own pocket.

If the wealthy understood anything other than the small picture, we could move the country forward. They don't so we can't.

 

[code1211]

Is there a point to this thread? Of course Odd-Dude is opposed to government, that he's made clear over time. He's opposed to regulations, inspectors, permits and codes (apparently) for to oppose government suggests there is not one to regulate and enforce safe building practices. But Odd-Dude has the answer to that, those who build unsafe projects will eventually go out of business - the market regulates all. Too bad if you or a family member is on that elevator that falls, or flips the light switch and fries - be assured by the law of odd-dudes one day the incompetent and cheaters will be out of business, it will only take a few human tragedies for that to happen.

People who try to do things are not opposed to all regulations, just the stupid and wasteful ones and the labyrinth of rules to negotiate in order to implement the rules and regulations that can only be understood with a lawyer and an accountant.

In Ancient Greece there was not a complex set of standards and codes for buildings, but there was strict enforcement of one basic rule: If you build a building and it collapses and kills someone, then you will be killed.

Petty simple, huh? Result: Parthenon stands intact until an army with explosives blows it up.

Out of curiosity, do you think there's a connection between the European medical utopia touted by the Liberals and the very much shorter and simpler approval process for new meds in Europe v USA?

I didn't hear allot about that in the healthcare lack of a debate.

 

[code1211]

The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists in a new Wall Street Journal survey.

Dearth of Demand Seen Behind Weak Hiring - WSJ.com

U.S. companies are reluctant to hire—but not because of uncertainty over government policies, as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke mentioned in his testimony before Congress last week. A majority of the 53 economists surveyed from July 8-13 by the Wall Street Journal say it is the lack of demand that is keeping hiring down.

WSJ Survey: Lack of Demand, Not Uncertainty, Keeps Hiring Down - Catherine Hollander - NationalJournal.com

Republicans are so weird the way they avoid common sense and stick to "uncertainty".

I read your sig line. You live in a world of delusion. What has the Big 0 done or tried to do that would create even one job. I'll start the list for you:
1. he created Cash for Clunkers, but as soon as he discovered that this was creating jobs, he pulled the plug.

Okay, your turn. How many private sector jobs has the Big 0 created including the 6 million jobs that he just poofed away since his election.

I guess you need to cite all of the 6 million jobs that would bring us back up to the starting point, which incidentally don't exist, and then build on from there.

 

[cheetah440]

Yeah......but the one percenters make almost all of their money off of capital gains.

No they don't you dope, that's the 1% of 1%ers. The 1% start at ~350K and the VAST majority of people in the 350-600 or 700k range are earning that through combined salaries, not cap gains. These are the rich who aren't paying their fair share? 35% isn't enough? Tack on in some cases 10% state and all the sales and local and excise and real estate, you are at 50%. Still not enough right? Never enough.

 

[code1211]

Obviously, Oddball, despite it having been explained to you many times, you still have NO CLUE what is meant by the claim that the rich DON'T "create jobs." You apparently still think it's an assertion that poor or middle class people sign the paychecks. No, it's a dispute about what the words "create jobs" mean.

Would it be a waste of time to explain it again? Probably, but hope springs eternal, so here goes.

Hiring someone is NOT "creating" a job. It's hiring someone. The job -- in the sense of something that needs doing -- has to exist BEFORE the hiring happens. It's that need that "creates" the job. What generates that need? Consumer demand. Consumers create jobs; employers hire people for the jobs that consumers create.

Practically speaking, what does this mean? It means that giving more money (by whatever means) to those who hire people does not "create jobs," it only gives them more means to hire people provided jobs have already been "created" by consumer demand -- means that they don't need, because they already have the means to hire everyone for every job that exists. But giving more money (by whatever means) to consumers DOES "create jobs," which employers will then fill by hiring people.

Employers are not hiring, not because they CAN'T, but because the jobs don't EXIST, and the employers can't "create" more jobs, because consumers, not employers, are the ones that do that.

Just recognize that the person signing your paycheck didn't "create" the job you're getting paid for, and it will all become clear. But you have to get past that hurdle first.

Some of the animals talked of the duty of loyalty to Mr. Jones, whom they referred to as "Master," or made elementary remarks such as "Mr. Jones feeds us. If he were gone, we should starve to death."

George Orwell - Animal Farm - Chapter II

You are making the same mistake as those animals in Mr. Orwell's book.

You have explained this perfectly and yet have completely missed the point.

Witness the boom of the 90's. You could argue that demand created the boom, but that would be starting the journey on the second step. What created the demand was the genius of those who created the computers and those who created the entire industry. The product and the industry are two entirely different things requiring two sets of geniuses.

When the product was created through the investment of the venture capitalists, supply, the potential was available and had to be purchased first with the capital of the job creators and secondarily with the accumulated wealth of the employed.

Demand is not the first step, it is the second step, sometimes the third, fourth or fifth or whatever step. The public will not demand what is not available. Once the item to be demanded is available, whether this is a computer, a web site, a sticky note or a video display on a dashboard, the demand will follow.

A "rich guy" with a vision can "see" the potential for that demand and will, in effect, create the demand. A different rich guy can have a similar vision and be wrong and all of that capital goes straight down the tubes.

If you have followed the record of the investor in chief, you are familiar with an ill informed, poorly advised idiot who spends money on the wrong vision.

Rich guys create jobs and it takes allot of capital to make it happen.

 

[code1211]

They don't create jobs. They hire fewer than they need, make them do the work of two people at the lowest rate they can get away with.

That's business. We need jobs that people can be proud of, a fair wage and consistent productivity. The wealthy don't want to do that and they don't care about anything other than the almighty dollar in their own pocket.

If the wealthy understood anything other than the small picture, we could move the country forward. They don't so we can't.

And yet wealth has been created in unprecedented amounts since the ability to create it was passed to the folks who know how to do it.

For... Well, forever there were people living in poverty around the world. Then came the idea that inventiveness could be rewarded. It seems dot work best in the great Western Democracies and suddenly wealth was created.

There has been much disagreement as to whether or not wealth can be created, but that is simply hogwash. There are more people alive on the planet today than there have ever been and on average each one is more wealthy than the average guy was in the Dark Ages.

More people have more. Wealth has been created.

Work is a commodity that can be bartered for wealth. When there is a time of too many people to fill too few jobs, like the time we are in right now, the value of labor drops due to the high supply of labor.

The reverse is true when there are too few to fill the jobs. That is why a computer programmer could write his own ticket in 1999 and couldn't steal a job in 2002.

Wealth is not created by destroying it. You seem to think that eliminating the reward for risk will increase the incentive to take that risk. You are wrong.

 

[Dragon]

Witness the boom of the 90's. You could argue that demand created the boom, but that would be starting the journey on the second step. What created the demand was the genius of those who created the computers and those who created the entire industry. The product and the industry are two entirely different things requiring two sets of geniuses.

No. The demand was the first step. Or perhaps we could call it "virtual demand" (a particularly appropriate term w/r/t the '90s, don't you agree?). To make this clearer, recognize that demand consists of two parts: 1) desire to buy, and 2) ability to buy.

When you're talking about a new, innovative product, #1 is unknowable -- it's kind of like a quantum cloud. It's a random function. You can make an educated guess about it, invest your money, roll the dice, and pray. But #2 is entirely knowable. You can have a very good idea of how much spending money is circulating around out there, and whether there is enough of it to give an innovative product a good chance of success.

This is why innovative products are seldom introduced to the market during economic downturns. Look at television. The technology for this was fully developed by the late 1920s. It could have been put on the market in the early 1930s, therefore -- except, well, there was this Great Depression thing that came along about then, and so people were reluctant to invest a lot of money on a speculative venture like that, when it would start out hamstrung by low consumer demand. (TV was finally introduced in the U.S. commercially in the late 1940s, after World War II was over.)

In the 1990s, we had a real-estate boom going on which a lot of homeowners took advantage of to take out second mortgages and endow themselves with extra spending money. At the same time, banks were aggressively pushing unsecured consumer credit. Between those two things, potential consumer demand was much higher than paychecks would warrant alone. This made it a good time to introduce innovative products. Such a product can still fail, if it turns out people don't want it. But if the economic times are bad, it's almost guaranteed to fail, because then it will likely fail even if people DO want it.

Rich guys create jobs and it takes allot of capital to make it happen.

Again, rich people do not "create" jobs, they just hire people to fill jobs created by consumer demand (or at least by virtual consumer demand). Yes, it does take a lot of capital, but in a capitalist economy that's reached industrial maturity, the availability of capital can be taken for granted. The tendency is for capital to outstrip the justification for its investment that comes from consumer demand, not the other way around.

 

[Sarah G]

They don't create jobs. They hire fewer than they need, make them do the work of two people at the lowest rate they can get away with.

That's business. We need jobs that people can be proud of, a fair wage and consistent productivity. The wealthy don't want to do that and they don't care about anything other than the almighty dollar in their own pocket.

If the wealthy understood anything other than the small picture, we could move the country forward. They don't so we can't.

And yet wealth has been created in unprecedented amounts since the ability to create it was passed to the folks who know how to do it.

For... Well, forever there were people living in poverty around the world. Then came the idea that inventiveness could be rewarded. It seems dot work best in the great Western Democracies and suddenly wealth was created.

There has been much disagreement as to whether or not wealth can be created, but that is simply hogwash. There are more people alive on the planet today than there have ever been and on average each one is more wealthy than the average guy was in the Dark Ages.

More people have more. Wealth has been created.

Work is a commodity that can be bartered for wealth. When there is a time of too many people to fill too few jobs, like the time we are in right now, the value of labor drops due to the high supply of labor.

The reverse is true when there are too few to fill the jobs. That is why a computer programmer could write his own ticket in 1999 and couldn't steal a job in 2002.

Wealth is not created by destroying it. You seem to think that eliminating the reward for risk will increase the incentive to take that risk. You are wrong.

Nobody said anything about destroying wealth. I said the wealthy are not in it for job creation or moving the country forward, they are self absorbed, greedy bastards for the most part.

Try and keep up.

 

[Zander]

Demand is created, in large part, by advertising, promotion, and marketing.

 

[code1211]

Witness the boom of the 90's. You could argue that demand created the boom, but that would be starting the journey on the second step. What created the demand was the genius of those who created the computers and those who created the entire industry. The product and the industry are two entirely different things requiring two sets of geniuses.

No. The demand was the first step. Or perhaps we could call it "virtual demand" (a particularly appropriate term w/r/t the '90s, don't you agree?). To make this clearer, recognize that demand consists of two parts: 1) desire to buy, and 2) ability to buy.

When you're talking about a new, innovative product, #1 is unknowable -- it's kind of like a quantum cloud. It's a random function. You can make an educated guess about it, invest your money, roll the dice, and pray. But #2 is entirely knowable. You can have a very good idea of how much spending money is circulating around out there, and whether there is enough of it to give an innovative product a good chance of success.

This is why innovative products are seldom introduced to the market during economic downturns. Look at television. The technology for this was fully developed by the late 1920s. It could have been put on the market in the early 1930s, therefore -- except, well, there was this Great Depression thing that came along about then, and so people were reluctant to invest a lot of money on a speculative venture like that, when it would start out hamstrung by low consumer demand. (TV was finally introduced in the U.S. commercially in the late 1940s, after World War II was over.)

In the 1990s, we had a real-estate boom going on which a lot of homeowners took advantage of to take out second mortgages and endow themselves with extra spending money. At the same time, banks were aggressively pushing unsecured consumer credit. Between those two things, potential consumer demand was much higher than paychecks would warrant alone. This made it a good time to introduce innovative products. Such a product can still fail, if it turns out people don't want it. But if the economic times are bad, it's almost guaranteed to fail, because then it will likely fail even if people DO want it.

Rich guys create jobs and it takes allot of capital to make it happen.

Again, rich people do not "create" jobs, they just hire people to fill jobs created by consumer demand (or at least by virtual consumer demand). Yes, it does take a lot of capital, but in a capitalist economy that's reached industrial maturity, the availability of capital can be taken for granted. The tendency is for capital to outstrip the justification for its investment that comes from consumer demand, not the other way around.

The first computer I ever bought myself was in 1991. I thought of it as a glorified typewriter, but saw many of these these things in the businesses with which I dealt.

The demand for me obviously was not there until the product was there. I think I probably bought another every 3 years until about 2004 and then stalled out on the one that I had at that time. A couple weeks ago, I bought a Mac.

The fact remains, thought, that a whole bunch of people work in the computer industry and it was started by rich guys who either directly or by proxy created all of those jobs. They simply did not exist before they were created.

Question: How many computer programmers were hired to fill those jobs in 1900? Those jobs didn't exist in 1900?

Connect the dots.

 

[code1211]

They don't create jobs. They hire fewer than they need, make them do the work of two people at the lowest rate they can get away with.

That's business. We need jobs that people can be proud of, a fair wage and consistent productivity. The wealthy don't want to do that and they don't care about anything other than the almighty dollar in their own pocket.

If the wealthy understood anything other than the small picture, we could move the country forward. They don't so we can't.

And yet wealth has been created in unprecedented amounts since the ability to create it was passed to the folks who know how to do it.

For... Well, forever there were people living in poverty around the world. Then came the idea that inventiveness could be rewarded. It seems dot work best in the great Western Democracies and suddenly wealth was created.

There has been much disagreement as to whether or not wealth can be created, but that is simply hogwash. There are more people alive on the planet today than there have ever been and on average each one is more wealthy than the average guy was in the Dark Ages.

More people have more. Wealth has been created.

Work is a commodity that can be bartered for wealth. When there is a time of too many people to fill too few jobs, like the time we are in right now, the value of labor drops due to the high supply of labor.

The reverse is true when there are too few to fill the jobs. That is why a computer programmer could write his own ticket in 1999 and couldn't steal a job in 2002.

Wealth is not created by destroying it. You seem to think that eliminating the reward for risk will increase the incentive to take that risk. You are wrong.

Nobody said anything about destroying wealth. I said the wealthy are not in it for job creation or moving the country forward, they are self absorbed, greedy bastards for the most part.

Try and keep up.

That is the truth. And because they are so driven, they create wealth. That wealth drives economies and sweeps the rest of us along.

Are you possessed of the idea that the population of the Western Democracies today is smarter than our fore bearers who labored from dawn to dusk to subsist while we work 8 or so hours and live pretty high of the Hog?

The difference is the "self absorbed, greedy bastards" who drive the whole thing with their greed.

Unless you have a better reason why the middle class did not develop during the Dark Ages, I'm giving the credit to the self absorbed, greedy bastards.

Am I catching up or should I slow down a little more?

 

[Paulie]

Because, according to those of you who subscribe to the free market and capitalism, if you've got a bad product or service, your business DESERVES to fail.

The market will regulate itself, as you say?

So, it appears that Best Buy failed for 11 years before turning a profit.
Yup- "bad products and services".

There is no risk to the government in spending hundreds of millions of our dollars to fund agencies whose purpose is to cost the true risk takers hundreds of millions of dollars. And you wonder why the corporate rate is "only" 15-20 percent (one of the highest in the world)?

Prime example: The FDA.

Who is it that can afford the more than $500 million and nearly a decade of bureaucratic red tape and compliance to bring a new medication or device to market?...Joe 99%-er's Pharmaceutical Laboratory or 1%-er Merck?

Funny how the "demand creates jobs" crowd is avoiding this one like the plague, innit?

I'd like to see someone from the left take this on and come up with a good answer.

I'm not a 1%er but I've suffered a good deal of capital LOSS investing in smaller biotech companies that had an awesome product with great clinical study data, because they couldn't stay afloat long enough financially to clear the FDA's near impossible regulations.

Not only are the regulations ridiculous and obviously FAVORABLE to the bigger companies, but besides that, why should I have to part with any more than 15% for my risk?

You can't win for losing with the fucking left.

 

[nitroz]

Well no shit.

The problem is that we need jobs in manufacturing!
Then our $$$ will circulate in this country, instead of going overseas.

 

[Dragon]

The first computer I ever bought myself was in 1991. I thought of it as a glorified typewriter, but saw many of these these things in the businesses with i dealt.

The demand for me obviously was not there until the product was there.

Half of it was, and the other half existed in potential. Remember, demand is the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. You're focusing right now on the first half, but the second half is really the more important of the two when we're talking about the economy in general rather than a specific product. Whether you "wanted a computer" before you knew the product existed is a meaningless question, but whether you could afford one is not.

Or perhaps that other question isn't meaningless. Is it possible to want something without knowing you want it? When I was in advertising, we always said "sell benefits, not features." You didn't know about computers, but you DID want fast, versatile word processing, home entertainment, access to products and services from your desk at home, paperless communication, etc. There was a desire for all of these, AND the ability to buy them, and the innovation of the computer industry involved coming up with a way to satisfy that demand.

In any case, recognize what "demand" actually means. You're only dealing with half of it.

(Which is also the answer to you, Oldstyle. Advertising and promotion can create DESIRE, but not DEMAND. Demand also requires that the people who desire, have MONEY.)

Question: How many computer programmers were hired to fill those jobs in 1900? Those jobs didn't exist in 1900?

A more relevant question: how many computer programmers would have been hired in 1996 if the economy had been severely depressed?

Even when we're talking about products that haven't been invented yet, demand still creates jobs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Businesses bring regulation upon themselves, by not behaving themselves when they aren't regulated.

 

[Oddball]

So, it appears that Best Buy failed for 11 years before turning a profit.
Yup- "bad products and services".

There is no risk to the government in spending hundreds of millions of our dollars to fund agencies whose purpose is to cost the true risk takers hundreds of millions of dollars. And you wonder why the corporate rate is "only" 15-20 percent (one of the highest in the world)?

Prime example: The FDA.

Who is it that can afford the more than $500 million and nearly a decade of bureaucratic red tape and compliance to bring a new medication or device to market?...Joe 99%-er's Pharmaceutical Laboratory or 1%-er Merck?

Funny how the "demand creates jobs" crowd is avoiding this one like the plague, innit?

I'd like to see someone from the left take this on and come up with a good answer.

I'm not a 1%er but I've suffered a good deal of capital LOSS investing in smaller biotech companies that had an awesome product with great clinical study data, because they couldn't stay afloat long enough financially to clear the FDA's near impossible regulations.

Not only are the regulations ridiculous and obviously FAVORABLE to the bigger companies, but besides that, why should I have to part with any more than 15% for my risk?

You can't win for losing with the fucking left.

They won't because they can't.

They'll just accuse you of wanting dangerous drugs and patent medicine peddlers everywhere out of one side of their mouth, while simultaneously bitching and moaning about the "corporate greed" of companies like Merck and Eli Lilly making "obscene profits"...No mention of the obscene protection racketeering by Big Daddy Big Gubmint, though.

 

[Oddball]

Businesses bring regulation upon themselves, by not behaving themselves when they aren't regulated.

God are you such a little fucking stooge.

Who regulates and oversees the crooks at Fanny & Freddy, the SEC, the BATF, the FDA, ad nauseum, when they fuck up?

 

[Trajan]

Yeah......but the one percenters make almost all of their money off of capital gains.