CONFIRMED!: Rich People DO Create the Jobs

[NYcarbineer]

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?

So we should abandon all food safety regulation because the FDA isn't perfect?

You're fucking retarded.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Confirmed: The Oddball Dude is a Fruitcake.

New CBO Report Finds Up to 2.4 Million People Owe Their Jobs to the Recovery Act — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates...the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act...increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million jobs as of September...In other words, between 0.4 million and 2.4 million people employed in September owed their jobs to the Recovery Act...

...Congress' non-partisan economic and budget analysts...

from a Google search:

CHART OF THE DAY: CBO Says Dem Plans Create More Jobs ...
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../chart-of-the-day-cbo-says-dem-job...

Nov 16, 2011 – Buried in key CBO testimony: Obama's jobs measures, still being blocked by Republicans, would reduce unemployment much more ...

Perry says stimulus didn't create jobs; CBO says it did | Tales from ...
blogs.reuters.com/.../perry-says-stimulus-didnt-create-jobs-cbo-says-i...

Sep 12, 2011 – Texas Governor Rick Perry, front-runner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, says President Obama's economic stimulus ...


Factbox: Did stimulus create jobs? CBO says yes | Reuters
www.reuters.com/.../us-usa-campaign-stimulus-idUSTRE78C08R201...


Sep 12, 2011 – WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Texas Governor Rick Perry, front-runner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, on Monday said the ...

 

[Trajan]

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.

do you just enjoy typing dude?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Why, Historians like Newt Gingrich do.


gawd, dumb as shit.

 

[Oddball]

Confirmed: The Oddball Dude is a Fruitcake.

blablablabla...

I thought you left, never to return.

Confirmed: Dainty is a liar, to go with being a pathetic attention whore.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People like The Oddball Dude and his fairy-minded following just can't stand two or more sides to any story. Everything m-u-s-t be black and white, yes or no, right or wrong, good or bad. Nuance and factual truths are their Achilles' heel.



As with all discussions about the economy, its complicated. What creates jobs can not be dumbed down into one line political talking points...As usual Republicans and Democrats are only telling the side of the story that support the simplified talking points that rally their political bases. - Who Creates Jobs in the US? - What We Should KnowWhat We Should Know

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16300

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dearest Oddball Dude, I leave, I enter. It's a life cycle. Nuance: see?
.

.

.


Oh yeah, almost forgot: Myth That Keystone XL Creates Jobs Perpetuated By Oil Lobby, Parroted By Congress’s Oil Recipients - http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011...l-lobby-parroted-by-congresss-oil-recipients/

 

[Oddball]

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.

And here's the part that you seem to have a really difficult time of grasping, professor:

Before the consumer does any consuming, he has to get his money from somewhere...Would that be from the magic money bush in the backyard?...Lucky the Leprechaun's pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow?

Nope...The consumer most often has to earn their money from something called "a job", many of which are provided by these evil, greedy 1%-er businesspeople, that all you neo-Keyneseans, Marxists and other various and sundry malcontent ne'er-do-wells constantly bellyache about.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Well we know for sure the Republicans didn't regulate the crooks, and now the crooks are Super PAC's able to influence elections not by reason but by emotion and dollars - lots and lots of dollars. Plutocracy is here now; American style democracy is no more.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Super PAC's able to influence elections not by reason but by emotion and dollars - lots and lots of dollars. Plutocracy is here now; American style democracy is no more.

of course both parties can have super pacs so who cares. If you want reason in elections then you need to have only intelligent people vote, but liberals are opposed to that since they exist by selling more and more welfare programs for votes. Now you see the real danger

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[Flopper]

The bad news in red.

With all the leftloon bitching and moaning about "income inequality", how can throwing regulatory obstacles like this in the way do anything to help the business ventures of the sainted "little guy"?

The only people who create real, sustainable jobs are in private businesses -- if they're unsubsidized.

Some CEOs are upset that people don't appreciate what they do. So they formed a group called the Job Creators Alliance.

Brad Anderson, former CEO of Best Buy, joined because he wants to counter the image of businesspeople as evil. When he was young, Anderson himself thought they were evil. But then he "stumbled into a business career" by going to work in a stereo store.

"I watched what happens in building a business. [My store] the Sound of Music, which became Best Buy, was 11 years [old] before I made a dollar of profit."

In 36 years, he turned that store into a $50 billion company.

Tom Stemberg, founder of Staples, got involved with the Job Creators Alliance because he's annoyed that the government makes a tough job much tougher.

He complains that government mostly creates jobs -- that kill jobs.

"They're creating $300 million worth of jobs in the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau," Stemberg said, "which I don't think is going to do much for productivity in America. We're creating all kinds of jobs trying to live up to Dodd-Frank ... and those jobs don't create much productivity.

Now, Stemberg runs a venture capital business. "I helped create over 100,000 jobs myself," he said. "Pinkberry and City Sports and J. McLaughlin are growing and adding employment."

To do that, he had to overcome hurdles placed in the way by government.

"All that we get is grief and more hoops to jump through and more forms to fill out and more regulations to comply with," complained Stemberg. "Fastest-growing investment segment in venture capitalism: compliance software."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Job creators fight back | John Stossel | Columnists | Washington Examiner

Yes, businesses create jobs. Do rich people create jobs? If they are just collecting unearned income, the answer is probably no.

 

[Mr. H.]

Yes, businesses create jobs. Do rich people create jobs? If they are just collecting unearned income, the answer is probably no.

Just like the founders of Staples and Best buy, the rich who currently may be collecting only unearned income have in fact grown their ventures to the point of employing untold thousands of individuals currently "collecting" earned income.

 

[American Horse]

Yes, businesses create jobs. Do rich people create jobs? If they are just collecting unearned income, the answer is probably no.

Those people are also providers of capital to corporations (stocks or direct investment) and banks (deposits/CDs) and real estate (apartments/sale of and/or development of raw land) that enable jobs to be created. It takes capital to get job creation.

The folks who have unearned income are the very same people who have put their capital at risk, and because of that willingness to risk their capital get a lower tax rate, whether it be a lower cap gains or interest/dividends rate.

It's safer to put it under the mattress, especially in times of very low interest rates like now, and people with a little or a lot of money or wealth need an inducement to risk it, thus we have a lower rate for risked capital.

Of course there is the distinction that makes it not subject to FICA payroll taxes, that creeps into and prejudices any discussion about taxes; that it's wages instead of capital that should be exempt from taxes. FICA taxes are, as the acronym makes clear, "Federal Insurance Contributions" and as such are the dedicated property and for the benefit of the individual paying the "FICA tax."

 

[expat_panama]

...Yes, businesses create jobs. Do rich people create jobs?...

Huh. Somehow I thought it was a given that business owners were 'the rich' and employees were not.

Just about every post on this entire thread is meaningless unless we can say what we mean by 'rich' and 'jobs'. If we say that a 'job' is a BLS defined unit of employment, and we say the 'rich' are those with above Census.gov defined medium income, then we see virtually all jobs created by the rich.

Otherwise we've just got another loony leftist rambling with definitions changing in mid sentence.

 

[earlycuyler]

Why is there never talk of "capital loss".

Yup.

 

[expat_panama]

Why is there never talk of "capital loss".

Yup.

Exactly, here the rich are scarfing up all those capital losses for which they never did a damn bit of work leaving the poor out in the cold with no losses at all.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it any more...

 

[code1211]

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.

Don't you recall the Presidential campaign of 1992? It's the economy, Stupid. The economy had taken a downturn and the the political classes were predicting that if we followed their prescriptions, we could eliminate the deficit in 20 years.

20 years.

The deficit was eliminated in 5 years and the reason was that the demand had been created by those with vision for a product with such incredible usefulness that it literally affected every facet of our lives from the way we communicate to the way we travel to the way we learn.

It is almost impossible to identify any part of American life that is untouched by computers and yet in 1980, the only computers were the residential house size and were the topic of sic-fi fantasy, not daily reminders.

In 1980, nobody knew that Excel would be a great tool for business. In 1996, those who knew how to use it were looked upon as people would regard sorcerers. The demand in 1980 was for women who could type and write on those big ruled green sheets in legible script.

I know you understand what i'm saying, but are simply disagreeing with the concept that the advances in society are created for the rest of us by the enlightened.

Society moves on its own inertia in many ways and those include groceries and infrastructure and the day to days.

The great leaps are less driven by inertia and more like a firecracker in the town square that makes everyone suddenly change their point of view.

We, as a society and a world community, could use one of those right about now.

 

[code1211]

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

Right.

Let's pretend that you own an HVAC supply company and you have opened it in an area of an old building in a scenic part of town and the store front is an old natural brick facade that opened onto a sidewalk that is finished by a curb that divides the street from the sidewalk.

The local city government has cited the building as a landmark. The city has also defined the width of the sidewalk as a particular width from the closest obstruction to the curb. The street happens to also be the through fare of a US Highway in that part of town.

The door to the building, as was the case with most buildings of that day is elevated between 6 an 18 inches above the sidewalk. There is a step to accommodate the entry into the building.

A gentleman in a wheel chair wants to get into your building and cannot and complains of same to his councilman.

He has triggered the ADA which is a complaint triggered program and now you need to build a ramp for the guy and conform to all of the rules of the landmark, the US highway system, the ordinance for the width of a sidewalk and who knows what else, pay for it all yourself or just close your new show room.

How does this fit your neat little, and by that I mean small, world view?

 

[code1211]

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?

Well we know for sure the Republicans didn't regulate the crooks, and now the crooks are Super PAC's able to influence elections not by reason but by emotion and dollars - lots and lots of dollars. Plutocracy is here now; American style democracy is no more.

Actually, most of the regulation for the outfits that collapsed and caused the meltdown was done and maintained by the teams led by Frank in the House and Dodd in the Senate.

One of the defining traits of liberals is that they just love to tell people how to run businesses that they they as Liberals don't understand in any way whatever.

It's this utter lack of understand that gives us the catalytic converter to convert Carbon Monoxide into Carbon Dioxide and then helps to give birth to the Carbon Dioxide panic. The Libs support both the use of the catylitc converter and the reduction of CO2.

Cue the Circus music.

 

[expat_panama]

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

Right....

No, wrong.

Businesses don't regulate themselves because they don't even run themselves. It's people that run and regulate business, and it's people that run governments and have them regulate things as people see fit.