CONFIRMED!: Rich People DO Create the Jobs

[Dragon]

Before the consumer does any consuming, he has to get his money from somewhere.

Not in dispute. But the fact remains that the more money he gets, the more jobs will be created.

(By the way, take it back to the origins of industry, and you're wrong; most people in those days didn't have "jobs." They had land which they worked as small farmers, or they had small craft businesses of their own.)

High wages create jobs. This is one of those points where supply-side and demand-side theory part company. Supply-side theory would champion LOW wages so as to reduce the COST of hiring. Demand-side theory would champion HIGH wages so as to increase the INCENTIVE of hiring (by increasing consumer demand).

A little reflection should show which is right. If there is no (or inadequate) incentive to hire, reducing the cost of hiring will not promote employment. A business does not choose to waste money just because the amount of money to be wasted is lowered.

 

[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?

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.

The liberoidals have a totally shit record themselves, for looking the other way when their agencies screw the pooch and taking jillions in campaign loot from PACs and corporate interests.

You can stop being a party man hack stooge any time now....But I ain't a-holdin' my breath.

 

[Oddball]

Before the consumer does any consuming, he has to get his money from somewhere.

Not in dispute. But the fact remains that the more money he gets, the more jobs will be created.

(By the way, take it back to the origins of industry, and you're wrong; most people in those days didn't have "jobs." They had land which they worked as small farmers, or they had small craft businesses of their own.)

High wages create jobs. This is one of those points where supply-side and demand-side theory part company. Supply-side theory would champion LOW wages so as to reduce the COST of hiring. Demand-side theory would champion HIGH wages so as to increase the INCENTIVE of hiring (by increasing consumer demand).

A little reflection should show which is right. If there is no (or inadequate) incentive to hire, reducing the cost of hiring will not promote employment. A business does not choose to waste money just because the amount of money to be wasted is lowered.

As I've already pointed out, the money and effort required to open a store front, obtain the requisite licenses and tax use permits, jump through the other various and sundry regulatory hoops, and hire the help -all of which has to happen before demand #1 is fulfilled- is expended by the relatively wealthy business operator.

While demand may well keep the doors of the business open, the consumers do absolutely none of the hiring, firing or any other aspect of the job creation, at the point where those actions are carried out.

 

[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.

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.

dragon engaged in a ridiculous semantic...see, wraiths, elves, or unicorns which ever, give the order to HR or, to the owners wife, assistant etc. to put an ad in the paepr, or online for an open poostion.

this stupid shit about how the money to hire someone is generated is his way of sounding like your atypical academic, didn't you see how smart he was laboring a non point? PEOPLE hire, people who who can afford to. full stop.

We all know its due to supply demand and a consumer....its his way of sounding scholarly and like most he sounds like hes disconnected from reality.

 

[cbirch2]

Business wont hire if there isnt enough demand for their products.

Imagine that scenario, what would it look like? Well you'd see corporations and businesses sitting on huge sums of cash, businesses not hiring anyone.

Wow sounds familiar.

And in that scenario yes government should spend money to create demand to provide jobs to have businesses pay their workers (who can then consume). Youd have to assume an multiplier of at least 2. Thats on the low side.

With interest rates this low we would need a pathetically low multiplier for stimulus to not be effective. Something like 1.05, which is almost impossible.

The problem is demand, its obvious to anyone that watches, and the solution is certainly government spending.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the curious, attached below is a counterpoint to the OP.

Finally, A Rich American Destroys The Fiction That Rich People Create The Jobs - Business Insider

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It seems perfectly obvious to all, except liberals of course, that it would be infinitely more efficient to give, say, Bill Gates or George Romney money to create jobs rather than some poor poor person.

When liberals are around the level is kindergarten at best it seems. Why is that?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem is demand, its obvious to anyone that watches, and the solution is certainly government spending.

100% mistaken and perefectly liberal of course. Government spending just creates an artificial bubble, like the housing bubble, that bursts to cause a recession.

Then, you have to wait for Republican capitalism to reallocate the mal-invested resourses back to where they belong before real sustainable growth can occur.

 

[code1211]

Business wont hire if there isnt enough demand for their products.

Imagine that scenario, what would it look like? Well you'd see corporations and businesses sitting on huge sums of cash, businesses not hiring anyone.

Wow sounds familiar.

And in that scenario yes government should spend money to create demand to provide jobs to have businesses pay their workers (who can then consume). Youd have to assume an multiplier of at least 2. Thats on the low side.

With interest rates this low we would need a pathetically low multiplier for stimulus to not be effective. Something like 1.05, which is almost impossible.

The problem is demand, its obvious to anyone that watches, and the solution is certainly government spending.

If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

You stated the answer AND missed it completely. Business is sitting on Trillions of dollars because they are paralyzed with doubt as to what the Deceptor in Chief will do next.

They know he wants to drive fuel prices to levels above $7.00/gallon. He's said that as the justification for wasting all the money trying to pick winners with his Solyndra debacles.

Healthcare which is still evolving, the EPA is running amok. The justice Department is bringing suit against employers who create non-union jobs then dropping the suits if properly paid off.

This corrupt and deceptive gangs of thieves is driving the most innovative group of business people into their collective shell.

People who have money are afraid to invest it. I am. Aren't you?

 

[daveman]

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.

Where did he say he wants to do away with all regulation? Link it.

Or were you just building a strawman and self-righteously knocking it down?

Yes, that seems far more likely.

 

[code1211]

It seems perfectly obvious to all, except liberals of course, that it would be infinitely more efficient to give, say, Bill Gates or George Romney money to create jobs rather than some poor poor person.

When liberals are around the level is kindergarten at best it seems. Why is that?

You don't need to pay a rich person to create jobs. You only need to remove the penalties.

If the reward justifies the risk, the risk takers will swing into action. If the reward is not enough to incent that taking of risk, the money will sit around instead of being put at risk.

This isn't rocket science. It's simple cause and effect.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Business wont hire if there isnt enough demand for their products.

This, of course, is the most brain dead of all liberal talking points. Since the stone age people have always demanded better and cheaper products as a matter of survival. Demand is 100% constant over time. Supply is 100% variable over time changing from sticks and stones to Plazma TVs.

Therefore we want above all to encourage the supply of goods and services that will continue getting us farther and farther away from the stone age.

 

[daveman]

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.

You speak of things you're not equipped to comprehend. Perhaps you should stop.

 

[daveman]

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.

As long as they have some left, it's not enough.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the solution is certainly government spending.

Yes exactly even after we are $15 trillion in debt from spending the liberal can only propose more spending. Its 100% idiotic.

And lets be honest shall we. Even a tiny child knows that dropping liberal money out of helicopters is not real spending.

 

[daveman]

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.

Envy much?

 

[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.

As long as they have some left, it's not enough.

anyone who has more than most has too much. Doesn't matter if they worked their ass off 75 hrs a week for 20 yrs to get there. If you find yourself earning a high salary, you are now the problem. You are greedy, you are not paying your fair share.

The guy who smoked weed all day long in his 20's, never tried, never worked hard, made horrible life decisions, he is the victim. He needs. He is angry because he doesn't have. He will make you pay. There are soon to be more of them and they will get their revenge. Revenge of the sloths.

 

[daveman]

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?

That's different. Somehow. It just is.

Right, Carby?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

Wealthy capitalists have made America the richest nation in human history with the richest, highest paying jobs in human history. It is slowing down now only because there is more liberal interference than ever with the wealthy.

 

[daveman]

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?

Is that what he said?

Hint: No.

You're fucking retarded.

He would be, if he actually advocated that.

Oh, by the way -- you're fucking retarded.