The Rich Don't Create Jobs

[bripat9643]

Yeah, actually there is.

Then you need to explain it, 'cause it sure ain't obvious. All I was saying was that the choice to accept or reject a job offer isn't nearly as "free" as you make out. It's "free" only in the sense that neither the employer nor the government is directly pointing a gun at the person's head and threatening punishment if they don't take the job. But circumstances may well be.

That's the meaning of freedom. It doesn't mean you aren't subject to the laws of nature. Man has to work to live. Government can't change that.

Again: the only free bargain possible is between equals. Which is, of course, the main reason for collective bargaining and unions. A single employee is NOT the equal of his employer and so cannot bargain freely with him. But all of the employees collectively ARE the employer's equal, and can make a free bargain. Of course, that's also why so many employers hate unions. They don't want to bargain with equals; they want to rent slaves by the hour.

That's a fundamentally Marxist conception of freedom. No such freedom ever existed or ever will. It makes a mockery of the very notion of freedom. Furthermore, it's cart blanch for government omnipotence. Only someone who was congenitally a believer in totalitarianism would espouse such a theory.

 

[bripat9643]

Old, I am still wondering over this "equal" business. When you buy a car you aren't the equal of General Motors. When you write a book you aren't the equal of the publisher. In fact, there is virtually no negotiation of an economic nature that takes place between equals. I dont know even what "equal" in respect of what means. Equal net worth? Equal income? Equal education? Equal intelligence? It is a non-statement.

The "equality" argument is just a Marxist excuse for the government to run everything and turns us all into serfs. That's why persons with a totalitarian bent of mind always turn to Marxism. It provides them will all the justifications for their nefarious schemes to rule.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Demand is based on availability and price.
1.The product exists
2. The product is priced appropriately

Demand is based on income and desire.
1. The product is desired.
2. Those who desire it have the money to buy it.

See how that works? It's not a function of supply. It's a function, with respect to any PARTICULAR product, of both desire and income; and overall, just of income.

Labor works the same way. Labor is a commodity. Supply and demand.
1. The product( people to do the job) exists
2. The product is priced appropriately.

By framing it that way, you argue that workers should accept any wage offered even if their children will starve on it, and if not, then they aren't "pricing their labor appropriately" and it's their fault. You can, of course, argue this way if you have no soul.

But even so, the price of labor relative to the price of goods on the market is also the measure of the ability to buy, and thus of whether goods produced can be sold. Not only are low wages bad for workers, they are also bad for the economy and, ultimately, bad for business.

The only people they are not bad for is those who measure their success in terms of how much of the nation's production they can hog to themselves.

Wrong and wrong..
What I posted are inescapable truths. There is no alternative to the facts.
The supply/demand axiom has been existence ever since mankind learned to trade one thing for another.
I never stated nor implied a worker must accept anything. Newsflash. Indentured servitude is illegal. IOW, workers are free to seek employment anywhere their respective abilities and skills allow. If a worker's skills or lack of them warrants a low wage, so be it. That means the data entry clerk does not get paid the same as the computer programmer. The person who cleans the office does not get the same wage as the executive secretary who works in that office.
If one earns a low(er) wage it is their responsibility to see they do not spend more than they earn. To make sure they take care of their priorities FIRST. If that means no cable tv or internet, ok. Used car instead of new? Works for me. Two kids instead of 4.....Terrific.
2 bedroom apartment instead of 4 bedroom house, outstanding decision.
Umm, the employer decides the labor rate in HIS business based on factors such as prevailing market wage, ability of the job being done to be productive, skill level and education required to do the job, experience of the worker hired to do the job.
" even if their children will starve on it, and if not, then they aren't "pricing their labor appropriately" and it's their fault. You can, of course, argue this way if you have no soul."
I have not a clue what this means.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Workers are free (note the word "free") to accept whatever wage they want, or hold out for a better wage.

A hungry belly makes no free bargains, and no one makes a free agreement when his children are hungry, either. The only free agreements that are ever made, are made between equals in power.

What are you talking about?
Children, hungry or otherwise have precisely ZERO to do with this debate.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yeah, actually there is.

Then you need to explain it, 'cause it sure ain't obvious. All I was saying was that the choice to accept or reject a job offer isn't nearly as "free" as you make out. It's "free" only in the sense that neither the employer nor the government is directly pointing a gun at the person's head and threatening punishment if they don't take the job. But circumstances may well be.

Again: the only free bargain possible is between equals. Which is, of course, the main reason for collective bargaining and unions. A single employee is NOT the equal of his employer and so cannot bargain freely with him. But all of the employees collectively ARE the employer's equal, and can make a free bargain. Of course, that's also why so many employers hate unions. They don't want to bargain with equals; they want to rent slaves by the hour.

" the choice to accept or reject a job offer isn't nearly as "free" as you make out."
Please explain.. And give examples.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Straight from the horses mouth. A multi-millionaire describing how backwards it is to give the rich tax breaks to create jobs. It's a terrible idea that has never been shown to work anywhere but the parrots continue to refer to it.

Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer - Businessweek

"That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be."


Bonus points to the first idiot who says, "nothing is stopping him from sending more money to the government".

While I completely disagree with tax breaks for the "job creators", let's face it, the poor create even fewer jobs than they do...

Gee......

......I wonder WHY??!!!!!

(.....You know....with allllllllllllll that investment-capital floating-around, out there.)