What creates jobs?

[8537]

Increased productivity -> increased wages and profits -> increased aggregate demand -> increased aggregate supply -> increased jobs.

 

[editec]

This debate about who CREATES jobs is rather silly.

A functioning economic system is what is required for jobs-at-pay to be created and that responsibility falls to all of us.

 

[kwc57]

Well no, no it isn't.

Well, yes, yes it is. You see, we were discussing economics, in terms of what works, what will create jobs, what will grow the economy. Your response had nothing to do with that, and instead was a primal howl that we CAN'T DO THAT for purely emotional reasons.

Even if I agreed with you, which I don't, it would still have been effectively a non-response, except the equivalent of a toddler poking his lip out and saying "NO!"

Really? You might want to go read your OP, which is a rip on wealthy people hoarding their money, wanting more advatages at the expense of the poor and not loosening their purse strings to create jobs. You know, things I addressed. You need to pick a single topic and stick with it. Maybe you missed a dose of ritalin.

 

[Dragon]

Really? You might want to go read your OP

What? My OP? Did I start this thread? I don't think I started this thread.[Looks again.] No, dimbulb, it's not my OP, it's Naomo King's OP.

which is a rip on wealthy people hoarding their money

Yeah, well, you see it that way because you think in terms of emotions and angry condemnations rather than in terms of the mechanics of economics. I see it as saying that OF COURSE wealthy people are hoarding their money, because the consumer demand doesn't exist to justify them investing it in activities that create jobs. So it's not a "rip" on wealthy people, it's a suggestion that we need to spread the wealth around, thus generating more consumer demand, after which the (still) wealthy people will actually see a good reason to invest.

You see it differently because, frankly, you don't understand economics at all.

 

[Dragon]

Increased productivity -> increased wages and profits -> increased aggregate demand -> increased aggregate supply -> increased jobs.

Increased productivity does not generate increased wages, unless labor has the effective bargaining power (through high labor demand and unions) to INSIST that it do so.

There's the flaw in your logical progression.

 

[Oddball]

Increased productivity -> increased wages and profits -> increased aggregate demand -> increased aggregate supply -> increased jobs.

Increased productivity does not generate increased wages, unless labor has the effective bargaining power (through high labor demand and unions) to INSIST that it do so.

There's the flaw in your logical progression.

Bullshit.

Non-union individuals ask for and get raises all the time.

There's the glaring flaw in your socialistic presumptions....That the individual is too wimpy to watch out after himself.

 

[8537]

Increased productivity -> increased wages and profits -> increased aggregate demand -> increased aggregate supply -> increased jobs.

Increased productivity does not generate increased wages, unless labor has the effective bargaining power (through high labor demand and unions) to INSIST that it do so.

There's the flaw in your logical progression.

In the short run, increased productivity has not led to increased wages in recent years.

in the long run, the only thing that can lead to increased wages is increased productivity or a shift in how revenues are split among the factors.

 

[Oldstyle]

Once again, I hate to point out the obvious but if I as a business owner am looking at projected cost increases due to higher taxes, increased regulations or more expensive energy...I am not apt to give out pay increases to my labor force. I am more apt to give raises however, if I'm looking at stable costs and no looming regulations or taxes.

Business owners reward their people when they feel comfortable with their finances going forward. When they are fearful...they don't, a concept that seems beyond the comprehension of this Adminstration who continually blames businesses for the shortcomings of governmental policy and inevitably declares that what's needed is more regulation or higher taxes to address the situation.

 

[Widdekind]

if I as a business owner am looking at projected cost increases due to higher taxes, increased regulations or more expensive energy...I am not apt to give out pay increases to my labor force. I am more apt to give raises however, if I'm looking at stable costs and no looming regulations or taxes.

"taxes" are taken, by Governments, in the name of "nations" of people, represented by that Government.

ergo, "taxes" represent de facto wage payments, to "the rest of the nation" (who provide no productive Labor, whilst threatening Governmental Force). Cp. "leaving your windows open, and heating/air-conditioning the outdoors".

 

[Widdekind]

Increased productivity does not generate increased wages, unless labor has the effective bargaining power (through high labor demand and unions) to INSIST that it do so.

Non-union individuals ask for and get raises all the time

yes, "non-union individuals receive raises"

also yes, such occurs, if-and-only-if those workers leverage "high labor demand"

"unwanted workers" cannot demand, and do not receive, raises

in the absence of Force (or threat thereof) & Deception, voluntary economic transactions, e.g. low-demand workers laboring for $1/day, benefit all parties. The existence of "more money elsewhere" does not, then, "justify" low-demand workers Unionizing, in order to "throw the first punch", employing Force (or Deception) to finagle supra-economic, more-than-fair-market, wages.

historically, Force & Deception have also been applied, against Laborers

"two wrongs make not a right" (except for lawyers)

ambition, which is allowed to "leave [the economy] and come back with a gun", distorts markets, i.e. "twists the economy's arm"

 

[Oddball]

If the workers are in such low wage and low demand positions, then it behooves them to go find a better job.

 

[Immanuel]

A better question is: what kills jobs?

I would have to venture a guess that something that plays a big part in killing jobs is an oppressive government that uses tax code and other legislation such as free trade and the ACA to hinder corporate expansion.

No one thing is solely responsible for high unemployment. But, I am convinced that an over bearing government can play a big part in the loss of jobs. Do I think tax cuts for the rich provides jobs? Maybe in a small way, but not significantly. Rather the perceived anti-corporate policies of this administration are much more destructive to jobs growth than tax cuts for the rich and famous liberals throughout this country.

In the same light increasing taxes won't help the jobs situation either and the last thing we all should want is more people working for the U.S. Government soaking up more tax dollars and providing little to no benefit to the American people.

Immie

 

[Widdekind]

Demand creates jobs. Customers with cash in their hands clamoring for the goods produced creates jobs. It creates economic expansion and thus job growth.?

Consumer spending drives the economy. The exchange of capital for goods and services is the very definition of economic activity. Concentrate capital among the very few and there will be a slower, less expansive economy.

what about the exchange of money, for Investments & Savings ?

naively, Investment is money lent to businesses; Savings is money lent to banks; the former directly funds business expansion, creating more jobs; the latter indirectly funds business expansion (when businesses borrow from banks), creating more jobs

If so, the I+S are legitimate economic activities, that (directly, indirectly) generate jobs.

 

[Nosmo King]

Demand creates jobs. Customers with cash in their hands clamoring for the goods produced creates jobs. It creates economic expansion and thus job growth.?

Consumer spending drives the economy. The exchange of capital for goods and services is the very definition of economic activity. Concentrate capital among the very few and there will be a slower, less expansive economy.

what about the exchange of money, for Investments & Savings ?

naively, Investment is money lent to businesses; Savings is money lent to banks; the former directly funds business expansion, creating more jobs; the latter indirectly funds business expansion (when businesses borrow from banks), creating more jobs

If so, the I+S are legitimate economic activities, that (directly, indirectly) generate jobs.

Does investment take place with low demand? If there isn't enough disposable income among the consumer class, why would someone invest to expand production? Wouldn't that lead to full warehouses and idle workers?

 

[8537]

Demand creates jobs. Customers with cash in their hands clamoring for the goods produced creates jobs. It creates economic expansion and thus job growth.?

Consumer spending drives the economy. The exchange of capital for goods and services is the very definition of economic activity. Concentrate capital among the very few and there will be a slower, less expansive economy.

what about the exchange of money, for Investments & Savings ?

naively, Investment is money lent to businesses; Savings is money lent to banks; the former directly funds business expansion, creating more jobs; the latter indirectly funds business expansion (when businesses borrow from banks), creating more jobs

If so, the I+S are legitimate economic activities, that (directly, indirectly) generate jobs.

The I=S identity doesn't state that savings equals planned investment. Just that S=I. If there is increased demand for liquid assets, there's a corresponding decrease in demand for consumer goods. Right now, our problem is too high demand for liquid assets.

 

[uscitizen]

What creates jobs?

Well in a consumer spending driven economy like ours it is consumers having more money to spend.
ie higher wages.

 

[Barb]

Guys who create things other people want to buy create jobs.

You can demand all you want but if there's nobody there to produce, all your demand isn't worth a popcorn fart.

Neither is your production, if enough people don't have the money to buy.

 

[Widdekind]

Consumer driven growth is more sustainable and profitable then investment driven growth, given that the latter results in dot.com/housing bubbles.

i.e. "foolish economic activity is non-sustainable" ("fools & money are soon parted"); Americans comprehend "Consumption", much more than "Investment", so that they are better with the former, than the latter.

that is not an intrinsic indictment of Investment, but rather of unrestrained folly. How do you dis-incentivize Investment fraud (potential profits << potential risks) ?

 

[Widdekind]

rich spend more money on alcohol [and] beach front properties

cutting the riches taxes does not increase demand, because the rich already consume everything they want. When you make 10million a year getting 1million more wont result in you buying more things.

Third cutting the riches taxes would result in more economic bubbles given that they have to invest that moeny into something and during the past two business cycles they invested that money in inefficacy dot.coms or CDO's and suprime housing

please rank-order the following options:

1. "rich society" -- everybody wealthy
2. "poor society" -- everybody poor
3. "mixed society" -- some wealthy, some poor

If we agree, that (1) > (2); then how could we transition from (2) ---> (1), without a transiting an intermediate stage (3)? "Clipping" wealth emerging from poverty, resembles "pruning", e.g. Bonzai trees.

 

[Barb]

There are some who think that coddling the rich will create jobs. That if those very rich had just a few more advantages, they would open their considerable purses and let the wealth flow like manna from heaven.

Do tax cuts create the opportunity for job growth? Does someone summering in the Hamptons glance at his 1040 and sudden decide to open a factory because his marginal rate has been cut from 39% to 35%?

No.

Demand creates jobs. Customers with cash in their hands clamoring for the goods produced creates jobs. It creates economic expansion and thus job growth.

Should more money be concentrated among the very wealthy or should more consumers enjoy tax relief and therefore more disposable income?

Evidently Dear Ruler thinks sidewalks create jobs. He has spent millions of stimulus dollars in Oklahoma City building sidewalks where none ever existed. Evidently there was a demand for them, because he's built them everywhere. In fact, there must have been a demand to replace existing sidewalks to, because many old ones were ripped up and replaced.

And the people who worked to build those sidewalks?
Did they pay taxes on their income? Did they pay the rent, the mortgage, the lights and gas? Did they register their cars, inspect them, buy tires and oil and gas for them? Did they, maybe, get their kid a kite, or a bicycle, or a Popsicle? Maybe the wifey got a new coat, or shoes. Maybe the excess was squandered in a local bar, or a strip club, or a brothel...

in ANY case, it increased tax revenues and economic activity all around.