What creates jobs?

[Oddball]

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.

Increasing demand for existing product creates jobs, we don't need new products or companies to do so. There is where your mind fart is, failing to understand that the majority of increased demand is for existing products. It doesn't take a new invention to increase demand or jobs.

So you can demand all you want for more Starbucks coffee, gasoline, a larger jar of peanut butter, DVD rentals, and a host of products that already exists.

You should spend less time watching the news and go outside and watch what people actually buy. What people buy is demand and increasing that is increasing demand.

Piss off, boy.

Demand doesn't take any initiative, production does.

Now go pick up your unemployment check and get your EBT card recharged.

 

[rdean]

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?

a:
DEMAND

The market hardly cares if a company worth 1 billion is owned by one billionaire or 10,000 people with $100,000 investments

That one word says it all. The country was doing best under Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. The last Republican president who left office with a balanced budget. Who enjoyed a 90% tax rate on the wealthiest Americans. Who made NASA bloom. Who was a great proponent of science. Who pushed for an intercontinental highway system. Who took that tax money and INVESTED it into what became the greatest country ever. A former General who believed in American helping American and NEVER called it "socialism".

 

[itfitzme]

Envy is most unbecoming.

Your an idiot with no objective sense.

Concern for unemployment isn't envy.

How you "feel" has nothing to do with macro economics. What fantasy land do you live in where you think your somehow going join the uber rich where all the poor people envy you?

And how long have you felt this way? Since your daddy was unemployed?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Are rich people not consumers? I have to assume the person summering in the Hamptons is spending money.

Which is more demand in the market place, a thousand rich people buying Corvettes, yachts, and mansions in the Hamptons or ten thousand middle income workers buying new homes and home improvement materials? How about compared to five million lower income workers spending the extra $50 a week from there paychecks on more food?

The answer is, people summering at the Hamptons have less propensity to spend compared to the lower and middle income levels. Not only do they have less propensity to spend, there are far fewer of them.

On two counts, wealthy create less demand.

What percentage of one's income should be spent on consumption so that there's an ideal level of demand in your mind?

 

[uscitizen]

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?

let me guess higher taxes,skyrocketing gas prices,a 16 trillion dollar debt ,cutting the military,crippling NASA ???

I have a bit of memory left and right wingers complaining about cutting NASA funding is funny as hell!

 

[itfitzme]

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?

Oh, I agree with our pols....I say put EVERYONE on welfare. That will get everyone employed for sure!

Putting everyone on welfare would mean no one is working. Mindless hyperboles are meaningless. They are an indicator of a weak mind unable to focus on the details of reality.

How about the federal government give every company $50 dollars for every dollar on income, a negative tax rate, that is guaranteed to motivate them to create jobs and increase output. Then we can tax the lower and middle income workers to fund it.

That makes far more sense then your "put everyone on welfare."

 

[Widdekind]

sequestering...wealth does nothing to make economic growth happen. And ceding the majority of wealth, and that means power, among so few runs counter to a dynamic economy.

you accuse "the rich" of "hoarding" ? But Investing is not "burying the money in the backyard"; and if Investments are stolen, by fraudsters (e.g. Bernard Madoff), then their fraud is the problem ? Or, are those fraudsters lauded as "modern-day Robin Hoods" ?

The majority of increasing demand is for products that already exist.

how could Demand "now" increase (or decrease) for "now-not-yet-existing" products ? Demand for "future products" resembles Investment.

 

[itfitzme]

Are rich people not consumers? I have to assume the person summering in the Hamptons is spending money.

How many rich are there compared to the numbers in the middle class and lower middle class? Could there be more poorer consumers than the very few who hold wealth?

Of course, but you made a distinction between rich people and consumers and then used an example of some rich person spending their summer in the Hamptons as if that was a bad thing. Though I do agree with your conclusion that we need tax relief for consumers, I simply apply that to all consumers alike. Rich, poor, middle class, and everyone else.

Hardly, your reading things into it that aren't there then missed the point entirely. The question was, in the scale of things, does summering at the Hamptons create more jobs. The question wasn't if summering at the Hampton's was a bad thing. It is a question of scale, some rich person spending their summer in the Hamptons is a good thing for the local vendors. But it isn't a solution to a macro economic issue of high unemployment.

A quantity of 10% of the consumer market doesn't qualify as consumers. 90% of the consumer market qualifies as consumers. Summering in the Hamptons doesn't create sufficient demand for a national economy. A single upper middle and upper class neighborhood in every major metropolitan area across the nation does not create as much demand as all the remaining neighborhoods. People summering in the Hamptons are already summering in the Hamptons, giving them a tax break isn't going to increase their spending compared to giving a tax break to lower and middle income levels. The wealthy have less of a propensity to spend and their are magnitudes fewer of them. The lower four income quintiles are four times as many people as the upper quintile. And the upper 5% of income earners are 18 times less then all the remaining.

The propensity to spend for the upper quintiile is less then the lower four quintiles. The net result on demand is the propensity to spend times the number of people, and 4 times a larger amount is even more then one times a smaller amount.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

The only way to attain economic growth is by making sure there are enough consumers with disposable income.

If people were taxed less they'd have more disposable income to purchase goods...

Which is good, but doesn't go far enough. Either prices or output would rise. If demand is low, then output would rise and with it and employment. If demand is high, and employment low, then prices are a function of the amount of money that is available to flow through the economy. As the spendable income rises, so goes the money flow in exchanges. My knee jerk reaction was on only one, until I thougt again. We have to remember it depends on the state of affairs. Lowering taxes to increase spendable income only works when the economy is at less then full output. Eventuallty, prices rise to consume all available income then we are right back to where we were, except with less tax revenue.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How many rich are there compared to the numbers in the middle class and lower middle class? Could there be more poorer consumers than the very few who hold wealth?

Of course, but you made a distinction between rich people and consumers and then used an example of some rich person spending their summer in the Hamptons as if that was a bad thing. Though I do agree with your conclusion that we need tax relief for consumers, I simply apply that to all consumers alike. Rich, poor, middle class, and everyone else.

Hardly, your reading things into it that aren't there then missed the point entirely. The question was, in the scale of things, does summering at the Hamptons create more jobs. The question wasn't if summering at the Hampton's was a bad thing. It is a question of scale, some rich person spending their summer in the Hamptons is a good thing for the local vendors. But it isn't a solution to a macro economic issue of high unemployment.

A quantity of 10% of the consumer market doesn't qualify as consumers. 90% of the consumer market qualifies as consumers. Summering in the Hamptons doesn't create sufficient demand for a national economy. A single upper middle and upper class neighborhood in every major metropolitan area across the nation does not create as much demand as all the remaining neighborhoods. People summering in the Hamptons are already summering in the Hamptons, giving them a tax break isn't going to increase their spending compared to giving a tax break to lower and middle income levels. The wealthy have less of a propensity to spend and their are magnitudes fewer of them. The lower four income quintiles are four times as many people as the upper quintile. And the upper 5% of income earners are 18 times less then all the remaining.

The propensity to spend for the upper quintiile is less then the lower four quintiles. The net result on demand is the propensity to spend times the number of people, and 4 times a larger amount is even more then one times a smaller amount.

Except you're just looking at the consumption of the people in the Hamptons by itself, which makes no sense.

 

[Oddball]

Except you're just looking at the consumption of the people in the Hamptons by itself, which makes no sense.

None of Marxism makes any sense, unless you can overgeneralize and exaggerate the most extreme potential actions of the relatively well off.

Hope that helps.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Money in the pocket of consumers.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

What the h are you talking about? Demand for sidewalks isn't directly created by building them. That is supply side economics, Say's Law. It says that production creates it's own demand. Is that what you mean, Say's Law?

The idea of public projects is on two counts, one would be things like road improvements that aid in the increase in commerce. This is especially useful if the projects are way overdue. The other is in the demand that is created by the people that do the work. Say's law applies equally well here, that production creates it's own demand. And that is supply side reasoning. A single anecdote. of some sidewalks in Oklahoma City isn't macro economics of national unemployment.

You need to follow the supplies, the goods and the money as it flows around the loop.

The roadwork is income for labor that is spent on goods and services, increasing demand for those things, like food, clothing, gasoline, DVDs, etc. Up the supply chain, it is demand for materials which increases jobs in supplier industries. This then gets spent on good, clothing, gasoline, DVDs, etc.

 

[itfitzme]

Are rich people not consumers?

They consume far less out of each $1 they earn than the middle class and poor.

If a normal middle class family owns 2 cars - and I'm a rich person making 1000 times as much money as the middle class family - does that mean I'll probably buy 2000 cars? No. 20 maybe. Not 2000. Clearly a $1 in the hands of someone who isn't wealthy is much more likely to be spent into the economy.

Even if what you said were relevant, which I would say it's not, then what happens to the rest of the rich person's money? It's saved. This is also good for the economy.

His example was precisely relevant. It couldn't have been more relevant.

Your comment, though, is wrong. While savings equals investment, it only equals investment when there is market demand to be leveraged such that there is a demand for investment. If a company has shown it's ability in the market place and there is untapped demand, then savings equals investment which increases output to reach untapped demand. With no demand, savings only leads to lower prices as demand falls and prices fall to increase sales. This is the process of deflation.

Just as well, a lot of that just goes into a stock market bubble and the "savings" churns back and forth, doing nothing. Then there is the additional "savings" that is nothing but the reserves for revolving credit. This could result in a rise in output if there were consumers willing to use the credit. It depends on a lot of factors.

Then, there is the fact that the Federal Reserve Banks have already increased there reserves to extra ordinary levels. Even so, we are in a liquidity trap and there are no investment loans being taken out. Why it that? Because there is no demand.

Savings does not directly or even necessarily mean good for the economy. One instance is that savings can cause deflation by reducing demand which leads to falling prices. This was, in fact, what the initial concern was with the recession.

You cannot build a valid economic understanding by starting with an ideology.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They consume far less out of each $1 they earn than the middle class and poor.

If a normal middle class family owns 2 cars - and I'm a rich person making 1000 times as much money as the middle class family - does that mean I'll probably buy 2000 cars? No. 20 maybe. Not 2000. Clearly a $1 in the hands of someone who isn't wealthy is much more likely to be spent into the economy.

Even if what you said were relevant, which I would say it's not, then what happens to the rest of the rich person's money? It's saved. This is also good for the economy.

His example was precisely relevant. It couldn't have been more relevant.

Your comment, though, is wrong. While savings equals investment, it only equals investment when there is market demand to be leveraged such that there is a demand for investment. If a company has shown it's ability in the market place and there is untapped demand, then savings equals investment which increases output to reach untapped demand. With no demand, savings only leads to lower prices as demand falls and prices fall to increase sales. This is the process of deflation.

Just as well, a lot of that just goes into a stock market bubble and the "savings" churns back and forth, doing nothing. Then there is the additional "savings" that is nothing but the reserves for revolving credit. This could result in a rise in output if there were consumers willing to use the credit. It depends on a lot of factors.

Then, there is the fact that the Federal Reserve Banks have already increased there reserves to extra ordinary levels. Even so, we are in a liquidity trap and there are no investment loans being taken out. Why it that? Because there is no demand.

Savings does not directly or even necessarily mean good for the economy. One instance is that savings can cause deflation by reducing demand which leads to falling prices. This was, in fact, what the initial concern was with the recession.

You cannot build a valid economic understanding by starting with an ideology.

Yet everyone has an ideology, even you.

 

[itfitzme]

The only way to attain economic growth is by making sure there are enough consumers with disposable income.

If people were taxed less they'd have more disposable income to purchase goods...

You'd thing that stating the obvious to the clueless would.......well.......give them a clue, but alas!

Except only someone clueless would think that an incorrect statement is obvious. You apparently have no clue about how the economy functions. People that are taxed less are paid less money because in the competition for jobs, someone else is willing to bid down to a lower income. Just as well, lowering taxes can lead to rising prices.

There are a couple of clues for you, but alas.... Think, man, think. It's a feedback loop.

 

[itfitzme]

Of course, but you made a distinction between rich people and consumers and then used an example of some rich person spending their summer in the Hamptons as if that was a bad thing. Though I do agree with your conclusion that we need tax relief for consumers, I simply apply that to all consumers alike. Rich, poor, middle class, and everyone else.

Hardly, your reading things into it that aren't there then missed the point entirely. The question was, in the scale of things, does summering at the Hamptons create more jobs. The question wasn't if summering at the Hampton's was a bad thing. It is a question of scale, some rich person spending their summer in the Hamptons is a good thing for the local vendors. But it isn't a solution to a macro economic issue of high unemployment.

A quantity of 10% of the consumer market doesn't qualify as consumers. 90% of the consumer market qualifies as consumers. Summering in the Hamptons doesn't create sufficient demand for a national economy. A single upper middle and upper class neighborhood in every major metropolitan area across the nation does not create as much demand as all the remaining neighborhoods. People summering in the Hamptons are already summering in the Hamptons, giving them a tax break isn't going to increase their spending compared to giving a tax break to lower and middle income levels. The wealthy have less of a propensity to spend and their are magnitudes fewer of them. The lower four income quintiles are four times as many people as the upper quintile. And the upper 5% of income earners are 18 times less then all the remaining.

The propensity to spend for the upper quintiile is less then the lower four quintiles. The net result on demand is the propensity to spend times the number of people, and 4 times a larger amount is even more then one times a smaller amount.

Except you're just looking at the consumption of the people in the Hamptons by itself, which makes no sense.

No, I am looking at "the upper quintiile". He was presenting "people summering in the Hamptons" as a sort of hyperbole, a specific imagery to attach to the idea of the uber wealthy. All of which makes sense.

I see that it makes no sense to you.

 

[itfitzme]

Even if what you said were relevant, which I would say it's not, then what happens to the rest of the rich person's money? It's saved. This is also good for the economy.

His example was precisely relevant. It couldn't have been more relevant.

Your comment, though, is wrong. While savings equals investment, it only equals investment when there is market demand to be leveraged such that there is a demand for investment. If a company has shown it's ability in the market place and there is untapped demand, then savings equals investment which increases output to reach untapped demand. With no demand, savings only leads to lower prices as demand falls and prices fall to increase sales. This is the process of deflation.

Just as well, a lot of that just goes into a stock market bubble and the "savings" churns back and forth, doing nothing. Then there is the additional "savings" that is nothing but the reserves for revolving credit. This could result in a rise in output if there were consumers willing to use the credit. It depends on a lot of factors.

Then, there is the fact that the Federal Reserve Banks have already increased there reserves to extra ordinary levels. Even so, we are in a liquidity trap and there are no investment loans being taken out. Why it that? Because there is no demand.

Savings does not directly or even necessarily mean good for the economy. One instance is that savings can cause deflation by reducing demand which leads to falling prices. This was, in fact, what the initial concern was with the recession.

You cannot build a valid economic understanding by starting with an ideology.

Yet everyone has an ideology, even you.

No, that everyone has an ideology is part of your ideology. Your projecting.

I don't have an ideology. I have practicality.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hardly, your reading things into it that aren't there then missed the point entirely. The question was, in the scale of things, does summering at the Hamptons create more jobs. The question wasn't if summering at the Hampton's was a bad thing. It is a question of scale, some rich person spending their summer in the Hamptons is a good thing for the local vendors. But it isn't a solution to a macro economic issue of high unemployment.

A quantity of 10% of the consumer market doesn't qualify as consumers. 90% of the consumer market qualifies as consumers. Summering in the Hamptons doesn't create sufficient demand for a national economy. A single upper middle and upper class neighborhood in every major metropolitan area across the nation does not create as much demand as all the remaining neighborhoods. People summering in the Hamptons are already summering in the Hamptons, giving them a tax break isn't going to increase their spending compared to giving a tax break to lower and middle income levels. The wealthy have less of a propensity to spend and their are magnitudes fewer of them. The lower four income quintiles are four times as many people as the upper quintile. And the upper 5% of income earners are 18 times less then all the remaining.

The propensity to spend for the upper quintiile is less then the lower four quintiles. The net result on demand is the propensity to spend times the number of people, and 4 times a larger amount is even more then one times a smaller amount.

Except you're just looking at the consumption of the people in the Hamptons by itself, which makes no sense.

No, I am looking at "the upper quintiile". He was presenting "people summering in the Hamptons" as a sort of hyperbole, a specific imagery to attach to the idea of the uber wealthy. All of which makes sense.

I see that it makes no sense to you.

Oh it made sense, it was just wrong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

His example was precisely relevant. It couldn't have been more relevant.

Your comment, though, is wrong. While savings equals investment, it only equals investment when there is market demand to be leveraged such that there is a demand for investment. If a company has shown it's ability in the market place and there is untapped demand, then savings equals investment which increases output to reach untapped demand. With no demand, savings only leads to lower prices as demand falls and prices fall to increase sales. This is the process of deflation.

Just as well, a lot of that just goes into a stock market bubble and the "savings" churns back and forth, doing nothing. Then there is the additional "savings" that is nothing but the reserves for revolving credit. This could result in a rise in output if there were consumers willing to use the credit. It depends on a lot of factors.

Then, there is the fact that the Federal Reserve Banks have already increased there reserves to extra ordinary levels. Even so, we are in a liquidity trap and there are no investment loans being taken out. Why it that? Because there is no demand.

Savings does not directly or even necessarily mean good for the economy. One instance is that savings can cause deflation by reducing demand which leads to falling prices. This was, in fact, what the initial concern was with the recession.

You cannot build a valid economic understanding by starting with an ideology.

Yet everyone has an ideology, even you.

No, that everyone has an ideology is part of your ideology. Your projecting.

I don't have an ideology. I have practicality.

Technically you're projecting. I fully admit I have an ideology. I just know that everybody else has an ideology as well.