What creates jobs?

[itfitzme]

What demand created the Frizbee or the Pet Rock, jackass?

Wow. You are even more stupid than I thought. So you think the Frisbee and Pet Rock are examples of major job creating products? What a complete ass wipe!

How about Windows? Any idea how that came into being? IE? Smart Phones? GPS and Navigation Systems? Fax Machines? Phones? Cars? Fed Ex?
I could go on but a blithering idiot who would use pet rocks as an example of job creators is too stupid to catch on anyway...

Wow, you're even more of an obtuse arrogant dickhead than I had thought...And that's saying something.

What upgrade from the currently existing technologies were the Frizbee and Pet Rock?....THERE WERE NONE!!!

Some dude dreamed them up, produced them, then sold them to people who previously didn't know that they "needed" them.

Next time you think that you've tripped over a relevant comment on anything, best run it past one of your underlings who can manage to have a real thought...M'kay?

Where would they be manufactured today?

What was the GDP and unemployment rate like when they were intfoduced to the market, compared to today?

How many products like that will it take to create enough jobs?

 

[uscitizen]

Strange that we built incredible things in the USA prior to 1980, went to the moon and everything and had around 700 billion in national debt. But since then our infrastructure has declined, we became a debtor nation, and we are 15 trillion or thereabouts in debt.

And it is not all Obama's fault.

Actually the change came with Kennedy's change in Immigration Policy, Bottom Feeding for Democratic Votes. No offense.

Then came Reagans amnesty program...
Not that I agree with your conclusion on why things went downhill.

 

[editec]

NEED and DESIRE create demand.

I can't believe this is really an issue we need to debate!

DEMAND exists either as one that is natural or one that is socially and artifically manufactured.

We all need shoes but we don't all need GUCCIs.

 

[kaz]

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?

Well, since the top 5% of taxpayers pay 60% of all federal taxes and the bottom 50% pay zero, who's taxes are you going to cut to create demand exactly besides the "wealthy?"

Um actually you are 100% wrong. The bottom 40% of Americans pay around 20% of their income in taxes. The next 20% pays 27% of their income in taxes.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf

Hmm...my stats are from the IRS. Yours are from a liberal blog....

Also, you didn't actually read what I said or what you posted because they weren't talking about the same thing on multiple levels.

 

[kaz]

Well, since the top 5% of taxpayers pay 60% of all federal taxes and the bottom 50% pay zero, who's taxes are you going to cut to create demand exactly besides the "wealthy?"

Um actually you are 100% wrong. The bottom 40% of Americans pay around 20% of their income in taxes. The next 20% pays 27% of their income in taxes.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf

The percent of all taxes collected and the percent of one's income that is paid in taxes are not the same thing.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

He also doesn't address the percent rich bastards pay and he mixes types of taxes. The federal government can't cut state income or sales taxes, which was the discussion.

 

[itfitzme]

Economists tend to be sloppy with their terminology.

"In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay. The term demand signifies the ability or the willingness to buy a particular commodity at a given point of time."

Note the "ability to pay for it."

I go with a more strict definitions, the actual occurrence of the purchase of the product, the quantity demanded and the price it was demanded at. It is the measurable and observable activity that take place. This is a fundamental aspect of the science, any science.

We can infer that there is excess demand or what I like to call potential demand.

The demand curve is what the demand would be if the price was this or that. It is, unfortunately, not observable. The if is a big part.

We cannot observe or measure a persons willingness, desire, or need except in that they act.

The sloppiness leads to all manner of misinterpretations based on the assumption of something existing that, in fact, is not measurable.

If someone orders a thing, we can measure that as potential demand. If they put a deposit down on it, then the probability of that being demand increases significantly as we can measure the percentage of people that will give up their deposit. If they pay full price before receipt, well, they get the product they paid for whether they want it or not later. Unless, of course, they get a refund in which case there was no demand in the first place.

Maybe, there in lies part of the problem the lack of differentiating potential demand, if they had money and could make the purchase, from actual demand and quantity demanded. Why should we need to increase demand during the recession, there is plenty demand, what we need is to increase production. Production requires labor which then has money so they can actually express that demand.

There is a difference between some latent internal feeling and an observable behavioral feeling. Someone eating is hungry, we can observe that. "I feel hungry" is not an observable behavior. Many people feel hungry, but do nothing about it because, "I'm not THAT hungry, I'm to busy to eat." Well, then they really aren't hungry then are they. If they were really hungry, they would stop and eat.

Science cannot measure "desire". And when we start using subjective qualities to discuss it, it becomes confused by every manner of subjective interpretation.

We can hardly and definitively say that someone was "willingness to buy a particular commodity" if they said, "Yeah, I want it" then when they didn't actually buy it when it became available. For all we know, they don't know what they want. If they were actually willing, they would have actually done it.

We can check a persons ability to buy, based on income and expenses. We can infer the possible demand based on the change in the rate of sales. But we cannot measure desire or willingness to pay until they actually do it.

I have to say, economists are sloppy in their terminology. It is a hard science when we make it a hard science. And I suspect that, if we go back in the record of history of economics, we would likely find that the original usage was as observed.

If you stick with the "as observed" you cannot go wrong. if you cannot base the understanding on observation, you cannot have knowledge.

 

[Dragon]

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

That doesn't refute anything I said, anymore than the fact that people who have never smoked sometimes get lung cancer disproves the known dangers of tobacco.

 

[Dragon]

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.

It actually takes BOTH of the things you listed in your second paragraph. Increased productivity is necessary but not sufficient. It's also a given; productivity is always going up.

The reasons why wealth has become so maldistributed, and hence the economy underperforms, have nothing to do with productivity.

 

[Dragon]

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.

Sometimes what's "obvious" can be wrong.

The reality is that if you are a business owner, you NEVER want to pay out increases to your labor force. Labor is a cost of doing business; as with all costs, you want to keep them as low as possible. You will increase pay to your employees only if you HAVE to, and if you have to, then you WILL, regardless of taxes or any other cost considerations.

 

[Dragon]

please rank-order the following options:

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

1. 
   
   Your first two options are logical impossibilities. Rich and poor are relative terms; some people are rich only insofar as others are poor, and vice-versa.
   
   You also left off the truly ideal option: everyone is middle class. Unlike the above, this is not logically impossible, and if it's unachievable in practice, we can explore how to come closer to it than we are today.

 

[Dragon]

The percent of all taxes collected and the percent of one's income that is paid in taxes are not the same thing.

For purposes of determining whether more taxes can be collected, the second of those statistics is important and the first is meaningless.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Now that makes no sense at all. Repeating a word you don't understand isn't very smart. You should go look it up.

We know you have an ideology. And I've already stated that I do not have one.

If I was projecting, I would say you didn't have an ideology. I would also assume you were intelligent. That would be projecting. What I am doing is transference. You don't know psychology.

As economics is a social science, a psychological science of human behavior as it interacts in the redistribution of limited resources, you aren't very good at economics either. You assume you know what other people think. The science of economics studies how people think by observing their behaviors and inferring their decision making process.

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people."

Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, this is exactly what you're doing. Denying you have an ideology, while dismissing what I say because I do.

"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." - John Maynard Keynes

You are an ideologue as surely as I am, but the difference is that I can accept that whereas you're in denial.

But by all means continue on with your condescension and rudeness, because you're surely showing everyone how little I know.

 

[cblackink]

It seems increasingly difficult for working people to have any disposable income, when a very large portion of jobs are being outsourced to some foreign country. Therein lies part of the problem too. I'm really tired of calling customer service numbers and speaking to Hadji, especially knowing that he's getting paid $100.00 a week and thinks he's rich, and someone in this country needs that job but sure as hell can't live off of that kind of wage. When there's some incentive for large corporations to keep their jobs in our country, then maybe we can put a dent in unemployment.


www.cleantv.com
www.888webtoday.com

 

[inALIENable]

When there's some incentive for large corporations to keep their jobs in our country, then maybe we can put a dent in unemployment.

Unions, taxes, employees with an inflated sense of never-ending entitlements is what is scaring entrepreneurs and their corporations away. Now add communism to that list of spooky disincentives.

What sort of incentive can overcome all that? I can't think of any, can you?

 

[kaz]

It seems increasingly difficult for working people to have any disposable income, when a very large portion of jobs are being outsourced to some foreign country. Therein lies part of the problem too. I'm really tired of calling customer service numbers and speaking to Hadji, especially knowing that he's getting paid $100.00 a week and thinks he's rich, and someone in this country needs that job but sure as hell can't live off of that kind of wage. When there's some incentive for large corporations to keep their jobs in our country, then maybe we can put a dent in unemployment.

So maybe you should stop punishing companies for keeping jobs here, ya think???

 

[sealybobo]

Truman 1948 Speech when Republicans were acting just like they are today. Remember, people who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Many of our families today are suffering hardship because of the high cost of living. At the same time profits of corporations have reached an all-time record in 1947.

Because of this extraordinarily high level of profits, corporations can well afford to carry a larger share of the taxload at this time.

It is estimated that such a tax credit would reduce Federal revenue by $3.2 billion. This reduction should be made up by increasing the tax on corporate profits in an amount that will produce this sum--with appropriate adjustments for small corporations.

This is the proper method of tax relief at this time. It gives relief to those who need it most without cutting the total tax revenue of the Government.

Read more: State of the Union Address: Harry S. Truman (January 7, 1948) — Infoplease.com State of the Union Address: Harry S. Truman (January 7, 1948) — Infoplease.com

 

[IndependntLogic]

What demand created the Frizbee or the Pet Rock, jackass?

Wow. You are even more stupid than I thought. So you think the Frisbee and Pet Rock are examples of major job creating products? What a complete ass wipe!

How about Windows? Any idea how that came into being? IE? Smart Phones? GPS and Navigation Systems? Fax Machines? Phones? Cars? Fed Ex?
I could go on but a blithering idiot who would use pet rocks as an example of job creators is too stupid to catch on anyway...

Wow, you're even more of an obtuse arrogant dickhead than I had thought...And that's saying something.

What upgrade from the currently existing technologies were the Frizbee and Pet Rock?....THERE WERE NONE!!!

Some dude dreamed them up, produced them, then sold them to people who previously didn't know that they "needed" them.

Next time you think that you've tripped over a relevant comment on anything, best run it past one of your underlings who can manage to have a real thought...M'kay?

Okay, I'm beginning to feel like I'm picking on a child here. So I'll cut with the petty insults etc... you want to keep that up, that's you. Pet Rocks never created a significant contribution to U.S. employment. You understand that, right? Let's give you an opportunity to prove your theory: Where can I buy a Pet Rock today? I can't. It was a novelty.
So the Fax Machine thing. Oddbal if you produce really good fax machines nowadays, are you going to get rich?
No. Anyone who knows even basic economics, know this. Your statement is backwards. 99% of the time, demand does not rise to meet the production of a product or service. A product or serice is created or improved upon to meet a percieved or anticipated demand. All the things I mentioned were examples of this.
"Windows? Any idea how that came into being? IE? Smart Phones? GPS and Navigation Systems? Fax Machines? Phones? Cars? Fed Ex?"
All of those products and services (which lasted a tad longer than Pet Rocks!), met a demand that was already in place. Then there are secondary and ancillary markets. I need a car but I didn't need a Mercedes. But there is a demand for the most luxurious, spacious driving machine on the planet. Just as the sale of Nissan Leafs hace skyrocketed. Demand.
Occasionally some novelty comes along (e.g. pet rocks) that will sell units and make someone rich - and then disappears. But employment sustaining products and services must have a demand to meet, not vice nersa.
I can't believe that a half dozen of us have even had to explain this Econ101 stuff but oh well.

 

[8537]

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.

It actually takes BOTH of the things you listed in your second paragraph. Increased productivity is necessary but not sufficient. It's also a given; productivity is always going up.

The reasons why wealth has become so maldistributed, and hence the economy underperforms, have nothing to do with productivity.

Increased productivity with the same proportional returns to capital = increased wages.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

It actually takes BOTH of the things you listed in your second paragraph. Increased productivity is necessary but not sufficient. It's also a given; productivity is always going up.

The reasons why wealth has become so maldistributed, and hence the economy underperforms, have nothing to do with productivity.

Increased productivity with the same proportional returns to capital = increased wages.

Then how do you account for the fact that the introduction of a union into a corporate enviroment generally leads to higher wages with less productivity?

Immie

 

[8537]

It actually takes BOTH of the things you listed in your second paragraph. Increased productivity is necessary but not sufficient. It's also a given; productivity is always going up.

The reasons why wealth has become so maldistributed, and hence the economy underperforms, have nothing to do with productivity.

Increased productivity with the same proportional returns to capital = increased wages.

Then how do you account for the fact that the introduction of a union into a corporate enviroment generally leads to higher wages with less productivity?

Immie

(1) I've seen no evidence that creating a union leads to a decrease in output per worker per hour but....

(2) Unions can have the effect of increasing the proportion of income that goes to labor.