What's wrong with "job creators"

[georgephillip]

"Jobs creators" is a fucked up concept because it gets the point exactly ass-backwards. In the world there are exactly two kinds of people: those who work, and those who don't. Those who don't live off the work of those who do. I may hire a team of virgins to massage my toes and feed me grapes but that doesn't make me productive. No matter how many jobs I "create" I'm still just a slob living off the work of others.

The fact of the matter is - as Adam Smith said so many years ago - the wealth of a nation is not measured by units of money, but by the productivity of its people. The US has within its power the ability to hire everyone who is willing and able to work, adding to the wealth of the nation as a whole, and it's only ignorance and the self-interest of a privileged few that prevents us from doing so.

So you think that guys who own and run their own business don't work? Doctors, lawyers, etc., they don't work? Where on earth did you ever get that idea? No doubt there are some who inherited their wealth, but I suspect the vast majority of those who are rich got that way by busting their asses. They ain't living off the work of others, most of 'em outwork everybody.

"CEOs, upper management, and financial professionals made up about 60 percent of the richest 1% of Americans in 2005. Only 3 percent were entrepreneurs. A recent study found that less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs came from very rich or very poor backgrounds."

How the "Job Creators" REALLY Spend Their Money | Common Dreams

"Financial professionals" get rich by gambling with other people's money.
CEOs have gotten rich by outsourcing jobs and nearly tripling corporate cash to asset ratio between 1980 and 2010.
Small business owners working 80 hours a week for $400,000 a year do bust their butts;however, they too are victims of parasites like Romney and Obama.

 

[Wiseacre]

"Jobs creators" is a fucked up concept because it gets the point exactly ass-backwards. In the world there are exactly two kinds of people: those who work, and those who don't. Those who don't live off the work of those who do. I may hire a team of virgins to massage my toes and feed me grapes but that doesn't make me productive. No matter how many jobs I "create" I'm still just a slob living off the work of others.

The fact of the matter is - as Adam Smith said so many years ago - the wealth of a nation is not measured by units of money, but by the productivity of its people. The US has within its power the ability to hire everyone who is willing and able to work, adding to the wealth of the nation as a whole, and it's only ignorance and the self-interest of a privileged few that prevents us from doing so.

So you think that guys who own and run their own business don't work? Doctors, lawyers, etc., they don't work? Where on earth did you ever get that idea? No doubt there are some who inherited their wealth, but I suspect the vast majority of those who are rich got that way by busting their asses. They ain't living off the work of others, most of 'em outwork everybody.

So that's your "guess"?

Yep. Got any credible evidence that I'm wrong?

 

[KissMy]

The US has within its power the ability to hire everyone who is willing and able to work,.

do you mean US business or US government???

Government work is make-work that impoverishes the country while private work is real work.

Paying people welfare, unemployment, disability, food stamps, snap, etc is what really destroys the wealth of nations.

Making them work for government money is better than paying them not to work. There are lots of work they can do that is not make-work. Hell we just paid China to build a huge bridge in California & they charged us more than American companies bid on the job. Why the hell are we not making the people collecting unemployment do that work? Government should pay less than private sector so people will be motivated to get a private sector job.

 

[georgephillip]

too stupid and perfectly liberal !!! do you want to give the defense department trillions in hope they stumble on something like the internet again!!

Do you want to give Harvard undergrads trillions in hope they discover another Facebook??? Do you have any idea what point you were trying to make?

I'll make it simple enough for rich bitches and their useful idiots to understand. The true US job creator is middle class demand. Do you need me to type more slowly?

Nah, you'd still be an idiot.

A little something to warm your heart....oh, wait...never mind..

"Twenty-five percent of very young children in America are living in poverty, according to an analysis of Census data released Thursday.

"The number of children under six living in poverty rose to 5.9 million in 2010 from 5.7 million in 2009, researchers from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire found. The ranks of American children in poverty have swelled by 2.6 million since the recession began.

"The dismal poverty rate among young children mirrors that of adults, who have been pushed into poverty in larger numbers by high joblessness and slow income growth. The Census Bureau announced last week that 46.2 million Americans were in poverty in 2010, the most since the agency started tracking poverty in the 1950s."

Surely Mitt has plans to remedy the dismal poverty rate among US children (and others)?

One In Four Young U.S. Children Living In Poverty, Study Finds

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The true US job creator is middle class demand. Do you need me to type more slowly?

too stupid!! Without the rich there is nothing to demand!!! The rich figure out how to feed the billions of mouths that naturally demand food.

To credit them for demanding food and air is 100% idiotic. The variable is the rich who deserve 100% of the credit for being able to satisfy the natural demand of 7 billion people so far!!

 

[auditor0007]

The basic issue currently facing the country - and most of the world - is a lack of demand. There is no point creating jobs when there is no demand for whatever you are producing. That basic concept seems to fly gently over the head of SunnyD.

if demand is the problem what is the solution??

actually the problem was too much demand for houses, not too little.

the liberal solution is to create more artificial demand like they created for houses

the conservative solution is to let the free market decrease the demand for houses to sustainable levels and to let the free market increase demand for other goods, in place of houses, to sustainable levels.

There is no short term solution. Long term, we need to get younger people working, and the sooner the better. While baby boomers have stopped spending, the collapse that has resulted is keeping young people from finding decent jobs. It's also making them put off marriage and kids. What happens when people get married and have kids? They need to buy bigger houses to live in and bigger cars to get the family around in. They spend more, whether they can afford to or not. They create demand for products and services and the economy expands.

Right now, the majority of young people are not doing any of these things. In fact, a lot of them are still living at home with Mom and Dad. This is a problem. The solution lies with private business. They need to be the driving force behind any growth. The problem is that companies have become so concerned with short term numbers and profits that they have lost sight of the bigger picture. Companies are sitting on tons of cash. If they would spend some of it to hire people, those people would then have more money to spend, and things would start moving in the right direction again. So how do we get these companies hiring again? I don't have an answer, although a tax situation where companies lose the money if they do not use it could prove very beneficial at this point. Give them tax breaks for putting the money to use by expanding, but penalize them if they just try to hold on to it. Straight out tax cuts will not change things. They will just hoard more money in excess profits without reinvesting it.

 

[KissMy]

The variable is the rich who deserve 100% of the credit for being able to satisfy the natural demand of 7 billion people so far!!

Only some of the rich deserve credit. Some of rich got that way by screwing others. Many great inventors were not rich. Many rich just inherited their wealth & have managed to damage others with their wealth. Anyone trying to credit one class for the economy, jobs & advancement of mankind is an idiot.

One thing is for certain, having a sizable amount of the work-force idle is destructive to this country. Paying them not to work is a disgrace & failure of leadership. We need to take away the welfare & unemployment money & use it to subsidize employment.

 

[jillian]

"Jobs creators" is a fucked up concept because it gets the point exactly ass-backwards. In the world there are exactly two kinds of people: those who work, and those who don't. Those who don't live off the work of those who do. I may hire a team of virgins to massage my toes and feed me grapes but that doesn't make me productive. No matter how many jobs I "create" I'm still just a slob living off the work of others.

The fact of the matter is - as Adam Smith said so many years ago - the wealth of a nation is not measured by units of money, but by the productivity of its people. The US has within its power the ability to hire everyone who is willing and able to work, adding to the wealth of the nation as a whole, and it's only ignorance and the self-interest of a privileged few that prevents us from doing so.

adam smith? lol...

even adam smith knew that the middle class only existed with government intervention and said it would be needed.

people who know only snippets really shouldn't opine so much.

job creators?? if cutting taxes for the wealthy led to job creation, we wouldn't have been bleeding jobs while shrub was president.

you know, even a white rat learns.

 

[editec]

DEMAND creates jobs IF there is capital enough to respond to the demand.

 

[Katzndogz]

Demand has nothing to do with creating jobs. In every case, the product preceeded the demand. There was no demand for cars before there were cars. No demand for home computers, cell phones, microwaves, even television sets. The demand didn't exist for any of these things.

 

[itfitzme]

The OP lacks even a basic grasp of economics.

Then enlighten us with your extensive knowledge of economics.

Or is that as far as your knowledge to, how to spell "economics"?

 

[KissMy]

"Jobs creators" is a fucked up concept because it gets the point exactly ass-backwards. In the world there are exactly two kinds of people: those who work, and those who don't. Those who don't live off the work of those who do. I may hire a team of virgins to massage my toes and feed me grapes but that doesn't make me productive. No matter how many jobs I "create" I'm still just a slob living off the work of others.

The fact of the matter is - as Adam Smith said so many years ago - the wealth of a nation is not measured by units of money, but by the productivity of its people. The US has within its power the ability to hire everyone who is willing and able to work, adding to the wealth of the nation as a whole, and it's only ignorance and the self-interest of a privileged few that prevents us from doing so.

adam smith? lol...

even adam smith knew that the middle class only existed with government intervention and said it would be needed.

people who know only snippets really shouldn't opine so much.

job creators?? if cutting taxes for the wealthy led to job creation, we wouldn't have been bleeding jobs while shrub was president.

you know, even a white rat learns.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

even adam smith knew that the middle class only existed with government intervention .

of course thats idiotic since the upper class needs to make things the middle class and lower class can afford to get rich and stay rich. If the rich cant supply a middle class lifestyle they can't have an upper class lifestyle.

 

[itfitzme]

Demand has nothing to do with creating jobs. In every case, the product preceeded the demand. There was no demand for cars before there were cars. No demand for home computers, cell phones, microwaves, even television sets. The demand didn't exist for any of these things.

Of course it did. The need always precedes the product of the product is not sold.
Demand is the need, willingness to pay and the ability to pay. No one produces or creates a product without an indication that there is demand. That would be simply stupid.

Before there were cars, people were riding bicycles, horses, and walking. Before there were bicycles, they were walking and riding horses. Before they learned to ride horses, they were walking. The need to get from one place to another preceded the product.

Do I need to go do the same thing with computers, cell phones, microwaves and television sets too? Or is one example enough for you to

Oh, and before there were spell checkers, people still misspelled "preceded" as "preceeded". Of course, you don't have any need for a spell checker which is why, even though it was invented, you don't seem to have added to the demand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No one produces or creates a product without an indication that there is demand. That would be simply stupid.

you didn't read the Jobs biography, liberal !! Xerox Park said the way to control the future is to invent it!! Jobs had the same philosophy as did Sony.

People always demand food and air to breath, it is a natural constant.
Giving them credit for demanding food is like giving them credit for being born.

What causes economic progress is the Republican supply side genius who can invent more food or cheaper food. Now even you can understand how we got from the stone age to here.

 

[jillian]

even adam smith knew that the middle class only existed with government intervention .

of course thats idiotic since the upper class needs to make things the middle class and lower class can afford to get rich and stay rich. If the rich cant supply a middle class lifestyle they can't have an upper class lifestyle.

you calling anything idiotic is pretty funny.

wackadoodle.

 

[jillian]

"Jobs creators" is a fucked up concept because it gets the point exactly ass-backwards. In the world there are exactly two kinds of people: those who work, and those who don't. Those who don't live off the work of those who do. I may hire a team of virgins to massage my toes and feed me grapes but that doesn't make me productive. No matter how many jobs I "create" I'm still just a slob living off the work of others.

The fact of the matter is - as Adam Smith said so many years ago - the wealth of a nation is not measured by units of money, but by the productivity of its people. The US has within its power the ability to hire everyone who is willing and able to work, adding to the wealth of the nation as a whole, and it's only ignorance and the self-interest of a privileged few that prevents us from doing so.

adam smith? lol...

even adam smith knew that the middle class only existed with government intervention and said it would be needed.

people who know only snippets really shouldn't opine so much.

job creators?? if cutting taxes for the wealthy led to job creation, we wouldn't have been bleeding jobs while shrub was president.

you know, even a white rat learns.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith

exactly. thank you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

adam smith? lol...

even adam smith knew that the middle class only existed with government intervention and said it would be needed.

people who know only snippets really shouldn't opine so much.

job creators?? if cutting taxes for the wealthy led to job creation, we wouldn't have been bleeding jobs while shrub was president.

you know, even a white rat learns.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith

exactly. thank you.

exactly???? something more than a flat tax does not mean the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes!!!

 

[KissMy]

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith

exactly. thank you.

exactly???? something more than a flat tax does not mean the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes!!!

Adam Smith did say that since the top 1% have 43% of the nations wealth that they should pay over 43% of the taxes. Romney paid less than 13.5%.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

exactly. thank you.

exactly???? something more than a flat tax does not mean the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes!!!

Adam Smith did say that since the top 1% have 43% of the nations wealth that they should pay over 43% of the taxes. Romney paid less than 13.5%.

more importantly capitalism made all Americans rich, but then liberals stole the money so how can we have any wealth??

For example, An average American would have $1.5 at retirement if 15% of his income was put into a private account rather than in Social Security.