Who are the job creators?

RDD_1210

Forms his own opinions
May 13, 2010
18,981
1,817
265
Supply vs. demand.

If the supply side can create all the product that they want free of taxes and regulations it won't matter if there is no demand. If the middle class have no disposable income, the demand slows down.

Now if the middle class are flourishing and have money to spend, the demand becomes obvious and business and in turn jobs will be created to meet that demand.

The real "job creators" are not the rich, but the people who purchase the products. If they have no money, they make no purchases.

So yes, we should be catering to the job creators. It's just a matter of deciding who truly are the job creators that is the question.
 
In a government and society based on equal treatment.. we should not be 'catering' to anyone.. rather we should have equal treatment under law by government, period... not worry about who will benefit, who will cast votes, what is 'fair' etc...
 
In a government and society based on equal treatment.. we should not be 'catering' to anyone.. rather we should have equal treatment under law by government, period... not worry about who will benefit, who will cast votes, what is 'fair' etc...

So do you disagree with who the job creators are?
 
My company does cater to the needs of the consumer. It also offers good wages to employees, offers benefits, retirements, healthcare.....so there's nothing wrong when it makes billions of dollars.
 
Last edited:
Well, I think we all know who are not the job creators.

Stocks are rising sharply after several big U.S. companies reported solid third-quarter earnings. The Dow Jones industrial average is up more than 200 points.

Stocks rise sharply on solid corporate earnings - Yahoo! Finance

So a company is doing well meeting the demand for its product while turning a nice profit...it does not see an increase in demand on the horizon so it has no reason to grow....and you fault them for not hiring?
 
Supply vs. demand.

If the supply side can create all the product that they want free of taxes and regulations it won't matter if there is no demand. If the middle class have no disposable income, the demand slows down.

Now if the middle class are flourishing and have money to spend, the demand becomes obvious and business and in turn jobs will be created to meet that demand.

The real "job creators" are not the rich, but the people who purchase the products. If they have no money, they make no purchases.

So yes, we should be catering to the job creators. It's just a matter of deciding who truly are the job creators that is the question.

Don't rich people also purchase products? :confused:
 
In a government and society based on equal treatment.. we should not be 'catering' to anyone.. rather we should have equal treatment under law by government, period... not worry about who will benefit, who will cast votes, what is 'fair' etc...

So do you disagree with who the job creators are?

The consumers are not the job creators. They are the ones who create the NEED for jobs.
In the end, the ones who take the risk to expand their business are the actual job creators.
 
Supply vs. demand.

If the supply side can create all the product that they want free of taxes and regulations it won't matter if there is no demand. If the middle class have no disposable income, the demand slows down.

Now if the middle class are flourishing and have money to spend, the demand becomes obvious and business and in turn jobs will be created to meet that demand.

The real "job creators" are not the rich, but the people who purchase the products. If they have no money, they make no purchases.

So yes, we should be catering to the job creators. It's just a matter of deciding who truly are the job creators that is the question.

Don't rich people also purchase products? :confused:

Sure do, but how many rich people are there versus the middle class?

And to be honest, the rich are more likely to know how to save their money while the middle class is more prone to spend as much as they can.
 
In a government and society based on equal treatment.. we should not be 'catering' to anyone.. rather we should have equal treatment under law by government, period... not worry about who will benefit, who will cast votes, what is 'fair' etc...

So do you disagree with who the job creators are?

The consumers are not the job creators. They are the ones who create the NEED for jobs.
In the end, the ones who take the risk to expand their business are the actual job creators.

So consumers drive the need. If there is a demand, there is little risk. Some sure, but when you know you already have a market, the risk is minimized. So then we agree that is the middle class who are driving force behind job creation. Because without their demand, there would be no need to create a supply.
 
So do you disagree with who the job creators are?

The consumers are not the job creators. They are the ones who create the NEED for jobs.
In the end, the ones who take the risk to expand their business are the actual job creators.

So consumers drive the need. If there is a demand, there is little risk. Some sure, but when you know you already have a market, the risk is minimized. So then we agree that is the middle class who are driving force behind job creation. Because without their demand, there would be no need to create a supply.

You LOVE to put words into the mouths of others... asshole... nobody 'agreed' with your bullshit premise

Try taking some business classes or running a business before you try and push that you know anything about business or job creation
 
Supply vs. demand.

If the supply side can create all the product that they want free of taxes and regulations it won't matter if there is no demand. If the middle class have no disposable income, the demand slows down.

Now if the middle class are flourishing and have money to spend, the demand becomes obvious and business and in turn jobs will be created to meet that demand.

The real "job creators" are not the rich, but the people who purchase the products. If they have no money, they make no purchases.

So yes, we should be catering to the job creators. It's just a matter of deciding who truly are the job creators that is the question.
This is very true. As a business owner, I know that if people aren't buying what I'm selling that there are no jobs to be given.

It's kind of nuts that business owners are so revered by Republicans while consumers are something to be shit upon by Republicans.
 
The consumers are not the job creators. They are the ones who create the NEED for jobs.
In the end, the ones who take the risk to expand their business are the actual job creators.

So consumers drive the need. If there is a demand, there is little risk. Some sure, but when you know you already have a market, the risk is minimized. So then we agree that is the middle class who are driving force behind job creation. Because without their demand, there would be no need to create a supply.

You LOVE to put words into the mouths of others... asshole... nobody 'agreed' with your bullshit premise

Try taking some business classes or running a business before you try and push that you know anything about business or job creation

Your insults and lack of substance are noted. Thanks!

If you'd rather provide something useful, feel free to educate me why my understanding of supply vs. demand is incorrect.
 
So consumers drive the need. If there is a demand, there is little risk. Some sure, but when you know you already have a market, the risk is minimized. So then we agree that is the middle class who are driving force behind job creation. Because without their demand, there would be no need to create a supply.

You LOVE to put words into the mouths of others... asshole... nobody 'agreed' with your bullshit premise

Try taking some business classes or running a business before you try and push that you know anything about business or job creation

Your insults and lack of substance are noted. Thanks!

If you'd rather provide something useful, feel free to educate me why my understanding of supply vs. demand is incorrect.

Did you know you wanted or 'needed' an iPhone, Playstation, laptop, coke zero, led light, or hybrid car before it was created or produced??

The bullshit simplistic twisting by the likes of you fall more in line with the designation of "lack of substance"
 
The consumers are not the job creators. They are the ones who create the NEED for jobs.
In the end, the ones who take the risk to expand their business are the actual job creators.

The meaning and sense behind the phrase "job creators" as used by conservatives (because that is, after all, a conservative code-phrase) has always been: Rich people and corporations create jobs, so we need to make sure that they have plenty of capital and no interference. If we raise taxes on the "job creators," they will have less capital to invest and create fewer jobs. If we put regulations on the "job creators," they will have extra expenses to comply with those regulations, hence less capital, hence will create fewer jobs.

In that practical sense, is any of this true?

No, it's not. As you say, it is the consumers who create the need for jobs. And since no jobs will be created unless there is a need, it is the consumers, not the rich or corporations, whose money determines whether not a job will be created. If the rich have money to invest, but the consumer doesn't have money to spend, the money will not be invested, or anyway not in anything that produces a job, because there will be no need. On the other hand, if the consumer has money to spend, and the rich person or corporation has a bit less, the job WILL be created, because then there will be a need.

So in that completely practical sense, the sense of "whom do we want to make sure has plenty of money so jobs will be created," it is the consumer who creates the jobs.
 
So do you disagree with who the job creators are?

The consumers are not the job creators. They are the ones who create the NEED for jobs.
In the end, the ones who take the risk to expand their business are the actual job creators.

So consumers drive the need. If there is a demand, there is little risk. Some sure, but when you know you already have a market, the risk is minimized. So then we agree that is the middle class who are driving force behind job creation. Because without their demand, there would be no need to create a supply.

Black bold...of course.
Red bold.....false. Anytime you expand there is great risk. You may miss the market and lose to the competition. More employees means more chances of injury, law suits, etc...regulations can pop up that kill you.....I can go on...but there is always great risk when you expand
green bold......no.....I agree that the middle class creates demand...but the driving forece behind job creation is the willingness for a business to take a risk.

bear in mind...it is not the business owners RESPONSIBILITY to meet demand. It is his/her CHOICE to meet demand.

He or she can simply stay small...earn his/her nice living and let the competiton pick up the slack.
 
The consumers are not the job creators. They are the ones who create the NEED for jobs.
In the end, the ones who take the risk to expand their business are the actual job creators.

The meaning and sense behind the phrase "job creators" as used by conservatives (because that is, after all, a conservative code-phrase) has always been: Rich people and corporations create jobs, so we need to make sure that they have plenty of capital and no interference. If we raise taxes on the "job creators," they will have less capital to invest and create fewer jobs. If we put regulations on the "job creators," they will have extra expenses to comply with those regulations, hence less capital, hence will create fewer jobs.

In that practical sense, is any of this true?

No, it's not. As you say, it is the consumers who create the need for jobs. And since no jobs will be created unless there is a need, it is the consumers, not the rich or corporations, whose money determines whether not a job will be created. If the rich have money to invest, but the consumer doesn't have money to spend, the money will not be invested, or anyway not in anything that produces a job, because there will be no need. On the other hand, if the consumer has money to spend, and the rich person or corporation has a bit less, the job WILL be created, because then there will be a need.

So in that completely practical sense, the sense of "whom do we want to make sure has plenty of money so jobs will be created," it is the consumer who creates the jobs.

please show me where any memebr of the GOP has said that RICH people create the jobs...That is a left spoin of the truth......the left say "the rich"....never the right.

And again I will say.......a business has no responsibility to meet the demand. It is a choi8ce. Many companises opt to stay small...and only meet a small portion of the demand.

And the more reasons you give them to stay small, the more reason they will have to NOT create jobs.
 
Supply vs. demand.

If the supply side can create all the product that they want free of taxes and regulations it won't matter if there is no demand. If the middle class have no disposable income, the demand slows down. Now if the middle class are flourishing and have money to spend, the demand becomes obvious and business and in turn jobs will be created to meet that demand. The real "job creators" are not the rich, but the people who purchase the products. If they have no money, they make no purchases. So yes, we should be catering to the job creators. It's just a matter of deciding who truly are the job creators that is the question.
:iagree:

Demand Side Economics - Trickle Up - WAS Once how a strong America did business, but the past 30 years of Supply Side Trickle Down Economic Policies have brought America to its knees Economically.

How to get back to what worked for America will come from a political solution - Vote out Representatives that still subscribe to the failed Supply Side Trickle Down Economic Policies, and vote in Representatives who want to bring back Demand Side Trickle Up Economic Policies.

And yes, IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE:idea:
 

Forum List

Back
Top