Who are the job creators?

[francoHFW]

Kudos to voodoo for destroying the USA middle/working class to the point where consumer spending, the basis for our wealth, has been decimated. Way to break the unions, allow the min wage to become a joke, outsource industry, turn Wall St. into a casino, and allow health and college costs to skyrocket. The Boooosh credit buble was consumers' attempt to keep up the American Dream on bad credit. Great job, Pubbies. Any more of your policy will make us a true banana republic. MORONS!

You are a job creator too! The meds and doctors required to keep you functioning in society alone must make a fortune.

Your argument that advertising and doubletalk is the key to a humming economy is brilliant mega economics...lol! You should sign on with O'Bachmann's economic team...

 

[RDD_1210]

And sometimes the business creates the demand.

There was no demand for an ipod before it was invented. Once invented and made available the demand grew and jobs were created to meet the demand . . . that the business created.

Why is it 'either/or'? Seems to me it's a 'both'. Sometimes consumers create demand and sometimes business creates demand.

Consumers ALWAYS create the demand. Tell me one instance where there was a need for a product and someone didn't try to meet that need.

On the other hand, business sometimes creates the demand through innovation, but there are enough failed products that should tell you that business can't always create a demand.

You missed this post:

And sometimes the business creates the demand.

There was no demand for an ipod before it was invented. Once invented and made available the demand grew and jobs were created to meet the demand . . . that the business created.

Why is it 'either/or'? Seems to me it's a 'both'. Sometimes consumers create demand and sometimes business creates demand.

Huh? That's the post I replied to. You just quoted it. I'm beginning to feel like some of you aren't working with a full deck.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Kudos to voodoo for destroying the USA middle/working class to the point where consumer spending, the basis for our wealth, has been decimated. Way to break the unions, allow the min wage to become a joke, outsource industry, turn Wall St. into a casino, and allow health and college costs to skyrocket. The Boooosh credit buble was consumers' attempt to keep up the American Dream on bad credit. Great job, Pubbies. Any more of your policy will make us a true banana republic. MORONS!

You are a job creator too! The meds and doctors required to keep you functioning in society alone must make a fortune.

Your argument that advertising and doubletalk is the key to a humming economy is brilliant mega economics...lol! You should sign on with O'Bachmann's economic team...

It's a shame that those meds and doctors can't help your reading comprehension huh.

 

[RDD_1210]

The company that my husband works for is a fortune 100 company. It employs thousands of people in many different states.

And my wife likes cheese.

What's your point?

 

[bripat9643]

No thats the question you wanted to hear. Not what I asked. There are products that there are a demand for that don't exist, but people are trying to meet that need. Ie. Cure for AIDS.

When you don't understand something it's better to ask for clarification and not change the question to meet your needs.

In economics, the only way to determine demand is to look at actual sales of a product. Any other claims about demand are moonshine. Before iPhones actually went on sale, did anyone really know there as a demand for it? No, any claims to such were just guesses. Ford believed that there was a demand for the Edsel, but it guessed wrong.

We all know there are people working on hundreds of products that don't exist. However, how is it possible to determine demand for a product that no one has even imagined? If no one is working on it, then it effectively doesn't exist even as an idea.

You're asking for a triangle with 4 corners.

You're question is irrational and idiotic. It has nothing to do with economics. it's nothing but pure shameless demagoguery.

Demand does not create jobs.

End of story.

 

[bripat9643]

Thats the point. If consumers don't have the money, they don't purchase the product.

They also don't purchase the product if capitalists have purchased the plant and machinery required to make the product. That's the point you don't seem to get.

 

[flacaltenn]

No thats the question you wanted to hear. Not what I asked. There are products that there are a demand for that don't exist, but people are trying to meet that need. Ie. Cure for AIDS.

When you don't understand something it's better to ask for clarification and not change the question to meet your needs.

In economics, the only way to determine demand is to look at actual sales of a product. Any other claims about demand are moonshine. Before iPhones actually went on sale, did anyone really know there as a demand for it? No, any claims to such were just guesses. Ford that there was a demand for the Edsel, but it guessed wrong.

We all know there are people working on hundreds of products that don't exist. However, how is it possible to determine demand for a product that no one has even imagined?

You're asking for a triangle with 4 corners.

You're question is irrational and idiotic. It has nothing to do with economics. it's nothing but pure shameless demagoguery.

Demand does not create jobs.

End of story.

As a matter of fact -- no NEW toys for Christmas this year and sales will PLUNGE.. It's a fact..

 

[Foxfyre]

No, and neither have you. There was always at least one other reason: you had the money to buy it with.

The money DID NOT CREATE THE DEMAND. MY ADVERTISEMENT DID. I put the thought in your head with my clever ad. The money simply enabled you to purchase the product that I put the demand in your head for. The demand that didn't exist until you saw the commercial that i, the provider, put in your head.

Thats the point. If consumers don't have the money, they don't purchase the product.

But if they don't have a job they don't have the money. The job comes first to provide a means of acquiring wealth that creates demand making it feasible to create more jobs. You don't create a job because there is a demand. You create a job because there is a reasonable chance to make a profit that is worth the risk of creating that job.

The opportunity to make profit is what creates jobs. Not demand.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No, and neither have you. There was always at least one other reason: you had the money to buy it with.

The money DID NOT CREATE THE DEMAND. MY ADVERTISEMENT DID. I put the thought in your head with my clever ad. The money simply enabled you to purchase the product that I put the demand in your head for. The demand that didn't exist until you saw the commercial that i, the provider, put in your head.

Thats the point. If consumers don't have the money, they don't purchase the product.

I agree but unlike some I realize that our economy is a machine that requires many things to keep functioning. Many of those parts are currently broken and demand is the least of them. The demand in my business is still there but many other things are not. I've had jobs scheduled that were canceled because someone in the home got laid off. I've had consumers receive estimates from me only to call later and say they couldn't get financing. I've had customers who simply said it was too expensive. The demand is there but other factors cost me the jobs. Although I will admit demand is much lower than normal but I don't believe its because they don't want the services because historically they always have.

Our economy is very weak and consumers are holding on to their money just like job providers are. It's all cyclical and one or two spokes are broken.

 

[Dragon]

The money DID NOT CREATE THE DEMAND. MY ADVERTISEMENT DID. I put the thought in your head with my clever ad. The money simply enabled you to purchase the product that I put the demand in your head for. The demand that didn't exist until you saw the commercial that i, the provider, put in your head.

In part. Demand is the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. Both are essential. But at present, we are not deficient in advertising, any more than we are in capital, labor, or natural resources. The missing element is money in the pockets of most people, and that is a problem that has been developing for thirty years.

When you are talking about specific products, desire to buy can be the important part, but when you're talking about the economy as a whole, ability to buy is what matters. For example, I think someone mentioned the Ford Edsel above as an example of a failed product. The Edsel was marketed from 1958 to 1960. It failed, not because people didn't have the ability to buy it, but because it was unpopular. However, that was a failure only of one car, not of the entire automobile industry. In the 1930s, Ford saw losses much greater than it did in the late 1950s from the failure of the Edsel, and THAT was from a failure of ability to buy, not because Ford cars had suddenly become unpopular.

Government policies that concentrate wealth into only a few hands, on the grounds that capital is needed to drive the economy, fail because it is possible to have too much capital formation. Capital will be productively invested only to the extent that it is justified by consumer demand. Beyond that, the formation of capital is a waste.

Government policies that help keep wages high and income gaps narrow produce a much healthier economy. That's what we had from the late 1930s until 1981. We went back, starting with the Reagan years, to a focus on capital, and the mess we're in now is the result.

 

[RDD_1210]

No thats the question you wanted to hear. Not what I asked. There are products that there are a demand for that don't exist, but people are trying to meet that need. Ie. Cure for AIDS.

When you don't understand something it's better to ask for clarification and not change the question to meet your needs.

In economics, the only way to determine demand is to look at actual sales of a product. Any other claims about demand are moonshine. Before iPhones actually went on sale, did anyone really know there as a demand for it? No, any claims to such were just guesses. Ford that there was a demand for the Edsel, but it guessed wrong.

We all know there are people working on hundreds of products that don't exist. However, how is it possible to determine demand for a product that no one has even imagined?

You're asking for a triangle with 4 corners.

You're question is irrational and idiotic. It has nothing to do with economics. it's nothing but pure shameless demagoguery.

Demand does not create jobs.

End of story.

You keep giving me these examples from the supply side! What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously. Are you just not smart enough to be able to grasp that is not what I am asking you? Just tell me. It's ok. At least it would clear things up as to why you insist on ignoring what I'm actually saying.

Business CAN create a demand, but it is not a guarantee. If I decide to build 5,000,000 triangles that I decide will be good to sit on top of the tv, it doesn't matter if I have the capital, the facilities and man power to make my triangles. If the consumer doesn't want them, they will not buy them. I will be forced to stop making them and lay off my workers.

Yes, there are businesses that create and a new product and it becomes wildly succesful, but that decision is made by consumers through their purchasing of the product. The producer of the product does not get to dictate the demand.

Now back to what my point was from the start.

If the consumer market has a need for a product, a business can and ALWAYS will attempt to step up and meet that need. Why? Because the guess work about whether or not it will be successful is greatly diminished. They know they have buyers lined up. They just need to meet that need.

In both of the scenarios above, it is the consumer who decides what the need is. It is the consumer who dictates the direction of the economy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Nice try, asshole, but if no one has the money or the willingness to risk it investing in a business, it's not going to matter HOW much "the holy, sacred middle class" demands shit. So it is still, and always, the entrepreneurs who recognize and meet that demand with their own time, money, sweat, and risk who create those jobs.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm done. This discussion is futile. As a parting shot I will predict that when Obama loses the election things will begin to show true signs of turning around. He is the largest broken spoke in the wheel.

 

[Samson]

Government policies that help keep wages high and income gaps narrow produce a much healthier economy. That's what we had from the late 1930s until 1981. We went back, starting with the Reagan years, to a focus on capital, and the mess we're in now is the result.

Wow.



And I thought that it was the fact that US industry was the only one left standing on the entire planet after WWII that produced a healthy US economy.



Silly me.

 

[Foxfyre]

The money DID NOT CREATE THE DEMAND. MY ADVERTISEMENT DID. I put the thought in your head with my clever ad. The money simply enabled you to purchase the product that I put the demand in your head for. The demand that didn't exist until you saw the commercial that i, the provider, put in your head.

Thats the point. If consumers don't have the money, they don't purchase the product.

I agree but unlike some I realize that our economy is a machine that requires many things to keep functioning. Many of those parts are currently broken and demand is the least of them. The demand in my business is still there but many other things are not. I've had jobs scheduled that were canceled because someone in the home got laid off. I've had consumers receive estimates from me only to call later and say they couldn't get financing. I've had customers who simply said it was too expensive. The demand is there but other factors cost me the jobs. Although I will admit demand is much lower than normal but I don't believe its because they don't want the services because historically they always have.

Our economy is very weak and consumers are holding on to their money just like job providers are. It's all cyclical and one or two spokes are broken.

More importantly, those that make up the job machines are holding on to THEIR money because the government is unwilling to create a climate in which profits are reasonably assured. When you don't know how much the government is going to grab--Obama incessantly insists that the job creators (i.e. the wealthy) should pay more--when the regulations for mandates like Obamacare haven't even been written yet so nobody knows what the costs will be; when existing regulations are ever more restrictive and punative, nobody in their right mind would risk what wealth they have when the odds look really good that they would lose a lot or most or all of it.

Create a climate in which those job creators can expect to make a reasonable profit; create a policy that makes it attractive for the trillions in investment capital now parked overseas to come home and those sitting on capital here at home to turn loose of it, and they will start hiring again which in turn puts money back into the economy so people will start buying more goods and services again.

It is such basic economics people. Our fearless leaders are either totally ignorant, or they are hampering the economy on purpose. And I am pretty well divided on which of those two things is the truth. Maybe both?

 

[Dragon]

Concerning innovative products for which there is no specific pre-introduction demand (because no one's heard of the product), that, too, depends on people having money to spend. The dynamic goes like this. The product is put on the market and advertised. Either people like it or they don't. If they do, either they can afford to buy it or they can't. Judging the first of those (desire to buy) ahead of time is really difficult, which is why introduction of new products is such a risk. Judging the second one, however, is easier.

Even when the economy is doing well and wealth is broadly distributed, so that most people have plenty of money to spend, an innovative product can still fail if people don't like it. But when the economy is doing badly, or when wealth is too concentrated, so that people have to be very careful about their spending, an innovative product is all too likely to fail even if people DO like it, because they are more likely not to buy it even so -- they're not buying all kinds of things that are already on the market that they might like to have.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you should visit Mr. T's "Stockholm Syndrome" thread, Dragon. It might or might not be instructive for you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Oh for christs sake people.

MONEY=/=DEMAND

 

[Katzndogz]

If we got the marxist in the white house out of office, this economy would take off like a rocket. All those people sitting on their cash waiting for stability to return would explode in activity.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we got the marxist in the white house out of office, this economy would take off like a rocket. All those people sitting on their cash waiting for stability to return would explode in activity.

I agree except that it also requires putting people into the White House and into Congress who will give us a fair, tolerable, and secure tax code, who will rein in unnecessary spending, and who will get rid of all UNNECESSARY regulation, mandates, and restrictions on the private sector.

THEN we can expect the economy to take off like a rocket.