Who are the job creators?

[racewright]

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.

The supply and demand theory should not be used to explain JOB Creation.
But Jobs are the by product of a business expansion or creation.
The only thing that the USA is now trying to do is provide jobs via the Goverment--school teachers,cops,fireman,sanitation people, and anything else that the Goverment directly isuees pay checks on.
That in of it self is self distruction because at the end of the day self motivation will be destroyed as well as the need to improve on your tasks--we see it now as our schools no longer are tops in the world.

 

[racewright]

You know the Goverment can create jobs for the private industry by simple eliminating the road blocks set up over the last 40 years that chased companies to foreign nations.

So I guess in this sense the Goverment is the main destroyer of jobs and is probably the only place were jobs can be created.

 

[Jarhead]

You know the Goverment can create jobs for the private industry by simple eliminating the road blocks set up over the last 40 years that chased companies to foreign nations.

So I guess in this sense the Goverment is the main destroyer of jobs and is probably the only place were jobs can be created.

thaqts where people are missing it.

Demand will create jobs...in a way...yes. But not in the US.

But arent we supposed to be all about creating jobs in the US?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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

you must be too young to remember the Cabbage Patch dolls.

If you were around then, you would realize that business owners do not produce based on the demand for their product. They worry about the best, most efficient way to get a return on their investment.

Now...if you are against that...then you are against capitalism...which is fine...but then THAT should be your argument.

 

[Navy1960]

On Thursday, John Boehner and the House Republican leadership team unveiled their "Plan for America's Job Creators." As he repeatedly made clear before the Economic Club of New York and again on CBS Face the Nation, Boehner's "job creators"

Earlier this month, Speaker Boehner warned that "The mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators -- uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs." As he told Harry Smith of CBS two weeks ago:

PERRspectives: The Republican Job Creators Myth

Said the same thing in another thread just like this one, but when you have statistics that indicate that 2.9 Million Americans were let go in the last 10 years and 2.4 Million were hired overseas, then yes we do know that the "job creators" are. While cutting taxes as an incentive for production here it would seem to me that across the board tax cuts as an incentive to create jobs only works if you wish to create them overseas.

 

[racewright]

On Thursday, John Boehner and the House Republican leadership team unveiled their "Plan for America's Job Creators." As he repeatedly made clear before the Economic Club of New York and again on CBS Face the Nation, Boehner's "job creators"

Earlier this month, Speaker Boehner warned that "The mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators -- uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs." As he told Harry Smith of CBS two weeks ago:

PERRspectives: The Republican Job Creators Myth

Said the same thing in another thread just like this one, but when you have statistics that indicate that 2.9 Million Americans were let go in the last 10 years and 2.4 Million were hired overseas, then yes we do know that the "job creators" are. While cutting taxes as an incentive for production here it would seem to me that across the board tax cuts as an incentive to create jobs only works if you wish to create them overseas.

Here in lies the problem--businesses know the goverment that chases them away--if decided to change to have them come back will they reverse again??
So to reverse the flow of job creation the USA will have to put pressure on the people in the USA who have jobs that did and can not leave the USA to relax the reasons to why the jobs left---ain't gonna happen as the real GREED in the USA is its people.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They work hand in hand.
You cannot create demand for products that are inferior and more expensive than conventional products.
Even if the company that manufactures them are contributing heavily to your campaign.

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

But just giving people some money to spend doesn't work, we've tried that many times and all it does is give you a temporary boost in the economy and then a gradual return to where you were except then your debt/deficits are higher. What you want is a sustainable demand, and that ain't happening in the current environment.

The notion that consumers are the job creators has some validity, nobody is going to start a business unless the prospects for the demand for your product or service are enough to exceed what the anticipated costs are going to be. But therein lies the problem, liberal dems ignore the costs (supply) side of the equation, if demand goes up by 10% but your costs go up by 15%, who's going to take that deal?

These days, the costs of starting a new business or expanding an existing business are estimated into the future, taking into account the status quo but also the best evaluations for what the business climate is going to be over the next 3-5 years. They also estimate the future demand too, over that time period, and let me tell you this: giving consumers some extra cash now is not going to effect that decision.

And BTW, consumers don't put up most of the cash required to bankroll a new business or expand an existing one either. It's the rich guys who do that, in anticipation of being rewarded with a good return on investment. Otherwise they wouldn't risk their money. Not many lower and middle income guys invest the kind of money it takes to get a business going and keep it going until it begins to make a profit. THAT's why increasing capital gains tax rates would be the absolute stupidest thing we could do right now.

 

[Dragon]

please show me where any memebr of the GOP has said that RICH people create the jobs...

They may not use the word, but the meaning is clear, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

And again I will say.......a business has no responsibility to meet the demand.

Yes, they do, because meeting consumer demand is how they make the business profitable, and that meets the business' fiduciary responsibility to its owners. If the demand is there to justify it, and the business owner or manager is responsible, the business WILL hire. If the demand is not there to justify it, the business WILL NOT hire. It's really that simple.

Many companises opt to stay small...and only meet a small portion of the demand.

If they do, then the market share they could have had by growing will be taken by one of their competitors. If the business is a sole proprietorship, the owner can maybe get away with that. If it's a corporation, I don't think the stockholders will take it well. But one thing you can be sure of is that when the market is there, someone will serve it.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

If a company/business does not feel the risk is worth the reward and there is still a demand for that product or service, then another company will just fill that void and figure out how to benefit from that consumer driven demand. The beauty of a successful capitalistic system.

The driving force behind all of this still remains that consumer demand. Without that, there is no business.

 

[Dragon]

But just giving people some money to spend doesn't work, we've tried that many times and all it does is give you a temporary boost in the economy and then a gradual return to where you were except then your debt/deficits are higher. What you want is a sustainable demand, and that ain't happening in the current environment.

In the current political environment, that's true. However, the political environment is changing, and we might as well shoot for what we know will work (because it's worked before).

But therein lies the problem, liberal dems ignore the costs (supply) side of the equation, if demand goes up by 10% but your costs go up by 15%, who's going to take that deal?

Demand and costs aren't a trade-off like that. Most supply factors are ones that capitalism is good at dealing with; there's really no need to worry much about that except when it comes to husbandry of natural resources, which along with maintenance of demand is an area where capitalism breaks down. But formation of capital, and allocation of available resources to efficiently produce goods -- it's good at that. No worries.

giving consumers some extra cash now is not going to effect that decision.

The way it was done before, during the 1940s - 1970s, was to shift the rules of the game so as to favor high wages and narrow income gaps. Sharply graduated tax rates, strict support for labor rights so unions stayed strong, generous public spending on education, adequate safety nets. These are all things that big business will howl at, but it's what benefits the economy as a whole.

And BTW, consumers don't put up most of the cash required to bankroll a new business or expand an existing one either. It's the rich guys who do that, in anticipation of being rewarded with a good return on investment.

True, but as I said, a capitalist economy can handle that in its sleep. Capital formation really isn't anything we have to worry about. There has never been an economy-wide capital shortage.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So consumers invented the iPhone?

Who knew?

This theory is a rationalization for giving money to parasites. It has been exploded 1000 times. Capitalists create jobs. To be more specific, they create every job that pays more than brute survival wages. They build the factories that vastly improve the productivity of the typical wage earner and make his labor more valuable.

 

[Dragon]

So consumers invented the iPhone?

They were the reason the iPhone was invented. Without them, it wouldn't have been.

Without consumers, no factory would ever have been built by anyone, nor anyone ever hired, nor any investment ever made to produce anything. Consumer demand drives the entire economy.

 

[Wiseacre]

But just giving people some money to spend doesn't work, we've tried that many times and all it does is give you a temporary boost in the economy and then a gradual return to where you were except then your debt/deficits are higher. What you want is a sustainable demand, and that ain't happening in the current environment.

In the current political environment, that's true. However, the political environment is changing, and we might as well shoot for what we know will work (because it's worked before).

But therein lies the problem, liberal dems ignore the costs (supply) side of the equation, if demand goes up by 10% but your costs go up by 15%, who's going to take that deal?

Demand and costs aren't a trade-off like that. Most supply factors are ones that capitalism is good at dealing with; there's really no need to worry much about that except when it comes to husbandry of natural resources, which along with maintenance of demand is an area where capitalism breaks down. But formation of capital, and allocation of available resources to efficiently produce goods -- it's good at that. No worries.

giving consumers some extra cash now is not going to effect that decision.

The way it was done before, during the 1940s - 1970s, was to shift the rules of the game so as to favor high wages and narrow income gaps. Sharply graduated tax rates, strict support for labor rights so unions stayed strong, generous public spending on education, adequate safety nets. These are all things that big business will howl at, but it's what benefits the economy as a whole.

And BTW, consumers don't put up most of the cash required to bankroll a new business or expand an existing one either. It's the rich guys who do that, in anticipation of being rewarded with a good return on investment.

True, but as I said, a capitalist economy can handle that in its sleep. Capital formation really isn't anything we have to worry about. There has never been an economy-wide capital shortage.

We'e not short of capital, we're short on the willingness to invest it. Which in turn is based on the the risks and rewards, what are the chances that the venture goes bust and what are the likely returns on investment? You're blowing that off, thinking that an increase in demand solves the problem. I'm saying it's not that easy, as an entrepeneur or capital investor I gotta believe that demand is going to go up but the associated costs of producing or supplying the service or product is not going to go up as much. IOW, there's gotta be a high enough expectation of profit, or I'm going to find another venture. Or maybe another country to make money in.

I think you're overestimating the value of increased demand, and underestimating he supply side impacts of raising taxes and increasing regulations. It's not one-sided, and there are no easy answers.

 

[bripat9643]

So consumers invented the iPhone?

They were the reason the iPhone was invented. Without them, it wouldn't have been.

That's like saying rain is the reason that umbrellas were created. Therefore rain invented the umbrella.
Here's the real reason the iPhone was invented: Steven Jobs. The consumers played no part in it.

Without consumers, no factory would ever have been built by anyone, nor anyone ever hired, nor any investment ever made to produce anything. Consumer demand drives the entire economy.

Consumers existed for thousands of years before there were factories and mass production. Why didn't factories magically rise out of the ground in the Middle Ages?

Your theory is that cows build barns rather than the farmer. After all, the barn wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the cows, right?

It's pure idiocy, and only dumb cows like you believe it.

 

[Mr Natural]

So consumers invented the iPhone?

They were the reason the iPhone was invented. Without them, it wouldn't have been.

Without consumers, no factory would ever have been built by anyone, nor anyone ever hired, nor any investment ever made to produce anything. Consumer demand drives the entire economy.

And companies spend billions every year to create and maintain that demand.

 

[RDD_1210]

So consumers invented the iPhone?

They were the reason the iPhone was invented. Without them, it wouldn't have been.

Yep, and here's the reason: Steven Jobs. The consumers played no part in it.

Without consumers, no factory would ever have been built by anyone, nor anyone ever hired, nor any investment ever made to produce anything. Consumer demand drives the entire economy.

Consumers existed for thousands of years before there were factories and mass production. Why didn't factories magically rise out of the ground in the Middle Ages?

Your theory is that cows build barns rather than the farmer. After all, the barn wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the cows, right?

It's pure idiocy, and only dumb cows like you believe it.

LOL at your analogy. Terrible.

The farmer wouldn't build a barn if there were no cows. Cows don't do the building, but their existence drives the need for the barn.

Using your "logic", if a farmer builds a barn, cows will magically appear out of thin air.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL at your analogy. Terrible.

The farmer wouldn't build a barn if there were no cows. Cows don't do the building, but their existence drives the need for the barn.

So you think cows created the barn? Saying they're "the reason" doesn't mean they deserve any credit for the creation of the barn. The farmer builds the barn for his own purposes. Cattle lived in the open until farmers decided they could be put to use. The cows wouldn't even exist if the farmer didn't breed them and feed them and provide them with housing.

Your theory is just a subtle play on words. It's a scam. it gives credit to people who deserve no credit.

 

[RDD_1210]

LOL at your analogy. Terrible.

The farmer wouldn't build a barn if there were no cows. Cows don't do the building, but their existence drives the need for the barn.

So you think cows created the barn? Saying they're "the reason" doesn't mean they deserve any credit for the creation of the barn. The farmer builds the barn for his own purposes.

Sow cows magically appear when a farmer creates the barn?

Cattle lived in the open until farmers decided they could be put to use. The cows wouldn't even exist if the farmer didn't breed them and feed them and provide them with housing.

So farmers (business) saw cows (consumers) living in the open. There was a need for shelter, so the farmer created the barn (product) to match the needs of the cow.

Your analogy only reinforces the point that demand drives business.

The farmer didn't create the barn on a whim and magically cows started appearing out of thin air.

 

[bripat9643]

If a company/business does not feel the risk is worth the reward and there is still a demand for that product or service, then another company will just fill that void and figure out how to benefit from that consumer driven demand. The beauty of a successful capitalistic system.

The driving force behind all of this still remains that consumer demand. Without that, there is no business.

Right, and rain invented the umbrella.

Only morons are fooled by this sophistry.