Who are the job creators?

[Jarhead]

Right, demand is still down overall, so profits are down. The stores can't force demand up to where it was before, but they want to try to maintain profits as best as possible. The next place to go is to cut labor to prop up the bottom line.

Again, all driven by consumer demand. We're agreeing here I think.

you missed the point.

Retailers are not meeting the demand...they are hiring below the demand and thus have longer lines.

If those lines continue to be long, the next step will be to hire more people. Retailers could be cautious and aren't hiring because of what could be just blip in demand increase, but if the lines continue to be long, and it's not an anomaly then that all but forces them to hire more people to satisfy that demand.

you just supported my point.

Current Fear is what is preventing them from hiring......it outweighs demand.

 

[RDD_1210]

yes...but that does not make the cow the barn creater.

Not physically, No. And I've already said that. But the cows needs drive the business to be created, because if someone can profit by providing for the cow, then someone will step up and do it. If not this farmer, then another one will.

Someone could have become very wealthy in the year 1100 AD if they had invented penicillin. Why did "consumers" have to wait another 850 years for the market to meet their "demand" for a cure for infections?

LOL, seriously? THIS is your argument now? Your points continue to prove what I'm saying. You're doing all my leg work. Thanks?

People want a cure for AIDS, cancer, etc...now. It doesn't exist yet, but that doesn't mean there aren't people trying to figure it out.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Our economy is 70+% consumer spending driven. And the other 30 % is mostly govt spending driven.

 

[RDD_1210]

you missed the point.

Retailers are not meeting the demand...they are hiring below the demand and thus have longer lines.

If those lines continue to be long, the next step will be to hire more people. Retailers could be cautious and aren't hiring because of what could be just blip in demand increase, but if the lines continue to be long, and it's not an anomaly then that all but forces them to hire more people to satisfy that demand.

you just supported my point.

Current Fear is what is preventing them from hiring......it outweighs demand.

No, unsustained demand is preventing them from hiring. If that line at Macy's is long for the next few weeks, I promise you, they will have an ad in the paper looking for a new cashier.

 

[bripat9643]

And without rain no one would create umbrellas.

The bottom line is that the cow deserves no credit for the existence of barns, and the consumer deserves no credit for the existence of iPhones. Steve Jobs created the iPhone, not consumers.

You're playing words games here, not enunciating any rational economic theory.

So did you decide to switch analogies because your cow theory was only proving my point?

Keep moving the goal posts, it doesn't change anything.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You kill me.

I use multiple examples because you are too dense to understand just one. The cow is alive, so it bore some semblance to a consumer. That allowed you to weasel. Rain is totally inanimate, so there's no question that it can create anything. but according to you, it still deserves credit for creating a product that humans have obviously created.

You're right, changing the example won't alter your stubborn idiocy and shameless demagoguery.

 

[RDD_1210]

And without rain no one would create umbrellas.

The bottom line is that the cow deserves no credit for the existence of barns, and the consumer deserves no credit for the existence of iPhones. Steve Jobs created the iPhone, not consumers.

You're playing words games here, not enunciating any rational economic theory.

So did you decide to switch analogies because your cow theory was only proving my point?

Keep moving the goal posts, it doesn't change anything.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You kill me.

I use multiple examples because you are too dense to understand just one. The cow is alive, so it bore some semblance to a consumer. That allowed you to weasel. Rain is totally inanimate, so there's no question that it can create anything. but according to you, it still deserves credit for creating a product that humans have obviously created.

You're right, changing the example won't alter your stubborn idiocy and shameless demagoguery.

Fine, you want to change examples. Lets do it.

Would someone have invented the umbrella if there wasn't rain? Of course not. Why would people walk around holding a plastic dome above their heads. That would be dumb, and what would be the point?

 

[bripat9643]

Someone could have become very wealthy in the year 1100 AD if they had invented penicillin. Why did "consumers" have to wait another 850 years for the market to meet their "demand" for a cure for infections?

LOL, seriously? THIS is your argument now? Your points continue to prove what I'm saying. You're doing all my leg work. Thanks?

You're delusional if you think I'm proving your point. You're making a fool of yourself.

People want a cure for AIDS, cancer, etc...now. It doesn't exist yet, but that doesn't mean there aren't people trying to figure it out.

That's right PEOPLE are trying to figure it out. Those people are the creators, the job creators. The people with AIDS and Cancer deserve no credit for the fact that someone cured their affliction.

Technical and medical advances don't magically appear because some useless dolt wants them. They appear because men of talent, brains and vision toil night and day for years to create them. Thomas Edison created the light bulb, not "demand." Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine, not "demand."

 

[RDD_1210]

Someone could have become very wealthy in the year 1100 AD if they had invented penicillin. Why did "consumers" have to wait another 850 years for the market to meet their "demand" for a cure for infections?

LOL, seriously? THIS is your argument now? Your points continue to prove what I'm saying. You're doing all my leg work. Thanks?

People want a cure for AIDS, cancer, etc...now. It doesn't exist yet, but that doesn't mean there aren't people trying to figure it out.

That's right PEOPLE are trying to figure it out. Those people are the creators, the job creators. The people with AIDS and Cancer deserve no credit for the fact that someone cured their affliction.

No one is giving credit to the buyers for creating the product itself. The buyers are credited with creating the demand for the product. If no one buys the product, whats the incentive to produce it in the first place?

 

[bripat9643]

Fine, you want to change examples. Lets do it.

Would someone have invented the umbrella if there wasn't rain? Of course not. Why would people walk around holding a plastic dome above their heads. That would be dumb, and what would be the point?

You just gave away the game. You admitted that "someone," not rain, invented the umbrella.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Perfect example of a nutter forced to agree with a premise......diving into minutia to find some fucking way to stand his dumbshit ground. Any business worth a shit has no qualms about hiring if there is demand for the goods and services that it provides. You have brought up details that speak to the competency of the business owner rather than the dynamics of business ownership in general. Why? To muddy the fucking water so you have an excuse not to see that which is right in front of you.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Perfect example of a nutter forced to agree with a premise......diving into minutia to find some fucking way to stand his dumbshit ground. Any business worth a shit has no qualms about hiring if there is demand for the goods and services that it provides. You have brought up details that speak to the competency of the business owner rather than the dynamics of business ownership in general. Why? To muddy the fucking water so you have an excuse not to see that which is right in front of you.

you obviously know nothing about owning a business.

Based on your pathetic logic, every company of any given industry would be equal in size.

And the irony is that you actually wrote with sarcasm.

Go back to school and learn something. Then come play with the big boys.

 

[RDD_1210]

Fine, you want to change examples. Lets do it.

Would someone have invented the umbrella if there wasn't rain? Of course not. Why would people walk around holding a plastic dome above their heads. That would be dumb, and what would be the point?

You just gave away the game. You admitted that "someone," not rain, invented the umbrella.

I get it. You're a concrete thinker.

You're unable to connect the dots here. Without rain, people wouldn't get wet, and thus wouldn't need umbrellas. Since rain does exist, and people would prefer to stay dry, someone created umbrellas to meet that need.

The argument here is not trying to say that someone doesn't create the product. The argument is that for the most part, someone doesn't create a product without first someone else saying that there is a need for that product. Demand drives supply.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Perfect example of a nutter forced to agree with a premise......diving into minutia to find some fucking way to stand his dumbshit ground. Any business worth a shit has no qualms about hiring if there is demand for the goods and services that it provides. You have brought up details that speak to the competency of the business owner rather than the dynamics of business ownership in general. Why? To muddy the fucking water so you have an excuse not to see that which is right in front of you.

you obviously know nothing about owning a business.

Based on your pathetic logic, every company of any given industry would be equal in size.

And the irony is that you actually wrote with sarcasm.

Go back to school and learn something. Then come play with the big boys.

What.....the......fuck.....are.....you.....talking.......about?

I have said nothing about the size of companies in any way. Your brain seems toi have some glitches.

I wrote with sarcasm? And.....that is the irony? Huh?

BTW......I'm a business owner. Dummy.

 

[Jarhead]

Perfect example of a nutter forced to agree with a premise......diving into minutia to find some fucking way to stand his dumbshit ground. Any business worth a shit has no qualms about hiring if there is demand for the goods and services that it provides. You have brought up details that speak to the competency of the business owner rather than the dynamics of business ownership in general. Why? To muddy the fucking water so you have an excuse not to see that which is right in front of you.

you obviously know nothing about owning a business.

Based on your pathetic logic, every company of any given industry would be equal in size.

And the irony is that you actually wrote with sarcasm.

Go back to school and learn something. Then come play with the big boys.

What.....the......fuck.....are.....you.....talking.......about?

I have said nothing about the size of companies in any way. Your brain seems toi have some glitches.

I wrote with sarcasm? And.....that is the irony? Huh?

BTW......I'm a business owner. Dummy.

lol.....I remember when I experimented with drugs..

Whatever.,....my response was way over your head "...or this debate is too confusing for you...

FYI...most of us dont consider a paper route as "owning a business".

 

[DiamondDave]

Fine, you want to change examples. Lets do it.

Would someone have invented the umbrella if there wasn't rain? Of course not. Why would people walk around holding a plastic dome above their heads. That would be dumb, and what would be the point?

You just gave away the game. You admitted that "someone," not rain, invented the umbrella.

I get it. You're a concrete thinker.

You're unable to connect the dots here. Without rain, people wouldn't get wet, and thus wouldn't need umbrellas. Since rain does exist, and people would prefer to stay dry, someone created umbrellas to meet that need.

The argument here is not trying to say that someone doesn't create the product. The argument is that for the most part, someone doesn't create a product without first someone else saying that there is a need for that product. Demand drives supply.

Nah... supply can't create it's own demand... ... NEVER been a revolutionary product or service that had no demand before it's creation ...

I suggest some education in economics, son

 

[bripat9643]

I get it. You're a concrete thinker.

I'm a logical thinker. What is the alternative to being a "concrete thinker," believing in fairies and unicorns?

You're unable to connect the dots here. Without rain, people wouldn't get wet, and thus wouldn't need umbrellas. Since rain does exist, and people would prefer to stay dry, someone created umbrellas to meet that need.

The argument here is not trying to say that someone doesn't create the product. The argument is that for the most part, someone doesn't create a product without first someone else saying that there is a need for that product. Demand drives supply.

Your problem is that you don't understand the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." Consumer demand is a necessary condition for a product to be produced on a mass scale, but it's not sufficient. Consumer demand alone will not lead to the production of anything. It takes mean with brains, talent, ambition and courage to create products and businesses. Without those men, we would all still be living in caves.

 

[RDD_1210]

You just gave away the game. You admitted that "someone," not rain, invented the umbrella.

I get it. You're a concrete thinker.

You're unable to connect the dots here. Without rain, people wouldn't get wet, and thus wouldn't need umbrellas. Since rain does exist, and people would prefer to stay dry, someone created umbrellas to meet that need.

The argument here is not trying to say that someone doesn't create the product. The argument is that for the most part, someone doesn't create a product without first someone else saying that there is a need for that product. Demand drives supply.

Nah... supply can't create it's own demand... ... NEVER been a revolutionary product or service that had no demand before it's creation ...

I suggest some education in economics, son

I didn't say that either. Sure there are completely innovative products that break new ground. But those types of products are few and far between and hardly can prop up an entire economy.

I suggest you try and actually discuss the topic instead of trying to be an asshole about it. Novel concept, I'm sure. You tried to derail the thread at the very beginning and now you're trying to create another argument I never made. Grow up.

 

[Jarhead]

You just gave away the game. You admitted that "someone," not rain, invented the umbrella.

I get it. You're a concrete thinker.

You're unable to connect the dots here. Without rain, people wouldn't get wet, and thus wouldn't need umbrellas. Since rain does exist, and people would prefer to stay dry, someone created umbrellas to meet that need.

The argument here is not trying to say that someone doesn't create the product. The argument is that for the most part, someone doesn't create a product without first someone else saying that there is a need for that product. Demand drives supply.

Nah... supply can't create it's own demand... ... NEVER been a revolutionary product or service that had no demand before it's creation ...

I suggest some education in economics, son

The PC.

Actually some great computer minds did not think there would be a demand for it...until it was created.

 

[bripat9643]

Our economy is 70+% consumer spending driven. And the other 30 % is mostly govt spending driven.

What your really mean is that the government sucks down 30% of everything produced in this country. Government itself produces almost nothing.

 

[Jarhead]

I get it. You're a concrete thinker.

You're unable to connect the dots here. Without rain, people wouldn't get wet, and thus wouldn't need umbrellas. Since rain does exist, and people would prefer to stay dry, someone created umbrellas to meet that need.

The argument here is not trying to say that someone doesn't create the product. The argument is that for the most part, someone doesn't create a product without first someone else saying that there is a need for that product. Demand drives supply.

Nah... supply can't create it's own demand... ... NEVER been a revolutionary product or service that had no demand before it's creation ...

I suggest some education in economics, son

I didn't say that either. Sure there are completely innovative products that break new ground. But those types of products are few and far between and hardly can prop up an entire economy.

I suggest you try and actually discuss the topic instead of trying to be an asshole about it. Novel concept, I'm sure. You tried to derail the thread at the very beginning and now you're trying to create another argument I never made. Grow up.

I dont think Dave was trying to be an asshole about it...

Now Lone Laugher on the other hand....he doesnt even need to try.