America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/op

[Vast LWC]

Yes. Before Airplanes where was the demand? I mean, LoneLaugher clearly stated without demand there is no jobs or wealthy people, period! Yet the jobs and product was created before people (here it comes) knew how they could benefit and wanted that product.

The demand was for a more efficient means of transportation. Also as a means of making war.

Do you think no-one wondered what it would be like to fly over an ocean before the airplane was invented? Or how one would have an advantage on the battlefield if they had the ability to rain down bombs on their opponents from the air?

Why do you think so many people were trying to find a way to fly in the first place? For shits and giggles?

There was in fact demand for airplanes before they were invented, there was LOTS of demand.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ridiculous...you're an idiot. You don't get it. Demand creates jobs. That's the point he's trying to make. Keep dropping wages and benefits on people. Keep shipping jobs out of the country. Keep ******* over the people who CREATE DEMAND and thereby create wealth...and let's just see how deep this crazy rabbit hole of worshiping billionaires takes us.

No...


Wealthy people create the jobs... The demand is what keeps the jobs in place.

who are these wealthy people that created the 100 plus million jobs in the USA? most people work for SMALL businesses in this country.....never knew small businesses were ''the wealthy''?

Labor is more important than capital....labor CREATES WEALTH. the chicken comes first, not the golden egg.

Partly Care4All -- that's an artifact of converting to a Service economy. Franchise owners are the bulk of the job creators now and those are on a small scale because largely -- they service a small area of influence. USED TO BE -- the big employers in town were the factories and all of their supply chain..

One effect of that is inefficiency. A single factory has the WORLD as it's market. All served from a central location. If PETSMART wants to double it's workforce, it has to double it's real estate, building improvements, distribution and taxes. That could be 200 stores couldn't it?

 

[freedombecki]

I can't take this anymore.... Have you guys even just thought about running a business, like opening one and what it would take?

Demand creates jobs. No demand, no jobs. No wealthy people. Period.

ORLY?

Who demanded the airplane, light bulb or even the Frisbee, before some enterprising people put their assets on the line and invented something?

GOAL!
​

 

[Vast LWC]

For the record this idea of “demand creating jobs” before the job was ever created is pure bullshit.

For instance, was it demand that created the flat screen TV? Were there tens of millions of people demanding that we have flat screen TV’s? How about the Ipad… were people screaming in the streets for a shitter laptop that you have to later buy holders to hold it in place like even the lowest end laptop already does for you? The answer is no, yet look how many of them there are.

Yes, there was a demand for televisions that didn't take up so much space. Anyone who lived in a small apartment in Manhattan can tell you exactly how much demand there was for that.

And yes, there were millions of people interested in small, affordable lightweight computing devices before the iPad.

Next question.

 

[Avorysuds]

For the record this idea of “demand creating jobs” before the job was ever created is pure bullshit.

For instance, was it demand that created the flat screen TV? Were there tens of millions of people demanding that we have flat screen TV’s? How about the Ipad… were people screaming in the streets for a shitter laptop that you have to later buy holders to hold it in place like even the lowest end laptop already does for you? The answer is no, yet look how many of them there are.

Yes, there was a demand for televisions that didn't take up so much space. Anyone who lived in a small apartment in Manhattan can tell you exactly how much demand there was for that.

And yes, there were millions of people interested in small, affordable lightweight computing devices before the iPad.

Next question.

And they all said, If my TV were just flat, like 1 inch... Right???? Riiight? So yes, in fact, you are an idiot.

Reality simply does not agree with you.

 

[Vast LWC]

Bless you for caring.. It's so frustrating dealing with the whackadoodles who want to condemn the system before they understand how it works.

How exactly is pointing out that a large variety of people play pivotal roles in job creation "condemning the system"?

Or is it that you think my assertion that people who benefit more from infrastructure should contribute more to said infrastructure "condemning the system"?

Neither would be the case, as far as I can see.

 

[Vast LWC]

And they all said, If my TV were just flat, like 1 inch... Right???? Riiight? So yes, in fact, you are an idiot.

Reality simply does not agree with you.

Apparently you don't understand the evolution of flat screen TV's at all.

Do you feel that one day someone just magically created a TV that was 1" wide?

You don't feel that there was a progression in technology that slowly led to the 1" wide TV?

And, most importantly, that each generation of TV took up less and less space?

And you call me "an idiot"?

 

[flacaltenn]

I've been cruising message boards for a decade and NEVER have I run across such an elaborate misconception of markets, innovation, risk capital, and technology all in one place. Congrats. Let's blow this thing up...

Wealthy people do not "create jobs". Jobs become necessary to fill when people become interested in buying a product.

Nope.. A THOUSAND people can SAY "Gee it would be nice if I had a map in my car that guided me exactly to my destination". But only a HANDFUL will have the talent, conviction, and risk tolerance to DO anything about it. To START -- you determine tech feasibility, competition, costing, AND as another component "market acceptance". How many can I sell? That's just part of the initial due diligience. Face it Lefty, YOU DON'T KNOW what kind of cardiac lab equipment you need. YOU DON'T KNOW what kind of Christmas toy is gonna be the rage this year.

Neither does an investor. That's why corporations hire technicians, scientists, ad men, line workers, managers, salesmen, etc, etc, etc.

They ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE WHOLE, allowing said corporation to make a profit, and thus continue to hire more of the same.

Do you think an investor can take a group of tribesmen from somewhere in the Congo and magically have them start building iPads in their grass huts?

All because an investor throws money at them?

Do you think the same tribesmen, who are worried about what they're going to eat the next day, are going to buy these magically created iPads?



No, the first thing you have to do is have a demand for a product, and people that can afford to pay for said product.

This doesn't happen at all, unless you have workers that are being paid enough to not be living in grass huts.

Then you have a person with an idea for a product that meets said demand.

THEN you have some investors provide some capital, which allows for people to contribute their labor efforts in turn to create said product.

If the investors hadn't had labor contributing to their fortunes to begin with, then they never would have gotten the money to invest in the company in the first place.

It's a chicken and the egg proposition.

In other words, to create jobs, there is a communal effort between consumers, investors, management and labor.

This is the basis of the free market system.



Which will not be the case anymore, once Americans run out of capital to be consumers.

If there is no demand, then there are no jobs.



Without Janitors, there is no Caterpillar. Or do you feel the investors are going to be cleaning shit up so people have room to work the next day, or clean up the conference rooms so meetings can be held?

Someone needs to disinfect those bathrooms, or the whole staff will get a disease, and then where will the investor's money go? Down the toilet, that's where. (pun intended)



Because there is less demand for products, due to the fact that there are less consumers with the ability to pay for products.



While it is true that there is a demand for STEM field education, it is still education.

And, if there were no education in languages, reading, or communications, where would you find the people to do the paperwork associated with business? Or the advertising?

How would you communicate with your Asian subsidiaries?



And since the rich profit the most from said infrastructure, they should be the ones to pay the most for it.

The point of the OP was that the rich are the "makers" and the poor are the "takers", and there's going to be a civil war in this nation because of that.

A point which I have been addressing as being faulty in it's assumptions about who are "makers" and who are "takers".

And all of these jobs are performed by "regular Joe" middle class and poor workers.

Therefore, to call investors "the job creators" is absurd.

Nope.. Regular joes play a role. A supporting role. They go home at 5PM, never have to spend their weekends flying and spending hotel time (unpaid). THey don't manage thousands of people and direct Millions of dollars everyday. THey don't even have to understand the thingamabob that they put the whoodidoodle on.

They don't have to 2nd mortgage their house to build their dream product. They don't have to answer to the folks they borrowed MIILLLIONS from to get the product made. They don't have to anticipate changes in the competition, the market, the LAW, or worry about hurting anyone with their product. If regular Joe wants to EMPLOY PEOPLE --- they better under the process.. And hopefully understand it a whole lot better than you do...

The laborers have to "2nd mortgage their house" in order to buy cars to get to their jobs, and EAT, so they can provide the skilled labor that keeps the company going, as well as putting their kids through school so those kids can then contribute THEIR efforts to the companies that the investors put their money in.

And EVERYONE is playing a "supporting" role. Investors included.

If by this you are insinuating that the majority of the rich got that way by starting businesses based on their own ideas, that every rich person was some sort of Steve Jobs, then you would be unbelievably incorrect.

Of the rich, the percentage of people that are Steve Jobs are a fraction of a percent.

Are you insinuating that most rich investors work 18 hour days, and that poor folks never work overtime?

Because that would also be unbelievably false.

Employers do NOT hold their labor captive. In fact, MOST of the compensation is out of their hands. A job is paid by what that service is worth OUTSIDE of the company. Not by what the employer is capable or willing to pay. However -- an employer WILL ELECT to pay SOME of his employees MORE to retain them because of their value. So they DON'T go elsewhere.

Would you say that if Peter makes MORE than Paul in the same task -- that PETER is robbing from Paul?

So if you have to mortgage your home to buy that car -- you are overspending your market wage value. Sad but true.

Majority of the rich GOT that way by sheer talent, dedication, and preparation. Who are the rich LWC? They are MOSTLY sports figures, musicians, entertainers, authors, top level lawyers and doctors, AND innovators like the entreprenuers I described to you above.

BUt for the minority that YOU picture as the evil rich, those in finance, venture capital, CEOs, ect --- these folks take tremendous risk and work extremely hard. I used to do technical evaluation for venture folk in Silicon Valley. They have a success record of one success for every 3 failures. NOT DUE to incompetence. Due to incredible uncalculable risk.. A concept that leftists will never understand. Since their entire goal in the political arena is to make everything in life as risk-free as possible.

That fantasy don't exist in the real world.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The private sector built the strongest economy in the world. It armed the free world in World War Two, and then in the three decades after the war turned America into the most prosperous society history had ever seen. It revived America in the Reagan and Clinton years, and thanks to the Bush tax cuts brought this country back from economic collapse after 9/11.

In those same years a growing public sector, by contrast, turned Europe into a cesspool of debt, stalled economies, and chronic social dysfunction that’s set the streets of Athens -- and perhaps other European capitals--on fire.

That’s where we’re headed, too, more rapidly than we like to think.

That public sector–state, local, and federal -- now consumes 40% of GDP, compared to 33% just twelve years ago. It’s brought us to the point where 48% of Americans are now on some form of government handout, from 44% when Obama took office–almost a fifth more than during the Reagan years. And too many of them have been programmed to believe they have no future unless the government takes more from the Makers -- precisely what Obama promised on Monday.


Read more: America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers | Fox News

Uh-uh....

The Financial Times reports that there was record demand for 10-year Treasurys this week. “The $21 [billion] sale of 10-year paper sold at a yield of 1.459 per cent, the lowest ever in an auction.” William O’Donnell, a strategist at RBS Securities, told the FT that “we were expecting good auction results but this one has left me speechless.”

Remember: Low yields means we’re getting the money for a cheap. It means the market thinks we’re a safe bet. And it means we have the opportunity to get capital for almost nothing and invest it productively.

Actually, I got something wrong there. I said “almost nothing.” But that 1.459 percent doesn’t account for inflation. And so when you do account for inflation, it’s not “almost nothing.” It’s “less than nothing.”

The world desperately wants to loan us money

How much of that was purchased by the Federal Reserve??

 

[Avorysuds]

And they all said, If my TV were just flat, like 1 inch... Right???? Riiight? So yes, in fact, you are an idiot.

Reality simply does not agree with you.

Apparently you don't understand the evolution of flat screen TV's at all.

Do you feel that one day someone just magically created a TV that was 1" wide?

You don't feel that there was a progression in technology that slowly led to the 1" wide TV?

And, most importantly, that each generation of TV took up less and less space?

And you call me "an idiot"?

Like I said, think of opening a business, use your logic and watch how in no way at all will it work out. Go ahead... Stop just blah blah blah talking about it. And remember, you're just as important as the janitor.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes. Before Airplanes where was the demand? I mean, LoneLaugher clearly stated without demand there is no jobs or wealthy people, period! Yet the jobs and product was created before people (here it comes) knew how they could benefit and wanted that product.

The demand was for a more efficient means of transportation. Also as a means of making war.

Do you think no-one wondered what it would be like to fly over an ocean before the airplane was invented? Or how one would have an advantage on the battlefield if they had the ability to rain down bombs on their opponents from the air?Why do you think so many people were trying to find a way to fly in the first place? For shits and giggles?

There was in fact demand for airplanes before they were invented, there was LOTS of demand.

See -- your problem is you equate DREAMING about shit to actually CREATING shit. Hand-waving is not patentable. It's also not profitable. And thinking about neat stuff isn't creating demand. PROVING it can be done and raising the money to do that --- is what it takes.

 

[Toro]

Of course it's all inter-related. But most of the per capita wealth in the history of the world has been created over the last ~200 years. The pace of innovation before that time was minuscule compared to today, with wealth occurring in fits and starts with inventions such as the plough and the compass. Meanwhile, there was always the capacity for demand. Demand is bound only by incomes and when marginal utility becomes negative. Per capita demand thus increases with income, which is driven by innovation. If innovation stopped today, then it wouldn't matter how much demand there was, and would not be much different than the 18 centuries AD when global per capita income rose at a snail's pace.

Wealth is created by innovation. Innovation lowers cost curves, which increases income, which increases the capacity for demand to increase. Aggregate wealth increases with demand but per capita income does not. Per capita income only grows through technological advancement. Technological advancement occurs because savings are invested to develop the product.

But innovation wouldn't exist without education.

Education wouldn't exist without an existing infrastructure.

Said infrastructure wouldn't exist without technological advancement.

and technological advancement wouldn't exist if there was no demand.

It's all inter-related. If you take out one link of the chain, the whole thing falls apart.

So, in other words, jobs, and wealth are created by EVERYONE providing a contribution.

Investors are not more important than innovators, and innovators are not more important than consumers, since there would be point to being an innovator if no-one gave a crap about your innovation.

Thus, every cog in the wheel helps create jobs, just like every cog in the wheel helps create demand.

And thus, one cannot say that "the rich are the job creators", because it's simply not true.

 

[Vast LWC]

Employers do NOT hold their labor captive.

Never said they did.

In fact, MOST of the compensation is out of their hands. A job is paid by what that service is worth OUTSIDE of the company. Not by what the employer is capable or willing to pay. However -- an employer WILL ELECT to pay SOME of his employees MORE to retain them because of their value. So they DON'T go elsewhere.

But the employers profit is also dependent on how good a job the workers do.

Would you say that if Peter makes MORE than Paul in the same task -- that PETER is robbing from Paul?

So if you have to mortgage your home to buy that car -- you are overspending your market wage value. Sad but true.

And if you are mortgaging your house to make an investment, and it does not pan out, then you are doing the same thing.

Majority of the rich GOT that way by sheer talent, dedication, and preparation. Who are the rich LWC? They are MOSTLY sports figures, musicians, entertainers, authors, top level lawyers and doctors, AND innovators like the entreprenuers I described to you above.

They are not. When I refer to "the rich" I am referring to the top 10% of the population in terms of wealth. That's 35 million people.

The majority of them were not in fact self-made poor folks that made good because of their innovation skills.

Sure, there are some that did, but certainly not the majority.

BUt for the minority that YOU picture as the evil rich, those in finance, venture capital, CEOs, ect --- these folks take tremendous risk and work extremely hard. I used to do technical evaluation for venture folk in Silicon Valley. They have a success record of one success for every 3 failures. NOT DUE to incompetence. Due to incredible uncalculable risk.. A concept that leftists will never understand. Since their entire goal in the political arena is to make everything in life as risk-free as possible.

That fantasy don't exist in the real world.

How is working a construction job that you could become seriously injured doing, any less risk than investing some capital in a company?

How is working 70 hours a week at a factory job in order to feed your family not "working extremely hard"?

And yes, there is risk, but if there weren't a profit margin in venture capital, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY VENTURE CAPITAL.

Even when 1 out of four investments are failures, the venture capitalists generally make enough money on that one to cover their losses on the other 3.

If that wasn't the case, no-one would be investing in venture capital. Ever.

You'd have to be an idiot to try to make a living in a field where you had a 75% chance of losing your shirt, and I have yet to meet a Venture Capitalist who's an idiot.

 

[Vast LWC]

See -- your problem is you equate DREAMING about shit to actually CREATING shit. Hand-waving is not patentable. It's also not profitable. And thinking about neat stuff isn't creating demand. PROVING it can be done and raising the money to do that --- is what it takes.

I have said nothing of the kind.

There was a demand for faster, more efficient transportation. Airplanes met that demand.

There was a demand for more deadly, more efficient weapons. Airplanes met that demand.

These were existing demands, and the methods of achieving them were well within reach.

If these demands did not exist, then people could have invented as many methods of flight as they wanted, they wouldn't have been anything more than a curiosity.

 

[flacaltenn]

Employers do NOT hold their labor captive.

Never said they did.

In fact, MOST of the compensation is out of their hands. A job is paid by what that service is worth OUTSIDE of the company. Not by what the employer is capable or willing to pay. However -- an employer WILL ELECT to pay SOME of his employees MORE to retain them because of their value. So they DON'T go elsewhere.

But the employers profit is also dependent on how good a job the workers do.



And if you are mortgaging your house to make an investment, and it does not pan out, then you are doing the same thing.

Majority of the rich GOT that way by sheer talent, dedication, and preparation. Who are the rich LWC? They are MOSTLY sports figures, musicians, entertainers, authors, top level lawyers and doctors, AND innovators like the entreprenuers I described to you above.

They are not. When I refer to "the rich" I am referring to the top 10% of the population in terms of wealth. That's 35 million people.

The majority of them were not in fact self-made poor folks that made good because of their innovation skills.

Sure, there are some that did, but certainly not the majority.

BUt for the minority that YOU picture as the evil rich, those in finance, venture capital, CEOs, ect --- these folks take tremendous risk and work extremely hard. I used to do technical evaluation for venture folk in Silicon Valley. They have a success record of one success for every 3 failures. NOT DUE to incompetence. Due to incredible uncalculable risk.. A concept that leftists will never understand. Since their entire goal in the political arena is to make everything in life as risk-free as possible.

That fantasy don't exist in the real world.

How is working a construction job that you could become seriously injured doing, any less risk than investing some capital in a company?

How is working 70 hours a week at a factory job in order to feed your family not "working extremely hard"?

And yes, there is risk, but if there weren't a profit margin in venture capital, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY VENTURE CAPITAL.

Even when 1 out of four investments are failures, the venture capitalists generally make enough money on that one to cover their losses on the other 3.

If that wasn't the case, no-one would be investing in venture capital. Ever.

You'd have to be an idiot to try to make a living in a field where you had a 75% chance of losing your shirt, and I have yet to meet a Venture Capitalist who's an idiot.

So what's the problem? Venture folks who are GOOD at it have a 25 -- 35% chance of making a substantial profit. Venture folks who are BAD -- end up teaching MBAs in Silicon Valley (just kidding -- sort of).

Doesn't matter how much physical labor you do. It depends on the results. You could stay in school and become a Chemical Engineer and not have financial worries, or you can break dance thru K-12 and barely get by.

Your problem is that you want to REWARD people as HEROES for simply breathing, thinking about shit, laboring hard and CONSUMING..

Those people are NOT the folks that move the economy forward.

How's come the goalposts moved? Last time I checked it was the 99% against the 1%. You wanna do 10%.. Do you ENVY these people? Did they Steal from you? Are they taking your shit? What's the deal?

And they ARE LARGELY the folk I mentioned. High level Professional, arts, music, sports people. And the directors, coaches, producers and writers that make the all the hit movies and music. You think Justin Bieber is evil because his make-up artist only makes 1/400 of his income?

Your view all warped. Hopefully your leftist indoctrination isn't permanent. Because THAT alone is gonna hobble you and frustrate you into mediocre performance in a system that was never properly explained to you...

 

[Vast LWC]

Of course it's all inter-related. But most of the per capita wealth in the history of the world has been created over the last ~200 years. The pace of innovation before that time was minuscule compared to today, with wealth occurring in fits and starts with inventions such as the plough and the compass. Meanwhile, there was always the capacity for demand. Demand is bound only by incomes and when marginal utility becomes negative. Per capita demand thus increases with income, which is driven by innovation. If innovation stopped today, then it wouldn't matter how much demand there was, and would not be much different than the 18 centuries AD when global per capita income rose at a snail's pace.

How does that contradict the point I've been making, which is:

"The rich are not the job creators, everyone plays a role in creating jobs."

Or, in the context of the threads OP:

The rich are not "the makers" and the working class is not "the takers".


Innovation does make income rise faster, but increased demand for innovation makes innovation happen. Like population growth, or education needs, or increased communication needs to keep up with supply needs, or faster transportation needs to international locations.

 

[Vast LWC]

So what's the problem? Venture folks who are GOOD at it have a 25 -- 35% chance of making a substantial profit. Venture folks who are BAD -- end up teaching MBAs in Silicon Valley (just kidding -- sort of).

Doesn't matter how much physical labor you do. It depends on the results. You could stay in school and become a Chemical Engineer and not have financial worries, or you can break dance thru K-12 and barely get by.

Your problem is that you want to REWARD people as HEROES for simply breathing, thinking about shit, laboring hard and CONSUMING..

I didn't say I wanted to "reward" anyone as a "hero".

You are in fact trying to make the investor class into "heroes" for risking their money, when in fact they are just trying to make a profit, like everyone else.

Those people are NOT the folks that move the economy forward. [/B]

But they are. In the same way investors do.

How's come the goalposts moved? Last time I checked it was the 99% against the 1%. You wanna do 10%.. Do you ENVY these people? Did they Steal from you? Are they taking your shit? What's the deal?

And they ARE LARGELY the folk I mentioned. High level Professional, arts, music, sports people. And the directors, coaches, producers and writers that make the all the hit movies and music. You think Justin Bieber is evil because his make-up artist only makes 1/200 of his income?

Your view all warped. Hopefully your leftist indoctrination isn't permanent. Because THAT alone is gonna hobble you and frustrate you into mediocre performance in a system that was never properly explained to you...

What makes you think I hate or resent the rich?

Is it because I don't try to elevate them above everyone else?

My argument is that everyone, including the rich, make a contribution, and the system as a while profits as a result.

My secondary argument is that the rich profit MORE, and in order to keep the infrastructure that supports their increased profit going, they should contribute more to that infrastructure.

Why would I hate people simply because they're wealthy? That would be silly.

 

[Steelplate]

I can't take this anymore.... Have you guys even just thought about running a business, like opening one and what it would take?

All it takes is money and a need that requires satisfaction. The need precedes everything else. If you don't have a market for your product or service, you can have all the capital in the world and you will still fail. Unless, of course....you use your capital to buy your government and create an artificial market.

 

[flacaltenn]

I can't take this anymore.... Have you guys even just thought about running a business, like opening one and what it would take?

All it takes is money and a need that requires satisfaction. The need precedes everything else. If you don't have a market for your product or service, you can have all the capital in the world and you will still fail. Unless, of course....you use your capital to buy your government and create an artificial market.

Having a NEED takes no effort and creates nothing. And a lot of times you don't have a clue what to buy for someone do you? But you go to the mall, and find cool shit that you NEVER EVER imagined. A good entreprenuer can CREATE a need. You don't NEED to buy a 12" cookie with your Family Size Pizza --- do ya?

Outside of consumer market -- which is a LARGE chunk of the marketplace, Average Joe has no ******* idea what kind of new bedside monitor he needs in the hospital. Or what kind of gear your ISP should have.

CONSUMER GOODS don't create jobs in the US anymore.. Go to Best Buy or the Gap and show me how many Americans produced that store full of stuff. They do however get CONCEIVED, and DESIGNED in the US.. And that takes higher skills for the working Joe.

 

[Steelplate]

I can't take this anymore.... Have you guys even just thought about running a business, like opening one and what it would take?

All it takes is money and a need that requires satisfaction. The need precedes everything else. If you don't have a market for your product or service, you can have all the capital in the world and you will still fail. Unless, of course....you use your capital to buy your government and create an artificial market.

Having a NEED takes no effort and creates nothing. And a lot of times you don't have a clue what to buy for someone do you? But you go to the mall, and find cool shit that you NEVER EVER imagined. A good entreprenuer can CREATE a need. You don't NEED to buy a 12" cookie with your Family Size Pizza --- do ya?

Outside of consumer market -- which is a LARGE chunk of the marketplace, Average Joe has no ******* idea what kind of new bedside monitor he needs in the hospital. Or what kind of gear your ISP should have. You guys are limiting your thesis to CONSUMER need.

Bullshit. Having a need is what creates a market...that market is what creates the opportunity to make money off of it. Consumer need drives innovation and the ability to pay for those products and services drives the economy.