Does Demand Create Jobs? Well Sorta

[Norman]

Supply and Demand.

Investment.

Those are the foundation of capitalism.

If you have no job, you don't pay taxes. So a tax cut means nothing.

If you have no money, there is no demand and that means, "no jobs".

I've discovered two important things:

1. Republicans don't know what capitalism is.

2. Republicans have no ideas on how to help the economy that suffered from their ruinous policies.

How is it possible to debate these people? They don't know enough to debate.

So where did the first bit of supply come from then?

Some circular logic right there.

 

[Care4all]

Supply and Demand.

Investment.

Those are the foundation of capitalism.

If you have no job, you don't pay taxes. So a tax cut means nothing.

If you have no money, there is no demand and that means, "no jobs".

I've discovered two important things:

1. Republicans don't know what capitalism is.

2. Republicans have no ideas on how to help the economy that suffered from their ruinous policies.

How is it possible to debate these people? They don't know enough to debate.

So where did the first bit of supply come from then?

Some circular logic right there.

have you ever watched one of those shows on the history channel or discovery channel where they take an item and then trace it back to its roots?

always strange things like a toothbrush or something silly like that and then after they have worked their way back it ends up something like: the toothbrush originated from the ability to make fire or from the railroads being created....they show the progression.

this is how it is with products....one thing leads to another....cell phones are improved, then they turn in to blackberries or smart phones etc....

It is very hard to determine what comes first, (the chicken or the egg?)supply or demand, when your talking about the very beginning of it all?

However, I can tell you as a Buyer for a major department Store, and a Product Marketing Manager for a whole sale manufacturer.... I didn't buy a thing, that I didn't have demand for or perceived demand for...I didn't create a thing, if I didn't have demand for it.

the Corps that I worked for, did not just give me money to spend willy nillie....I had analysis, report after report analyzing what people were buying, at what rate of sale, in what materials, in what sizes, in what colors, etc etc etc etc....extensive analysis was done before I spent a penny buying product or creating new product when working for the manufacturer....

there had to be some kind of analysis that showed that there was demand....even if it were a new product, there was something that the new product was derived from, but improved upon....that i could get a reading of what the demand would be, once the product hit the floor....sure, there are surprises...some things had greater demand than my estimates and plans, and some had less....but there was always some sort of projected demand before a dime was spent on supply.

 

[Care4all]

the need, created things in the beginning....fire, shelter, skins as clothes.....the need, was the demand back then and the need came BEFORE the supply.

 

[Norman]

Supply and Demand.

Investment.

Those are the foundation of capitalism.

If you have no job, you don't pay taxes. So a tax cut means nothing.

If you have no money, there is no demand and that means, "no jobs".

I've discovered two important things:

1. Republicans don't know what capitalism is.

2. Republicans have no ideas on how to help the economy that suffered from their ruinous policies.

How is it possible to debate these people? They don't know enough to debate.

So where did the first bit of supply come from then?

Some circular logic right there.

have you ever watched one of those shows on the history channel or discovery channel where they take an item and then trace it back to its roots?

always strange things like a toothbrush or something silly like that and then after they have worked their way back it ends up something like: the toothbrush originated from the ability to make fire or from the railroads being created....they show the progression.

this is how it is with products....one thing leads to another....cell phones are improved, then they turn in to blackberries or smart phones etc....

It is very hard to determine what comes first, (the chicken or the egg?)supply or demand, when your talking about the very beginning of it all?

However, I can tell you as a Buyer for a major department Store, and a Product Marketing Manager for a whole sale manufacturer.... I didn't buy a thing, that I didn't have demand for or perceived demand for...I didn't create a thing, if I didn't have demand for it.

the Corps that I worked for, did not just give me money to spend willy nillie....I had analysis, report after report analyzing what people were buying, at what rate of sale, in what materials, in what sizes, in what colors, etc etc etc etc....extensive analysis was done before I spent a penny buying product or creating new product when working for the manufacturer....

there had to be some kind of analysis that showed that there was demand....even if it were a new product, there was something that the new product was derived from, but improved upon....that i could get a reading of what the demand would be, once the product hit the floor....sure, there are surprises...some things had greater demand than my estimates and plans, and some had less....but there was always some sort of projected demand before a dime was spent on supply.

Cool story...

Anyway, IMO supply must ALWAYS come before demand. And the reason why is very simple.

Demand is actually will to change supply.

So you are not actually testing if your customers have demand, you are testing if they have will to exchange something they have created.

Think about it, if your customers had unlimited demand, but no stuff to pay for the demand, you would no cater for them (well this came a bit harsh hehe). On the other to give demand for the customers, you need to take it from someone else.

Of course when making stuff for yourself, you must first have demand to make it, but that is not what I am really discussing here.

 

[Care4all]

So where did the first bit of supply come from then?

Some circular logic right there.

have you ever watched one of those shows on the history channel or discovery channel where they take an item and then trace it back to its roots?

always strange things like a toothbrush or something silly like that and then after they have worked their way back it ends up something like: the toothbrush originated from the ability to make fire or from the railroads being created....they show the progression.

this is how it is with products....one thing leads to another....cell phones are improved, then they turn in to blackberries or smart phones etc....

It is very hard to determine what comes first, (the chicken or the egg?)supply or demand, when your talking about the very beginning of it all?

However, I can tell you as a Buyer for a major department Store, and a Product Marketing Manager for a whole sale manufacturer.... I didn't buy a thing, that I didn't have demand for or perceived demand for...I didn't create a thing, if I didn't have demand for it.

the Corps that I worked for, did not just give me money to spend willy nillie....I had analysis, report after report analyzing what people were buying, at what rate of sale, in what materials, in what sizes, in what colors, etc etc etc etc....extensive analysis was done before I spent a penny buying product or creating new product when working for the manufacturer....

there had to be some kind of analysis that showed that there was demand....even if it were a new product, there was something that the new product was derived from, but improved upon....that i could get a reading of what the demand would be, once the product hit the floor....sure, there are surprises...some things had greater demand than my estimates and plans, and some had less....but there was always some sort of projected demand before a dime was spent on supply.

Cool story...

Anyway, IMO supply must ALWAYS come before demand. And the reason why is very simple.

Demand is actually will to change supply.

So you are not actually testing if your customers have demand, you are testing if they have will to exchange something they have created.

Think about it, if your customers had unlimited demand, but no stuff to pay for the demand, you would no cater for them (well this came a bit harsh hehe). On the other to give demand for the customers, you need to take it from someone else.

Of course when making stuff for yourself, you must first have demand to make it, but that is not what I am really discussing here.

there are many terms in the industry that are interchangeable with 'demand', and 'on order' is one of them....(this on the wholesale side of business)...ones on order is ones demand....in manufacturing.

In retail, ones 'demand' is a projection of what you plan to sell based off of what you have sold already in a specific period of time, (how the item or category is 'trending'), along with taking in to consideration any economic factors....project the sales/demand lower if going in to a recession or you can see that your sales are starting to slow down or that you know you are going to be closing some of your stores , project the sales higher than what you've been selling, based on the rate of sale....how quickly you sold your first delivery of it.....or based on new stores that you will be opening,

and truly, a gazillion other things....it's truly not a ''fluff job''....it takes a lot of talent and skill to read a 'market' and its demand.

I created the supply norman....that was my job....on both the retail and wholesale sides of the 'business'....suppliers have to supply what the customers want/demand/buy...if suppliers spent their money on products that customers did not want/buy/demand, then they will not be in business for long.

this is one reason businesses have been holding back and not expanding their businesses....the demand, or projected demand, is not there, to support doing such and no one is going to spend their company's money, on products to sell, if they KNOW they are probably not going to sell them due to the lack of demand.

btw....workers create wealth....it is not the other way around....as many seem to think...

 

[expat_panama]

...If anyone cares we can study this for ourselves by looking at how tax-rate cuts have affected demand in the past. That could tell us a lot about how much we want tax-cuts now.

If one doesn't have a job, all the tax cuts in the world don't mean a thing....

This is the core of the discussion. We have the choice of either looking at past tax-cuts and seeing how they affected job creation, or we can believe what we want. I say we should look and see what works. I'm willing even if it ends up proving my beliefs wrong because at least I'll be better able to help those suffering job loss.

Nobody else here seems to be willing to risk losing ideology for the sake of the five million who've lost their jobs.

 

[expat_panama]

...I had analysis, report after report analyzing what people were buying, at what rate of sale, in what materials, in what sizes, in what colors, etc etc etc etc....extensive analysis was done before I spent a penny buying product or creating new product when working for the manufacturer...

Excellent! This is exactly the approach needed in running the country. Please tell me if you remember whether demand generally rose or fell after '03 tax-cuts.

 

[expat_panama]

...need came BEFORE the supply...

The instant we are all born there is already a supply available to us that was created in anticipation of our demand. Stores and factories are built not because of existing demand but for the demand expected to be there when the activity hits the market.

 

[editec]

I hear the left saying it all the time - tax cuts for the wealthy doesn't create jobs, demand does. Which is fine, except it isn't the whole story. I think more demand is the primary driver, without that nobody hires more people. But then the question becomes how do you create more demand and then how do you create more jobs to satisify it.

The liberal approach is to redistribute the wealth - take money from those who earned it and give it to those who haven't, specifically the lower income folks. Sounds great, they'll spend the money and create demand and we get more jobs. Except for one thing, it doesn't work. Tax rebates have been tried, big stimulus has been tried, but it never works because it's temporary. I remember getting a couple of tax rebates during the Bush years, but IMHO it never moved the needle.

So, what about a tax cut? Now that's more permanent, and it did work for Reagan and also for Bush in 2003. The economy and employment picked up very nicely thank you, until the recession hit in 2008. Some say those tax cuts lead to the recession, which is total nonsense IMHO, there were several reasons why the recession happened, but the Bush tax cuts were not one of them.

So would tax cuts mean we'd get more jobs now? I think that's debateable until and unless our leadership comes up with a bi-partisan plan to deal with the debt and deficits, nobody is going to be overly optimistic about starting new businesses. Which is where about 75% of all new jobs come from. Gonna have to de-regulate somewhat too, it's too damn hard, expensive, and time consuming to startup a business in this country.

And one more point about new jobs - you need capital. Demand is the first priority, but you gotta have some money behind you, and tax cuts make that money more available. Tax hikes on the other hand make that capital less available, and in today's global economy money flows to where it gets the best ROI.

So, demand does create jobs, but not by itself. Oh yeah, the local supermarket or merchant will hire more people when more customers start coming in to spend money. But we need more than that, we need new businesses and expansions to existing businesses. And that means attracting more capital.

Nice theory...sadly we live in a real world where DETAILS trump theory.

 

[Cuyo]

a tax cut on SS taxes would work as well as a rebate check for a demand stimulus etc.....

the poor and middle class SPEND their 'stimulus' tax savings the fastest, is what all the studies have shown....stimulus is not really a stimulus if it is not all spent and concentrated within a short period....yep, the obama stimulus was definitely not all stimulus....because it was spread out and piece-meal.

*rebate check would be more effective, but tax cuts could work too

This has been explained many times.
Sending people money does nto create demand or jobs. There is no "multiplier effect."
We have just had about 3 years of this experiment (again) and the results are that such thinking is wrong, totally wrong.
The truth is that investment creates jobs. How much demand was there for a Kindle before the first one was sold? Answer: Zero. Same with an iPhone or any other gadget. first there was an idea, then an investment to develop, produce and market. Finally there was demand.
But unless companies perceive a business atmosphere that is favorable to risk taking, they won't do it. And that is what we have right now.

But if nobody has money for a Kindle, why would anyone bother developing, manufacturing, and marketing it, regardless of how much capital they have access to?

 

[The Rabbi]

a tax cut on SS taxes would work as well as a rebate check for a demand stimulus etc.....

the poor and middle class SPEND their 'stimulus' tax savings the fastest, is what all the studies have shown....stimulus is not really a stimulus if it is not all spent and concentrated within a short period....yep, the obama stimulus was definitely not all stimulus....because it was spread out and piece-meal.

*rebate check would be more effective, but tax cuts could work too

This has been explained many times.
Sending people money does nto create demand or jobs. There is no "multiplier effect."
We have just had about 3 years of this experiment (again) and the results are that such thinking is wrong, totally wrong.
The truth is that investment creates jobs. How much demand was there for a Kindle before the first one was sold? Answer: Zero. Same with an iPhone or any other gadget. first there was an idea, then an investment to develop, produce and market. Finally there was demand.
But unless companies perceive a business atmosphere that is favorable to risk taking, they won't do it. And that is what we have right now.

But if nobody has money for a Kindle, why would anyone bother developing, manufacturing, and marketing it, regardless of how much capital they have access to?

How much money did anyone budget for a kindle before they came out? None.
How much money did you budget for a cell phone in 1985?

We don't live in a poverty stricken country. People have plenty of disposable money.

 

[expat_panama]

...we need new businesses and expansions to existing businesses. And that means attracting more capital.

Nice theory...sadly we live in a real world where DETAILS trump theory.

Whenever you want we can look at records of job creation before and after past tax-cuts. Somehow saying what the 'real world' is like always comes out better after actually having looked at it.

 

[Care4all]

a tax cut on SS taxes would work as well as a rebate check for a demand stimulus etc.....

the poor and middle class SPEND their 'stimulus' tax savings the fastest, is what all the studies have shown....stimulus is not really a stimulus if it is not all spent and concentrated within a short period....yep, the obama stimulus was definitely not all stimulus....because it was spread out and piece-meal.

*rebate check would be more effective, but tax cuts could work too

This has been explained many times.
Sending people money does nto create demand or jobs. There is no "multiplier effect."
We have just had about 3 years of this experiment (again) and the results are that such thinking is wrong, totally wrong.
The truth is that investment creates jobs. How much demand was there for a Kindle before the first one was sold? Answer: Zero. Same with an iPhone or any other gadget. first there was an idea, then an investment to develop, produce and market. Finally there was demand.
But unless companies perceive a business atmosphere that is favorable to risk taking, they won't do it. And that is what we have right now.

But if nobody has money for a Kindle, why would anyone bother developing, manufacturing, and marketing it, regardless of how much capital they have access to?

precisely.

However, in the example of the Kindle, they already knew it would have the customers that would buy it.....those that do have the money to buy it, with or without a tax cut or a rebate or any help....those "with money" to spend as they please.

Kindle wasn't focusing on selling to the unemployed, money strapped, or lower income people in the first place.

Kindle developed something with added features and benefits, that they could envision being an asset for those with disposable income based on the sales of previous items of the same character.

They did NOT need money or more money from the government...(a tax break) they had the free market on their side...they made the investment themselves, based on the projected demand...the projected purchasing power, for the product.

 

[uscitizen]

Demand now creates jobs in China and other offshore countries more than it does here.

The corner we have worked ourselves into is much more complex than tax cuts and such.

 

[Care4all]

Demand now creates jobs in China and other offshore countries more than it does here.

The corner we have worked ourselves into is much more complex than tax cuts and such.

this is true, to a degree....

but,
it still creates jobs at the service level.....more retail jobs,

it still creates jobs at the ports, bringing in the products,

it still creates jobs for truckers and shipping companies.

This may not be good paying manufacturing jobs, but some jobs none the less.

 

[uscitizen]

Demand now creates jobs in China and other offshore countries more than it does here.

The corner we have worked ourselves into is much more complex than tax cuts and such.

this is true, to a degree....

but,
it still creates jobs at the service level.....more retail jobs,

it still creates jobs at the ports, bringing in the products,

it still creates jobs for truckers and shipping companies.

This may not be good paying manufacturing jobs, but some jobs none the less.

True more lower paying less HC benefits types of jobs.
We must learn to live with less as a nation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Demand now creates jobs in China and other offshore countries more than it does here.

The corner we have worked ourselves into is much more complex than tax cuts and such.

this is true, to a degree....

but,
it still creates jobs at the service level.....more retail jobs,

it still creates jobs at the ports, bringing in the products,

it still creates jobs for truckers and shipping companies.

This may not be good paying manufacturing jobs, but some jobs none the less.

True more lower paying less HC benefits types of jobs.
We must learn to live with less as a nation.

Bullshit.
You seen what a longshoreman makes?

 

[rdean]

Reading this thread, it's clear Republicans don't understand "supply and demand". They know nothing about "investment". I suspect many don't know what "revenue" is.

One person even firmly believes that if you get a small tax cut it will sustain the ecnomy, never even once, mentioning the word "bump".

You can lead a horse to water.

The question is, "How do you get right wingers to learn when they refuse"?

 

[The Rabbi]

Reading this thread, it's clear Republicans don't understand "supply and demand". They know nothing about "investment". I suspect many don't know what "revenue" is.

One person even firmly believes that if you get a small tax cut it will sustain the ecnomy, never even once, mentioning the word "bump".

You can lead a horse to water.

The question is, "How do you get right wingers to learn when they refuse"?

Hint: It isn't the "rightwingers" who are clueless here.

 

[Norman]

...need came BEFORE the supply...

The instant we are all born there is already a supply available to us that was created in anticipation of our demand. Stores and factories are built not because of existing demand but for the demand expected to be there when the activity hits the market.

Yeah, but they also expect you to PAY for that demand. Not just demand stuff.

On the other hand, if some places of the economy have too much demand and it shrinks, it should not be forced back up.