Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[Mathbud1]

Others because the market shifted.

Demand fell.

I don't have a big argument with this one. Market shifts could be demand falling in one area and rising in another, or falling for one kind of product and rising for another.

Others because the company merged or was bought.

Demand not sufficient to keep all workers employed.

This one I do have a problem with. When two companies merge, demand can remain the same or even rise and people will still be laid off. This is because there are redundant positions between the two companies. You might keep some of the additional IT staff for example, but don't necessarily need to double the team. You don't need two CEOs. You don't need two CIOs etc etc.

Others because the production was outsourced,

Demand being met by foreign workers. That's a big help for American workers right?

Outsourcing is not usually in response to a reduction in demand. Therefore it is an example of people being laid off for some reason other than a reduction in demand. Which is what you asked for.

No it doesn't help American workers. But what prompted the outsourcing?

Others because increased productivity meant need for fewer workers.

Demand being met by the use of machines. No help for American workers. Except machine builders.

Increased productivity does not result solely from machines. You can increase productivity through training or hiring better workers, improving processes, or even simply better documentation and labeling practices. Every company worth anything is always looking for ways to increase efficiency, and most of the ways they find don't have anything to do with replacing a worker or workers with a machine.

All those reasons for lay offs center around either a lack of demand or demand being met by machine.
Which create few jobs.

Only one possibly centered around a reduction in demand. The last might be machines, but doesn't have to be.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because it's bullshit? We've already demonstrated that isnt true. You must be rather stupid not to understand that and repeat the same thing over and over.

Your ignorance is astounding.

No, it's you.

You stated: "Employers hire more employees to service new customers... the need is created by the new customers."

It is way to simplistic a view, and it is not true.

Employers may hire more employees when they believe it will make financial sense to do so. But that is a risk that the employer takes.

Until you have a customer's money in your hand they are nothing more than a potential customer. The employer, and his employees, have to work together to achieve return customers and to bring new customers in. Many times the best way to make more money is to get better employees.

 

[RKMBrown]

Others because the market shifted.

Demand fell.

I don't have a big argument with this one. Market shifts could be demand falling in one area and rising in another, or falling for one kind of product and rising for another.

Others because the company merged or was bought.

Demand not sufficient to keep all workers employed.

This one I do have a problem with. When two companies merge, demand can remain the same or even rise and people will still be laid off. This is because there are redundant positions between the two companies. You might keep some of the additional IT staff for example, but don't necessarily need to double the team. You don't need two CEOs. You don't need two CIOs etc etc.

Others because the production was outsourced,

Demand being met by foreign workers. That's a big help for American workers right?

Outsourcing is not usually in response to a reduction in demand. Therefore it is an example of people being laid off for some reason other than a reduction in demand. Which is what you asked for.

No it doesn't help American workers. But what prompted the outsourcing?

Others because increased productivity meant need for fewer workers.

Demand being met by the use of machines. No help for American workers. Except machine builders.

Increased productivity does not result solely from machines. You can increase productivity through training or hiring better workers, improving processes, or even simply better documentation and labeling practices. Every company worth anything is always looking for ways to increase efficiency, and most of the ways they find don't have anything to do with replacing a worker or workers with a machine.

All those reasons for lay offs center around either a lack of demand or demand being met by machine.
Which create few jobs.

Only one possibly centered around a reduction demand. The last night be machines, but doesn't have to be.

The outsourcing is being prompted by cost of labor, regulatory costs, and taxes. Simple matter of the bottom line.

 

[The Rabbi]

Others because the market shifted.

Demand fell.

I don't have a big argument with this one. Market shifts could be demand falling in one area and rising in another, or falling for one kind of product and rising for another.

Others because the company merged or was bought.

Demand not sufficient to keep all workers employed.

This one I do have a problem with. When two companies merge, demand can remain the same or even rise and people will still be laid off. This is because there are redundant positions between the two companies. You might keep some of the additional IT staff for example, but don't necessarily need to double the team. You don't need two CEOs. You don't need two CIOs etc etc.

Others because the production was outsourced,

Demand being met by foreign workers. That's a big help for American workers right?

Outsourcing is not usually in response to a reduction in demand. Therefore it is an example of people being laid off for some reason other than a reduction in demand. Which is what you asked for.

No it doesn't help American workers. But what prompted the outsourcing?

Others because increased productivity meant need for fewer workers.

Demand being met by the use of machines. No help for American workers. Except machine builders.

Increased productivity does not result solely from machines. You can increase productivity through training or hiring better workers, improving processes, or even simply better documentation and labeling practices. Every company worth anything is always looking for ways to increase efficiency, and most of the ways they find don't have anything to do with replacing a worker or workers with a machine.

All those reasons for lay offs center around either a lack of demand or demand being met by machine.
Which create few jobs.

Only one possibly centered around a reduction demand. The last night be machines, but doesn't have to be.

The outsourcing is being prompted by cost of labor, regulatory costs, and taxes. Simple matter of the bottom line.

Or demand has grown to the point where it makes sense to outsource the labor. For example, meeting the demand might mean the company goes over 50 employees and runs afoul of Obamacare regs, raising costs. Or any number of things.
But idiots like Zeke and One can only see two possibilities for any situation. In Zeke's case it's usually "Is this beer, yes or no?"

 

[RKMBrown]

Others because the market shifted.

Demand fell.

I don't have a big argument with this one. Market shifts could be demand falling in one area and rising in another, or falling for one kind of product and rising for another.

Others because the company merged or was bought.

Demand not sufficient to keep all workers employed.

This one I do have a problem with. When two companies merge, demand can remain the same or even rise and people will still be laid off. This is because there are redundant positions between the two companies. You might keep some of the additional IT staff for example, but don't necessarily need to double the team. You don't need two CEOs. You don't need two CIOs etc etc.

Others because the production was outsourced,

Demand being met by foreign workers. That's a big help for American workers right?

Outsourcing is not usually in response to a reduction in demand. Therefore it is an example of people being laid off for some reason other than a reduction in demand. Which is what you asked for.

No it doesn't help American workers. But what prompted the outsourcing?

Others because increased productivity meant need for fewer workers.

Demand being met by the use of machines. No help for American workers. Except machine builders.

Increased productivity does not result solely from machines. You can increase productivity through training or hiring better workers, improving processes, or even simply better documentation and labeling practices. Every company worth anything is always looking for ways to increase efficiency, and most of the ways they find don't have anything to do with replacing a worker or workers with a machine.

All those reasons for lay offs center around either a lack of demand or demand being met by machine.
Which create few jobs.

Only one possibly centered around a reduction demand. The last night be machines, but doesn't have to be.

The outsourcing is being prompted by cost of labor, regulatory costs, and taxes. Simple matter of the bottom line.

Or demand has grown to the point where it makes sense to outsource the labor. For example, meeting the demand might mean the company goes over 50 employees and runs afoul of Obamacare regs, raising costs. Or any number of things.
But idiots like Zeke and One can only see two possibilities for any situation. In Zeke's case it's usually "Is this beer, yes or no?"

Clearly Zeke and One are all about killing those evil rich corporations... I think they are happy when the jobs get outsourced. This is probably why the democrats don't give a shit about jobs.

 

[Mathbud1]

The outsourcing is being prompted by cost of labor, regulatory costs, and taxes. Simple matter of the bottom line.

I agree.

 

[Judicial review]

I'm so right its hilarious. Everybody except you and zeke won't deny it.

You think you're right and don't like it when others prove you wrong.

Hey I love learning from people who make good interesting points, but yours are neither good or interesting. Lots of bullshit I know is shit from personal experience. Experience trumps everything.

 

[Judicial review]

The outsourcing is being prompted by cost of labor, regulatory costs, and taxes. Simple matter of the bottom line.

I agree.

Democrats want money, but there way of getting it is so **** ed up and hurtful to everybody including the ones they "supposedly " want to help. Bottom line it's not about helping it's about transformation and control, which they will never get. Ever. Not with our checks and balances system.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, it's you.

You stated: "Employers hire more employees to service new customers... the need is created by the new customers."

It is way to simplistic a view, and it is not true.

Employers may hire more employees when they believe it will make financial sense to do so. But that is a risk that the employer takes.

Until you have a customer's money in your hand they are nothing more than a potential customer. The employer, and his employees, have to work together to achieve return customers and to bring new customers in. Many times the best way to make more money is to get better employees.

Wouldn't 'make financial sense to do so' when you have additional customers? So the need created by the additional customers created new jobs.

 

[OnePercenter]

The outsourcing is being prompted by cost of labor, regulatory costs, and taxes. Simple matter of the bottom line.

Moral-less Greed.

 

[OnePercenter]

Hey I love learning from people who make good interesting points, but yours are neither good or interesting. Lots of bullshit I know is shit from personal experience. Experience trumps everything.

Since your experience has been in MLM (******* those at the bottom) you don't have much to draw from.

 

[Mathbud1]

The outsourcing is being prompted by cost of labor, regulatory costs, and taxes. Simple matter of the bottom line.

Moral-less Greed.

As opposed to... moral-ful greed? Try immoral next time. You might at least feel better about using real words even if you are still incorrect in the idea expressed with them.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So let's look at more context of Clinton's speech:



"And don't let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly. You know, one of the things my husband says, when people say, ‘What did you bring to Washington?’ He says, ‘Well, I brought arithmetic.’ And part of it was, part of it was, he demonstrated why trickle-down should be consigned to the trash bin of history. More tax cuts for the top and for companies that ship jobs overseas while taxpayers and voters are stuck paying the freight just doesn't add up. Now, that kind of thinking might win you an award for outsourcing excellence, but Massachusetts can do better than that. Martha understands it. She knows you have to create jobs from everybody working together and taking the advantages of this great state and putting them to work."




Clinton's staff claims she meant to say "corporation and business tax cuts don't create jobs". The part I bolded further down seems to support that assertion.

This rhetoric is an echo of the 2008 Clinton who said she wanted to "take those profits" from oil companies. In other words, make a special tax just for oil companies and seize their "excess" profits.

Everyone should be very nervous about letting the government decide what is "excess" profits.

The government is already doing this. ObamaCare seizes "excess" health insurance company profits. If a health insurance company makes more money than liberals think they should, it gets confiscated and redistributed.

ObamaCare has already confiscated "excess" profits from insurance companies. It is happening.


So even if Hillary meant corporate tax cuts don't create jobs, it still bodes evil. She intends to seize money from business sectors that liberals hate. Oil, insurance, etc.

They will decide what businesses are good and evil, and will punish the ones they decide are evil, and that kind of capriciousness should scare the shit out of everyone.

In reference to her speech, if Hillary was really all that concerned about tax cuts and outsourcing jobs overseas she should first have a long talk with her husband, after all he did sign NAFTA affecting big corporations.

Btw, the Dems felt trickle up was the solution, as they tried it through those Federal Unempkoyment Extensions, and as a result this administration has spent more on unemployment than his predisessor spent on Iraq during his entire Presidency. The result? Voters still placed the economy as among their biggest concerns, as Congress went Republican for the second mid term in a row. To add more salt to the wound, some of the most secure of liberal blue states found themselves going red for governor ... some by overwhelming majority for the first time.

 

[Judicial review]

Hey I love learning from people who make good interesting points, but yours are neither good or interesting. Lots of bullshit I know is shit from personal experience. Experience trumps everything.

Since your experience has been in MLM (******* those at the bottom) you don't have much to draw from.

I actually do when the ones at the bottom can make $1700 in 3.5 hous of work 4 times a day. Got you ******.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Zeke, you are a raging alky and dumb as shit. But here you have hit the essence: in both cases you cite the potential business must spend money before selling the first product. That is called "investment" in the real world. And investment is what drives growth.
Congrats, buddy. Have a sixer on me.

Well ole rabbit. The conservative business went bankrupt. The liberal business was successful.
A bankrupt conservative business is good it take it. Cause the owner was so ******* stupid he spent all his money before he had any business.

I would imagine that is why any business you were associated with, failed. You followed those :"conservative" business practices. LMAO

Maybe you should scrape some of that shit out of your eyes and re read what I wrote.
You just made yourself, once again, look like a complete ******* fool.
But at least you are consistent.

Liberal businesses like Nevada Geothermal, First Solar, and Solyndra you mean? They each had the government contribute to their pocket for their contributions to the party, and then they each found themselves in financial trouble.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, it's you.

You stated: "Employers hire more employees to service new customers... the need is created by the new customers."

It is way to simplistic a view, and it is not true.

Employers may hire more employees when they believe it will make financial sense to do so. But that is a risk that the employer takes.

Until you have a customer's money in your hand they are nothing more than a potential customer. The employer, and his employees, have to work together to achieve return customers and to bring new customers in. Many times the best way to make more money is to get better employees.

Wouldn't 'make financial sense to do so' when you have additional customers? So the need created by the additional customers created new jobs.

Not necessarily. There are too many factors to make a blanket statement. If you already have extra customers what's the point of hiring more workers? Just because you already have more customers does not mean that will scale with the additional employees you hire. It might be better to bank the profit and build a second place for customers to buy from first. It might be better to invest in a parallel business. It might be better to hire better employees. It might be better to hire part time employees and see how it goes. Further, you have to look at regulatory issues. For example, as stated above when you go over magic numbers you might be susceptible to additional regulation. Still further it might be better for you to adjust your price upwards to reduce customers and shoot for higher margin on the sales.. this might reduce the number of customers... or maybe it won't. Even further, just because you have new customers today does not mean tomorrow they won't go to new competition that opens up across the street. You see when you are doing well.. everyone around you can see that, including your customers... some of which might be thinking about becoming your next competitor.

 

[RKMBrown]

The outsourcing is being prompted by cost of labor, regulatory costs, and taxes. Simple matter of the bottom line.

Moral-less Greed.

To be fair most of the people who create businesses do so with the intention of making money. Some businesses are charities... but those are the exception. Selling product for profit is the purpose. From the other side of the equation the point of working is to earn income, yes? Thus profit is the goal of labor right? Sure, morality enters into the equation... but it's hardly a-moral to hire Chinese labor to work for you. Now if you claim to be an American Business, maybe that's a lie right there.

Really it's the job of our government to break up such monopolies, like cheap foreign labor markets that prey on the US labor market. One way to resolve that is to charge excise taxes on products made with below US wage rates. Another way is to provide tax discounts to American companies who don't outsource, but rather build and produce right here. Course then those companies would become profitable and workers would become evil rich upper middle class and the democrats would be out of a job.... Oh.. yeah can't let that happen.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, it's you.

You stated: "Employers hire more employees to service new customers... the need is created by the new customers."

It is way to simplistic a view, and it is not true.

Employers may hire more employees when they believe it will make financial sense to do so. But that is a risk that the employer takes.

Until you have a customer's money in your hand they are nothing more than a potential customer. The employer, and his employees, have to work together to achieve return customers and to bring new customers in. Many times the best way to make more money is to get better employees.

Wouldn't 'make financial sense to do so' when you have additional customers? So the need created by the additional customers created new jobs.

That's only one scenario. There are others. For example, work that the entrepreneur has been doing is given to a paid employee to allow the entrepreneur more freedom to do what he's better at.

 

[The Rabbi]

The outsourcing is being prompted by cost of labor, regulatory costs, and taxes. Simple matter of the bottom line.

Moral-less Greed.

If you're not in business to make money, what are you in business for?
More bloviating from the poseur in chief.

 

[Rank Your Leader]

Someone needs to go back to Economics101 class.