Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[thereisnospoon]

It's kind of odd that you fuckers still argue this point. It's not even complicated.

I'm a business owner. I ain't hiring anyone if I don't need them. I only need them if there is damned for what I am selling. I'm not running a charity.

The fact is without your business there woujd be NO job in the first place.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What she and Obama are trying to tell us is that businesses, corporations, and industry doesn't create jobs only the government can do that, what a crock.

Nope. They are not saying that at all. You are hearing that for some reason. You might want to figure out why that is.

Are you on crack. This administration and progressive libs in general strive for the creation of more dependency. Dependency on government is the method by which democrat politicians increase their voting base.

 

[bripat9643]

Lots of brilliant people here. Not one of them seems to know what demand is. It is frustrating them.....and making them surly.

I'm not frustrated, I know what demand is, had a business and now help market business. However, your responses indicate that you are a trolling ass on this thread. Enjoy your day.

I would disagree with your statement "on this thread."

Demand sells products, companies, such as Apple, create demand, which sells products.

Marketing creates demand and value, demand an value create products.

I do disagree that demand creates jobs. It is business and business investors that create jobs.

Why are there ever layoffs?

We have layoffs because politicians think they can ignore the laws of economics.

 

[Freewill]

What she and Obama are trying to tell us is that businesses, corporations, and industry doesn't create jobs only the government can do that, what a crock.

Nope. They are not saying that at all. You are hearing that for some reason. You might want to figure out why that is.

Are you on crack. This administration and progressive libs in general strive for the creation of more dependency. Dependency on government is the method by which democrat politicians increase their voting base.

Crack creates jobs, business does not.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Lots of brilliant people here. Not one of them seems to know what demand is. It is frustrating them.....and making them surly.

I'm not frustrated, I know what demand is, had a business and now help market business. However, your responses indicate that you are a trolling ass on this thread. Enjoy your day.

I would disagree with your statement "on this thread."

Demand sells products, companies, such as Apple, create demand, which sells products.

Marketing creates demand and value, demand an value create products.

I do disagree that demand creates jobs. It is business and business investors that create jobs.

Why are there ever layoffs?

Companies shed labor costs for many reasons. One is a down turn in business. Another reason is the implementation of new technology that requires fewer workers.
A product or service becoming obsolete. The government mandating the product illegal or amoral( tobacco is a fantastic example Coal is another)

 

[thereisnospoon]

Lots of brilliant people here. Not one of them seems to know what demand is. It is frustrating them.....and making them surly.

I'm not frustrated, I know what demand is, had a business and now help market business. However, your responses indicate that you are a trolling ass on this thread. Enjoy your day.

I would disagree with your statement "on this thread."

Demand sells products, companies, such as Apple, create demand, which sells products.

Marketing creates demand and value, demand an value create products.

I do disagree that demand creates jobs. It is business and business investors that create jobs.

Why are there ever layoffs?

We have layoffs because politicians think they can ignore the laws of economics.

Or the laws of unintended consequences

 

[thereisnospoon]

Don't want to read? Watch a video.

This is the opinion of ONE person. And of course it jibes with your view, so you spew it as the gospel

 

[thereisnospoon]

Demand for goods and services creates jobs. Period.

Owning a business is a job. No demand for goods and services.......no jobs.

Of course..........except for the fact that business owner MUST first create the goods.

You are next going to argue that the egg comes before the Chicken

That's a pretty simple minded philosophy. Find me a business owner who manufactures widgets without having demand for them......and I'll find you a business for sale.

Tell me what business you ever owned?

I have owned three businesses in my lifetime. I own one now. I'm a small business owner, *****.

"*****"? OK you're done. Once you have to resort to childish name calling you are excused from the discussion

 

[thereisnospoon]

They want Shared Prosperity which is commie speak for us all being POOR and they in government will dish out everything to you

look at Venezuela and you'll see what you'll get

These pukes want to see us ALL living POOR so they can "say" they are being FAIR

Not "prosperity" But "shared sacrifice"....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Tell me what business you ever owned?

I have owned three businesses in my lifetime. I own one now. I'm a small business owner, *****.

Why should I buy from you and not your competitor?

If you don't need what I'm selling...or can't afford what I'm selling....you won't buy it from me or anyone else. It is simple.

Wasn't the question LL and you know it.

Your question isn't related to the thread subject.

You want to discuss marketing or pricing policy or customer service or location or best practices......none of it matters if there are no people with money in their pocket who want what you are selling.

Demand. It's what matters.

You keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
Without business to hire people, there are no jobs.

 

[Antares]

Demand for goods and services creates jobs. Period.

Owning a business is a job. No demand for goods and services.......no jobs.

Of course..........except for the fact that business owner MUST first create the goods.

You are next going to argue that the egg comes before the Chicken

That's a pretty simple minded philosophy. Find me a business owner who manufactures widgets without having demand for them......and I'll find you a business for sale.

Tell me what business you ever owned?

I have owned three businesses in my lifetime. I own one now. I'm a small business owner, *****.

"*****"? OK you're done. Once you have to resort to childish name calling you are excused from the discussion

Naa it's what happens when you back them into a corner.

I specialize in getting these reactions.
I have done this thing for years.

 

[Care4all]

Demand for goods and services creates jobs. Period.

Owning a business is a job. No demand for goods and services.......no jobs.

Of course..........except for the fact that business owner MUST first create the goods.

You are next going to argue that the egg comes before the Chicken

Depends... the RETAIL owner does not create anything, other than trying to increase demand through advertising the product....which is just creating hype! She buys the product based on what her/his projected demand will be for it..... she/he projects the demand by analyzing 'sales' every which way but loose....even if it is a new product being introduced in to Retail, she has some statistics of similar items and similar introductions to project the demand/the sales for the period she is buying for.... along with other analysis like, how has the Store she is buying for been trending in their sales ....up or down? Has the population around the store increased or decreased? Has the demographics of who lives there changed? Is it now an 'older' generation living there or a 'younger' crowd moving in?

Just so so many things are analyzed to project the demand before one order is sent to the manufacturer or vendor or rather, before one dime is spent!

Projected DEMAND is EVERYTHING in retail.....if you get it right...then you are ''in the money''.....

In Wholesale/Manufacturing....where the product development happens...they too are driven by numbers for the most part....they have an item, that has been selling well, but is looking tired or getting dated, so the product marketing/development manager directs the designers and engineers to come up with a replacement for their tired looking item.......... giving them direction on how they would like to see the Designer and Engineer change it...........i.e. I'd like to see the widget lighter in weight, while keeping the same size, with additional metallic colors in the line, with the ability to do X Y and Z, and need the 'cost' to be 'X' once you've developed it..... then they come back with their prototypes, the product development manager and others say yea or nay to the different parts of the design and then a second round of prototypes..... etc...

THE Engineer finds the factory capable of manufacturing the item at the cost that was needed to wholesale it at the right price so that it had a chance, with its retail price, of selling....usually China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Indonesia or Brazil, in the industry that I was in..... When I was young, and just beginning my career, most vendors were from the USA.... some from Italy and Spain....but very little business was done there.... now, due to laws, treaties, etc....hardly anything is ever manufactured in the USA in this industry.

THE wholesale industry does not buy upfront... they tentatively book a factory line to make the goods, they may purchase some of the materials upfront, but in general, they produce samples to give to their reps and to bring to Market/Shows, where they get feedback from the retail buyers on what the buyers estimate they could buy on the item.........before they start manufacturing line runs of the item.

So, this ''creating a widget'' out of thin air, truly doesn't happen, but very very rarely..... the Apple, Ford, and Microsoft etc are rare..... even entrepreneurs rely on demand and projected demand, before creating their new invention or opening their new business and all along the company's success, demand or projected demand is the DRIVER.

Demand is what gives the spokes to the wheel and makes it turn, in both wholesale and retail businesses, 90% of the time...imo.


What I am getting at, is that as a person, who has worked both sides of the Industry of Retail and Manufacturing....

'Supply' usually doesn't happen without the demand/projected demand, from my point of seeing it.

 

[Papageorgio]

Lots of brilliant people here. Not one of them seems to know what demand is. It is frustrating them.....and making them surly.

I'm not frustrated, I know what demand is, had a business and now help market business. However, your responses indicate that you are a trolling ass on this thread. Enjoy your day.

I would disagree with your statement "on this thread."

Demand sells products, companies, such as Apple, create demand, which sells products.

Marketing creates demand and value, demand an value create products.

I do disagree that demand creates jobs. It is business and business investors that create jobs.

Having a good product is what creates demand. No amount of marketing is going to sell a crappy product.

Exhibit A: McDonalds
Exhibit B: Democrats

 

[francoHFW]

Layoffs happen when demand fails, dingbats. And that happens when people don't have any money after 25 years of Reaganism. Duh. See sig. And cut the stupid BS.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg image
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[francoHFW]

Obama has deported more illegals than anyone, ever.The're here because Pubs refuse to allow a good SS/ID card- they actually love cheap, easily bullied labor, and enjoy fooling the chumps with useless, un-American fences and unconstitutional harassment laws...Pass Schumer/Graham. Dolts.

 

[BluesLegend]

Yeah, there is no evidence in reality.

Two largest tax increases in the history of this nation occurred under Bush Sr and Bill Clinton and that was followed by 20 million new jobs being created.

The massive tax cuts under Bush Jr resulted in a net zero job creation. Even when you factor out the economic collapse there is zero evidence that tax cuts produced any jobs.

The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth - Forbes

So the "evidence in reality" is that increasing taxes does NOT harm the economy.

Taxes are WAY too high, raising them is a bad idea. Second only to electing a bunch of dumb asses to spend it.

Zero substantiation for your allegation.

Go ahead tell us why taxes should be increased so I can mock you. lol

Onus is on you to substantiate your own ludicrous allegation that "Taxes are WAY too high, raising them is a bad idea".

This is what happens when you cut taxes.

The Great Kansas Libertarianism Tea Party Disaster US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That's your problem right there, thinking I have to justify keeping MY money.

 

[BluesLegend]

Yeah, there is no evidence in reality.

Two largest tax increases in the history of this nation occurred under Bush Sr and Bill Clinton and that was followed by 20 million new jobs being created.

The massive tax cuts under Bush Jr resulted in a net zero job creation. Even when you factor out the economic collapse there is zero evidence that tax cuts produced any jobs.

The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth - Forbes

So the "evidence in reality" is that increasing taxes does NOT harm the economy.

So let's raise them to 60% then. 70%? Hell, let's just do 80%, because according to you increasing taxes does not hurt the economy.

Reagan lowered the top rate from 70% to 50% and then eventually to 28%. The 80s saw a period of substantial growth following this that ultimately carried into the 90s. Clinton also cut capital gains taxes. Additionally, Bush Sr and Clinton presided over the dawn of the tech boom which fueled the economy throughout the 90s even faster. Bush Jr cut taxes and that lead to an increase in federal revenue pulling us out of the recession caused by the burst of the tech bubble and made worse by 9-11.

Taxes do affect economic growth, but they are not the only factor.

Our largest growth period was in the 50's and 60's when taxes were much higher.

Setting aside for a moment that your logic is rather simpleton, go ahead tell us exactly what congress would do with the money? Tell us why its a good idea for us to fork over more of our hard earned money to them?

How about so we can have a healthy, educated, society?

The report also highlighted Oklahoma, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, North Carolina and Wisconsin as states that worsened their education funding problems by cutting personal or corporate income taxes.

State Remains First in Education Funding Cuts Oklahoma Watch

Here's how we make up for tax cuts...

Oklahoma's education spending has dropped by almost 23 percent since 2008. Kansas cut 16 percent, Missouri cut 3 percent, and Iowa spends 11 percent more. And North Dakota spends 27 percent more than before the recession.

In Oklahoma, the cut is $810 per student, per year.

Study Oklahoma Is Number 1 In Education Spending Cuts Since 200 - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa OK - News Weather Video and Sports - KOTV.com

I already pay a ridiculous amount to fund education, here's an idea why don't the parents who decided to have the kids pay to educate them why is this my responsibility?

 

[The Rabbi]

Two largest tax increases in the history of this nation occurred under Bush Sr and Bill Clinton and that was followed by 20 million new jobs being created.

The massive tax cuts under Bush Jr resulted in a net zero job creation. Even when you factor out the economic collapse there is zero evidence that tax cuts produced any jobs.

The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth - Forbes

So the "evidence in reality" is that increasing taxes does NOT harm the economy.

So let's raise them to 60% then. 70%? Hell, let's just do 80%, because according to you increasing taxes does not hurt the economy.

Reagan lowered the top rate from 70% to 50% and then eventually to 28%. The 80s saw a period of substantial growth following this that ultimately carried into the 90s. Clinton also cut capital gains taxes. Additionally, Bush Sr and Clinton presided over the dawn of the tech boom which fueled the economy throughout the 90s even faster. Bush Jr cut taxes and that lead to an increase in federal revenue pulling us out of the recession caused by the burst of the tech bubble and made worse by 9-11.

Taxes do affect economic growth, but they are not the only factor.

Our largest growth period was in the 50's and 60's when taxes were much higher.

Setting aside for a moment that your logic is rather simpleton, go ahead tell us exactly what congress would do with the money? Tell us why its a good idea for us to fork over more of our hard earned money to them?

How about so we can have a healthy, educated, society?

The report also highlighted Oklahoma, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, North Carolina and Wisconsin as states that worsened their education funding problems by cutting personal or corporate income taxes.

State Remains First in Education Funding Cuts Oklahoma Watch

Here's how we make up for tax cuts...

Oklahoma's education spending has dropped by almost 23 percent since 2008. Kansas cut 16 percent, Missouri cut 3 percent, and Iowa spends 11 percent more. And North Dakota spends 27 percent more than before the recession.

In Oklahoma, the cut is $810 per student, per year.

Study Oklahoma Is Number 1 In Education Spending Cuts Since 200 - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa OK - News Weather Video and Sports - KOTV.com

I already pay a ridiculous amount to fund education, here's an idea why don't the parents who decided to have the kids pay to educate them why is this my responsibility?

Because it takes a village to raise a child!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, sorry kiddo, not true.Let's see you apply that same -formula- to Obama's numbers.

Net zero? Really?

Facts not in evidence.

Yeah, there is no evidence in reality.

Two largest tax increases in the history of this nation occurred under Bush Sr and Bill Clinton and that was followed by 20 million new jobs being created.

The massive tax cuts under Bush Jr resulted in a net zero job creation. Even when you factor out the economic collapse there is zero evidence that tax cuts produced any jobs.

The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth - Forbes

So the "evidence in reality" is that increasing taxes does NOT harm the economy.

Facts not in evidence.

Yeah, there is no evidence in reality.

Two largest tax increases in the history of this nation occurred under Bush Sr and Bill Clinton and that was followed by 20 million new jobs being created.

The massive tax cuts under Bush Jr resulted in a net zero job creation. Even when you factor out the economic collapse there is zero evidence that tax cuts produced any jobs.

The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth - Forbes

So the "evidence in reality" is that increasing taxes does NOT harm the economy.

Yes, the massive job losses following the Republican economic collapse of 2008 essentially wiped out any gains in jobs during the Bush jr administration. The Forbes article deliberately excluded that period in order to make their point about tax cuts not doing squat to "create jobs".

Interesting that you couldn't refute a single fact provided in the article. That is a tacit admission that you were lying when you alleged that increasing taxes would harm the economy.

Simply denying the facts doesn't cut it.

Onus is on you to provide credible sources that prove that the Forbes article math is wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Net zero? Really?

Facts not in evidence.

Yeah, there is no evidence in reality.

Two largest tax increases in the history of this nation occurred under Bush Sr and Bill Clinton and that was followed by 20 million new jobs being created.

The massive tax cuts under Bush Jr resulted in a net zero job creation. Even when you factor out the economic collapse there is zero evidence that tax cuts produced any jobs.

The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth - Forbes

So the "evidence in reality" is that increasing taxes does NOT harm the economy.

Facts not in evidence.

Yeah, there is no evidence in reality.

Two largest tax increases in the history of this nation occurred under Bush Sr and Bill Clinton and that was followed by 20 million new jobs being created.

The massive tax cuts under Bush Jr resulted in a net zero job creation. Even when you factor out the economic collapse there is zero evidence that tax cuts produced any jobs.

The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth - Forbes

So the "evidence in reality" is that increasing taxes does NOT harm the economy.

Yes, the massive job losses following the Republican economic collapse of 2008 essentially wiped out any gains in jobs during the Bush jr administration. The Forbes article deliberately excluded that period in order to make their point about tax cuts not doing squat to "create jobs".

Interesting that you couldn't refute a single fact provided in the article. That is a tacit admission that you were lying when you alleged that increasing taxes would harm the economy.

So let's see how liberal logic works. The democrats took both houses in 2006 election. Thus they had more then a year before 2008 and it was a Republican recession? Really? Are you telling us that the democrats who were clearly in power were either inept or stupid? Then with Obama's election for about a year the democrats held a filibuster proof majority and what did they do? Apparently nothing because the liberals are still bitchin' about the same things and still blaming the party the liberals say can't win an election. Liberals are just too funny and predictable.

Mindless deflection. We are discussing job growth under various administrations.