Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[bripat9643]

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers and now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

The taxpayers are and legislators are making part time work more attractive to business owners with their over regulation of the market. WalMart's cost will be passed on to the consumer so you aren't helping them. And most aren't making minimum wage anyway.

Walmart is not going to out-price themselves. If Walmart raises their prices, I will go shopping at Target. Their CEO makes $11,000 an hour. They may have to cut that down to $10,000 an hour.

So you think Walmart is willing to operate at a loss of your ilk impose a $10 minimum wage on them?

 

[bripat9643]

Oh my, what taxes are you going to lower, on the lower income? You really don't understand how unhealthy it is to have all the money going to the top, do you?

The rich pay most of the taxes, the poor pay little to none. The money isn't going to get better for lower class folks until the economy improves. The government isn't Robin Hood and shouldn't be in the business of wealth redistribution.

There's the essential problem with the left: They see the rich as prey animals. That's why liberals should be regarded as criminals.

 

[bripat9643]

Nobody is worth 11K an hour, or 600 x's the average employee.

How can you determine what someone's worth is for other people?

Who decided someone was worth 11k an hour?

The company owners did. What makes you think you should have any input into the decision?

 

[bripat9643]

And once again, if walmart didn't hire them they might not have a job at all, with their minimal and so etimes no skills, and then we would be fully supporting them.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

WALMART WILL ******* HIRE THEM IF THERE IS A DEMAND. Jeebus H Cripes, how many times does that need to be repeated?

There may be demand at the prices they charge when they pay their starting employees minimum wage, but that doesn't mean there will be demand at the prices if they start everyone at $10/hr.

What part of "the laws of supply and demand" don't you understand?

 

[Dad2three]

That's how it works with demand. When people have money, they spend it.

Exactly. Let's lower taxes so they will have more money.

How'd that work with Dubya? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Net zero? Really?

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.

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.

Oh really? This is what you posted, go back and look you must have forgotten, "Yes, the massive job losses following the Republican economic collapse of 2008 essentially wiped out any gains in jobs during the Bush jr administration."

So, when you said Republican economic collapse did you really mean democrat since they were in power and had been in power or were you the one deflecting? Nothing I posted was not and is not true or is a deflection. What you posted is a reinvention of history. If you want to discuss a topic then YOU stick to that topic and don't interject left wing BS. The 2008 recession was all democrat.

ONE bill the Dems passed that chamged Dubya's policies 2007-2008? lol



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Papageorgio]

Walmart is not going to out-price themselves. If Walmart raises their prices, I will go shopping at Target. Their CEO makes $11,000 an hour. They may have to cut that down to $10,000 an hour.

I'm surprised you shop at WalMart but Target will be in the same boat. Costs get passed on regardless of what CEOs make. If you're worth 11k an hour, you're doing something right.

Nobody is worth 11K an hour, or 600 x's the average employee.


I shop at Crest Foods and Sprouts Farmers Market.

Apparently somebody thinks someone is worth 11k an hour, it must be someone that can afford to pay someone 11k an hour.

Now you are unable to do that, so apparently that is why you think nobody is worth 11k an hour.

If they are making me 15k an hour, I'd pay them 11k an hour.

That's crock of shit. If the CEO of Walmart were making 15K an hour, they'd still be paying their help low wages. They are not going to pay higher wages until the minimum wage is raised.

I said if I had a guy making me 15k an hour, I'd pay him 11k. It has nothing to do with Walmart.

You stated nobody is worth 11k an hour. I disagreed and stated why, the rest of your post is nonsense.

 

[Dad2three]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

Ah so this is really just another liberal hate on corporations post. How about Dem's secure the borders so illegals stop driving wages down and taking jobs away from Americans sitting around on welfare?

Weird, what happened when Dubya/GOP had Gov't for 6 years?

 

[Dad2three]

Why did you leave out the most important part of the Republican Contract On America that DEREGULATED Arthur Anderson and resulted in the ENRON ponzi scheme, Worldcom, etc?

Arthur Anderson was never found guilty of any criminal activity.

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen's conviction of obstruction of justice in the fraudulent activities and subsequent collapse of Enron, on the basis that the jury instructions did not properly portray the law Andersen was charged with breaking. As the Andersen name had become toxic and the firm had been obligated to cease audit activities, the business was unable to recover even after the conviction was overturned in its favor.


During the fall of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's accounting firm, instructed its employees to destroy documents relating to Enron after Andersen officials learned they would soon be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Oh my, what taxes are you going to lower, on the lower income? You really don't understand how unhealthy it is to have all the money going to the top, do you?

The rich pay most of the taxes, the poor pay little to none. The money isn't going to get better for lower class folks until the economy improves. The government isn't Robin Hood and shouldn't be in the business of wealth redistribution.

And how do you think the economy is going to improve if the lower half doesn't have any money to spend?

If the government alows for a business friendly environment, then people who have money will open up businesses, then those people who have no money can get jobs. The proof is in businesses who fled California to open up in Nevada. one example. There is a misconception that we are all sharing the same economic 'pie' so to speak. You may think someone else is getting an unfair share of the pie, but the solution is to just create more pies. grow thhe economy.

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By Bruce Bartlett

As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/

 

[Dad2three]

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers and now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

The taxpayers are and legislators are making part time work more attractive to business owners with their over regulation of the market. WalMart's cost will be passed on to the consumer so you aren't helping them. And most aren't making minimum wage anyway.

Walmart is not going to out-price themselves. If Walmart raises their prices, I will go shopping at Target. Their CEO makes $11,000 an hour. They may have to cut that down to $10,000 an hour.

So you think Walmart is willing to operate at a loss of your ilk impose a $10 minimum wage on them?

Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide


Currently, the government effectively subsidizes employers who pay low wages.


Raising the minimum wage doesn't kill jobs--and history is all the evidence you need to prove it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

On one hand, I understand that government through granting police protection and favorable economic environments certainly helps with a business creating jobs. BUT to say that businesses don't have a large part in creating jobs is just dumb.

 

[Dad2three]

And once again, if walmart didn't hire them they might not have a job at all, with their minimal and so etimes no skills, and then we would be fully supporting them.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

WALMART WILL ******* HIRE THEM IF THERE IS A DEMAND. Jeebus H Cripes, how many times does that need to be repeated?

There may be demand at the prices they charge when they pay their starting employees minimum wage, but that doesn't mean there will be demand at the prices if they start everyone at $10/hr.

What part of "the laws of supply and demand" don't you understand?

Supply and demand? Oh like requiring people to take time to get Gov't recognized ID's to vote HAS suppressed voters even though the rational behind it, people impersonating others, is bogus?


Conservative reasoning: Bush tax cuts created jobs through trickle down economics, but raising the minimum wage will surely destroy the economy. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[depotoo]

And what if their weren't a walmart? What then? What about all the jobs they could have supplied for, was it Washington, that they pay no less than they demanded? And they said, ok, we won't open there. The local council there caused those people to not get jobs. There was demand there, yet they knew they couldn't afford to start people, without skills at the demanded rate, and went somewhere else business friendly.

And once again, if walmart didn't hire them they might not have a job at all, with their minimal and sometimes no skills, and then we would be fully supporting them.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

WALMART WILL ******* HIRE THEM IF THERE IS A DEMAND. Jeebus H Cripes, how many times does that need to be repeated?

 

[depotoo]

And once again, Walmart is the scapegoat when Home Depot, Krogers, Target, all pay around the same wage.

 

[Dad2three]

And what if their weren't a walmart? What then? What about all the jobs they could have supplied for, was it Washington, that they pay no less than they demanded? And they said, ok, we won't open there. The local council there caused those people to not get jobs. There was demand there, yet they knew they couldn't afford to start people, without skills at the demanded rate, and went somewhere else business friendly.

And once again, if walmart didn't hire them they might not have a job at all, with their minimal and sometimes no skills, and then we would be fully supporting them.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

WALMART WILL ******* HIRE THEM IF THERE IS A DEMAND. Jeebus H Cripes, how many times does that need to be repeated?

So Washington doesn't rovide things the people want withgout a WallyWorld?


Walmart and the Walton family benefit from tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies estimated at more than $7.8 billion a year

The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid
Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies Study MSNBC

 

[Dad2three]

And once again, Walmart is the scapegoat when Home Depot, Krogers, Target, all pay around the same wage.

HD, Krogers? Seriously? LINK

 

[depotoo]

He also warned there was going to be fallout which dems denied

Net zero? Really?

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.

Oh really? This is what you posted, go back and look you must have forgotten, "Yes, the massive job losses following the Republican economic collapse of 2008 essentially wiped out any gains in jobs during the Bush jr administration."

So, when you said Republican economic collapse did you really mean democrat since they were in power and had been in power or were you the one deflecting? Nothing I posted was not and is not true or is a deflection. What you posted is a reinvention of history. If you want to discuss a topic then YOU stick to that topic and don't interject left wing BS. The 2008 recession was all democrat.

ONE bill the Dems passed that chamged Dubya's policies 2007-2008? lol



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

He

 

[Yarddog]

On one hand, I understand that government through granting police protection and favorable economic environments certainly helps with a business creating jobs. BUT to say that businesses don't have a large part in creating jobs is just dumb.

right, they are stating a half truth.

 

[bripat9643]

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers and now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

The taxpayers are and legislators are making part time work more attractive to business owners with their over regulation of the market. WalMart's cost will be passed on to the consumer so you aren't helping them. And most aren't making minimum wage anyway.

Walmart is not going to out-price themselves. If Walmart raises their prices, I will go shopping at Target. Their CEO makes $11,000 an hour. They may have to cut that down to $10,000 an hour.

So you think Walmart is willing to operate at a loss of your ilk impose a $10 minimum wage on them?

Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide


Currently, the government effectively subsidizes employers who pay low wages.


Raising the minimum wage doesn't kill jobs--and history is all the evidence you need to prove it.

I'm against welfare because its stealing. Whether it causes dependence is a side issue.

Government does not subsidize any business it doesn't send a check to. That's the definition of "subsidy."

If you claim the minimum wage doesn't kill jobs, then you claim the laws of supply and demand are invalid. If that's the case, then one has to wonder what principles of economics you support.