Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[RKMBrown]

Demand creates nothing. Demand is not a person. Demand cannot act. Creation is an action. Actions require actors.

Demand may be a fine motivation, but it is no actor.

Sure it is. Why did WalMart open neighborhood stores......Demand.

Keep trying.

Demand cannot act because demand is not a PERSON. Demand makes no decisions. Demand DOES nothing. Demand is nothing but an intangible idea. Ideas can't do. People do. People make decisions. People act.

A job is not created until a person makes the decision to hire another person. Demand plays a role in that decision, but it is not alone in that. Cost plays a role as well, as does the availability of funds.

Until that decision is made, the job does not exist.

I have lots of jobs to be done around the ranch here. I don't plan on hiring anyone till after Obama's been fired. I'll probably do some of the jobs myself. I won't be hiring or paying myself to do the jobs. I might even have one of my boys do some of these jobs. Either way the job "exists" as a task to be done. And it will be done. Your definition of job, might be what government thinks they are but it is not what I think it is. Further I might actually do some bartering for some of these jobs. Screw govco.

For the purposes of this discussion I would have to say that a job is only created if a person is hired or sought to fill a paying position. Economically speaking, that's what we're talking about.

If you have more work to accomplish and simply require those you already employ to do that additional work or just do the work yourself a job has not been created as far as the economy is concerned.

That's why demand can't be said to create jobs, because it doesn't. Higher demand may mean that a business has more work to accomplish to meet the demand, but until the company hires another worker a job has not been created. The company, based on costs, may decide that hiring another worker just isn't feasible. They may decide to increase the workload of the existing employees, invest in ways to increase efficiency, or simply opt out of meeting the higher demand at all. In all such cases demand rose but no new job was created. In the case of investing in increased efficiency some jobs may even be eliminated.

Yes... and no. If an artist paints a picture and no one paid him for it.. it's not a job, but it becomes a job when paid? If I build a fence that increases the value of my home but I don't sell the home does it effect the economy? Hint: The US government counts the value of our homes if they were being rented as GDP. So in effect jobs that do not have any wages whatsoever attached are ... in fact contributing to the measured economy. Further, this government also counts increased productivity...

You are talking about the narrow class of jobs for employees of employers. But that narrow class is not the whole story. Sometimes you have to look outside the binder of an econ book to see the rest of the story.

 

[The Rabbi]

Demand creates nothing. Demand is not a person. Demand cannot act. Creation is an action. Actions require actors.

Demand may be a fine motivation, but it is no actor.

Sure it is. Why did WalMart open neighborhood stores......Demand.

Keep trying.

Demand cannot act because demand is not a PERSON. Demand makes no decisions. Demand DOES nothing. Demand is nothing but an intangible idea. Ideas can't do. People do. People make decisions. People act.

A job is not created until a person makes the decision to hire another person. Demand plays a role in that decision, but it is not alone in that. Cost plays a role as well, as does the availability of funds.

Until that decision is made, the job does not exist.

I have lots of jobs to be done around the ranch here. I don't plan on hiring anyone till after Obama's been fired. I'll probably do some of the jobs myself. I won't be hiring or paying myself to do the jobs. I might even have one of my boys do some of these jobs. Either way the job "exists" as a task to be done. And it will be done. Your definition of job, might be what government thinks they are but it is not what I think it is. Further I might actually do some bartering for some of these jobs. Screw govco.

For the purposes of this discussion I would have to say that a job is only created if a person is hired or sought to fill a paying position. Economically speaking, that's what we're talking about.

If you have more work to accomplish and simply require those you already employ to do that additional work or just do the work yourself a job has not been created as far as the economy is concerned.

That's why demand can't be said to create jobs, because it doesn't. Higher demand may mean that a business has more work to accomplish to meet the demand, but until the company hires another worker a job has not been created. The company, based on costs, may decide that hiring another worker just isn't feasible. They may decide to increase the workload of the existing employees, invest in ways to increase efficiency, or simply opt out of meeting the higher demand at all. In all such cases demand rose but no new job was created. In the case of investing in increased efficiency some jobs may even be eliminated.

Yes... and no. If an artist paints a picture and no one paid him for it.. it's not a job, but it becomes a job when paid? If I build a fence that increases the value of my home but I don't sell the home does it effect the economy? Hint: The US government counts the value of our homes if they were being rented as GDP. So in effect jobs that do not have any wages whatsoever attached are ... in fact contributing to the measured economy. Further, this government also counts increased productivity...

You are talking about the narrow class of jobs for employees of employers.

In neither case with the artist.
Physicists have a definition of work
Economists have a definition of work
You have a definition of work
They are all different. You dont create jobs just because you look out and see work that needs to be done.

 

[Roadrunner]

Sure it is. Why did WalMart open neighborhood stores......Demand.

Keep trying.

Demand cannot act because demand is not a PERSON. Demand makes no decisions. Demand DOES nothing. Demand is nothing but an intangible idea. Ideas can't do. People do. People make decisions. People act.

A job is not created until a person makes the decision to hire another person. Demand plays a role in that decision, but it is not alone in that. Cost plays a role as well, as does the availability of funds.

Until that decision is made, the job does not exist.

I have lots of jobs to be done around the ranch here. I don't plan on hiring anyone till after Obama's been fired. I'll probably do some of the jobs myself. I won't be hiring or paying myself to do the jobs. I might even have one of my boys do some of these jobs. Either way the job "exists" as a task to be done. And it will be done. Your definition of job, might be what government thinks they are but it is not what I think it is. Further I might actually do some bartering for some of these jobs. Screw govco.

For the purposes of this discussion I would have to say that a job is only created if a person is hired or sought to fill a paying position. Economically speaking, that's what we're talking about.

If you have more work to accomplish and simply require those you already employ to do that additional work or just do the work yourself a job has not been created as far as the economy is concerned.

That's why demand can't be said to create jobs, because it doesn't. Higher demand may mean that a business has more work to accomplish to meet the demand, but until the company hires another worker a job has not been created. The company, based on costs, may decide that hiring another worker just isn't feasible. They may decide to increase the workload of the existing employees, invest in ways to increase efficiency, or simply opt out of meeting the higher demand at all. In all such cases demand rose but no new job was created. In the case of investing in increased efficiency some jobs may even be eliminated.

Yes... and no. If an artist paints a picture and no one paid him for it.. it's not a job, but it becomes a job when paid? If I build a fence that increases the value of my home but I don't sell the home does it effect the economy? Hint: The US government counts the value of our homes if they were being rented as GDP. So in effect jobs that do not have any wages whatsoever attached are ... in fact contributing to the measured economy. Further, this government also counts increased productivity...

You are talking about the narrow class of jobs for employees of employers.

In neither case with the artist.
Physicists have a definition of work
Economists have a definition of work
You have a definition of work
They are all different. You dont create jobs just because you look out and see work that needs to be done.

" You dont create jobs just because you look out and see work that needs to be done."

Amen!

Lots of work to be done, but it won't get done paying people not to work.

FDR knew that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sure it is. Why did WalMart open neighborhood stores......Demand.

Keep trying.

Demand cannot act because demand is not a PERSON. Demand makes no decisions. Demand DOES nothing. Demand is nothing but an intangible idea. Ideas can't do. People do. People make decisions. People act.

A job is not created until a person makes the decision to hire another person. Demand plays a role in that decision, but it is not alone in that. Cost plays a role as well, as does the availability of funds.

Until that decision is made, the job does not exist.

I have lots of jobs to be done around the ranch here. I don't plan on hiring anyone till after Obama's been fired. I'll probably do some of the jobs myself. I won't be hiring or paying myself to do the jobs. I might even have one of my boys do some of these jobs. Either way the job "exists" as a task to be done. And it will be done. Your definition of job, might be what government thinks they are but it is not what I think it is. Further I might actually do some bartering for some of these jobs. Screw govco.

For the purposes of this discussion I would have to say that a job is only created if a person is hired or sought to fill a paying position. Economically speaking, that's what we're talking about.

If you have more work to accomplish and simply require those you already employ to do that additional work or just do the work yourself a job has not been created as far as the economy is concerned.

That's why demand can't be said to create jobs, because it doesn't. Higher demand may mean that a business has more work to accomplish to meet the demand, but until the company hires another worker a job has not been created. The company, based on costs, may decide that hiring another worker just isn't feasible. They may decide to increase the workload of the existing employees, invest in ways to increase efficiency, or simply opt out of meeting the higher demand at all. In all such cases demand rose but no new job was created. In the case of investing in increased efficiency some jobs may even be eliminated.

Yes... and no. If an artist paints a picture and no one paid him for it.. it's not a job, but it becomes a job when paid? If I build a fence that increases the value of my home but I don't sell the home does it effect the economy? Hint: The US government counts the value of our homes if they were being rented as GDP. So in effect jobs that do not have any wages whatsoever attached are ... in fact contributing to the measured economy. Further, this government also counts increased productivity...

You are talking about the narrow class of jobs for employees of employers.

In neither case with the artist.
Physicists have a definition of work
Economists have a definition of work
You have a definition of work
They are all different. You dont create jobs just because you look out and see work that needs to be done.

If it's not a job why do artists have to pay income tax?
Wrt your statement that "you dont create jobs just because you look out and see work that needs to be done." That's not true, that is exactly how many jobs are created. Work needs to be done... someone decides to pay for the work... and becomes an employer if they find an employee to do the work.

 

[The Rabbi]

Keep trying.

Demand cannot act because demand is not a PERSON. Demand makes no decisions. Demand DOES nothing. Demand is nothing but an intangible idea. Ideas can't do. People do. People make decisions. People act.

A job is not created until a person makes the decision to hire another person. Demand plays a role in that decision, but it is not alone in that. Cost plays a role as well, as does the availability of funds.

Until that decision is made, the job does not exist.

I have lots of jobs to be done around the ranch here. I don't plan on hiring anyone till after Obama's been fired. I'll probably do some of the jobs myself. I won't be hiring or paying myself to do the jobs. I might even have one of my boys do some of these jobs. Either way the job "exists" as a task to be done. And it will be done. Your definition of job, might be what government thinks they are but it is not what I think it is. Further I might actually do some bartering for some of these jobs. Screw govco.

For the purposes of this discussion I would have to say that a job is only created if a person is hired or sought to fill a paying position. Economically speaking, that's what we're talking about.

If you have more work to accomplish and simply require those you already employ to do that additional work or just do the work yourself a job has not been created as far as the economy is concerned.

That's why demand can't be said to create jobs, because it doesn't. Higher demand may mean that a business has more work to accomplish to meet the demand, but until the company hires another worker a job has not been created. The company, based on costs, may decide that hiring another worker just isn't feasible. They may decide to increase the workload of the existing employees, invest in ways to increase efficiency, or simply opt out of meeting the higher demand at all. In all such cases demand rose but no new job was created. In the case of investing in increased efficiency some jobs may even be eliminated.

Yes... and no. If an artist paints a picture and no one paid him for it.. it's not a job, but it becomes a job when paid? If I build a fence that increases the value of my home but I don't sell the home does it effect the economy? Hint: The US government counts the value of our homes if they were being rented as GDP. So in effect jobs that do not have any wages whatsoever attached are ... in fact contributing to the measured economy. Further, this government also counts increased productivity...

You are talking about the narrow class of jobs for employees of employers.

In neither case with the artist.
Physicists have a definition of work
Economists have a definition of work
You have a definition of work
They are all different. You dont create jobs just because you look out and see work that needs to be done.

If it's not a job why do artists have to pay income tax?
Wrt your statement that "you dont create jobs just because you look out and see work that needs to be done." That's not true, that is exactly how many jobs are created. Work needs to be done... someone decides to pay for the work... and becomes an employer if they find an employee to do the work.

Do you have your head up your ass?
What kind of job is "artist"? If you are a graphic designer for a company, that is a job. If you paint because you like it and sell some pictures sometimes that isnt a job.
It isnt a job until someone creates a job. The work does not create the job. The employer creates the job.

 

[OnePercenter]

Excuses for what?

Hey, you're all about The Collective, I get it, I get it.

There's a word for that, but I'm not going to go there.

If you can't refute.....ATTACK!!!

Very adult of you....

 

[Mac1958]

Excuses for what?

Hey, you're all about The Collective, I get it, I get it.

There's a word for that, but I'm not going to go there.

If you can't refute.....ATTACK!!!

Very adult of you....

Just pointing something out from a link you posted.

Too much for ya?

.

 

[Antares]

Excuses for what?

Hey, you're all about The Collective, I get it, I get it.

There's a word for that, but I'm not going to go there.

If you can't refute.....ATTACK!!!

Very adult of you....

Revolution.me

Get lost punk

 

[Mathbud1]

Stop reading did you? It is not the only factor in the decision, and does not make the decision.

Thus rendering your point false not making it.

If you have demand wouldn't everything else be a given?

No. Why would it?

 

[OnePercenter]

The real one. Not the one you've imagined.

Consumer demand creates jobs.

The Real Job Creators Consumers - Forbes

Read this link and learn something

Business does not create jobs. Jobs are created by consumer demand

Just because you can find a link doesnt make it true.

Then refute the link.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes... and no. If an artist paints a picture and no one paid him for it.. it's not a job, but it becomes a job when paid? If I build a fence that increases the value of my home but I don't sell the home does it effect the economy? Hint: The US government counts the value of our homes if they were being rented as GDP. So in effect jobs that do not have any wages whatsoever attached are ... in fact contributing to the measured economy. Further, this government also counts increased productivity...

You are talking about the narrow class of jobs for employees of employers. But that narrow class is not the whole story. Sometimes you have to look outside the binder of an econ book to see the rest of the story.

Isn't that income?

 

[OnePercenter]

Just pointing something out from a link you posted.

Too much for ya?

Not at all. Just shallow thinking on your part.

 

[OnePercenter]

Revolution.me

Get lost punk

If you disagree refute the content. The other link is Forbes. Refute that one too. When you think you are done let me know and I'll post the other 1M links.

 

[The Rabbi]

Revolution.me

Get lost punk

If you disagree refute the content. The other link is Forbes. Refute that one too. When you think you are done let me know and I'll post the other 1M links.

And what would you consider refutation? Let's get it clear so when someone posts something that clearly refutes it you dont say "that's biased" or whatever.
Even though thats what you're going to do. Because you're a shitbird poster. A total flake.

 

[OnePercenter]

And what would you consider refutation? Let's get it clear so when someone posts something that clearly refutes it you dont say "that's biased" or whatever.
Even though thats what you're going to do. Because you're a shitbird poster. A total flake.

Disproving by use of facts, sans opinion.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not talking about testing for safety. I'm talking about market testing. Anyone who had a business would know the difference.

And yet I had to explain the difference to you.

You used the terms incorrectly. You're an idiot.

FYI; EVERY product mass sold on the market over the last 100 years has been test marketed.

Wrong. When was the iPhone test marketed?

 

[bripat9643]

"
Appearing at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.”

Hillary Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

....and you Lefty pusillanimous puss pockets will lap this right up.

Do you not understand what she is trying to say? Rather than me explain it to you, why don't you explain it to me. What does she mean when she says that? I get it. Don't you?

So I'm not going to spend hours on this thread trying to justify her position when you don't even have the brainpower to comprehend the rather simple concept.

Business' don't create jobs. Demand creates jobs. If you put money in the middle class and poor people's pockets, that is what creates jobs, you big dummy.

Except it has been comprehensively shown in this thread that that just isn't true.

Try reading it.

How is that possible when we know it to be true? You put $ in the hands of the masses and the companies will start popping up everywhere trying to get that money.

Just look at how many people are going to buy an Iphone now that gas went from $4 a gallon to $2.80 cents. That's like an extra $20 every time I fill up! I can now buy a new $100 Iphone in 5 weeks! Before xmas!!!

Now if they could get the insurance companies to stop gouging us we'd really have some pocket money burning a hole in our pockets.

Why didn't that work in the Soviet Union or Communist China?

 

[bripat9643]

And you are as incorrect now as you were the first twenty times you said it.

Yet you haven't proven it wrong.

Consumer demand creates jobs.

It's been proven wrong 100 times in this thread already.

 

[OnePercenter]

You used the terms incorrectly. You're an idiot.

Wrong. When was the iPhone test marketed?

Please illustrate how I used the terms incorrectly.

The iPhone is constantly being test marketed.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, yes.... The backs of the proletariat, and govt civil servants "create" wealth....

The "demand creates jobs" theory is an attempt to portray useless ticks on the ass of society as somehow beneficial and productive members of society. It's an attempt to turn mere consumption as something noble and to be admired.