Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[OnePercenter]

Past present. I said "as if they were being rented." They are not actually being rented. The government is making shit up to make the GDP larger than it actually is... that or they plan on renting us our homes.

A new home built during the year is counted as GDP.

 

[Mac1958]

Just pointing something out from a link you posted.

Too much for ya?

Not at all. Just shallow thinking on your part.

Holy crap.

Ironic post is ironic.

.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Demand creating jobs isn't a theory, it's fact. Don't businesses hire for the holidays because of increased demand?

You have never posted a fact in the entire history of your membership in this forum.

 

[bripat9643]

No. That is wrong.
They hire because they expect an increase in demand.
Again, you prove you know nothing about business.

They hire because there is demand.

Demand comes from people with jobs. So once again you claim that jobs create jobs. Take another ride on the OnePercenter wheel of circular logic.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. That is wrong.
They hire because they expect an increase in demand.
Again, you prove you know nothing about business.

They hire because there is demand.

Mere assertion fallacy.
Rabbi Rules!

 

[The Rabbi]

[
That article was much better written than the two previous articles you posted.

It gets much closer to the truth by acknowledging that the economy is a complex and interconnected system and not the vastly oversimplified demand-in-jobs-out system portrayed in the first two. In my opinion it still over emphasizes the role customers play in job creation within that system.

To continue the analogy from earlier, the demand is the fuel ready for consumption, but the fire won't start without a spark of ingenuity. The fire, once started, won't grow or continue without continued fuel (demand) and a maintained environment free of things like water that could quench the fire (unexpected costs) or sand which could smother the fire (overbearing regulations.) If the fire isn't tended well (good management) it could go out even with a ready supply of fuel standing by.

And, demand causes job creation.

Thats like saying hunger causes food sales.
Let's increase starvation in this country and get the economy moving!

 

[Mathbud1]

[
That article was much better written than the two previous articles you posted.

It gets much closer to the truth by acknowledging that the economy is a complex and interconnected system and not the vastly oversimplified demand-in-jobs-out system portrayed in the first two. In my opinion it still over emphasizes the role customers play in job creation within that system.

To continue the analogy from earlier, the demand is the fuel ready for consumption, but the fire won't start without a spark of ingenuity. The fire, once started, won't grow or continue without continued fuel (demand) and a maintained environment free of things like water that could quench the fire (unexpected costs) or sand which could smother the fire (overbearing regulations.) If the fire isn't tended well (good management) it could go out even with a ready supply of fuel standing by.

And, demand causes job creation.

No. Demand is one factor that contributes to the decision. And it is a decision every time. A decision made by a thinking human being to hire another thinking human being.

In some cases, even with massively increasing demand, not even one additional job will be created. How would that be possible if demand directly causes job creation?

 

[zeke]

No. Demand is one factor that contributes to the decision. And it is a decision every time. A decision made by a thinking human being to hire another thinking human being.

In some cases, even with massively increasing demand, not even one additional job will be created. How would that be possible if demand directly causes job creation?

I am sure you have examples of both situations. Right? Like what are the other factors for additional hiring BESIDES the demand for the goods or service.

And what situations have "massively increasing demand" where no additional workforce is required?

I listened to an interview with the CEO of Xerox on Nightly Business Report. (they are commies you know). And this CEO was asked about the hiring plans in the coming year. This CEO said, based on increased demand, Xerox would be hiring.

Yesterday, the rabbit said I hired new brewers for Blatz Brewing. What he was trying to say was that I drank so much Blatz beer that the demand for Blatz had grown to the point where more brewers were necessary.
And rabbit doesn't believe that demand causes hiring. Until demand causes hiring. Then he still doesn't believe it.
But then he is a rabbit. What's a mathbud?

 

[The Rabbi]

No. Demand is one factor that contributes to the decision. And it is a decision every time. A decision made by a thinking human being to hire another thinking human being.

In some cases, even with massively increasing demand, not even one additional job will be created. How would that be possible if demand directly causes job creation?

I am sure you have examples of both situations. Right? Like what are the other factors for additional hiring BESIDES the demand for the goods or service.

And what situations have "massively increasing demand" where no additional workforce is required?

I listened to an interview with the CEO of Xerox on Nightly Business Report. (they are commies you know). And this CEO was asked about the hiring plans in the coming year. This CEO said, based on increased demand, Xerox would be hiring.

Yesterday, the rabbit said I hired new brewers for Blatz Brewing. What he was trying to say was that I drank so much Blatz beer that the demand for Blatz had grown to the point where more brewers were necessary.
And rabbit doesn't believe that demand causes hiring. Until demand causes hiring. Then he still doesn't believe it.
But then he is a rabbit. What's a mathbud?

What's a mathbud? Someone a hell of a lot smarter than you.

If a company is facing increased demand they could also raise prices, increasing their margins. They might actually make more money with fewer sales.
They could (and that is usually the case) simply work their existing workforce longer, paying overtime.
In fact the last thing they do is hire more workers because that's the most expensive solution.

 

[zeke]

If a company is facing increased demand they could also raise prices, increasing their margins. They might actually make more money with fewer sales.

Your stupidity knows no bounds. Raise them prices and shut that new found demand DOWN. Rabbit says that's the way to do it. And they surely would make more money leaving prices alone and increasing production to fill the demand. But rabbit says "they might actually make more money with fewer sales." And you might actually make sense if you had the sense of a rabbit.

Then rabbit says they could make the work force work overtime. Which is a way to increase production without new hires. Yep they could do that. IT IS IN EFFECT THE SAME ******* THING RABBIT.
And when the increase in demand gets to the point where the existing workforce can't work anymore overtime, what will the ******* employer do rabbit? HIRE MORE WORKERS IS WHAT THEY WILL DO.

Good god you are stupid trying to be smart. Give it up. It ain't working. And neither do you. Work that is.

 

[zeke]

Yesterday, the rabbit said I hired new brewers for Blatz Brewing. What he was trying to say was that I drank so much Blatz beer that the demand for Blatz had grown to the point where more brewers were necessary.
And rabbit doesn't believe that demand causes hiring. Until demand causes hiring. Then he still doesn't believe it.

Come on rabbit. Address what you said to me yesterday.

 

[The Rabbi]

If a company is facing increased demand they could also raise prices, increasing their margins. They might actually make more money with fewer sales.

Your stupidity knows no bounds. Raise them prices and shut that new found demand DOWN. Rabbit says that's the way to do it. And they surely would make more money leaving prices alone and increasing production to fill the demand. But rabbit says "they might actually make more money with fewer sales." And you might actually make sense if you had the sense of a rabbit.

Then rabbit says they could make the work force work overtime. Which is a way to increase production without new hires. Yep they could do that. IT IS IN EFFECT THE SAME ******* THING RABBIT.
And when the increase in demand gets to the point where the existing workforce can't work anymore overtime, what will the ******* employer do rabbit? HIRE MORE WORKERS IS WHAT THEY WILL DO.

Good god you are stupid trying to be smart. Give it up. It ain't working. And neither do you. Work that is.

Have you had a stroke?

 

[Mathbud1]

No. Demand is one factor that contributes to the decision. And it is a decision every time. A decision made by a thinking human being to hire another thinking human being.

In some cases, even with massively increasing demand, not even one additional job will be created. How would that be possible if demand directly causes job creation?

I am sure you have examples of both situations. Right? Like what are the other factors for additional hiring BESIDES the demand for the goods or service.

And what situations have "massively increasing demand" where no additional workforce is required?

I listened to an interview with the CEO of Xerox on Nightly Business Report. (they are commies you know). And this CEO was asked about the hiring plans in the coming year. This CEO said, based on increased demand, Xerox would be hiring.

Yesterday, the rabbit said I hired new brewers for Blatz Brewing. What he was trying to say was that I drank so much Blatz beer that the demand for Blatz had grown to the point where more brewers were necessary.
And rabbit doesn't believe that demand causes hiring. Until demand causes hiring. Then he still doesn't believe it.
But then he is a rabbit. What's a mathbud?

I have already outlined several times some of the other factors that have to be considered before the decision to hire is made: costs such as the cost of additional space for more workers, the cost of additional tools or machinery for the additional workers to use, cost of benefits for additional workers, cost of increased utilization of sanitary facilities by additional workers, costs to certify or train additional workers, cost of additional management to manage additional workers, risk associated with bringing on new workers, etc etc etc. Demand is definitively not the only factor that has to be considered before a person makes the decision to hire another.

Here is a readily available example of when demand can go rampant without necessitating the creation of more jobs: software. Once the software is published it could be sold to every person on the planet without necessarily requiring a single additional job. After the initial development costs, the cost to produce additional units is incredibly small (or zero).

The same can be closely replicated in a highly automated manufacturing environment that creates relatively inexpensive products. Once you have workers to monitor the machinery, running the machines with light utilization saves energy costs, and production can be ramped up to meet additional demand with nearly only increased energy and raw materials costs. No new jobs required.

This clearly shows that demand is only one factor of many that is considered in the job creation process.

 

[BlackSand]

I have already outlined several times some of the other factors that have to be considered before the decision to hire is made: costs such as the cost of additional space for more workers, the cost of additional tools or machinery for the additional workers to use, cost of benefits for additional workers, cost of increased utilization of sanitary facilities by additional workers, costs to certify or train additional workers, cost of additional management to manage additional workers, risk associated with bringing on new workers, etc etc etc. Demand is definitively not the only factor that has to be considered before a person makes the decision to hire another.

Here is a readily available example of when demand can go rampant without necessitating the creation of more jobs: software. Once the software is published it could be sold to every person on the planet without necessarily requiring a single additional job. After the initial development costs, the cost to produce additional units is incredibly small (or zero).

The same can be closely replicated in a highly automated manufacturing environment that creates relatively inexpensive products. Once you have workers to monitor the machinery, running the machines with light utilization saves energy costs, and production can be ramped up to meet additional demand with nearly only increased energy and raw materials costs. No new jobs required.

This clearly shows that demand is only one factor of many that is considered in the job creation process.

I applaud your effort ... But why waste your time on the obvious?

You are trying to explain how demand for a product does not provide for property, equipment, raw materials or proprietary knowledge. The fact most liberals want to argue all that is necessary for a product to be produced is for employees to show up and work ... Is probably why they are employees instead of employers.

Let them try to explain how consumer demand made Gary Dahl tons of money with the Pet Rock.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have already outlined several times some of the other factors that have to be considered before the decision to hire is made: costs such as the cost of additional space for more workers, the cost of additional tools or machinery for the additional workers to use, cost of benefits for additional workers, cost of increased utilization of sanitary facilities by additional workers, costs to certify or train additional workers, cost of additional management to manage additional workers, risk associated with bringing on new workers, etc etc etc. Demand is definitively not the only factor that has to be considered before a person makes the decision to hire another.

Here is a readily available example of when demand can go rampant without necessitating the creation of more jobs: software. Once the software is published it could be sold to every person on the planet without necessarily requiring a single additional job. After the initial development costs, the cost to produce additional units is incredibly small (or zero).

The same can be closely replicated in a highly automated manufacturing environment that creates relatively inexpensive products. Once you have workers to monitor the machinery, running the machines with light utilization saves energy costs, and production can be ramped up to meet additional demand with nearly only increased energy and raw materials costs. No new jobs required.

This clearly shows that demand is only one factor of many that is considered in the job creation process.

I applaud your effort ... But why waste your time on the obvious?

You are trying to explain how demand for a product does not provide for property, equipment, raw materials or proprietary knowledge. The fact most liberals want to argue all that is necessary for a product to be produced is for employees to show up and work ... Is probably why they are employees instead of employers.

Let them try to explain how consumer demand made Gary Dahl tons of money with the Pet Rock.

.

It's hopeless. You might as well explain Urdu poetry to a hamster.

 

[Londoner]

Clintonomics - a hybrid of the free-market principals of Reaganomics with a monetary policy that doesn't starve the middle class with austerity - grew more jobs than any president since the height of the liberal postwar years (1945-75).

The OP's clip was taken out of context. Clinton was referring to the fact that tax cuts for corporations do not translate into American jobs, rather, it only gave corporations more lobbying funds to manipulate congress to create the legal/regulatory conditions for shifting production to China so that our corporations could take advantage of sweatshop labor costs.

When did the rightwing message machine become Trotskyite? They now take everything out of context and put into a terminal propaganda loop.

The Clintons favor middle-out economics. They believe that a strong, well paid middle class grows the economy better than an economy based on giving corporations the lowest possible labor costs, which labor costs are found in Communist China. [Of course, Slick Willie ultimately bended to the forces of neoliberal globalization with NATA, where he left Big Labor standing at the alter, as he eloped with Wall Street and Corporate America into the sunset of cheap labor costs... but that is another story altogether]

Turn off Talk Radio.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clintonomics - a hybrid of the free-market principals of Reaganomics with a monetary policy that doesn't starve the middle class with austerity - grew more jobs than any president since the height of the liberal postwar years (1945-75).

The OP's clip was taken out of context. Clinton was referring to the fact that tax cuts for corporations do not translate into American jobs, rather, it only gave corporations more lobbying funds to manipulate congress to create the legal/regulatory conditions for shifting production to China so that our corporations could take advantage of sweatshop labor costs.

When did the rightwing message machine become Trotskyite? They now take everything out of context and put into a terminal propaganda loop.

The Clintons favor middle-out economics. They believe that a strong, well paid middle class grows the economy better than an economy based on giving corporations the lowest possible labor costs, which labor costs are found in Communist China.

Turn off Talk Radio.

Nonsense. The internet bubble had NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON.

 

[Papageorgio]

Zeke does not know business.

Volume does not equal profit, profit does not equal volume.

It all depends on your business model and how you choose to work it. It may or may not include overtime, hiring more people, there is upgrading equipment and so on.

It is not black and white, it may or may not raise prices, many companies have increased margins and cut production. Thousands of choices.

I know of a company in my same line of work, is happy at current levels, holds higher prices and is working at higher profit margins. We are wanting a bigger market share, so our prices are lower than theirs.

It is really about, what the business is about.

 

[bripat9643]

Clintonomics - a hybrid of the free-market principals of Reaganomics with a monetary policy that doesn't starve the middle class with austerity - grew more jobs than any president since the height of the liberal postwar years (1945-75).

The OP's clip was taken out of context. Clinton was referring to the fact that tax cuts for corporations do not translate into American jobs, rather, it only gave corporations more lobbying funds to manipulate congress to create the legal/regulatory conditions for shifting production to China so that our corporations could take advantage of sweatshop labor costs.

When did the rightwing message machine become Trotskyite? They now take everything out of context and put into a terminal propaganda loop.

The Clintons favor middle-out economics. They believe that a strong, well paid middle class grows the economy better than an economy based on giving corporations the lowest possible labor costs, which labor costs are found in Communist China.

Turn off Talk Radio.

Nonsense. The internet bubble had NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON.

Then who was responsible?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Are you getting your ass beaten like screen door in a huricane again?
You said employers hire people. Hiring people is creating a job. And it is not demand that does that. It is employers. And the employers are not seeing demand. They are anticipating demand.
You get caught up because you are a poseur. You have no business experience and no education. No point pretending. Your posts reveal all.

Not in the least. Hiring to fill demand isn't creating.

When a company supposed to hire someone exactly, if not to fill a position that meets with a growing demand? Please tell me you posted that before giving it any real serious thought.