Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[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?

Clearly the people involved in the generation of the tech (networking engineers, investors that wanted to move data between colleges and between military facilities), followed by the inventors that used the tech to build it into a consumer friendly product (yahoo, mozilla, etc.), then the pretty ladies that provided their photos -)), then the investors and people that built on top of all that (amazon, google, and a million other web sites)... The bubble popped because that's what bubbles do.

How did any of those people cause millions of investors all to make the same wrong decision regarding the future price of stocks?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The other side of the coin is that my prices are higher and I hold a larger market share than my lower priced competitor through education of my customers. This leads to higher demand of my product and service which leads to hiring more employees.

Higher prices cause greater demand? You're putting the cart before the horse, son. Higher prices have exactly the opposite effect.

 

[bripat9643]

B'loney.

Explain how your capital would purchase your own product or service?

Explain how demand increases for the entire economy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

All are secondary to demand creating jobs, which is first, which is always first.

How can demand be first when only people with jobs can have any effective demand?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Demand comes from people with money to purchase a product or service.

Where do they get the money?

 

[OnePercenter]

No. Demand is just a desire for something. It creates nothing. The Creator is someone else who sees an opportunity to develop the supply and is willing to risk his capital and time in doing so.

In business, demand is from buyers of product or services. Capital ONLY provides a platform.

Repeating yourself doesn't somehow transform your bogosity into something correct.

So capital doesn't provide a platform?

 

[OnePercenter]

That's similar to the theory that rain creates umbrellas. It's absurd on its face.

Rain and other factors created the demand for umbrellas.

 

[RKMBrown]

How did any of those people cause millions of investors all to make the same wrong decision regarding the future price of stocks?

What stock are you referring to in which millions of investors all made the same wrong decision?

You do know that many internet stocks are rising right?

The reason for bubbles is a large number of people becoming drunk with excitement over the supposed opportunity of easy money. It's a human condition that is not something we can blame any one person for.

 

[zeke]

The Creator is someone else who sees an opportunity to develop the supply and is willing to risk his capital and time in doing so.

You go to that same bogus school of economics the rabbit went to?

But lets look at your statement of "someone else who see an opportunity to develop the supply"

What does "develop the supply" mean. It means that someone has recognized the DEMAND for a good or service and that person is NOW developing the supply to meet the demand. And they are using/risking their capital to meet that demand.

Hope that helps cause you sure as hell seem confused about this stuff.

 

[OnePercenter]

How did any of those people cause millions of investors all to make the same wrong decision regarding the future price of stocks?

People put greed before knowledge.

 

[OnePercenter]

Higher prices cause greater demand? You're putting the cart before the horse, son. Higher prices have exactly the opposite effect.

Higher prices cause greater demand if you can show quality.

 

[OnePercenter]

How can demand be first when only people with jobs can have any effective demand?

People with money.

 

[The Rabbi]

Higher prices cause greater demand? You're putting the cart before the horse, son. Higher prices have exactly the opposite effect.

Higher prices cause greater demand if you can show quality.

Bullshit. Higher prices cause lower demand. That is literally Econ 100. A course you obviously never took.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

Demand comes from people with money to purchase a product or service.

Where do they get the money?

Gee, could they have retirement income?

 

[OnePercenter]

Higher prices cause greater demand? You're putting the cart before the horse, son. Higher prices have exactly the opposite effect.

Higher prices cause greater demand if you can show quality.

Bullshit. Higher prices cause lower demand. That is literally Econ 100. A course you obviously never took.

Not if you educate your customers.

 

[boedicca]

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.

All are secondary to demand creating jobs, which is first, which is always first.

How can demand be first when only people with jobs can have any effective demand?

I'd like to know how many people Demanded Lightbulbs from Thomas Edison before he invented them.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

All are secondary to demand creating jobs, which is first, which is always first.

How can demand be first when only people with jobs can have any effective demand?

I'd like to know how many people Demanded Lightbulbs from Thomas Edison before he invented them.

The demand was for a better way to light up the night. The demand was strong. Oil based lamps were expensive to maintain and did not put out enough light.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'd like to know how many people Demanded Lightbulbs from Thomas Edison before he invented them.

Edison didn't invent the light bulb. The demand caused by Alessandro Volta, Henry Woodward, and Mathew Evans, I'm sure had to do with Edison's commercial success.

Bill Gates started Microsoft using another persons operating system.

Steve Jobs didn't invent the iPhone, he directed his employees.

 

[bripat9643]

That's similar to the theory that rain creates umbrellas. It's absurd on its face.

Rain and other factors created the demand for umbrellas.

I knew you would claim that theory was true. It's so wrong it's moronic.

 

[bripat9643]

How did any of those people cause millions of investors all to make the same wrong decision regarding the future price of stocks?

People put greed before knowledge.

How did greed cause them all to make the wrong decision on whether to buy or sell?