The Rich Don't Create Jobs

[The Infidel]

Explain how the product got on the shelf in the first place. Duh.

The problem isn't getting it ON the shelf. The problem is getting it OFF the shelf. If that doesn't happen, any jobs involved with making and selling it rapidly cease to exist.

Well when that rich guy (the corp I worked for) pays me I will be out buying the stuff the working stiffs manufactured.... Oh, and maybe I ordered it thru that evil internet using the crazy thing called a laptop that some other working stiff manufactured while working for some evil rich guy .... and the chain goes on.

I know... maybe I will grab some money from one of those evil ATM's Obama hates too... but if we have a tsunami, then what????


Oh you idiot libs are so silly

 

[Bern80]

Looks like someone has no idea what it takes to make a business successful.

Growing up in a family that did, yeah I do. I ask again. How do people that work for someone else for living or for no one at all, create jobs?

Consumers create jobs by their purchasing power. Explain to me how a rich person creates jobs when he has no one to sell his product to?

No they don't. They send a signal to a business that their is demand for a product. Demand which can be met many ways. They can have their current employees produce more. They don't necessarily always hire more people. But the reality is ultimately the rich business owners has to decide how to do that, either produce more with what he has or CREATE more positions.

You seem to have two very basic concepts confused RDD. Yes, demand does come from the poor and middle class, but demand is not jobs. If YOU want to facilitate that you will insist that government cut it's spending severely so that more people across all financial strata can be in a better financial position to fulfill their wants.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah. That would be the salary they earn after they start the business.

Way to move the goalposts! Keep working on your Google-fu, grasshopper.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that most people who start a new business are already RICH when they do so,

why don't you post, or STFU?

You were the one claiming it was only middle class people you see starting businesses, therefore the burden was on you to prove it. You failed.

Seems to me that, since you can't prove your assertions, it is you who should "STFU," as you so petulantly put it. But do as you please, sweetheart.

So you don't have any such evidence? Okay. You could have more easily said,

I don't have any evidence of that.

 

[Crackerjack]

If you have any evidence whatsoever that most people who start a new business are already RICH when they do so,

why don't you post, or STFU?

You were the one claiming it was only middle class people you see starting businesses, therefore the burden was on you to prove it. You failed.

Seems to me that, since you can't prove your assertions, it is you who should "STFU," as you so petulantly put it. But do as you please, sweetheart.

So you don't have any such evidence? Okay. You could have more easily said,

I don't have any evidence of that.

Any such evidence of what?

 

[RDD_1210]

Perceived demand.

Perceptions are wrong all the time, especially when it comes to determining what other people want. Anyone who's married or has children knows that.

Right, which is why businesses fail all the time. Do you even understand what you're arguing anymore? Or do you automatically argue the opposite no matter what?

 

[RDD_1210]

Explain how the product got on the shelf in the first place. Duh.

Perceived demand.

Perceived demand doesn't pay the bills.

Right! So whats your point?

 

[RDD_1210]

Growing up in a family that did, yeah I do. I ask again. How do people that work for someone else for living or for no one at all, create jobs?

Consumers create jobs by their purchasing power.

With no products to buy from businessmen who are willing to risk their money and efforts to produce, that purchasing power amounts to a popcorn fart.

Explain to me how a rich person creates jobs when he has no one to sell his product to?

The utter inanity of that question is staggering....Who would bother in the first place if there were nobody to sell their products to?

Exactly. No one would bother. Hence, it's the customers who drive the economic cycle. You idiots actually understand deep down, you just have too much stubbornness and dumb pride to admit it.

 

[Oddball]

The existence of consumers, in and of themselves, doesn't necessarily dictate demand for the airplane, AC electricity transmission or the fuckin' Frisbee....If somebody somewhere doesn't have an idea and at least a little drive to create something, all the consumers in the world aren't going to create anything out of blind want.

 

[Oldstyle]

The sun will rise whether you want it to or not.

Correct, it can be taken for granted. So can investment, provided demand is there.

Hence the analogy.

Investment cannot be taken for granted just because there is demand. There is a demand for $5 prime rib dinners but the reason prime rib costs $20 in a restaurant is the owner of the business expects to make a profit selling the prime rib.

You people expect investment no matter if the person being asked to make the investment is going to make enough profit to justify risking capital. I'm sorry but that isn't happening.

 

[The Rabbi]

Multi millionaires love beating up on "high income earners" because they aren't really part of that. They've already made their money. If Warren Buffet earned $1 a year for the rest of his life he would still be among the 4 richest men in America.
Only lib-retards fall for crap like this when they see it.
Job creation takes capital. Rich people have capital. They invest their money directly or indirectly and capital flows to the real creators, entrepreneurs and other middle class and rising people.
No surprise a retard like RDD would fall for this. He walks around with a "kick me I'm stupid" sign on his back.

Well look at you and your Warren Buffet analogy.

If those "high income earners" were taxed at an increased rate, they would still be the very same "high income earners". They wouldn't slip out of their lifestyle or their wealth.

BUT GOD DAMMIT, THEY COULD HAVE BOUGHT A COUPLE YACHTS WITH WHAT THEY ARE TAXED WITH! THE TRAVESTY! THE INJUSTICE!

You are aptly named as you have the brain of a cow.
Taxes create incentives. Even Hillary Clinton knows this. If you increase taxes you decrease the incentive to work hard. You of course confuse high income with wealth. I'll bet you have no idea what the difference is.
It is not spending by the wealthy that creates wealth. It is saving by the wealthy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Explain how the product got on the shelf in the first place. Duh.

The problem isn't getting it ON the shelf. The problem is getting it OFF the shelf. If that doesn't happen, any jobs involved with making and selling it rapidly cease to exist.

No, the problem is getting it on the shelf. How did the first Kindle, which no one ever saw before, get to the marketplace?

 

[Sallow]

Growing up in a family that did, yeah I do. I ask again. How do people that work for someone else for living or for no one at all, create jobs?

Consumers create jobs by their purchasing power. Explain to me how a rich person creates jobs when he has no one to sell his product to?

No they don't. They send a signal to a business that their is demand for a product. Demand which can be met many ways. They can have their current employees produce more. They don't necessarily always hire more people. But the reality is ultimately the rich business owners has to decide how to do that, either produce more with what he has or CREATE more positions.

You seem to have two very basic concepts confused RDD. Yes, demand does come from the poor and middle class, but demand is not jobs. If YOU want to facilitate that you will insist that government cut it's spending severely so that more people across all financial strata can be in a better financial position to fulfill their wants.

Few of the big companies are "owned" by the person or started it..or even one person at all.

Which is why you guys put on display..the fact you have know idea how this works. None.

 

[Sallow]

Multi millionaires love beating up on "high income earners" because they aren't really part of that. They've already made their money. If Warren Buffet earned $1 a year for the rest of his life he would still be among the 4 richest men in America.
Only lib-retards fall for crap like this when they see it.
Job creation takes capital. Rich people have capital. They invest their money directly or indirectly and capital flows to the real creators, entrepreneurs and other middle class and rising people.
No surprise a retard like RDD would fall for this. He walks around with a "kick me I'm stupid" sign on his back.

Well look at you and your Warren Buffet analogy.

If those "high income earners" were taxed at an increased rate, they would still be the very same "high income earners". They wouldn't slip out of their lifestyle or their wealth.

BUT GOD DAMMIT, THEY COULD HAVE BOUGHT A COUPLE YACHTS WITH WHAT THEY ARE TAXED WITH! THE TRAVESTY! THE INJUSTICE!

You are aptly named as you have the brain of a cow.
Taxes create incentives. Even Hillary Clinton knows this. If you increase taxes you decrease the incentive to work hard. You of course confuse high income with wealth. I'll bet you have no idea what the difference is.
It is not spending by the wealthy that creates wealth. It is saving by the wealthy.

You don't either. There's a limit on disposable cash one can spend in a calendar year. Or even a lifetime.

The wealthy do not create jobs. They do not risk their own capital.

 

[Sallow]

What an absolutely shitty and entirely irrelevant argument.

The sun will rise whether you want it to or not.

Demand all you want...Unless there is someone out there willing to take the risk that you aren't the only one demanding this or that, you can demand in one hand and shit in the other.

Rich people don't take risks.

That would be the poor and middle class.

 

[FA_Q2]

If your small business profits more than 250k a year its probably not small.

Apparently, you have no idea what a small business actually is....

It's amazing how hard some people have understanding this. It's really not rocket science.

A business owner has a million dollars he could invest to expand his business, but business is slow. He barely makes a profit as it is. People want his products, but they can't afford them.

A good fairy comes along with a magic spell that can do one of two things. Either it can give the business owner another million dollars, or it can give 100 people $10,000 each. The fairy wants to see the business expand, but can do only one of those two things.

Which one would work better?

The problem is that your analogy is a complete farce as is most of the confiscation argument through this thread. First, taxes are not materialized into existence with a fairy and that capitol does not come from nothing. It must first be taken. So your analogy would be better stated as taking the million from the business owner and distributing it to the people. What it also fails to take into account is the fact that taking that cash from the business owner will have 3 possible effects: it can de-incentivize his creation of the business in the first place. It can drive the cost of the product up to make up for the lost profits. This has a double effect as now the customers that were given the cash are in no better shape than they were in before. Yet another effect is the stifling of reinvestment into the company which would have driven the cost of the original product down. You see, by taking the money from the one person and redistributing it to others you have, in fact, done little to change anything as the variables change to reflect the new situation. The market is in its state for a reason. The only thing that you have accomplished is to introduce inefficiency into the system through the transfer process and therefore destroyed productivity/wealth.

Also, cutting taxes on the poor has almost no effect in general as you are cutting an extremely small amount of cash. The effect of the average family getting 10 bucks back a year is miniscule. It is the middle class that has the true power to surge the economy forward. Same goes for the rich as you have stated. We are clearly on the side of the tax code where lower taxes on the wealthy are not going to help anything. I cannot support higher taxes though until congress can prove that it can handle it by coming up with at least a semblance of a balanced budget. They failed to cut 1% of the budget, a total farce, with extreme pressure to do so. It is clear that no amount of taxes are ever going to sate their lust for spending.

[
Irrelevant to who took the risk, opened the store front, went through all the bureaucratic red tape, and hired the cooks and drivers, tovarich.

Not at all irrelevant to WHETHER he did, though.

But you're helping me to understand why this simple concept -- customers drive job creation -- isn't getting through. You're not looking at the whole thing like an economist. You're looking at it like a moralist.

An economist looks at a situation and asks what, how, and why. WHAT is the driving factor behind job creation? HOW can we go about stimulating job creation? WHY are jobs created?

A moralist, however, looks at the same situation and asks a WHO question:
Who most deserves the credit and reward?

Since you're not even concerning yourself with the question of what steps would work best to stimulate job creation, but rather a completely different and unrelated question, naturally you're arriving at a different answer.

And you're doing the exact same thing when you ignore the fact that capitol, through investment, is equally required in the first place. You cannot, as you have tried to force everyone to accept, that people will produce as long as there is a demand. That is utter bullshit. There are a million factors that can play into someone that wants to fulfill a specific demand and the large majority of the time the demand goes unfulfilled. There needs to exist the correct variables for someone to take the risk and actually produce a product. Both sides of the equation are equally important. Jobs are created as a factor of all the variables in the marketplace and to specify one single piece of the puzzle like wealth or demand is asinine.

...how backwards it is to give the rich tax breaks

Then you're for a flat tax? Great!

Not at all, thanks for asking.

A flat tax would only hurt the middle class / job creators even further.

Then you fail to understand a flat tax. It would hurt both the rich who would not be able to avoid taxes as they do now and the poor who use taxes as another bank account. The ONLY group that would receive great benefits from it would be the middle class who lack the capitol and other things necessary to avoid their taxes.

We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, Dragon.

No, in practice, counting deductions and loopholes, we don't. In any case, as I said the cost of those taxes -- the ENTIRE cost -- is a pittance compared to the savings in labor that are available abroad. If corporate taxes were reduced to ZERO that would not put a dent in outsourcing.

Progressives like yourself describe additional taxes on the wealthy as a "pittance", yet a dyed in the wool Keynesian economist like Christina Romer comes out and states that raising taxes on ANYONE in an economy as weak as ours is now, would be bad fiscal policy. How do you explain that?

It's doctrine, and I believe she's wrong. Generally speaking, it's true you don't want to raise taxes in a weak economy; however, tax increases that don't hurt consumption don't cause problems, and would reduce the budget deficit which many consider to be a burden to the economy. (Long-term, I agree with them.)

While I agree that increasing the tax base is one way to reduce the deficit, I disagree -- as I've said several times -- that increasing the money int he bank accounts of the very rich is any way to do that. The rich aren't the ones who are short of funds. We have plenty of capital. What we're short of is consumer demand. That means we need to increase the money in the bank accounts, not of the rich, but of the middle class and poor. Ideally, if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen instantly, here's what I would want:

1) A confiscatory tax (like 90%) on incomes above, say, 2 million a year, ALONG WITH a 100% deduction for investment in job-creating activities.

2) Magically increase union strength to around 40% in the private sector (well, I did say a magic wand) and raised wages following from this.

These two things would, through the action of the market around the changed parameters, redistribute wealth dramatically, boost consumer demand, boost investment, and restore real prosperity. Or it would if we had no natural-resource issues to worry about. There are a couple of other things I would do along those lines, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

No, they would destroy any investment at all as there would be zero reward for risking your capitol after the government confiscated all the profits. Also simply raising wages accomplishes nothing. If the lowest McDonalds worker earned a million dollars an hour there would be no difference in their economic status. The value of the cash he is paid will naturally fall to equal the value his labor adds in real goods. It would be reflected by the fact a burger would cost you 500 thousand dollars to purchase. This idea that raising labor costs will not affect the price of the goods you are raising the labor costs to buy is absolutely nuts. On what planet are the labor costs not DIRECTLY ties to the cost of the product?

 

[Sallow]

Straight from the horses mouth. A multi-millionaire describing how backwards it is to give the rich tax breaks to create jobs. It's a terrible idea that has never been shown to work anywhere but the parrots continue to refer to it.

Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer - Businessweek

"That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be."


Bonus points to the first idiot who says, "nothing is stopping him from sending more money to the government".

Sure the rich create jobs although the wealth isn't always in the form of one person's bank account or one person's ability. Wealthy corporations, companies, sole proprietorships, and organizations create jobs. There is some inherent capital in all of those enterprises.

To say that the rich do not create jobs is simply put, wrong.

Now, to say that they create all the jobs is too wrong. I think sick people create more jobs than the wealthy if you consider the number of people employed by one person coming into the hospital or clinic.

You're wrong about this.

It's the idea that wealthy indivduals (Human beings) "create jobs"...because by in large..that is not the case.

Tax breaks for these people are a negative on the economy..and encourage them to move jobs overseas and fleece the companies they head and, in most cases, didn't start.

They extract wealth..not create it.

 

[editec]

The CAPITAL CLASS can create jobs when the CONSUMER CLASS is buying.

Otherwise?

Otherwise giving more money to the capital class will not create jobs.

The mataphor is that giving money to the investment class in an economy like this one is like pushing on a string.

Market activity between the classes creates jobs, folks.

Job creation is an interclass cooperative endeavor we call CIVILIZATION.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Demand was artificially propped up for years with easy credit. People are temporarily wiser to the debt trap, both lender and borrower. Not sure there is any quick fix for a suddenly smarter and cautious consumer base and jobs will not come back until people start stupidly spending again.

The elusive answers remain...

A tax code that's fair because it's simple, a budget that's balanced by law, transparency in all things politics, and then build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

 

[Bern80]

Consumers create jobs by their purchasing power. Explain to me how a rich person creates jobs when he has no one to sell his product to?

No they don't. They send a signal to a business that their is demand for a product. Demand which can be met many ways. They can have their current employees produce more. They don't necessarily always hire more people. But the reality is ultimately the rich business owners has to decide how to do that, either produce more with what he has or CREATE more positions.

You seem to have two very basic concepts confused RDD. Yes, demand does come from the poor and middle class, but demand is not jobs. If YOU want to facilitate that you will insist that government cut it's spending severely so that more people across all financial strata can be in a better financial position to fulfill their wants.

Few of the big companies are "owned" by the person or started it..or even one person at all.

Which is why you guys put on display..the fact you have know idea how this works. None.

Who or how many people run the business is irrelevent. The point is the rich person or rich people that operate and manage those businesses are the ones that decide how to meet demand. Yet another way they can do that is charge more for the product as opposed to producing more of it, as an example.

And I know for a fact growing up around people that do run their own businesses, that I know how it works a lot better than you do. If you really knew how it worked, you lefties would see the shear stupidity in demanding that the rich pay even more in taxes.

 

[Oldstyle]

The CAPITAL CLASS can create jobs when the CONSUMER CLASS is buying.

Otherwise?

Otherwise giving more money to the capital class will not create jobs.

The mataphor is that giving money to the investment class in an economy like this one is like pushing on a string.

Market activity between the classes creates jobs, folks.

Job creation is an interclass cooperative endeavor we call CIVILIZATION.

Come on, Ed...you're smarter than Sallow and Chris! Job creation is caused by someone thinking there is a profit to be made by investing not because of "CIVILIZATION". You don't have to give money to the investment class to get them to invest but what you DO have to do is show them that they can make a profit if they do risk the money they have. When someone suggests that we seize 95% of the income of wealthy people all they are doing is prompting those folks to either invest that money outside of our system or to hide it in tax shelters...neither one of which does a thing to help grow the economy.