The Rich Don't Create Jobs

[Sallow]

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.

Again..one has to question how alot of those people are getting into those positions. And actually..as I've said before, I would rather see investigations into people making huge salaries..as opposed to tax increases. They would have to be able to justify them.

As in:
- They are adding value to the company in terms of market share.
- They are not costing the community they service, resources.
- They are not burdening the economy at large.

You'd probably see alot of them begging for the tax increases.

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.

The stupidity is..paying people to do crappy jobs. Which is what you on the right fight tooth and nail to do.

Good job boys.

Because this economic calamity was authored and owned by the right.

 

[Dragon]

Well when that rich guy (the corp I worked for) pays me I will be out buying the stuff the working stiffs manufactured

There you go! Your job is making you a consumer, which creates someone else's job, and vice-versa. Without that spending by each other, neither of you would have a job.

Now, what would happen if your salary and the other guy's were both doubled? There would be more stuff you could buy, and thus more work to do to make it, right?

But what would happen if someone dumped an amount equal to your annual salary on the company you work for? Do you think it would go out and hire someone just because it had the money to do so?

Of course it wouldn't.

More money to the rich does NOT create jobs.

More money to the middle class and poor DOES.

 

[Dragon]

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.

Correct, but someone always does. That part, we can take for granted. If the demand is there, someone will want to make money satisfying it.

Demand creates its own supply.

 

[Dragon]

Investment cannot be taken for granted just because there is demand.

Within the limits imposed by logical absurdity, yes, it can, thus:

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.

Right, because that's logically absurd. Given any example that isn't logically absurd, however, if the demand is there, someone will satisfy it and make money doing so, and that can be taken for granted.

 

[Dragon]

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?

There was demand for e-readers long before there were e-readers. They were the stuff of science fiction and lots of people thought it was a cool idea. If Amazon could offer a device like that for an affordable price, the risk was low.

If, despite that, the Kindle hadn't sold, nobody would have been employed long making them. The problem is always demand, not supply (except in the case of natural resource shortages).

 

[Oldstyle]

What your "demand is all" fails to address, kiddies...is the innovative product that nobody KNEW they wanted until they saw it. That wasn't produced because of demand...that was produced because an investor ANTICIPATED demand and risked capital to produce it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

What the **** do you think they do with it? Stick it in the mattress?
Wow, are you clueless.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I find amusing is those of you that think seizing the assets of the wealthy and distributing them to the poor will grow the economy. Who's going to produce all these wonderful products for your newly flush poor to spend their riches on? You've taken away the incentive for people to risk their capital to make things because you've decided that profit is evil and needs to be taken out of the equation. Why should I bust my ass to make "widgets" for you to buy when you're going to take all my profits when I do so? I'm going to do one of two things...either take my capital to someplace that will let me make a profit investing it...or hide it in a tax shelter and live off the interest.

 

[Dragon]

What your "demand is all" fails to address, kiddies...is the innovative product that nobody KNEW they wanted until they saw it.

Wrong. I addressed that above. Demand, you see, consists of two things: the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. In other words, people not only have to WANT that innovative product when they see it, they also have to be able to AFFORD it. If they can't, it doesn't matter whether they want it or not, it still won't sell.

Which is why innovative products tend to come to market more in good economic times when people have money to spend. That's why we got television in the late 1940s (instead of the late 1920s when the technology was perfected), radio and mass-production cars in the 1920s, a whole string of market innovations in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, personal computers in the 1980s, Internet commerce in the 1990s -- and bugger-all of late.

An innovative product can still fail if people have plenty of money, because the desire to buy also has to be there. But it will CERTAINLY fail if people DON'T have money to spend.

More money to the rich does not create jobs -- even jobs making innovative products.

More money to the middle class and poor does.

 

[Dragon]

What I find amusing is those of you that think seizing the assets of the wealthy and distributing them to the poor will grow the economy. Who's going to produce all these wonderful products for your newly flush poor to spend their riches on?

The assets of the wealthy are not indivisible and nobody is talking about literally impoverishing people who are now rich. Don't worry, there will always be plenty of capital.

 

[bripat9643]

There was demand for e-readers long before there were e-readers. They were the stuff of science fiction and lots of people thought it was a cool idea. If Amazon could offer a device like that for an affordable price, the risk was low.

You demonstrated you have 20/20 hindsight. However, before a product is on the market no one knows how it will do. Who predicted the spectacular success of the iPhone and the iPad?

If, despite that, the Kindle hadn't sold, nobody would have been employed long making them. The problem is always demand, not supply (except in the case of natural resource shortages).

Wow, that's brilliant: corporations don't continue to manufacture products that don't sell. What you ignore is the fact that thousands of products have been developed that were spectacular failures, like the Edsel and the Volt. However, in the case of the Volt, everyone who wasn't a libturd kookburger knew it was going to be a failure.

 

[Dragon]

What the **** do you think they do with it? Stick it in the mattress?

I disagree with Sallow that the wealthy don't risk their capital. The question is what they risk it on. To the extent that consumer demand justifies this, they risk it on investments that create jobs -- which is good.

But to the extent they have capital left over after satisfying consumer demand, OR to the extent they want a really quick return, they tend to invest instead in financial instruments that don't do anything except rob Peter to pay Paul, transferring money from losing investors to winning ones like a big lottery.

In other words, they risk it gambling. Which does the economy no good at all.

 

[bripat9643]

The assets of the wealthy are not indivisible and nobody is talking about literally impoverishing people who are now rich. Don't worry, there will always be plenty of capital.

That is one of the dumbest claims you have ever posted. Your first problem with this statement is that its based on the idea that "capital" consists of worthless scraps of paper. It doesn't. In economic terms, capital is tangible. It's factories and machinery. This stuff is not unlimited. Nothing in economics is unlimited, otherwise it's not an economic quantity. The main constraint on our standard of living is the amount of capital per worker. Capital is what determines the productive output of labor. If capital were unlimited, then we would be wealthy beyond our wildest dreams.

The claim that we have "plenty of capital" is the sign of economic ignorance.

 

[Dragon]

You demonstrated you have 20/20 hindsight. However, before a product is on the market no one knows how it will do. Who predicted the spectacular success of the iPhone and the iPad?

The point is that the spectacular FAILURE of the iPhone and iPad would have been predictable if there hadn't been money in people's hands to spend on these products. It all comes down to consumer demand. For innovative products, an educated guess has to be made as to whether people will want the products, but you can know ahead of time whether they have the money to buy them.

And there are plenty of innovative products that have NOT done well, too -- which means nobody stayed employed for long making or selling them. Even if the judgment is made after the fact, consumer demand still determines everything.

Wow, that's brilliant: corporations don't continue to manufacture products that don't sell. What you ignore is the fact that thousands of products have been developed that were spectacular failures, like the Edsel and the Volt.

I'm not ignoring that at all. You may, in fact, observe that I noted the very thing in this very post.

Whether it's brilliant or not, the fact that corporations don't continue to manufacture products that don't sell makes my point: demand is what creates jobs. If the demand isn't there, the jobs won't be either.

More money to the rich does NOT create jobs.

More money to the middle class and poor DOES.

 

[Dragon]

Your first problem with this statement is that its based on the idea that "capital" consists of worthless scraps of paper. It doesn't. In economic terms, capital is tangible. It's factories and machinery. This stuff is not unlimited.

I never said it was unlimited, nor did I ever say (or imply) that capital consists only of money. What I did imply, and will now say outright, is that capital ALWAYS EXCEEDS CONSUMER DEMAND in a capitalist economy.

There is always plenty of capital, because any capital above and beyond what consumer demand justifies is waste.

The main constraint on our standard of living is the amount of capital per worker.

No. That ceased to be true a long time ago. The main constraint on our standard of living now is the amount of PAY per worker.

 

[Oldstyle]

What your "demand is all" fails to address, kiddies...is the innovative product that nobody KNEW they wanted until they saw it.

Wrong. I addressed that above. Demand, you see, consists of two things: the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. In other words, people not only have to WANT that innovative product when they see it, they also have to be able to AFFORD it. If they can't, it doesn't matter whether they want it or not, it still won't sell.

Which is why innovative products tend to come to market more in good economic times when people have money to spend. That's why we got television in the late 1940s (instead of the late 1920s when the technology was perfected), radio and mass-production cars in the 1920s, a whole string of market innovations in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, personal computers in the 1980s, Internet commerce in the 1990s -- and bugger-all of late.

An innovative product can still fail if people have plenty of money, because the desire to buy also has to be there. But it will CERTAINLY fail if people DON'T have money to spend.

More money to the rich does not create jobs -- even jobs making innovative products.

More money to the middle class and poor does.

I'm curious, Dragon...do you think repeating something twenty times makes it any more true than the first time you said it? Do yourself a favor and leave off the silly bumper sticker lines. You've done nothing to convince me of your position by repeating the same mantra. Taking the incentive away from those with capital to invest it is not the way to grow the economy. Those "with" money will simply use that money to go elsewhere if you attempt to seize it from them through government legislation. Look at what happened with England back in the 70's.

 

[Sallow]

What the **** do you think they do with it? Stick it in the mattress?

I disagree with Sallow that the wealthy don't risk their capital. The question is what they risk it on. To the extent that consumer demand justifies this, they risk it on investments that create jobs -- which is good.

But to the extent they have capital left over after satisfying consumer demand, OR to the extent they want a really quick return, they tend to invest instead in financial instruments that don't do anything except rob Peter to pay Paul, transferring money from losing investors to winning ones like a big lottery.

In other words, they risk it gambling. Which does the economy no good at all.

You can "disagree" with me all you want..but the rich don't risk their own wealth..unless it's a sure thing.

You'd be amazed at some of the schemes they use to protect their assets.

 

[Sallow]

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.

What the **** do you think they do with it? Stick it in the mattress?
Wow, are you clueless.

Take a trip to Monaco.

You'll find plenty of mega-yachts there registered by Americans to small carribean Islands.

Come on..the sun would do you good. Get out of Mom's basement.

 

[Dragon]

I'm curious, Dragon...do you think repeating something twenty times makes it any more true than the first time you said it?

Nope. It was 100% true the first time I said it and it remains 100% true now. Nobody has offered a single item in rebuttal, and the evidence in favor is overwhelming. So I'm going to keep repeating it. Thanks for your advice, but I believe I'll ignore it.

Taking the incentive away from those with capital to invest it is not the way to grow the economy.

The incentive to invest lies in consumer demand for the products to be produced by investing it. No one invests in products that won't sell, which is why the economy has been so slow to grow recently.

More money to the rich does NOT create jobs.

More money to the middle class and poor creates more consumer demand, which does.

 

[Sallow]

There was demand for e-readers long before there were e-readers. They were the stuff of science fiction and lots of people thought it was a cool idea. If Amazon could offer a device like that for an affordable price, the risk was low.

You demonstrated you have 20/20 hindsight. However, before a product is on the market no one knows how it will do. Who predicted the spectacular success of the iPhone and the iPad?

If, despite that, the Kindle hadn't sold, nobody would have been employed long making them. The problem is always demand, not supply (except in the case of natural resource shortages).

Wow, that's brilliant: corporations don't continue to manufacture products that don't sell. What you ignore is the fact that thousands of products have been developed that were spectacular failures, like the Edsel and the Volt. However, in the case of the Volt, everyone who wasn't a libturd kookburger knew it was going to be a failure.

Except:

A. The ipad and iphone were both built on tech developed by the government. Look up Dennis Ritchie.

B. The Volt hasn't failed. Quite the opposite...it is selling well.