What creates jobs?

[ThinkCritically]

I believe not-for-profits, NGOs, local, state, and federal governments along with the rest of the private sector and entrepreneurs are who create jobs.

As for what creates jobs. Thats simple. Fulfilling a demand for some product or service is what creates jobs.

That's one way. The better way is creating the demand for a product that you are making. Like a flat screen TV or a computer or a great movie.

The boom of the 90's was created by the demand for a product that nobody wanted in the 80's. If you were trying to fill the demand of the 80's in order to build your fortune in the 90's, you'd have cornered the market on disco music recorded on cassette tapes.

You are correct, i forgot to add creating a demand, but I do sort of imply it by including entrepreneurs in the list of who creates jobs.

Fortunately, this country is still one of the best at producing entrepreneurs. Lets hope that we get some more in the future.

 

[Widdekind]

I believe not-for-profits, NGOs, local, state, and federal governments along with the rest of the private sector and entrepreneurs are who create jobs.

As for what creates jobs. Thats simple. Fulfilling a demand for some product or service is what creates jobs.

"Advertising" can augment Demand; Supplied-Demand generates Revenue (P x Q), which funds Labor (wages)

your "who" lists Suppliers; your "what" describes Demand (implicitly, if not explicitly, including the potential importance of Advertising, for "recognized Remand")

 

[itfitzme]

Guys who create things other people want to buy create jobs.

You can demand all you want but if there's nobody there to produce, all your demand isn't worth a popcorn fart.

"want to buy" is not demand. Demand requires motive and means.

A guy can make all the stuff that he may, but if there is no demand then it isn't worth a popcorn fart.

"Guys who create things other people demand IS a job". It is not the creation of a job.

It may be, like the Dyson guy, a hobby. Still, note that the statement includes that qualifier, "other people demand". Without that demand, there are no jobs as a result. The creation isn't work a popcorn fart.


Wanting to buy something, is not demand. Demand requires motive and means.

Motive is not a measurable or observable factor. The means to purchase is.

At best, "Guys who create things other people want to buy create jobs" is an incomplete answer. An incomplete answer is wrong. It sounds good, but it is still incorrect.

And, in fact, in the incremental process of incremental supply and demand, at the margin, incremental demand does get satisfied as there is someone already making the good.

 

[itfitzme]

Guys who create things other people want to buy create jobs.

You can demand all you want but if there's nobody there to produce, all your demand isn't worth a popcorn fart.

Excess demand does get filled by existing production and labor. Economics is a study that requires thinking at the margin. A marginal increase production is satisfied with the existing labor, whether it be because the increase in orders motivate production to increase output or because labor works overtime.

The addition of one unit of demand gets satisfied without adding a job.

 

[asterism]

LOL, few months ago I ran a help wanted ad all over the place looking for a CNC laser operator. Six weeks passed before someone applied. He was the only applicant. I had to offer quite a bit to hire him away from a competitor. Why is it the only people that actually want a job are already employed elsewhere? How come nobody unemployed ever applies? I'm not the only one that has noticed. To find good help, you have to hire them away from someone else lately. What's up with that?

I've hired 3 customer service reps in the last year. They and every single applicant were currently employed. Nobody unemployed has asked me for a job.

 

[inALIENable]

I've hired 3 customer service reps in the last year. They and every single applicant were currently employed. Nobody unemployed has asked me for a job.

That's so true. A few unemployed have called wondering if we had any openings for someone without any marketable or desired skills. I think they were time travelers from the Neanderthal era. I said there was some dog poop out back that needed to be cleaned up and they hung up. In their hurry to get over here they must have forgotten to ask for directions. I'm still waiting for them to show up. I wish they would hurry, the hot summer will be here soon.

 

[itfitzme]

I believe not-for-profits, NGOs, local, state, and federal governments along with the rest of the private sector and entrepreneurs are who create jobs.

As for what creates jobs. Thats simple. Fulfilling a demand for some product or service is what creates jobs.

That's one way. The better way is creating the demand for a product that you are making. Like a flat screen TV or a computer or a great movie.

The boom of the 90's was created by the demand for a product that nobody wanted in the 80's. If you were trying to fill the demand of the 80's in order to build your fortune in the 90's, you'd have cornered the market on disco music recorded on cassette tapes.

One might ask; "By what manner are jobs created?" "What are the factors that effect the creation of jobs?" "Under what economic conditions are jobs created?"

There are every manner of elements that are coincidental and required as part of the process by which jobs are created. And without them, jobs will not be created. But, we are not so interested, at least on the outset, as to what secondary conditions are necessary in order for jobs to be created. We are most interested in the primary factor necessary to create jobs.

We certainly cannot expect to answer the question of how jobs are created in a singular statement. But we may, at least, be able to define the primary element. And if we are to make a singular statement, we must address the primary element.

More pointedly, the question is "what is the essential element that is necessary for jobs to be created?" In fact, there is a singular statement that defines the primary element of job creation.

An increase in money creates jobs.

The necessary observation was made by Hume.

"Accordingly we find, that, in every kingdom, into which money begins to flow in greater abundance than formerly, every thing takes a new face: labour and industry gain life; the merchant becomes more enterprising, the manufacturer more diligent and skilful, and even the farmer follows his plough with greater alacrity and attention."[1]

Hume also observed that a decrease in money eliminates jobs. In fact, when the supply of money is decreasing, output is lesser for the same amount of money then it is when money is increasing.

At the elemental level, an increase in money creates jobs. It is the marginal increase in money, however that should come about, that is the essential element of job creation.

There is, along with this fundamental requirement, a host of supporting details and additional factors that both accompany the process and are required for it. It should be noted that the process is an incremental one where the overall process creeps upwards in an imperceptible manner. A single job, created in an economy of 140,684,000 current jobs, is an increase of 0.00000071%. Jobs are created, one at a time, and unless the process is examined at that level, no manner of words will describe it. To create that job, sufficient excess demand must exist to account for that job.

While demand is certainly part of the process, To say, "Thats simple. Fulfilling a demand for some product or service is what creates jobs." is, unfortunately, over simplified. How is it that there is demand? Demand exists because there is motive and means.[2] For demand to exist, there must be the means by which the demand can exercised. That means is money.

The "desire" to own a good is considered necessary, but it is not directly observable or measurable. For all practical purposes, it does not exist except as a personal subjective sense of motive. We can only assume that, by abduction, others posses this same subjective feeling.

As far as an objective explanation goes, it is the observable and measurable factors that are the primary concern. The observable and measurable factor is the increase in money.

A second, observable and measurable factor is the product to purchase. The good is not part of the definition of demand yet it goes without argument that demand with no good will not make for a purchase. We are far better to include it in our considerations, only to modify it later, then to not include it and neglect it later.

It is the increase in demand that comes first, before there is an increase in production.

In job creation, it is the excess demand that is the necessary requirement. And excess demand is dependent upon the existence of the means to purchase, the money. There is no such thing as demand without money.

In order to get to the macro economic measure of job creation, we must burrow down, through the micro economics of the market, through the business economics of a company, until we reach the level of incremental production.

All of economics is dependent upon understanding what is going on at the margin. All of economics is dependent upon understanding what is going on in terms of the marginal change over time.

One additional unit of production is accomplished without an increase in jobs. An incremental increase in demand is satisfied with existing labor.

The questions are, how is it that the extra demand should come about, how does that an increase in demand cause an increase in production, how does that increase in production result in a new job, and how much excess demand is necessary for how long in order to cause a new job?

More pointedly, we ask "what can be done to cause jobs to be created?" It is, after all, this question that is important. If not for this question, we would have no more then an academic curiosity in job creation.

Creating the desire to purchase is of lesser concern. While advertising does give the appearance of creating demand, it is secondary to the primary factor of money. There is little doubt that advertising will stimulate demand. Yet the desire exists without advertising. All the advertising will do nothing, without some latent desire in place. I may advertise the sale of left over orange rinds and it will have little effect. Clearly, creating desire is limited and secondary.

The primary factor that causes jobs to be created in an increase in money.

And yet, without jobs, how is it that this increase in money comes about? It's the chicken and the egg argument. How is it that the economy grows, incrementally, if both must come into existence simultaneously?

Answer that question, and we are well on our way to understanding the nature of job creation. To understand it requires thinking at the margin.


[1] "Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary" by David Hume David Hume, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary | Library of Economics and Liberty, Part II, Essay III
OF MONEY, Paragraph II.III.6


[2] "In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay", Demand (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[itfitzme]

LOL, few months ago I ran a help wanted ad all over the place looking for a CNC laser operator. Six weeks passed before someone applied. He was the only applicant. I had to offer quite a bit to hire him away from a competitor. Why is it the only people that actually want a job are already employed elsewhere? How come nobody unemployed ever applies? I'm not the only one that has noticed. To find good help, you have to hire them away from someone else lately. What's up with that?

I've hired 3 customer service reps in the last year. They and every single applicant were currently employed. Nobody unemployed has asked me for a job.

Anechdotes, while absolutely necessary to help us ask the right questions, are not themselves proof or even a demonstration of something.

A CNC laser operator is clearly a very skilled position and I am sure that CNC laser operators continue to be in high demand. Unemployment is not completely random in it's nature, but tends to be focused. When the dot com bubble burst, there was a large over supply of html programmers.

Had I known you would hire just anyone, I'd have given up my job at McDonald's and applied.

Unemployment is also regional. It would be interesting to know what are the regional and other factors that should have a limited number of applicants for customer service postions. In some regions, when a local call center opened up a few new postions, hundreds of unemployeed people showed up. The interview process, in many cases, has changed to a group orientation due to the volume.

It would also be interesting to know where you advertised. It seems a bit hard to believe that, had you advertised on something like Craiglist, you would find no unemployeed applicants.

Or is it, perhaps, that they just said they were employeed? After all, the chances of getting a job are substantially reduced when unemployed. And the longer that unemployment has lasted, the less likely it becomes. The hiring process is often one of coming up with reasons to eliminate people. And not having a job, compared to applicants that do, is an easy ellimination. Anyone clever will simply claim they are employed and hope that no one bothers to check.

Did you check? Where did you advertize? How may applicants did you have? What other reasons can we think of that would account for no unemployed individuals

All the two example demonstrate is that 1) CNC operators seem to be in low supply and 2) a sample of three jobs, advertised in _________, and however many applicants isn't a survey and is insufficient as a sample.

 

[itfitzme]

That's so true. A few unemployed have called wondering if we had any openings for someone without any marketable or desired skills. I think they were time travelers from the Neanderthal era. I said there was some dog poop out back that needed to be cleaned up and they hung up. In their hurry to get over here they must have forgotten to ask for directions. I'm still waiting for them to show up. I wish they would hurry, the hot summer will be here soon.

Ah, so in fact, you lied in your previous post in saying that no unemployed people applied.

Your statement was "How come nobody unemployed ever applies?"

That is what you said.

Now, you say, "A few unemployed have called...."

So which is it, either no one without a job called or people without a job did call.

Or is it that you actually let them know that they shouldn't bother applying if they have no job or experience. Then you wonder, why no one without a job applied. No wonder your confused.

Perhaps that is the reason you don't understand, because you cannot tell the difference between reality and your own lies. I suspect that what you do is to modify what you remember to fit your perception rather then modify your perception based on observation.

That is really quite something. Two back to back posts and you can't even make the connection.

 

[inALIENable]

That's so true. A few unemployed have called wondering if we had any openings for someone without any marketable or desired skills. I think they were time travelers from the Neanderthal era. I said there was some dog poop out back that needed to be cleaned up and they hung up. In their hurry to get over here they must have forgotten to ask for directions. I'm still waiting for them to show up. I wish they would hurry, the hot summer will be here soon.

Ah, so in fact, you lied in your previous post in saying that no unemployed people applied.

Your statement was "How come nobody unemployed ever applies?"

That is what you said.

Now, you say, "A few unemployed have called....".

What a dope. "Called" does not mean "apply," there is no point in someone that has no skills coming to "apply," their application would be blank anyhow afterwards.

Serious, nobody is "applying" except those already with a job, and the few that only call are the ummployed worthless uneducated unmotivated underachieving dopes nobody needs.

 

[itfitzme]

Even if what you said were relevant, which I would say it's not, then what happens to the rest of the rich person's money? It's saved. This is also good for the economy.

Not when it sits in a ******* bank vault or reserve account and isn't loaned out. Been paying attention to the economy lately? The banks aren't lending.

Yes, we're in the midst of a correction, though there's evidence to suggest that we've inflated our way into another false-boom, and the banks are being more cautious. That still doesn't mean savings aren't good for the economy. It simply means people are forgoing present consumption in favor of future consumption, and banks aren't going to sit on that money indefinitely.

1) "We are in the midst of a correction" is so abstract as to be meaningless. It's like telling, a guy standing next to his car on the side of the road with his hood up, that his problem is that his car isn't working.

2) Consumers are forgoing borrowing to pay off debt. And the same with businesses. What we have is a balance sheet recession. Businesses stopped borrowing and investing when they recognized that no further gains were to be seen. The "good" of savings is that it is available for investing. When there is no investing, savings is meaningless.

3) There is no "evidence" that we have "inflated" our self into another "false boom". The very concept of a "false boom" is questionable. There is no evidence of inflating our self into anything.

First off, inflation, as a single noun, means price inflation. Inflation is still running at about 2% average. The CPI is quite variable, on a month to month basis.

The mean annualized monthly rate of inflation, from 2008 through Feb 2012, has been 2.05%. That is hardly inflation.

When the economy is running below full capacity, increasing the money supply increases output. The standard formula is MV=PQ and it means, when the money supply is increased, then prices or quantities may increase. When the economy is at full output, then quantity cannot increase so prices are the only thing that can give. When the economy is not at full output, then quantity goes up.

In fact, it was noted by Hume that output is the first thing that rises when the money supply increases.

So not only is there no evidence of inflation, there is no reason to consider it. When output begins to reach full capacity, then we can consider it.

Either that, or by your "false boom" concept, employment is already at maximum and the problem is that the labor force is too large. Is this what you mean by a "correction", that the labor force is shrinking because we had "over employment"?

 

[itfitzme]

That's so true. A few unemployed have called wondering if we had any openings for someone without any marketable or desired skills. I think they were time travelers from the Neanderthal era. I said there was some dog poop out back that needed to be cleaned up and they hung up. In their hurry to get over here they must have forgotten to ask for directions. I'm still waiting for them to show up. I wish they would hurry, the hot summer will be here soon.

Ah, so in fact, you lied in your previous post in saying that no unemployed people applied.

Your statement was "How come nobody unemployed ever applies?"

That is what you said.

Now, you say, "A few unemployed have called....".

What a dope. "Called" does not mean "apply," there is no point in someone that has no skills coming to "apply," their application would be blank anyhow afterwards.

Serious, nobody is "applying" except those already with a job, and the few that only call are the ummployed worthless uneducated unmotivated underachieving dopes nobody needs.

Well, actually, it does. That they called you up and asked if they should bother filling out your piece of paper was "applying". They contacted you about the position, expressing their interest. As far as anyone is concerned, they applied for the job and were interviewed. You simply let them know that they shouldn't bother wasting their time taking the next step and filling out your piece of paper that you like to call an "application".

And nobody else gives a crap about your little piece of paper. That is for your benefit.

And, what evidence do you have to conclude "worthless uneducated unmotivated underachieving dopes" if, in fact, they never filled out that piece of paper? Lacking that piece of paper, what information do you have to conclude that it would be blank?

Sound to me like they were smart enough to find out if filling out your piece of paper would be a waste of time so they could go on to something else more productive.

 

[rdean]

Right wingers talking about what "creates jobs"?

Trickle down?

Are they "sane"?

One wonders.

 

[inALIENable]

Sound to me like they were smart enough to find out if filling out your piece of paper would be a waste of time so they could go on to something else more productive.

You're 12 years old, right?

The unemployed ... more productive? Ah ha haha you make funny.

No, what we have on are hands now are a bunch of adult adolescents that never took the initiative to learn and earn, not when they were childrenin school, not even as grown adults. They're dopes, they stand around with no career or acquired skills, expecting OTHERS to find something for them to do (i.e. a job), as if a good paying job created by another is a right, even for a dope that hasn't done a damn thing to make themselves valuable and desirable above all others.

No job is no excuse, you don't need a job to get up off your asses to earn your keep here on Earth. There's no excuse to be a worthless tard, not in America.

 

[DSGE]

Sound to me like they were smart enough to find out if filling out your piece of paper would be a waste of time so they could go on to something else more productive.

You're 12 years old, right?

The unemployed ... more productive? Ah ha haha you make funny.

No, what we have on are hands now are a bunch of adult adolescents that never took the initiative to learn and earn, not when they were childrenin school, not even as grown adults. They're dopes, they stand around with no career or acquired skills, expecting OTHERS to find something for them to do (i.e. a job), as if a good paying job created by another is a right, even for a dope that hasn't done a damn thing to make themselves valuable and desirable above all others.

No job is no excuse, you don't need a job to get up off your asses to earn your keep here on Earth. There's no excuse to be a worthless tard, not in America.

Are you seriously this much of a ******* moron, or is this irony?

 

[itfitzme]

Sound to me like they were smart enough to find out if filling out your piece of paper would be a waste of time so they could go on to something else more productive.

You're 12 years old, right?

The unemployed ... more productive? Ah ha haha you make funny.

No, what we have on are hands now are a bunch of adult adolescents that never took the initiative to learn and earn, not when they were childrenin school, not even as grown adults. They're dopes, they stand around with no career or acquired skills, expecting OTHERS to find something for them to do (i.e. a job), as if a good paying job created by another is a right, even for a dope that hasn't done a damn thing to make themselves valuable and desirable above all others.

No job is no excuse, you don't need a job to get up off your asses to earn your keep here on Earth. There's no excuse to be a worthless tard, not in America.

No, dude, it is apparent from your presentation that you are the brainless idiot. You have yet to present any specific details to back up your statement that they had "no marketable skills"? What was the conversation? What skills did they have? What was the range of ages? Did they have any mechanical experience, like working on their own automobile?

What, you think that they all were thirty years old, spent their last twelve years playing video games, then one day decided, "Hey, I wonder if I can get a job as a CNC operator?"

Or perhaps they were all unemployed janitors that though operating a CNC sounded cool.

The key to intelligence is in the specific details, not in generalizations and terms like "*******".

The more you comment, the more sure I am that some of those that called recognized right off that your an asshole and they wouldn't work for you if they were homeless and it was the last job on the planet.

Really, why did you need to fill a job in the middle of a recession? The last guy quit on you?

Seriously dude, switching to "lite" beer is not helping you, not when you increase your consumption by buying another case a day.

 

[inALIENable]

Really, why did you need to fill a job in the middle of a recession? The last guy quit on you?

Yes. Someone offered him more and they had a night shift opening. I knew he had been waiting to get a job there, it was closer to his home too (he was driving 100 miles round trip every day working for me and that is rough on anyone).

Really, I'm not kidding, all of the good smart people already have jobs. Makes sense though, if you're smart you shouldn't be unemployed, that would contradict being smart, would it not?

 

[itfitzme]

Really, why did you need to fill a job in the middle of a recession? The last guy quit on you?

Yes. Someone offered him more and they had a night shift opening. I knew he had been waiting to get a job there, it was closer to his home too (he was driving 100 miles round trip every day working for me and that is rough on anyone).

Really, I'm not kidding, all of the good smart people already have jobs. Makes sense though, if you're smart you shouldn't be unemployed, that would contradict being smart, would it not?

That's what he told you, anyways. Funny how I knew he quit though.

And no, "all of the good smart people already have jobs" and "if you're smart you shouldn't be unemployed" is not correct.

When companies cut back, they cut back hard, letting go smart people that were making good money. I am under the impression that, though I haven't verified it, that the percentage of women employed increased. That "glass ceiling" saved then their job because their male counterpart was making more. It had nothing to do with who was smarter. It had everything to do with who was cheaper. More men lost jobs then woman.

If your smart and have a good work history, you can't get a job at McDonald's if your life depended on it. They do not want to hire someone that they believe will quit on them as soon as the market recovers. And for anyone that got dropped at the beginning of the recession, they found themselves being turned away for every manner of "dumb" reasons.

Never before, in the history of recessions, were people advised to not include education on their resume. This recession was a first, when experts said that it might be a good idea to not include that advanced degree.

When the dot com bubble burst, there were a ton of unemployed programmers. Thankfully for them, that decline was not very deep or very long. And, it was a bit more localized.

It is very typical for people with a solid work history to find themselves unable to get a job in their field simply because the demand has changed.

And to add salt to the wound, they are overqualified for the typical service jobs that do have some turnover and they simply don't have the matching skills for everything else.

God forbid both you and your spouse should lose your jobs at the same time. That is when it becomes a bad country western song, you lose your wife, you lose your house, you lose your dog.

Oh, and by the way, all that automated equipment, self checkout, scanners, POS machines, automated cash registers, etc. The employees didn't install them. The companies installed them because it increased efficiency and they can employ fewer people. It's not because so many people are too stupid to do it. It's because then they can hire people that are to stupid to do without it, don't have to train anyone, can pay them less, and get more work out of them for less cost. Computers and machines don't need to take a break, don't need a vacation, and maintenance is cheaper then medical insurance.

It is called frictional unemployment and structural unemployment. Frictional is considered normal, the time it takes to match the right person to the right job. And it lasts about as long as unemployment lasts. Structural unemployment is when a ton of consumer product engineers are all looking for work and all the demand is for phlebotomists. And unemployment doesn't necessarily last that long.

There are a lot of smart people that took a chance on getting a college degree, or simply didn't get a shot at learning to run a CNC so they figured they better go to college or work at McDonald's for the rest of their lives, and are not working at Walmart of Target because there are no job openings for college grads. The competition is so stiff that you can't get a job unless you already have a job.

For the most part, everyone is doing everything that they can, using every bit of their resources, to advance as far as they can, making themselves as marketable as possible. The only difference is what resources each person happens to have and what demands they are saddled with. People that have fewer resources and more demands end up being able to put in just a bit less then the other guy. Often, it's just dumb luck. Not everyone gets a shot at learning to run a lathe. Even fewer get the most experience that makes them most marketable. And keep in mind, the guy with the most experience, gets the job sooner and gets more experience faster.

It's not that there aren't some people that are lazy dumb *****. But that is not the norm. And if you ask me, those folks I'd just as soon pay them welfare to stay the **** out of the way. I've known some, and you can't trust them to boil water without starting a fire. But they are not the norm. And they aren't calling you up on the phone to see if maybe you will hire someone with no experience operating a CNC machine who will happily clean up everyone else's equipment at the end of the day, if that's what it takes to be the new guy and keep the job.

But their not going to hold your dick for you while you piss.

Being unemployed doesn't mean shit, especially if they are actually on the phone calling about positions. The lazy ***** don't bother.

Honestly, dude, your attitude is half the problem. The faster more people that get hired , the sooner the economy recovers. Why don't you do everyone a favor, and the next time some new high school grad calls, hire him at minimum wage, just give him shit to do, and let him learn how to run CNC equipment. That way, the next time someone is looking for a skilled CNC operator, there is one more of them. Cuz last time I looked, those CNC operator trade schools saddle kids with tuition fees that are to much for the return on the training, and student loans that they can't really afford to invest in because there is no guaranteed that, for all their hard work, they will find a good CNC job when they graduate.

But for god sake, quite pissing and moaning about how stupid everyone is and do something about it.

 

[inALIENable]

Whoa, that was quite a load you dumped there.

When companies cut back, they cut back hard, letting go smart people that were making good money.

Yeah, so what? When that happens you take your smarts and tangible skills and you move on to greater opportunities.

I've not worked as an employee for another for about 20 years now. NO JOBS doesn't scare me, nor should it scare anyone else that's actually smart. Take your smarts and skills and hire yourself if you're that great. I did, best employee I've ever hired.

If your smart and have a good work history, you can't get a job at McDonald's if your life depended on it.

Smart people shouldn't even know what a McDonalds is.

When the dot com bubble burst, there were a ton of unemployed programmers. Thankfully for them, that decline was not very deep or very long. And, it was a bit more localized.

I was impacted by that but I supplemented by taking up commercial and stock photography. Now that everyone is doing that for themselves I've moved onto other opportunities using my ever expanding skill set.

It is very typical for people with a solid work history to find themselves unable to get a job in their field simply because the demand has changed.

A "job" working for others is only one of many ways to sustain oneself, and the least desirable in my opinion.

God forbid both you and your spouse should lose your jobs at the same time. That is when it becomes a bad country western song, you lose your wife, you lose your house, you lose your dog.

Good gawd, LOL. There are still many BIG opportunities out there to be had by anyone willing and smart. I got a list with 9 names on it waiting to hand over nice amounts of money to me once I finish building them their order. And more want on that list. And they want me to hire help, but I can't find another ME to hire. When I find another ME that I'd surely like to hire, they are already doing what I'm doing on their own too.

Losing a job is no big deal if you're smart and valuable.

Computers and machines don't need to take a break, don't need a vacation, and maintenance is cheaper then medical insurance.

I love automation. I'd hire a robot to pick up dog poop out back before I'd ever hire a bitchy human, LOL.

Honestly, dude, your attitude is half the problem.

Really? I haven't experienced any problems, other than a shortage of qualified robots looking for a job.

Seriously, if you are smart, you'll be just fine, you'll know what to do. If on the other hand you could be replaced by a kiosk, use your skills to do/make something else. Don't wait around for horses needing shoes to come back into demand.

Wow, I really don't understand why so many seem to be having such problems, I got people lined up out my door wanting my services. Why? I actually want some to go away and stop calling, ha.

 

[Widdekind]

Excess demand does get filled by existing production and labor... labor works overtime. The addition of one unit of demand gets satisfied without adding a job.

but with adding employment (to existing workers, who work additional hours, for additional pay)