What creates jobs?

[Dr.House]

Envy is most unbecoming.

I'm not envious. I'm incredulous. The greater number of people with spending power means more money is exchanged for goods and services. That's the definition of economic growth.

Then stop supporting politicians who want to take more and more of people's hard earned money through taxation...

 

[Dragon]

Are rich people not consumers?

As usual, treating a variable as if it were a binary results in a confusing answer.

The richer a person becomes, the less of his/her income is spent on consumption and the more of it is saved and invested. A poor person who lives hand to mouth is a whole consumer; a middle-class person who is reasonably thrifty is maybe three-quarters of a consumer, and a very rich person may, at the top of the heap, be as little as a fraction of one percent of a consumer.

A million dollars in the form of 20 $50k incomes results in much more consumption than in the form of one million dollar income.

 

[Dragon]

All that proves is that the demand-side neo-Keynesian socialist know-it-alls really don't know jack shit.

No -- actually that result is exactly what demand-side neo-Keynesian socialist know-it[-alls would predict, and what I, personally, DID predict years ago.

It shows, on the contrary, that supply-side quasi-Darwinian feudo-capitalist know-nothings are the ones who don't know jack shit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Are rich people not consumers?

As usual, treating a variable as if it were a binary results in a confusing answer.

The richer a person becomes, the less of his/her income is spent on consumption and the more of it is saved and invested. A poor person who lives hand to mouth is a whole consumer; a middle-class person who is reasonably thrifty is maybe three-quarters of a consumer, and a very rich person may, at the top of the heap, be as little as a fraction of one percent of a consumer.

A million dollars in the form of 20 $50k incomes results in much more consumption than in the form of one million dollar income.

The less is spent on consumption as a percentage, but that doesn't mean they're not consumers at all. And as I already stated savings are just as good for an economy as consumption is.

 

[Katzndogz]

Demand does not create jobs. At some point, no matter how great the demand someone is going to have to take the risk and put in the capital to see if they can fill that demand. Or, they go to someone with enough money to risk and ask them for money.

We could demand television sets until we turn blue, but at some point someone will have to put up the capital to start a factory.

With communisim, the government would put up the capital and own the factory. There would still be workers, for the government supervisors.

What the American left wants is for the government to seize the wealth of individuals and then build the factory to hire the workers.

It makes something quite clear to me now that I have not understood for years. I was once carjacked. A kid put a gun to my head and drove off in my car. His defense was, he was stealing cars in the US and selling them in mexico. He was trying to get enough money to start a family business. To him, it made perfect sense. I had a nice car. I was "rich" enough to be able to afford the car. He was just cutting out the government middleman, stealiing directly. I always thought he was just another scumbag. Today I find out that he's just a common leftist.

 

[Douger]

Highly overpaid murkins ordering completely useless shit and putting it on credit creates jobs !..............in China.

 

[kwc57]

Are rich people not consumers?

As usual, treating a variable as if it were a binary results in a confusing answer.

The richer a person becomes, the less of his/her income is spent on consumption and the more of it is saved and invested. A poor person who lives hand to mouth is a whole consumer; a middle-class person who is reasonably thrifty is maybe three-quarters of a consumer, and a very rich person may, at the top of the heap, be as little as a fraction of one percent of a consumer.

A million dollars in the form of 20 $50k incomes results in much more consumption than in the form of one million dollar income.

It's there money. They can burn it if they want to. Tell me, do you let homeless folks sleep in your spare bedroom because you have one and they don't? Do you have an open pantry where your neighbors can come get a can of corn because you have two and they have none? It's always easy to demand that somebody else give up what is their's as long as it isn't you doing the giving.

 

[Dragon]

The less is spent on consumption as a percentage, but that doesn't mean they're not consumers at all.

True, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. As I said, you should not treat a variable as if it were an on-off binary.

And as I already stated savings are just as good for an economy as consumption is.

No, saving is either better or worse, depending on which of them already exists to excess, since they have an inverse relationship. In a developing economy trying to bootstrap itself from agrarian to industrial, saving is BETTER -- capital formation is the first thing needed to build an industrial economy; wealth distribution and demand maintenance can come later. In a mature industrial economy, however, the normal tendency is for it to be WORSE. (If it's a capitalist economy. A socialist economy like the USSR develops other problems.)

The reason for that is because capitalism has a natural tendency to give rise to increasingly unbalanced distribution of wealth and unsustainable concentration of income. When there is more capital accumulated than there is consumer demand to justify it, the excess goes into rent-seeking, bubble-blowing, and economic strip-mining that are more harmful to the economy than not.

 

[Dragon]

It's there money. They can burn it if they want to.

That amounts to a formless, inarticulate howl, devoid of cognitive content, like a toddler with its lip stuck out.

When you're prepared to join the grown-ups and have a genuine discussion, do let us no, OK?

 

[Rozman]

Who of us here needed or wanted a home PC until
they were created and made available?.....

 

[westwall]

Are rich people not consumers?

They consume far less out of each $1 they earn than the middle class and poor.

If a normal middle class family owns 2 cars - and I'm a rich person making 1000 times as much money as the middle class family - does that mean I'll probably buy 2000 cars? No. 20 maybe. Not 2000. Clearly a $1 in the hands of someone who isn't wealthy is much more likely to be spent into the economy.

Never took an econ class did you? Here's what rich people do. They buy EXPENSIVE cars. You buy a 30,000 whatever, and they spend 200,000 on their vehicle. And they tend to buy multiples because they usually have more than one home on more than one continent. I am not rich but I (well we, the wife is an equal partner don't you know) have a home in Nevada and a flat in Paris. We have four vehicles here in the States and one in France.

All of that costs money to maintain. We tend to buy our vehicles and keep them for at least ten years (I've had my GT40 for over 30 years), whereas a rich person would buy a new car every year, or even every half year if they are a petrol head.

 

[Widdekind]

The richer a person becomes, the less of his/her income is spent on consumption and the more of it is saved and invested...

A million dollars in the form of 20 $50k incomes results in much more consumption than in the form of one million dollar income.

... and less investment ?

first, if "the rich" divert large amounts of money, out of the "consumer economy" (and into the "investment economy"); then, according to the equation of exchange (MV = PQ), "consumer prices" will tend to drop in tandem (M~P, all else the same). Ergo, "investment" tends to benefit "consumers".

second, seemingly implied are:

wage minimums (blue collar)
wage maximums (white collar)​

i.e. by extrapolation, all citizens would earn a single "state wage", i.e. "dole".

third, who does the "investing", if not "the rich" ? Corporations would retain all profits, and self-invest the same (on behalf of share-holders) ? All single-wage citizens would democratically vote, in universal elections, on universal investment strategies ? Or, would "specialist analysts" be required, to manage investments (on corporate-case-by-corporate-case bases) ?

Government Intervention is "playing 'ought-and-should'" with "tanks & Police APCs", cp. "might makes right". If every "universal citizen", earning their "universal wage", voted on laws in "universal elections", and then enforced those laws with "universal (Military & Police) Force"; then every minority would risk being forced to "pick their own pockets", "mug themselves", and yield even their "universal wage" to majority whim. Perhaps a "majority might makes moral right" amendment, to the US constitution, could be passed.


to the question, "what generates jobs" ?

According to the equation of exchange, MV = PQ, only that which attracts a positive Price (P), i.e. an economically-valued Quantity (Q, i.e. "Goods & Services"), generates Revenues, from which Wages & Profits derive. But, what generates an economically-valued Quantity? First, consumer Demand must exist, i.e. "people want it"; second worker willingness to Labor, from which Labor all products are produced, must exist, i.e. "people willing to make it". Ergo, jobs are generated, from the combination, of consumer Demand, and worker willingness to Labor. That which is un-wanted; and that which is "too unpleasant to make"; generate no jobs. (Modernity mocks lowly laborers as "too stupid to work the system", i.e. imbues moderns with "anti-work mentality", since "Labor is low status in society", i.e. Sloth, which de facto destroys jobs.)

 

[asterism]

The richer a person becomes, the less of his/her income is spent on consumption and the more of it is saved and invested...

A million dollars in the form of 20 $50k incomes results in much more consumption than in the form of one million dollar income.

... and less investment ?

first, if "the rich" divert large amounts of money, out of the "consumer economy" (and into the "investment economy"); then, according to the equation of exchange (MV = PQ), "consumer prices" will tend to drop in tandem (M~P, all else the same). Ergo, "investment" tends to benefit "consumers".

second, seemingly implied are:

wage minimums (blue collar)
wage maximums (white collar)​

i.e. by extrapolation, all citizens would earn a single "state wage", i.e. "dole".

third, who does the "investing", if not "the rich" ? Corporations would retain all profits, and self-invest the same (on behalf of share-holders) ? All single-wage citizens would democratically vote, in universal elections, on universal investment strategies ? Or, would "specialist analysts" be required, to manage investments (on corporate-case-by-corporate-case bases) ?

Government Intervention is "playing 'ought-and-should'" with "tanks & Police APCs", cp. "might makes right". If every "universal citizen", earning their "universal wage", voted on laws in "universal elections", and then enforced those laws with "universal (Military & Police) Force"; then every minority would risk being forced to "pick their own pockets", "mug themselves", and yield even their "universal wage" to majority whim. Perhaps a "majority might makes moral right" amendment, to the US constitution, could be passed.


to the question, "what generates jobs" ?

According to the equation of exchange, MV = PQ, only that which attracts a positive Price (P), i.e. an economically-valued Quantity (Q, i.e. "Goods & Services"), generates Revenues, from which Wages & Profits derive. But, what generates an economically-valued Quantity? First, consumer Demand must exist, i.e. "people want it"; second worker willingness to Labor, from which Labor all products are produced, must exist, i.e. "people willing to make it". Ergo, jobs are generated, from the combination, of consumer Demand, and worker willingness to Labor. That which is un-wanted; and that which is "too unpleasant to make"; generate no jobs. (Modernity mocks lowly laborers as "too stupid to work the system", i.e. imbues moderns with "anti-work mentality", since "Labor is low status in society", i.e. Sloth, which de facto destroys jobs.)

Don't confuse the leftists with facts.

 

[starcraftzzz]

-------------There are some who think that coddling the rich will create jobs. That if those very rich had just a few more advantages, they would open their considerable purses and let the wealth flow like manna from heaven.

Do tax cuts create the opportunity for job growth? Does someone summering in the Hamptons glance at his 1040 and sudden decide to open a factory because his marginal rate has been cut from 39% to 35%?

No.

Demand creates jobs. Customers with cash in their hands clamoring for the goods produced creates jobs. It creates economic expansion and thus job growth.

Should more money be concentrated among the very wealthy or should more consumers enjoy tax relief and therefore more disposable income?

Are rich people not consumers? I have to assume the person summering in the Hamptons is spending money.[/QUOTE]

True however rich peoples consumption creates less jobs and is less beneficial to society.
For example the rich spend more money on alcohol. They also spend more money on good like beach front properties of which do not create many jobs because there is not enough locations to build those houses.
Poor people getting more money creates more jobs because they spend it and would spend it on things that save money such as more efficient appliances/cars, healthier food etc etc.
Furthermore cutting the riches taxes does not increase demand, because the rich already consume everything they want. When you make 10million a year getting 1million more wont result in you buying more things.
Third cutting the riches taxes would result in more economic bubbles given that they have to invest that moeny into something and during the past two business cycles they invested that money in inefficacy dot.coms or CDO's and suprime housing

 

[Nosmo King]

Demand does not create jobs. At some point, no matter how great the demand someone is going to have to take the risk and put in the capital to see if they can fill that demand. Or, they go to someone with enough money to risk and ask them for money.

We could demand television sets until we turn blue, but at some point someone will have to put up the capital to start a factory.

With communisim, the government would put up the capital and own the factory. There would still be workers, for the government supervisors.

What the American left wants is for the government to seize the wealth of individuals and then build the factory to hire the workers.

It makes something quite clear to me now that I have not understood for years. I was once carjacked. A kid put a gun to my head and drove off in my car. His defense was, he was stealing cars in the US and selling them in mexico. He was trying to get enough money to start a family business. To him, it made perfect sense. I had a nice car. I was "rich" enough to be able to afford the car. He was just cutting out the government middleman, stealiing directly. I always thought he was just another scumbag. Today I find out that he's just a common leftist.

What kind of Capitalist gets scared of investing in potential growth? With consumers standing by with credit and cash in hand to buy what's for sale, what kind of Capitalist backs away? The losing kind of Capitalist! Markets drive Demand with a capital D. It means the Market is open and doing great. A failure to capitalize and take the Risk (that's what Conservatives are big on, right? Risk?) is a losing strategy for a smart Capitalist, in spite of his politics.

 

[Oddball]

True however rich peoples consumption creates less jobs and is less beneficial to society.
For example the rich spend more money on alcohol. They also spend more money on good like beach front properties of which do not create many jobs because there is not enough locations to build those houses.
Poor people getting more money creates more jobs because they spend it and would spend it on things that save money such as more efficient appliances/cars, healthier food etc etc.
Furthermore cutting the riches taxes does not increase demand, because the rich already consume everything they want. When you make 10million a year getting 1million more wont result in you buying more things.
Third cutting the riches taxes would result in more economic bubbles given that they have to invest that moeny into something and during the past two business cycles they invested that money in inefficacy dot.coms or CDO's and suprime housing

Dumber than a bag of hammers.

Lots of nice blue collar people work in breweries, distilleries, wineries, liquor distributorships and stores...All nice middle class jobs.

Expensive homes means more expensive upkeep and maintenance....More nice middle class jobs.

Your unsupported, inane prattling over how the wealthy may or may not spend or invest their resources has to rank as some of the most ignorant sophistry posted in recent memory...Stacked up against the brain droppings of the likes of rderp and truthdontmatter, that's really saying something.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Demand does not create jobs. At some point, no matter how great the demand someone is going to have to take the risk and put in the capital to see if they can fill that demand. Or, they go to someone with enough money to risk and ask them for money.

Incorrect when demand increases for say food it results in higher profits in food production/food preparation as a result those companions invest more into those sectors or other people invest more into those sectors due to the increased demand.
However it is true that supply creates jobs however usually supply results in economic bubbles/less jobs because supply created jobs are riskier furthermore in the past two decades there have been two supply create booms/shocks those being dot.coms in the 90's and Suprime loans/CDO in the 00's

What the American left wants is for the government to seize the wealth of individuals and then build the factory to hire the workers.

Not really. For example Obamacare centers around expanding the private health care market, and pretty much all policies the left wants consist of providing tax credits, or subsidies to certain private sector activities such as clean energy, and food.
However yes some on the left want more govnermtn built things given that the government is more efficient handling certain areas. Examples include health care were an apples-to-apples comparison finds that the VA is 40% less expensive the private health care despite providing 30% more/better quality of care. Another example if government controlled utilities such as water/energy of which they are 30% more efficient

 

[midcan5]

Dumber than a bag of hammers.

Lots of nice blue collar people work in breweries, distilleries, wineries, liquor distributorships and stores...All nice middle class jobs.

Expensive homes means more expensive upkeep and maintenance....More nice middle class jobs.....

Oddball, you are one dumb shit, how old are you twelve? Hope your pool cleaning and lawn care job is paying well as that is one of the dumbest posts of the recent century. I'm sure cutting grass will make you Buffett rich. You are a total fool.


The rich get rich because of their merit.

 

[starcraftzzz]

-------

True however rich peoples consumption creates less jobs and is less beneficial to society.
For example the rich spend more money on alcohol. They also spend more money on good like beach front properties of which do not create many jobs because there is not enough locations to build those houses.
Poor people getting more money creates more jobs because they spend it and would spend it on things that save money such as more efficient appliances/cars, healthier food etc etc.
Furthermore cutting the riches taxes does not increase demand, because the rich already consume everything they want. When you make 10million a year getting 1million more wont result in you buying more things.
Third cutting the riches taxes would result in more economic bubbles given that they have to invest that moeny into something and during the past two business cycles they invested that money in inefficacy dot.coms or CDO's and suprime housing------
Dumber than a bag of hammers.

Lots of nice blue collar people work in breweries, distilleries, wineries, liquor distributorships and stores...All nice middle class jobs.

Of which society would be better off if they worked doing something else given that alcohol costs the health care systems hundreds of billions of dollars. Furthermore when the rich consume alcohol they consume alcohol that costs a lot of which creates fewer jobs then lower priced alcohol

Expensive homes means more expensive upkeep and maintenance....More nice middle class jobs.

Of which more expensive homes that the rich buy do not increase living standards, however if we had taxed the rich and used that money to provide poor people with education/health care, or nutritious food it would of increased living standards

Your unsupported, inane prattling over how the wealthy may or may not spend or invest their resources has to rank as some of the most ignorant sophistry posted in recent memory...Stacked up against the brain droppings of the likes of rderp and truthdontmatter, that's really saying something.

Yes wanting higher living standards is pure brain droppings to republicans, because they feel society is better of if we tools of the rich. So thanks for proving that you're brain dead tool who knows absolutely nothing about anything.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm not envious.

Sure fooled me.