What creates jobs?

[starcraftzzz]

------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~Pall else the same). Ergo, "investment" tends to benefit "consumers".

Consumer driven growth is more sustainable and profitable then investment driven growth, given that the latter results in dot.com/housing bubbles.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

There was just a chicken and egg argument over capital and labor a few days ago, and this is another one between savings and consumption. They complement one another and neither is necessarily more important than the other.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

No.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Who said that mowing lawns or pool maintenance would make anyone as wealthy as Warren Buffet, you giblet head?

For what it may be worth to a brain dead commie chump like you, there are lots of people making nice middle class incomes with pool maintenance/repair and property maintenance/ landscaping businesses....In fact, I happen to know a few of them.

But leave it to an insufferable elitist snob like you to look down at such labor as beneath your lofty station in life.

 

[code1211]

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?

You're creating a false choice and revealing your lack of understanding of what drives the economy.

If someone has cash to invest and sees a good opportunity to make money doing so, he will invest.

If on has cash to invest and sees a good opportunity to lose that cash by investing it, not so much.

From the day this administration has entered office it has crowed about putting its boot on the throat of business and has continuously attacked businesses and terrified those who might invest if given the chance.

If you wanted to do something and it was clear that the government would do anything to stop you even if the opposition was illegal, would you proceed?

People who are holding 3 trillion dollars in cash are not willing to fight that fight.

Go figure.

 

[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.

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

Irrelevant to the facts.

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

Irrelevant false dichotomy, which arrogantly presumes that you know how better to spend the money someone else has earned than do they.

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.

I'm not a republican and you're still an economically ignorant boor, to go along with being a petty, covetous looter.

 

[starcraftzzz]

-----rue 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-----

No.

I see so one word is the extend of your mental abilities. You must be a conservative

 

[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

Irrelevant to the facts.

Of course a republican would find increasing living standards and having more jobs as irrelevant

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

Irrelevant false dichotomy, which arrogantly presumes that you know how better to spend the money someone else has earned than do they.
I see so according to you reality is irrelevant.

-
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.

I'm not a republican and you're still an economically ignorant boor, to go along with being a petty, covetous looter.

K you're just a retard same difference.

 

[Oddball]

K...You haven't the vaguest idea of what you're yammering about, yet continue the yammering.

Bag o' hammers...

 

[grammahiker]

Education

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

-----rue 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-----

No.

I see so one word is the extend of your mental abilities. You must be a conservative

Sure.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

You're creating a false choice and revealing your lack of understanding of what drives the economy.

If someone has cash to invest and sees a good opportunity to make money doing so, he will invest.

If on has cash to invest and sees a good opportunity to lose that cash by investing it, not so much.

From the day this administration has entered office it has crowed about putting its boot on the throat of business and has continuously attacked businesses and terrified those who might invest if given the chance.

If you wanted to do something and it was clear that the government would do anything to stop you even if the opposition was illegal, would you proceed?

People who are holding 3 trillion dollars in cash are not willing to fight that fight.

Go figure.

Consumer spending drives the economy. The exchange of capital for goods and services is the very definition of economic activity. Concentrate capital among the very few and there will be a slower, less expansive economy.

 

[Intense]

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.

The only way to attain economic growth is by making sure there are enough consumers with disposable income. No rich guy is going to open a factory unless there is demand for his goods.

Demand for goods or services. Value for Value. Wow! You might be on to something there Sparky.

 

[Intense]

Wow! People working for the ability to attain things for Themselves. Do you think it might catch on?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

The only way to attain economic growth is by making sure there are enough consumers with disposable income. No rich guy is going to open a factory unless there is demand for his goods.

I hate to point out the obvious, Nosmo...but why would any rich person open a factory here in the US if they knew you were going to take away most of whatever profits resulted when they could open that same factory elsewhere? This whole concept that in order to make income equality "fair", you need to take more from the rich in taxes will not...I repeat...will not...result in economic growth. Here's a radical concept for you...instead of trying to make the rich poor...how about you give the poor jobs and the opportunity to become rich? Giving them a government handout is NEVER going to result in them being wealthy. That's a progressive fairy tale.

 

[Intense]

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.

The only way to attain economic growth is by making sure there are enough consumers with disposable income. No rich guy is going to open a factory unless there is demand for his goods.

I hate to point out the obvious, Nosmo...but why would any rich person open a factory here in the US if they knew you were going to take away most of whatever profits resulted when they could open that same factory elsewhere? This whole concept that in order to make income equality "fair", you need to take more from the rich in taxes will not...I repeat...will not...result in economic growth. Here's a radical concept for you...instead of trying to make the rich poor...how about you give the poor jobs and the opportunity to become rich? Giving them a government handout is NEVER going to result in them being wealthy. That's a progressive fairy tale.

Yep. It's like the Government views Your Property as theirs, informally, and you get to manage it for them, on their terms,the more successful you are, the more you are punished.

 

[kwc57]

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?

Well no, no it isn't. You see, we live in a free society with a capitalistic system. People are indeed free to make as much money as they want and then to do with it what they will. They could paper their walls, wipe their butts or light their cigars with $100 bills if they so desire. Other than paying the lion's share of taxes in this nation, they are not obligated to enrich people who have less then they do. That being said, many of them do indeed provide the jobs that many Americans have.

I notice that you failed to address my other comments about whether you have an open dorr policy to your spare bedroom and pantry for those who have less than you do. Obviously it's a different story when it gets down to the personal level isn't it? You're more than willing to flail your arms, hoot and fling poo at those rich bastards who stole their wealth, but not so willing to lead by example.

My, how grown-up of you.

 

[Dragon]

Well no, no it isn't.

Well, yes, yes it is. You see, we were discussing economics, in terms of what works, what will create jobs, what will grow the economy. Your response had nothing to do with that, and instead was a primal howl that we CAN'T DO THAT for purely emotional reasons.

Even if I agreed with you, which I don't, it would still have been effectively a non-response, except the equivalent of a toddler poking his lip out and saying "NO!"

 

[Dragon]

There was just a chicken and egg argument over capital and labor a few days ago, and this is another one between savings and consumption. They complement one another and neither is necessarily more important than the other.

Really, people need to learn to quantify. The only sense in which your final statement above could be true, is if our measure of "more important" is "what would happen if we COMPLETELY ERADICATED either savings or consumption, so that there was literally NOTHING AT ALL LEFT of the one in question?"

It's not binary. It's not on-off. It's not just ones and zeros. It's a question not of WHETHER savings, WHETHER consumption, but of HOW MUCH of each one.

A given dollar can either be spent on consumption, or it can be saved and invested, but not both. Therefore, the more savings and investment we have at any one time, the less consumption spending will occur, and vice-versa.

Investment in activities that create jobs is driven by consumer demand, so that when consumer spending drops, so does this kind of investment. But at the same time, the total available investment capital increases. What's left over goes into the kind of investment that does not create jobs because it does not produce real wealth, it only shuffles money around, so that the lucky and/or perceptive investor gains at the expense of the unlucky and/or foolish investor, in a pure zero-sum game. Meanwhile, the economy as a whole grows more slowly, and because those non-productive investments amount to a house of cards, we are set up for a spectacular financial collapse that will threaten to put the whole economy into depression.

This is an endemic flaw with a capitalist economy. It's what caused both the Great Depression and our current Lesser Depression. The best way to fight it, the one that has historically worked, is to take steps to bring incomes closer to equality.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

You are making the mistake that all you big government sheep make.

You assume that taking more money away from those who already pay the lion's share of taxes will result in other people having more money.