What creates jobs?

[itfitzme]

Except you're just looking at the consumption of the people in the Hamptons by itself, which makes no sense.

None of Marxism makes any sense, unless you can overgeneralize and exaggerate the most extreme potential actions of the relatively well off.

Hope that helps.

Marxism, as a theory of economics, and the idea that communism would lead to socialism hasn't been around since the collapse of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. It hasn't been around since the 70's. You live in this book once about some economic theory, and ever since, you've been dividing the world up into two groups. You overgeneralize, forcing every idea into one exaggerated group or another.

The question of which produces more jobs, demand driven by the upper income level, like people summering in the Hamptons, or the lower three quintiles isn't an exaggeration. It's point of relative proportions. You do understand the propensity to spend, don't you?

 

[sealybobo]

Demand creates jobs. Before the GOP sent 7 million manufacturing jobs overseas, everyone in Michigan was working, making good money and spending. Even poor people were making $10 hr. And we were all going to TGIF and Bennigans and Red Lobster. Ford Executives would take Tier 1 and 2 suppliers out for drinks and they would take tier 3 suppliers out. Those people spent money, bought cars, etc. Money trickled down and up. Today the rich have all the money and they can't spend like the masses can spend. Redistribute the money they stole from us the past decade.

Union workers making $35 hr created jobs.

I have a jealous father in law. He owns his own business. He used to complain they made too much money. But those people all came in and spent money in his store. Guys at the factory would buy his Spinich Pies and take them to work. Those jobs are now in China. Now no one comes in and buys his shit.

Republicans want non union people to be jealous of union workers and the benefits they get. Instead, we need to remember that a rising tide lifts all ships. We only make what we make because our non union companies needed to stay competitive with union wages. Now that unions hardly exist, wages go down and none of us are making enough money. So stores are hiring because there is no demand.

In fact, corporations aren't even investing in America. We don't make enough. Today corporations are over in china because their wages are going up.

 

[itfitzme]

The majority of increasing demand is for products that already exist.

how could Demand "now" increase (or decrease) for "now-not-yet-existing" products ? Demand for "future products" resembles Investment.

I am not sure what your asking the question about. My point is that increasing demand is more on current products that currently exists, not on non-existing products.

I should define a couple of things. Demand is the actual purchasing of the product. Excess demand is demand that has not been satisfied by the ability to purchase the product because there is a shortage of supply.

Demand doesn't cause an increase or even the investment in future products. Potential demand may may if, like an I-pod, it has been advertised ahead of introduction to manufacturing, in which case it is the potential demand that causes production.

I am not getting how "demand for "future products" resembles investments", exactly. Investment can come in a couple of forms.

One is like venture capitalists that typically invest in a company that already has demand, can't keep up, and needs the leverage to tap the excess demand.

Another can be on a new product in which case it can be based on a "guess" that the product will sell or a marketing survey. A marketing survey might ask, "If this product was available, would you buy it?"

Instantaneous demand, or demand in any particular day, is not a constant or static thing. Technically, demand is the actual purchase of product. When there is excess demand, it triggers more production. Excess demand, of course, is not necessarily directly measurable or observable, except when there is something like a sale on a product and they have to give out rain checks.

Rather, vendors gauge excess demand by watching existing sales. When existing sales climb faster then expected, that is they run out of stock earlier then expected, it gives them the information they need to increase stock by increasing production.

Consider the guy that owns a cigarette shop down the street. If he runs out of Marlboros early, and customers keep asking for them, then he knows, he actually can measure excess demand. Each person asking for Marlboros that he does not have is excess demand. This prompts him to increase his order. This triggers the sales rep to tell production that they need to increase output.

Now consider the major grocery store chain. They don't have much interaction with customers that cannot find product, yet they seem to keep just a little more then they can sell, never really running out or over stocking excessively. The Hostess guy actually stocks the shelf himself, never interacting with customers. Instead, he count how much bread he has left over, and if it is only a couple of loafs, he stocks more the next day. He gauges the variability, keeping stock at the point that just manages to keep the shelf from running out.

For that matter, depending on the product, he might let it run out. This, though, wouldn't be a good idea as he wouldn't then be able to gauge changing demand.

Isn't that what happens?

I am sure you can think of all manner of companies and examples of how they gauge changing demand.

Oh, by the way, I didn't get back to it, but on that (M+C)V=PQ thing where C can cause an increase in prices. I forgot t, myself, that increases are to P or Q, depending of if output is near maximum or not. I know better but didn't make this obvious connection when thinking about C. My bad.

Since the recession, the demand for imports has fallen to 50% of what it was. Walmart, Target, and every manner of store has less demand then they did. The problem is, the excess demand doesn't exist. At first, when the recession occurred, demand collapsed on the collapse of consumer revolving credit.

Some of the recovery has been on an increase in the use of credit. In this case, the increased use of credit triggers increased output. (and some of it in China, which is pissing some people off.)

 

[itfitzme]

Demand creates jobs. Before the GOP sent 7 million manufacturing jobs overseas, everyone in Michigan was working, making good money and spending. Even poor people were making $10 hr. And we were all going to TGIF and Bennigans and Red Lobster. Ford Executives would take Tier 1 and 2 suppliers out for drinks and they would take tier 3 suppliers out. Those people spent money, bought cars, etc. Money trickled down and up. Today the rich have all the money and they can't spend like the masses can spend. Redistribute the money they stole from us the past decade.

Union workers making $35 hr created jobs.

I have a jealous father in law. He owns his own business. He used to complain they made too much money. But those people all came in and spent money in his store. Guys at the factory would buy his Spinich Pies and take them to work. Those jobs are now in China. Now no one comes in and buys his shit.

Republicans want non union people to be jealous of union workers and the benefits they get. Instead, we need to remember that a rising tide lifts all ships. We only make what we make because our non union companies needed to stay competitive with union wages. Now that unions hardly exist, wages go down and none of us are making enough money. So stores are hiring because there is no demand.

In fact, corporations aren't even investing in America. We don't make enough. Today corporations are over in china because their wages are going up.

Not only that, but getting rid of the unions, would not reduce the prices for the profits. The price of the product is based on willlingness to pay. The price is the price and the union assures that the workers in that market make an income that is commensurate with the product and market.

In every market where the companie have considerable market leverage, unions form. They form because the company already commands that much money. Health care, food, automobiles, and oil all command considerable leverage as they are basic needs (yes, a car is a basic need in our mobile country.) As such, the market commands a shit load. The competing companies all get their piece. If they are doing it right, working as ologopolies, if they are smart, the maximum pricing theory given the number of companies is easily determined. It is simple micro economic game theory.

Government workers are an interesting issue. The govenment has a unique pricing scheme called taxes. When times are good and revenues high, the unions ensure that workers get commensurate pay. Even the US military runs employee benefits and wages like a union.

When the economy goes to shits, the smart union gives up more.

What I loved was seeing the three CEOs, supposed competitors, testifying before Congress. There they were, all sitting together, talking the same line. And I wondered, what was it that they had in common. We found out the next week when the head of the auto workers union showed up. That was the key that was missing, it is the big three auto companies and the union sharing in the market.

The incorrect idea is to think that getting rid of the union will lower prices. It won't.

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah...I knew that this was where we were going....Covetousness and calls for expropriation and redistribution.

Well guess what, Scooter?...There was no demand for things like hula hoops, the Frisbee and the hackey sack until some entrepreneur took a chance and produced.

Like I said, demand all you want, but if there's nobody around with the gonads to take a chance and produce, or if the economic environment is too filled with envious little looters to make any effort worthwhile, then all the demand in the world couldn't fill a little brown paper sack.

Now I understand why your such a moron. You believe that the only new demand is for products that don't exist yet. You have no vision of the actual functioning economy.

Just because the only new demand you hear about is the sales of a new I-pod by Apple doesn't mean that is the majority of new demand.

Guess what, scooter? The majority of increasing demand is for products that already exist. When demand increases at Safeway, the tens of thousands of local dentists, existing DVD sales at Blockbuster, that is all increased demand.

You have been living with this fantasy that you are going to come up with some great new get rich quick gizmo and join the uber wealthy. And in your fixation, you completely miss all the little details of how the economy actually functions.

Existing DVD sales at Blockbuster?
They still in business? They all closed around here.

Okay, Netflix.

Yeah, Blockbuster was having a terrible time. I bought DVDs from them a few months back. They did close some stores, not all. I hope they stay around, I like owning.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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.

Jeez and I thought you were stupid before! How do you think a lot of products are created? An entreprenaur realizes there is a need that a service or product could fill. Then they figure out how to meet that demand. Then they becoe successful.

Idiot you have it backwards: You can produce all you want but if there is no demand, you pruct isn't worth an Oddball idea. In other words, nothing.

Sell many fax machines lately? But you produce them so well!

 

[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.

Increasing demand for existing product creates jobs, we don't need new products or companies to do so. There is where your mind fart is, failing to understand that the majority of increased demand is for existing products. It doesn't take a new invention to increase demand or jobs.

So you can demand all you want for more Starbucks coffee, gasoline, a larger jar of peanut butter, DVD rentals, and a host of products that already exists.

You should spend less time watching the news and go outside and watch what people actually buy. What people buy is demand and increasing that is increasing demand.

Piss off, boy.

Demand doesn't take any initiative, production does.

Now go pick up your unemployment check and get your EBT card recharged.

Yes your deep understanding of economic is shining brightly with that explanation.

You want to try again in explaining this initiative theory of economics? Is that your "Supply creates it's own initiative theory"?

 

[Oddball]

That's so enlightening, coming from someone who doesn't know his elbow from his asshole.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Jeez and I thought you were stupid before! How do you think a lot of products are created? An entreprenaur realizes there is a need that a service or product could fill. Then they figure out how to meet that demand. Then they becoe successful.

Idiot you have it backwards: You can produce all you want but if there is no demand, you pruct isn't worth an Oddball idea. In other words, nothing.

Sell many fax machines lately? But you produce them so well!

What demand created the Frizbee or the Pet Rock, jackass?

 

[IndependntLogic]

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.

Jeez and I thought you were stupid before! How do you think a lot of products are created? An entreprenaur realizes there is a need that a service or product could fill. Then they figure out how to meet that demand. Then they becoe successful.

Idiot you have it backwards: You can produce all you want but if there is no demand, you pruct isn't worth an Oddball idea. In other words, nothing.

Sell many fax machines lately? But you produce them so well!

What demand created the Frizbee or the Pet Rock, jackass?

Wow. You are even more stupid than I thought. So you think the Frisbee and Pet Rock are examples of major job creating products? What a complete ass wipe!

How about Windows? Any idea how that came into being? IE? Smart Phones? GPS and Navigation Systems? Fax Machines? Phones? Cars? Fed Ex?
I could go on but a blithering idiot who would use pet rocks as an example of job creators is too stupid to catch on anyway...

 

[dilloduck]

Some smooth talker has to convince everyone that they are way too ___________. Insert any adjective. Then people are told that if they buy _____ they will be _____. Then smooth talker drags out his product which was made by someone with a job. The more that people buy into the sales pitch, the more jobs there will be.

 

[itfitzme]

Yet everyone has an ideology, even you.

No, that everyone has an ideology is part of your ideology. Your projecting.

I don't have an ideology. I have practicality.

Technically you're projecting. I fully admit I have an ideology. I just know that everybody else has an ideology as well.

Now that makes no sense at all. Repeating a word you don't understand isn't very smart. You should go look it up.

We know you have an ideology. And I've already stated that I do not have one.

If I was projecting, I would say you didn't have an ideology. I would also assume you were intelligent. That would be projecting. What I am doing is transference. You don't know psychology.

As economics is a social science, a psychological science of human behavior as it interacts in the redistribution of limited resources, you aren't very good at economics either. You assume you know what other people think. The science of economics studies how people think by observing their behaviors and inferring their decision making process.

 

[dilloduck]

No, that everyone has an ideology is part of your ideology. Your projecting.

I don't have an ideology. I have practicality.

Technically you're projecting. I fully admit I have an ideology. I just know that everybody else has an ideology as well.

Now that makes no sense at all. Repeating a word you don't understand isn't very smart. You should go look it up.

We know you have an ideology. And I've already stated that I do not have one.

If I was projecting, I would say you didn't have an ideology. I would also assume you were intelligent. That would be projecting. What I am doing is transference. You don't know psychology.

As economics is a social science, a psychological science of human behavior as it interacts in the redistribution of limited resources, you aren't very good at economics either. You assume you know what other people think. The science of economics studies how people think by observing their behaviors and inferring their decision making process.

Yes===manipulating people creates jobs !

 

[itfitzme]

Some smooth talker has to convince everyone that they are way too ___________. Insert any adjective. Then people are told that if they buy _____ they will be _____. Then smooth talker drags out his product which was made by someone with a job. The more that people buy into the sales pitch, the more jobs there will be.

You've got a good half of a point there. Advertizing does increase demand by presenting people with a product that they didn't know they needed. The key is that it has to connect to an already existing need. It doesn't create a new one. A good product is realized by doing market research and finding out what people's problem are, then creating a product that solves the problem. Only then, given previously existing but unrealized potential demand, and assuming that they have the money to spend, then it will create demand.

A great example is the door to door encyclopedia sales back in the day. It was really hard sell, using every sort of psychological trick to get in the door and get people committed to buying the product. It wasn't the most successful product sales.

The problem is one of magnitude and that consumers have the money. If they don't have the money, you cannot sell it to them. You may convince them that they want it, but giving it to them won't get any money. Last I saw, willingness to pay $0.00 isn't considered demand.

It only works in a strong economy nearer full employment. Surely, by default, people mean THIS economy.

 

[dilloduck]

Some smooth talker has to convince everyone that they are way too ___________. Insert any adjective. Then people are told that if they buy _____ they will be _____. Then smooth talker drags out his product which was made by someone with a job. The more that people buy into the sales pitch, the more jobs there will be.

You've got a good half of a point there. Advertizing does increase demand by presenting people with a product that they didn't know they needed. The key is that it has to connect to an already existing need. It doesn't create a new one. A good product is realized by doing market research and finding out what people's problem are, then creating a product that solves the problem. Only then, given previously existing but unrealized potential demand, and assuming that they have the money to spend, then it will create demand.

A great example is the door to door encyclopedia sales back in the day. It was really hard sell, using every sort of psychological trick to get in the door and get people committed to buying the product. It wasn't the most successful product sales.

The problem is one of magnitude and that consumers have the money. If they don't have the money, you cannot sell it to them. You may convince them that they want it, but giving it to them won't get any money. Last I saw, willingness to pay $0.00 isn't considered demand.

It only works in a strong economy nearer full employment. Surely, by default, people mean THIS economy.

Our money isn't real--why does demand have to be. When the stock market goes through a correction it means it is broken.

 

[Oddball]

Jeez and I thought you were stupid before! How do you think a lot of products are created? An entreprenaur realizes there is a need that a service or product could fill. Then they figure out how to meet that demand. Then they becoe successful.

Idiot you have it backwards: You can produce all you want but if there is no demand, you pruct isn't worth an Oddball idea. In other words, nothing.

Sell many fax machines lately? But you produce them so well!

What demand created the Frizbee or the Pet Rock, jackass?

Wow. You are even more stupid than I thought. So you think the Frisbee and Pet Rock are examples of major job creating products? What a complete ass wipe!

How about Windows? Any idea how that came into being? IE? Smart Phones? GPS and Navigation Systems? Fax Machines? Phones? Cars? Fed Ex?
I could go on but a blithering idiot who would use pet rocks as an example of job creators is too stupid to catch on anyway...

Wow, you're even more of an obtuse arrogant dickhead than I had thought...And that's saying something.

What upgrade from the currently existing technologies were the Frizbee and Pet Rock?....THERE WERE NONE!!!

Some dude dreamed them up, produced them, then sold them to people who previously didn't know that they "needed" them.

Next time you think that you've tripped over a relevant comment on anything, best run it past one of your underlings who can manage to have a real thought...M'kay?

 

[itfitzme]

Technically you're projecting. I fully admit I have an ideology. I just know that everybody else has an ideology as well.

Now that makes no sense at all. Repeating a word you don't understand isn't very smart. You should go look it up.

We know you have an ideology. And I've already stated that I do not have one.

If I was projecting, I would say you didn't have an ideology. I would also assume you were intelligent. That would be projecting. What I am doing is transference. You don't know psychology.

As economics is a social science, a psychological science of human behavior as it interacts in the redistribution of limited resources, you aren't very good at economics either. You assume you know what other people think. The science of economics studies how people think by observing their behaviors and inferring their decision making process.

Yes===manipulating people creates jobs !

No, that is sales and marketing. So you don't know economics, psychology, sales and marketing, mathematics. You have no reading comprehension. I presume you don't know business or physics. But you have every manner of opinion, based on a complete lack of knowledge.

What do you know?

 

[dilloduck]

Now that makes no sense at all. Repeating a word you don't understand isn't very smart. You should go look it up.

We know you have an ideology. And I've already stated that I do not have one.

If I was projecting, I would say you didn't have an ideology. I would also assume you were intelligent. That would be projecting. What I am doing is transference. You don't know psychology.

As economics is a social science, a psychological science of human behavior as it interacts in the redistribution of limited resources, you aren't very good at economics either. You assume you know what other people think. The science of economics studies how people think by observing their behaviors and inferring their decision making process.

Yes===manipulating people creates jobs !

No, that is sales and marketing. So you don't know economics, psychology, sales and marketing, mathematics. You have no reading comprehension. I presume you don't know business or physics. But you have every manner of opinion, based on a complete lack of knowledge.

What do you know?

I know there is plenty of money in knowing how to manipulate people into parting with theirs. Imparting fear is a good one.

 

[itfitzme]

That's so enlightening, coming from someone who doesn't know his elbow from his asshole.

You just keep getting better with every post.

Would this be the "elbow vs asshole" theory of economics? It is it part of the MPPI? Or maybe the DMS?

Does it ever occur to you that your statement "coming from someone who doesn't know his elbow from his asshole" proves you know nothing because you cannot respond to the subject at hand with any relevant information except an expression of how you feel. You might just as well fling you dung.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes===manipulating people creates jobs !

No, that is sales and marketing. So you don't know economics, psychology, sales and marketing, mathematics. You have no reading comprehension. I presume you don't know business or physics. But you have every manner of opinion, based on a complete lack of knowledge.

What do you know?

I know there is plenty of money in knowing how to manipulate people into parting with theirs. Imparting fear is a good one.

Yep, it's a form of advertising. It can sell a lot of guns, gold, and all manner of things. But then again, how many fundamental emotions do we have that motivate us to buy things. Feel good, avoid feeling bad.

All the elements have to be in place, money, motivation and product. The easiest product to sell, given that people actually have the money, are products that they already purchased before. There is no tooling up to produce more.

When everyone reversed direction and started paying down credit cards, that was no demand for credit, no demand for product. The problem we have now isn't a lack of production capacity. It is a lack of labor utilization and a lack of major demand.