Who are the job creators?

[NYcarbineer]

The consumers are not the job creators. They are the ones who create the NEED for jobs.
In the end, the ones who take the risk to expand their business are the actual job creators.

It's the need for jobs that is relevant to the discussion.

No it isn't. That is a different subject.

The subject is who creates the jobs?

I pointed out that the government creates millions of jobs. Is that true?

 

[flacaltenn]

Consumers ALWAYS create the demand. Tell me one instance where there was a need for a product and someone didn't try to meet that need.

Still demanding that someone prove a contradiction isn't a contradiction? I've already exploded that idiocy.

On the other hand, business sometimes creates the demand through innovation, but there are enough failed products that should tell you that business can't always create a demand.

Irrelevant. Demand isn't sufficient to create jobs. Giving money to parasites does not reduce unemployment. End of story.

Then why do conservatives want to cut taxes to create jobs? Isn't the conservative rationale that if you let people keep more of their own money they will, AS CONSUMERS, create more demand and thus create more jobs to fill the demand?

Neither Consumption stimulus nor further INDIVIDUAL INCOME tax cuts are gonna take America in a direction that adds jobs and maintains the standard of living. There is NO political leadership on this issue. The world has become a very competitive place and WE are wasting our lead in the markets arguing about redistributing the leftovers.

Conservative want to cut taxes for MANY reasons. One is that they believe PEOPLE should be choosing the kind of cars, lightbulbs, energy, food, and stuff that they support. NOT the GOVT. That's how a free market is supposed to operate. NOT handing out goodies to Fiskers and Solyndras and DICTATING every purchase. Another is to force fiscal discipline and reduce rate of govt growth --- so that GOVT money is spent more frugally. Obviously not working -- but a worthy goal. NOT JUST as "stimulus". In fact --- tax policy has a more consistent effect on the economy when it is designed to be LONG TERM rather than short term. No serious businessman is gonna modify their plans based on one or two year gimmicks.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I guess you guys have never bought a product or service if for no other reason than you saw an advertisement that made you desire said product or service?

I have created customers or jobs where none existed by selling myself.

Many commercial properties are built with the assumption that they can be sold or leased. They weren't built because someone demanded them. They are built on the assumption that the risk and capital can be paid off later.

Demand is only PART of the equation.

And to the poster earlier that said capital was available, your so far off it isn't even funny. I lose many jobs because the banks aren't loaning.

 

[Full-Auto]

I guess you guys have never bought a product or service if for no other reason than you saw an advertisement that made you desire said product or service?

I have created customers or jobs where none existed by selling myself.

Many commercial properties are built with the assumption that they can be sold or leased. They weren't built because someone demanded them. They are built on the assumption that the risk and capital can be paid off later.

Demand is only PART of the equation.

And to the poster earlier that said capital was available, your so far off it isn't even funny. I lose many jobs because the banks aren't loaning.

Very simple stuff.

The Pet rock.

 

[Dragon]

I guess you guys have never bought a product or service if for no other reason than you saw an advertisement that made you desire said product or service?

No, and neither have you. There was always at least one other reason: you had the money to buy it with.

 

[flacaltenn]

Jobs aren't created without demand. Consumers create the demand. Therefore, consumers are the job creators.

You keep saying that --- several times now --- and I keep pointing out that you're missing the changes to the economy that have occurred over the past 2 decades. Ignore it if you will. But consumers TODAY largely leverage foreign made staples and commodities other than food. There are underlying fundamental problems for stagnant jobs that are NOT gonna get fixed by stimulating consumption anymore. This ain't 1934...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4303302-post141.html

The only thing stimulating consumption does in our NEW economy is to bring foreign cargo ships to our ports and enrich the Corporations that have their name on the products..

Good Job... Glad you've fix the economy..

Just ignore all that and the 3 posts you blew by.. Just like your political heroes are doing.

Did you have a point?

Yes... That you are no longer correct to assert that CONSUMPTION builds jobs anywhere near the efficiency that USED to just a decade ago... It is far less efficient in our NEW economy with the shift from Manufacturing to a Service economy.. You're thinking is stuck on 50 yr old economic principles that do not apply today the same way. And stimulating the consumption is now extremely bad at adding permanent jobs. RETAIL is NOT as job dense as manufacturing. And all you're doing is adding to corporate profits for Nike, Apple, Sears, et al.. The JOB increase is in the Shengzhen, China..

 

[bripat9643]

Right, you asked him to produce a black Camero that isn't black.

We're all still laughing about that.

I asked no such thing.

You asked the logical equivalent. You demanded an example of a product for which there was demand (ie, a product that is already being purchased and therefore already exists) that no one tried to create. If it already exists, then obviously someone created it. Therefore, you asked for an example of a product that exists that no one created.

Denial is a common reaction when people are confronted with their own irrationality.

Face it, you're lost. Your Farmer/Cow example proved my point. Your Rain/umbrella example proved my point. You're grasping at straws now.

ROFL! If that makes you feel better. Your pronunciations of victory sound more pathetic each time you post them.

 

[Zoom-boing]

"It is dangerous for half the wage earners in this country to pay little or no federal income tax but at the same time have the numbers to select the people who will impose federal income taxes on the rest of us."

You're denying you said that now???

Nope I said it and will say it again and again and again until those capable of learning have learned it. As so many leftist do, you distort it to fit your own ideological perspective and are ignoring what I actually said while twisting the words to look like something they are not.

You're referring to a danger. The danger you're referring to is that low income Americans who pay little or no federal income tax can vote for representatives who will tax higher income Americans.

I said exactly the same thing, concisely.

No you didn't. You left out part of FF's point (see the orange, above)

But you knew that.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I guess you guys have never bought a product or service if for no other reason than you saw an advertisement that made you desire said product or service?

No, and neither have you. There was always at least one other reason: you had the money to buy it with.

The money DID NOT CREATE THE DEMAND. MY ADVERTISEMENT DID. I put the thought in your head with my clever ad. The money simply enabled you to purchase the product that I put the demand in your head for. The demand that didn't exist until you saw the commercial that i, the provider, put in your head.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I've already said, demand is a necessary condition for producers to increase their hiring. However, it's not a sufficient condition.

No, but it's the only one of the sufficient conditions that remains unmet.

Capital available? Check.

Labor available? Check.

Natural resources available? Check.

Demand for what is to be produced? No.

That's what's missing, and therefore that's what's needed.

I'm not arguing that consumers having more money to spend wouldn't decrease unemployment. What I object to is the notion that entrepreneurs and capitalists are irrelevant to the process. Furthermore, government taking the money from 'A' and then giving it to 'B' does not increase demand in any real sense. All it does is enrich some at the expense of others. Government cannot increase real demand, that is demand, that is the end result of a productive revenue stream.

Yup. The socialist notion that it is the government that should manage the economy and that it can do that be redistributing the wealth is just fine on a very short term basis. But as Maggie Thatcher once put it, "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." (That is probably paraphrased.)

The government cannot create one thin dime. It can print or coin money, but if it does so separately from actual wealth creation, it will decrease the value of all money in circulation. (Economics 100)

Every dime the government spends has to come out of the private sector either directly via taxes or by increasing the public obligation that will be paid plus interest by the private sector on down the road. So any economic boost generated by Kenysian economics is short term, temporary, and often with unintended negative consequences. (Economics 101) In short, government is the most piss poor job creator that exists.

But let government enact a reasonable tax code so that business can be assured of what their tax burden is likely to be one, five, or ten years down the road and reduce as many regulations, restrictions, mandates as is reasonable to do--no liberals or the reading comprehension challenged, I am NOT saying do away with ALL regulations, restrictions, or mandates--and you will turn loose the private sector to create millions upon millions of jobs.

Few in the private sector are going to risk their investment capital so long as uncertainty exists re what the government will demand from that or the government has already made it unreasonable to take the risk. (Also economics 101.)

 

[Zoom-boing]

Jobs aren't created without demand. Consumers create the demand. Therefore, consumers are the job creators.

And sometimes the business creates the demand.

There was no demand for an ipod before it was invented. Once invented and made available the demand grew and jobs were created to meet the demand . . . that the business created.

Why is it 'either/or'? Seems to me it's a 'both'. Sometimes consumers create demand and sometimes business creates demand.

Consumers ALWAYS create the demand. Tell me one instance where there was a need for a product and someone didn't try to meet that need.

On the other hand, business sometimes creates the demand through innovation, but there are enough failed products that should tell you that business can't always create a demand.

You missed this post:

And sometimes the business creates the demand.

There was no demand for an ipod before it was invented. Once invented and made available the demand grew and jobs were created to meet the demand . . . that the business created.

Why is it 'either/or'? Seems to me it's a 'both'. Sometimes consumers create demand and sometimes business creates demand.

 

[francoHFW]

Kudos to voodoo for destroying the USA middle/working class to the point where consumer spending, the basis for our wealth, has been decimated. Way to break the unions, allow the min wage to become a joke, outsource industry, turn Wall St. into a casino, and allow health and college costs to skyrocket. The Boooosh credit buble was consumers' attempt to keep up the American Dream on bad credit. Great job, Pubbies. Any more of your policy will make us a true banana republic. MORONS!

 

[Samson]

Nope I said it and will say it again and again and again until those capable of learning have learned it. As so many leftist do, you distort it to fit your own ideological perspective and are ignoring what I actually said while twisting the words to look like something they are not.

You're referring to a danger. The danger you're referring to is that low income Americans who pay little or no federal income tax can vote for representatives who will tax higher income Americans.

I said exactly the same thing, concisely.

No you didn't. You left out part of FF's point (see the orange, above)

But you knew that.

Selectively ignoring inconveniences appears to be a contageous disease among liberals.

I predict a fatal epidemic in 2012.

 

[bripat9643]

Every dime the government spends has to come out of the private sector either directly via taxes or by increasing the public obligation that will be paid plus interest by the private sector on down the road. So any economic boost generated by Kenysian economics is short term, temporary, and often with unintended negative consequences. (Economics 101) In short, government is the most piss poor job creator that exists.

Indeed. the current economic crisis is a result of the fact that the federal government artificially increased the demand for housing. Producers therefor diverted a lot of resources into new home construction and remodeling. When reality asserted itself, and consumers failed to continue purchasing this surplus of housing, the inevitable happened and the market for housing collapsed.

 

[Lovebears65]

The company that my husband works for is a fortune 100 company. It employs thousands of people in many different states.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Kudos to voodoo for destroying the USA middle/working class to the point where consumer spending, the basis for our wealth, has been decimated. Way to break the unions, allow the min wage to become a joke, outsource industry, turn Wall St. into a casino, and allow health and college costs to skyrocket. The Boooosh credit buble was consumers' attempt to keep up the American Dream on bad credit. Great job, Pubbies. Any more of your policy will make us a true banana republic. MORONS!

You are a job creator too! The meds and doctors required to keep you functioning in society alone must make a fortune.

 

[Lovebears65]

Kudos to voodoo for destroying the USA middle/working class to the point where consumer spending, the basis for our wealth, has been decimated. Way to break the unions, allow the min wage to become a joke, outsource industry, turn Wall St. into a casino, and allow health and college costs to skyrocket. The Boooosh credit buble was consumers' attempt to keep up the American Dream on bad credit. Great job, Pubbies. Any more of your policy will make us a true banana republic. MORONS!

Unions need to be broken. They have way to much power in elections. And to many people are forced to be in unions. Even though you say its not true. In Pa you have to pay dues if your a teacher even if you dont want to be in the union. So you might as well join if you have to pay anyways!

 

[Foxfyre]

"It is dangerous for half the wage earners in this country to pay little or no federal income tax but at the same time have the numbers to select the people who will impose federal income taxes on the rest of us."

You're denying you said that now???

Nope I said it and will say it again and again and again until those capable of learning have learned it. As so many leftist do, you distort it to fit your own ideological perspective and are ignoring what I actually said while twisting the words to look like something they are not.

You're referring to a danger. The danger you're referring to is that low income Americans can vote for representatives who will tax higher income Americans.

I said exactly the same thing, concisely.

Okay, maybe if I type really slowly it will help? The part you missed is that I want ALL wage earners, regardless of income, to SHARE proportionately in the consequences of the tax code. I explained that in the part of my post that you conveniently omitted.

When we don't all share in the consequences of the laws that are passed, those who are exempt from the consequences have no vested interest in what effect those laws have on the rest of us.

They DO have a vested interest in keeping themselves exempt from the consequences, and THAT is what makes it a dangerous thing.

I know that is a terribly difficult concept for a leftist to understand, but I bet even you could grasp it if you really tried.

Of course you would have to want to.

 

[RDD_1210]

Right, you asked him to produce a black Camero that isn't black.

We're all still laughing about that.

I asked no such thing.

You asked the logical equivalent. You demanded an example of a product for which there was demand (ie, a product that is already being purchased and therefore already exists) that no one tried to create. If it already exists, then obviously someone created it. Therefore, you asked for an example of a product that exists that no one created.

No thats the question you wanted to hear. Not what I asked. There are products that there are a demand for that don't exist, but people are trying to meet that need. Ie. Cure for AIDS.

When you don't understand something it's better to ask for clarification and not change the question to meet your needs.

 

[RDD_1210]

I guess you guys have never bought a product or service if for no other reason than you saw an advertisement that made you desire said product or service?

No, and neither have you. There was always at least one other reason: you had the money to buy it with.

The money DID NOT CREATE THE DEMAND. MY ADVERTISEMENT DID. I put the thought in your head with my clever ad. The money simply enabled you to purchase the product that I put the demand in your head for. The demand that didn't exist until you saw the commercial that i, the provider, put in your head.

Thats the point. If consumers don't have the money, they don't purchase the product.