Who are the job creators?

[Dragon]

And I thought that it was the fact that US industry was the only one left standing on the entire planet after WWII that produced a healthy US economy.

Many people seem to think that, but they're wrong, and so are you. Except for Germany and Japan, and possibly the Soviet Union, no major industrial power had its industrial capacity reduced at all by war damage during World War II. The Luftwaffe campaign against Britain killed people but failed to significantly damage British industrial strength, which expanded during the war. French, Dutch, Norwegian, and other industrial capacity in countries conquered by the Germans early in the war was virtually untouched because the German victories were so rapid and did not require any kind of sustained bombing or artillery campaign. And of course, many minor but still significant industrial powers, including Switzerland and Sweden, were neutrals and the war did not touch them at all. Even German and Japanese industry, which did take a severe hit, had fully recovered by the mid-1950s.

The "last one left standing on the entire planet" idea is, very simply, a myth.

 

[Samson]

It such basic economics people. Our fearless leaders are either totally ignorant, or they are hampering the economy on purpose. And I am pretty well divided on which of those two things is the truth. Maybe both?

Well, its both, and quite frankly, Obama, while not being very helpful, isn't the major contributor, "hampering the economy on purpose."

IMHO the main reason the US is experiencing what we feel is a "slow" economy is relativity: We (and most of Europe) are used to an unusually robust economy that had little or no competition from China, Russia, India, Brazil, Vietnam, etc., etc.

Now we are beginning to feel the effects of very strong global competitive changes, and these will only get stronger.

Unhappily, Americans will only be able to compete if they accept a standard of living that is reflected in their competition: A painful reality.

 

[Dragon]

Oh for christs sake people.

MONEY=/=DEMAND

It equals half of demand. Without money, there is no demand. On a macro scale, it's the part of demand that doesn't cancel out. As a practical matter when it comes to government policy, therefore, money = demand.

 

[Samson]

And I thought that it was the fact that US industry was the only one left standing on the entire planet after WWII that produced a healthy US economy.

Many people seem to think that, but they're wrong, and so are you. Except for Germany and Japan, and possibly the Soviet Union, no major industrial power had its industrial capacity reduced at all by war damage during World War II. The Luftwaffe campaign against Britain killed people but failed to significantly damage British industrial strength, which expanded during the war. French, Dutch, Norwegian, and other industrial capacity in countries conquered by the Germans early in the war was virtually untouched because the German victories were so rapid and did not require any kind of sustained bombing or artillery campaign. And of course, many minor but still significant industrial powers, including Switzerland and Sweden, were neutrals and the war did not touch them at all. Even German and Japanese industry, which did take a severe hit, had fully recovered by the mid-1950s.

The "last one left standing on the entire planet" idea is, very simply, a myth.

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to compare the untouched Norwiegian Economy to the untouched post WWII US economy.

Idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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



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..

I made no reference whatsoever to 'efficiency'.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Oh for christs sake people.

MONEY=/=DEMAND

It equals half of demand. Without money, there is no demand. On a macro scale, it's the part of demand that doesn't cancel out. As a practical matter when it comes to government policy, therefore, money = demand.

Your an idiot. You can be the richest man in America and if you don't want to by my gizmo where is the demand?

Money=ability

Desire=demand

 

[NYcarbineer]

Post #204

More nonsensical semantics. The consumer paid for the goods/services. Not you. That is what demand is.

Don't be so shallow. He did not request the service I provided. I created the demand and he bought it. How is that nonsense?

So your promotional talent created interest, but the consumer's buying power created the actual demand.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just on the (very) faint hope that everyone might be willing to play off the same page,

the economics definition of 'demand' is

"In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_(economics)

Unless someone objects to that definition.

 

[Dragon]

IMHO the main reason the US is experiencing what we feel is a "slow" economy is relativity: We (and most of Europe) are used to an unusually robust economy that had little or no competition from China, Russia, India, Brazil, Vietnam, etc., etc.

Now we are beginning to feel the effects of very strong global competitive changes, and these will only get stronger.

No, that's another myth. This one is commonly believed on the left as well as the right.

Let's consider a developing country with a cheap labor force, and a U.S. manufacturer making a complicated product such as a modern car, using a highly-paid, expensive labor force. The car maker does several things.

1) He automates his American factories, reducing his need for labor, and lays people off. The jobs remaining are complex, high-tech kinds of jobs that are still paid very well.

2) He makes use of the cheap foreign labor to produce some of the simpler parts, laying off more expensive American workers and closing down American parts factories.

What happens to the workers he lays off? Do they remain unemployed long? As it turned out, no, they didn't; they got other jobs, mostly in the service sector. Those jobs didn't pay as well as the manufacturing jobs that were lost.

But why didn't they? Because they were not unionized, where manufacturing for the most part was. And it proved extremely difficult to form unions in them, because before all this happened the government had changed its approach to enforcement of labor rights. Illegal firings and other illegal means of suppressing union formation have soared; when a company gets caught, it just shrugs and pays the fine, which it regards as an acceptable cost of doing business.

Suppose that had not been true, and the government had retained its same pro-labor stance it had in the '50s and '60s? Suppose, in result, that the service sector was now unionized? Would we be in danger of losing those jobs to foreign companies, too?

No, not really, because most of those jobs are ones that MUST be filled by Americans. There are some very low-level customer service jobs that have been outsourced to India and Pakistan, where many English speakers are available, but even that has not been an unqualified success.

David Ricardo was right, and remains right: comparative advantage still rules. The problem we have, and the reason for the decline in real wages, is internal and political, not a matter of foreign competition.

 

[Dragon]

Your an idiot.

No, I am not an idiot. Unlike yourself, I am not even ignorant. And to top it off, I even know how to spell "you're."

Money=ability

Desire=demand

No, as pointed out already, demand = desire PLUS ability. That's how the term is defined in economics. Which means that money is a crucial part of it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

More nonsensical semantics. The consumer paid for the goods/services. Not you. That is what demand is.

Don't be so shallow. He did not request the service I provided. I created the demand and he bought it. How is that nonsense?

So your promotional talent created interest, but the consumer's buying power created the actual demand.

Lol this is so stupid. Money creates ability not demand. Huge difference. I got a couple hundred bucks in my wallet right now so you tell me, does it want a banana split or a big MAC?

 

[bripat9643]

You keep giving me these examples from the supply side! What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously. Are you just not smart enough to be able to grasp that is not what I am asking you? Just tell me. It's ok. At least it would clear things up as to why you insist on ignoring what I'm actually saying.

You are not sharp enough to grasp the fact that you are asking me to provide an example of a black Camero that isn't black. I've already explained countless times that I can provide an example of a logical contradiction in physical form.

Business CAN create a demand, but it is not a guarantee. If I decide to build 5,000,000 triangles that I decide will be good to sit on top of the tv, it doesn't matter if I have the capital, the facilities and man power to make my triangles. If the consumer doesn't want them, they will not buy them. I will be forced to stop making them and lay off my workers.

Yes, there are businesses that create and a new product and it becomes wildly succesful, but that decision is made by consumers through their purchasing of the product. The producer of the product does not get to dictate the demand.

Now back to what my point was from the start.

Irrelevant blather.

If the consumer market has a need for a product, a business can and ALWAYS will attempt to step up and meet that need. Why? Because the guess work about whether or not it will be successful is greatly diminished. They know they have buyers lined up. They just need to meet that need.

Your only evidence for that claim is that someone invented every product that is currently being sold. You're begging the question. No company every knows that a new product will have buyers. Such claims always come after the product has already been successful in the market. They are claims based on 20/20 hindsight.

In both of the scenarios above, it is the consumer who decides what the need is. It is the consumer who dictates the direction of the economy.

That's more irrelevant horse manure.

 

[Dragon]

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to compare the untouched Norwiegian Economy to the untouched post WWII US economy.

It makes better sense to compare the undamaged British economy or French economy or Dutch economy or Danish economy to the undamaged (but NOT untouched) post war U.S. economy. Or, better still, all of them together. Most of the world -- almost ALL of the world -- had the same industrial capacity coming out of the war that it had going into it, or better. Usually better. The "last man standing" idea is completely, totally false.

And calling me an "idiot" is not going to change the fact that you are wrong in that "whole world wiped out" nonsense. I find that people on this board are too quick to resort to personal insults when they don't have a good answer to an argument or evidence. It shows that the person who is making the insult is, in fact, the idiot.

 

[clevergirl]

As I've already explained, that's dead wrong. Consumers create jobs no more than rain creates umbrellas.

I'm in the home remodeling industry and their is plenty of demand. There just isn't any financing available. Has not a lot to do with a lack of consumers. Many people want to hire me but can't because they can't finance their project.

I'm sure my situation isn't the sole reason but it is a valid one and it has nothing to do with consumer demand.

From a purely economic POV that is another example of a lack of demand.

No doubt if there was money in the pockets of yiour customers, or money to borrow, there'd be demand, but since they are broke or unable to borrow, there is no demand.

Semantics, I realize, but using semantics of dicipline one is discussing seems like a pretty good idea.

Basically demand only exists when a buyer are ready, willing and ABLE to buy.

Which he will never be unless he is employed. If employers are being taxed too highly they lay off workers. Employers are only in business to make a profit. Employees only work to have money to buy stuff. What entity stands between these two people? The government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't be so shallow. He did not request the service I provided. I created the demand and he bought it. How is that nonsense?

So your promotional talent created interest, but the consumer's buying power created the actual demand.

Lol this is so stupid. Money creates ability not demand. Huge difference. I got a couple hundred bucks in my wallet right now so you tell me, does it want a banana split or a big MAC?

I just posted the definition of 'demand' for purposes of economics discussions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did anyone want to tell me whether or not the government is a job creator?

 

[Samson]

IMHO the main reason the US is experiencing what we feel is a "slow" economy is relativity: We (and most of Europe) are used to an unusually robust economy that had little or no competition from China, Russia, India, Brazil, Vietnam, etc., etc.

Now we are beginning to feel the effects of very strong global competitive changes, and these will only get stronger.

No, that's another myth. This one is commonly believed on the left as well as the right.

Let's consider a developing country with a cheap labor force, and a U.S. manufacturer making a complicated product such as a modern car, using a highly-paid, expensive labor force. The car maker does several things.

1) He automates his American factories, reducing his need for labor, and lays people off. The jobs remaining are complex, high-tech kinds of jobs that are still paid very well.

2) He makes use of the cheap foreign labor to produce some of the simpler parts, laying off more expensive American workers and closing down American parts factories.

What happens to the workers he lays off? Do they remain unemployed long? As it turned out, no, they didn't; they got other jobs, mostly in the service sector. Those jobs didn't pay as well as the manufacturing jobs that were lost.

But why didn't they? Because they were not unionized, where manufacturing for the most part was. And it proved extremely difficult to form unions in them, because before all this happened the government had changed its approach to enforcement of labor rights. Illegal firings and other illegal means of suppressing union formation have soared; when a company gets caught, it just shrugs and pays the fine, which it regards as an acceptable cost of doing business.

Suppose that had not been true, and the government had retained its same pro-labor stance it had in the '50s and '60s? Suppose, in result, that the service sector was now unionized? Would we be in danger of losing those jobs to foreign companies, too?

No, not really, because most of those jobs are ones that MUST be filled by Americans. There are some very low-level customer service jobs that have been outsourced to India and Pakistan, where many English speakers are available, but even that has not been an unqualified success.

David Ricardo was right, and remains right: comparative advantage still rules. The problem we have, and the reason for the decline in real wages, is internal and political, not a matter of foreign competition.

An admirable fixation on the Benefits of Unionization, however, there is the huge gaping hole in the arguement:

"But why didn't [service sector jobs pay as well as lost manufacturing jobs]? Because they were not unionized, where manufacturing for the most part was."

Doubtful: Why? The skill level in manufacturing jobs was higher than service sector jobs, therefore employers would offer more $, regardless of whether or not the worker was unionized.

"And it proved extremely difficult to form unions in them, because before all this happened the government had changed its approach to enforcement of labor rights."

Again, The formation of unions depends not on government support, but upon how much a strike will effect the employer. Service jobs simply do not require highly skilled workers. A hamburger-flipper can be easily replaced: A machine tool operator cannot.

 

[Dragon]

If employers are being taxed too highly they lay off workers.

There is no real-world example of this happening, nor does it make economic sense despite your argument in favor of the idea. An employer hires the people it needs to hire to meet the demand for its products or services -- taxes or no taxes. If the employer lays off people that it needs to meet the demand for its products or services, then it will lose business, and no company willingly does that. On the other hand, if the employer hires people that it does NOT need to meet the demand for its products or services, say because a tax cut has put more capital in its bank account, then it is wasting money, and no company willingly does THAT, either.

Consumers are the real job creators. They're the ones we want to make sure have plenty of money. The rest will follow.

 

[clevergirl]

Did anyone want to tell me whether or not the government is a job creator?

Sure... the government creates jobs- but if it is too top heavy it drags on GDP. Further it demands more taxation to keep it going. Government should be small and cheap. Government wages should not be better then private sector wages- they should be kept competitively low, for 2 main reasons, though there are other less important reasons-1. they rely on taxes to exist. 2. If too lucrative, they take the best workers.

If government employment really was a boon to the economy...our military should be kept at high levels of recruitment.

 

[Wiseacre]

Did anyone want to tell me whether or not the government is a job creator?

They create public sector jobs, right? And you could say they also can create private jobs by funding companies like Solyndra or by paying for "shovel ready" jobs. The problem is that it is all or almost all temporary and extremely expensive and is an inefficient use of our tax dollars.