Who are the job creators?

[bripat9643]

Actually, your lack of an example completely proves my case. The point that I was making the entire thread.

If you somehow could show me an example of a genuine need that there was in the consumer market space that NOBODY has attempted to meet, then you would be right.

Your theory is absolute horseshit. If you made the same statement 150 years ago, it would have meant their was no demand for the following products.

Automobile
telephone
radio
penicillin
polio vaccine
small pox vaccine
anesthesia
television
computers

Of course, we can't know there is demand for a product until after it has been invented and people are buying it. How can you know there is demand for a product that doesn't exist? You can't, so your question is simply a rhetorical game.

But your inability to give an example only further reinforces my point which is that if the consumer market demands something, someone will try to fill that need.

Your question is a catch-22. Your evidence of "demand" is that people are buying the product. Of course, they can't buy a product that hasn't already been invented, so it would be impossible to have demand for a product that someone hadn't tried to invent. What you said is the equivalent of saying "show me a true statement that isn't true."

Hence, demand drives supply and thus the economy.

You lose concrete boy.

Hence, you're simply a shameless demagogue playing word games.

You lose, turd.

 

[DiamondDave]

If

"Consumer demand alone isn't sufficient to cause the production of anything."

then you'll be sure to give me an example of such a case. I noticed you ignored that when I asked you in my last post.

I haven't been implying anything. I've clearly stated what I mean multiple times. You continue to want to argue against something I am not stating.

Consumers create demand, demands creates the product, product creates need for jobs.

You just said it there: "demand creates the product." Wrong. Demand doesn't create jack shit.

Still waiting on that example of a consumer demand that didn't in turn result in someone trying to create a product to meet that demand.

And anti-conservative vaccine... I am sure you and your wingnut buddies have a demand for it...

Where's the product??

 

[RDD_1210]

You just said it there: "demand creates the product." Wrong. Demand doesn't create jack shit.

Still waiting on that example of a consumer demand that didn't in turn result in someone trying to create a product to meet that demand.

And anti-conservative vaccine... I am sure you and your wingnut buddies have a demand for it...

Where's the product??

Nah, no demand for that. It's people like bripat that make me smile. Why would I want that to end?

 

[bripat9643]

Still waiting on that example of a consumer demand that didn't in turn result in someone trying to create a product to meet that demand.

What you fail to understand is that providing no example doesn't prove your case. No one ever claimed anyone tries to produce goods for which there is no demand.

The substitute for logic you employ is really an amazing spectacle to behold.

Or a product that should drive a demand because of it's nature... nobody demanded the first pacman machine... nobody demanded the pocket fisherman... nobody demanded tangelos... nobody demanded cat costumes... nobody demanded the song "Wanted Dead or Alive"... and so many other things... demand was driven by the product itself... and this does happen more often than most of these people think

You don't understand. According to RDD, there is demand for a product only if it's already being sold. According to this definition, there is no such thing as a product for which there is no demand. Every existing product has demand and an inventor. According to the bizarro logic of RDD, it would be impossible to have "demand" for a product that no one tried to invent because the only evidence of demand is sales of an existing product that has already been invented.

It's just a little word game he's playing. It sounds like a reasonable question on the surface, but it's actually just bullshit.

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually, your lack of an example completely proves my case. The point that I was making the entire thread.

If you somehow could show me an example of a genuine need that there was in the consumer market space that NOBODY has attempted to meet, then you would be right.

Your theory is absolute horseshit. If you made the same statement 150 years ago, it would have meant their was no demand for the following products.

Automobile
telephone
radio
penicillin
polio vaccine
small pox vaccine
anesthesia
television
computers

Of course, we can't know there is demand for a product until after it has been invented and people are buying it. How can you know there is demand for a product that doesn't exist? You can't, so your question is simply a rhetorical game.

We can do this all day and I can show you how most of those items were invented because there was a need in the market space. But that's again not what I'm arguing. Yes, there are huge innovations from time to time that change the way consumers behave. You've listed some of them but vaccines certainly aren't examples of this, neither is anesthesia.

Now when you can show me that consumers needed something and no one invented it, then we can talk. Until then, you'll continue to be wrong and unable to see it. Maybe someone can invent a way for you to be open minded. There's obviously a need for it.

 

[DiamondDave]

What you fail to understand is that providing no example doesn't prove your case. No one ever claimed anyone tries to produce goods for which there is no demand.

The substitute for logic you employ is really an amazing spectacle to behold.

Or a product that should drive a demand because of it's nature... nobody demanded the first pacman machine... nobody demanded the pocket fisherman... nobody demanded tangelos... nobody demanded cat costumes... nobody demanded the song "Wanted Dead or Alive"... and so many other things... demand was driven by the product itself... and this does happen more often than most of these people think

You don't understand. According to RDD, if the product is being sold, that means there is demand for it. According to this definition, there is no such thing as a product for which there is no demand. Every existing product has demand and an inventor. According to the bizarro logic of RDD, it would be impossible to have "demand" for a product that no one tried to invent because the only evidence of demand is sales of an existing product that has already been invented.

It's just a little word game he's playing. It sounds like a reasonable question on the surface, but it's actually just bullshit.

I guess he did not live thru BetaMax.... The Zune... EuroDisney... The McDLT... The Newton... New Coke... and the list goes on

 

[DiamondDave]

Oh... and the VAST majority of products are not about need... the vast majority of products are about entertainment, QOL, comfort, quirkiness, etc... and because those are things anticipated, not need based, it many MANY instances it is the product itself that drives the demand.... or in the cases I showed, failed products that did not drive demand

 

[bripat9643]

We can do this all day and I can show you how most of those items were invented because there was a need in the market space. But that's again not what I'm arguing. Yes, there are huge innovations from time to time that change the way consumers behave. You've listed some of them but vaccines certainly aren't examples of this, neither is anesthesia.

Now when you can show me that consumers needed something and no one invented it, then we can talk. Until then, you'll continue to be wrong and unable to see it. Maybe someone can invent a way for you to be open minded. There's obviously a need for it.

As I have already explained, your evidence that consumers "need" something is the fact that it's being sold. All the inventions I listed were needed 150 years ago, but no one had tried to invent them. but if you asked your same question 150 ago, you would still make the same claim, that someone had tried to invent every product for which there was a demand. Obviously that answer was stupid then, and it's just as stupid now.

You're simply a shameless demagogue playing word games. You have a shallow understanding of economic concepts, but just enough to sound plausible to morons.

 

[RDD_1210]

Or a product that should drive a demand because of it's nature... nobody demanded the first pacman machine... nobody demanded the pocket fisherman... nobody demanded tangelos... nobody demanded cat costumes... nobody demanded the song "Wanted Dead or Alive"... and so many other things... demand was driven by the product itself... and this does happen more often than most of these people think

You don't understand. According to RDD, if the product is being sold, that means there is demand for it. According to this definition, there is no such thing as a product for which there is no demand. Every existing product has demand and an inventor. According to the bizarro logic of RDD, it would be impossible to have "demand" for a product that no one tried to invent because the only evidence of demand is sales of an existing product that has already been invented.

It's just a little word game he's playing. It sounds like a reasonable question on the surface, but it's actually just bullshit.

I guess he did not live thru BetaMax.... The Zune... EuroDisney... The McDLT... The Newton... New Coke... and the list goes on

Sigh.

You keep looking at this from the product side. Those are examples of people trying to dictate to the market what they want. The market didn't want/need those items and thus they failed.

Products are introduced to the market all the time, some make it, many fail. But the market is the ultimate decider. Which AGAIN, only proves my point once again that the market, the consumer, the middle class are the ones who drive he economy, who decide which products are needed and which aren't. If the market has no money, the suppliers have no one to sell to and the economy drops.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess he did not live thru BetaMax.... The Zune... EuroDisney... The McDLT... The Newton... New Coke... and the list goes on

His question isn't whether there a products that were invented that for which there was no demand. It's are there products for which there was a demand that no one tried to invent. Of course, his proof that there is demand is the fact that people are buying the product. In other words, only products that have already been invented can fit his criteria. It's like saying "show me a black Camero that isn't black."

 

[uscitizen]

US corporations increasing efficiencies by downsizing and offshoring to increase profits and stock price is causing a downward spiral of the standard of living in the USA.

 

[RDD_1210]

I guess he did not live thru BetaMax.... The Zune... EuroDisney... The McDLT... The Newton... New Coke... and the list goes on

His question isn't whether there a products that were invented that for which there was no demand. It's are there products for which there was a demand that no one tried to invent. Of course, his proof that there is demand is the fact that people are buying the product. In other words, only products that have already been invented can fit his criteria. It's like saying "show me a black Camero that isn't black."

Sort of true, because the supply side ALWAYS attempts to meet the demand. You're right, it's (probably) impossible to show me an example of what I'm asking for. Because I know it doesn't exist and it is what proves my point. If you could show me an example, my point would cease to be valid.

You're example is not exactly accurate but I'll give you an A for effort.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[bripat9643]

His question isn't whether there a products that were invented that for which there was no demand. It's are there products for which there was a demand that no one tried to invent. Of course, his proof that there is demand is the fact that people are buying the product. In other words, only products that have already been invented can fit his criteria. It's like saying "show me a black Camero that isn't black."

Sort of true, because the supply side ALWAYS attempts to meet the demand. You're right, it's (probably) impossible to show me an example of what I'm asking for. Because I know it doesn't exist and it is what proves my point. If you could show me an example, my point would cease to be valid.

You're example is not exactly accurate but I'll give you an A for effort.

It's impossible for the same reason that I can't show you a black Camero that isn't black. We all know that doesn't exist. However, it doesn't prove a damn thing

Your question is just cheap shameless demagoguery.

 

[uscitizen]

All camaro's are black without light.
Kinda like some minds.

But without light you cannot show the Camaro.

 

[RDD_1210]

His question isn't whether there a products that were invented that for which there was no demand. It's are there products for which there was a demand that no one tried to invent. Of course, his proof that there is demand is the fact that people are buying the product. In other words, only products that have already been invented can fit his criteria. It's like saying "show me a black Camero that isn't black."

Sort of true, because the supply side ALWAYS attempts to meet the demand. You're right, it's (probably) impossible to show me an example of what I'm asking for. Because I know it doesn't exist and it is what proves my point. If you could show me an example, my point would cease to be valid.

You're example is not exactly accurate but I'll give you an A for effort.

It's impossible for the same reason that I can't show you a black Camero that isn't black. We all know that doesn't exist. However, it doesn't prove a damn thing

Your question is just cheap shameless demagoguery.

That example would only be valid if your argument to me was "there are definitely black camaros, that aren't black".

So I would say "show me a black camaro that isn't black"

and you complain that it's impossible. Which exactly proves my argument. You're right, it's impossible.

I do love your scenarios though.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sometimes stupid pissing matches are just plain fun.

But back to topic. . . . .

This chicken vs egg argument isn't really a chicken/egg argument here. It is true that you can't operate a business without consumers. And it is the presence of consumers that inspires business. Nobody puts a convenience store or a gas station in the middle of nowhere so that almost nobody ever goes by.

But having said that. . . .

Unless you make it for yourself, all the demand in the world doesn't get provide necessary or any other kind of product or service unless somebody is willing to put their time, talent, initiative, resources, and know how at risk and produce that product or service.

Certainly any business big enough to hire people will have substantial overhead costs not the least of which is a business license, insurance, taxes, rent, utilities, a record keeping system, advertising, and supplies/raw materials/merchandise. In many places environmental and other regulation, zoning restrictions, and other requirements will increase start up costs and/or the cost of doing business.

Unless you have a business climate in which people have a realistic expectation of making a good profit if they risk all that time and personal resources, the product or service won't be provided no matter how much demand there might be.

Demand doesn't create jobs. Allowing people the ability and incentive to make a profit creates jobs.

 

[flacaltenn]

Supply vs. demand.

If the supply side can create all the product that they want free of taxes and regulations it won't matter if there is no demand. If the middle class have no disposable income, the demand slows down.

Now if the middle class are flourishing and have money to spend, the demand becomes obvious and business and in turn jobs will be created to meet that demand.

The real "job creators" are not the rich, but the people who purchase the products. If they have no money, they make no purchases.

So yes, we should be catering to the job creators. It's just a matter of deciding who truly are the job creators that is the question.

Couple of things to consider.. You are correct if we lived in pre-1990 America. We don't. In fact the economic textbooks are just now catching up to the changes. Not surprising that this debate about "stimulating consumption" is so distorted -- because MOST of us were educated before 1990..

The shift to a Service sector economy changed all this.. You can no longer stimulate the economy from the bottom up and expect the same results. This happens because of the massive diff between Service jobs and Manufacturing jobs.

1) Service sectors industries are much more capital intensive and less labor dense. You only have to compare the employee parking spaces outside a Macy's store to a major manufacturing plant.

2) To double a manufacturing plant -- you just build a 2nd plant. To double a retail franchise business -- you might have to add 100 new stores in 100 different places with the commitant waste of land, resources and overhead. Extremely inefficient compared to serving the entire world from one location like a manufacturer can.

3) This alone accounts for a large chunk of corporate cash that is accumulated during a recession. Because banks, retailers, real estate companies, food services can cut LARGE amounts of spending just by shrinking their service areas. A manufacturer can't contract that easily to save money. If you have one plant, it's hard to wall off 1/2 of it.

4) Number 4 comes from #3. When Service companies contract during a recession, labor does not rebound as quickly. Because if you closed the 4th Peoria McDonalds -- it's gonna be a long time in a healthy economy -- when that restaurant comes back.. No amount of "bottom-up" stimulus is gonna hasten that decision...


So when you seed the economy TODAY with "stimulus" at the consumer level -- all you are doing is cranking up off-shore manufacturing plants and increasing the number of cargo ships coming from China. Furthermore, the amount of labor that needs to added at the retail sales level to handle the increased consumption is NOWHERE NEAR as large as it would have been to actually produce the goods.

Sure a chiropractor in the service industry MIGHT see an increase in business. But they serve a limited local market. And the results are spotty. Same with roofers, plumbers, and other Service industry participants.

We NEED to dust ourselves off, get back on the Manufacturing horse and find and build and invent NEW Industries that will invent and build stuff to serve the world from America. If we DON'T do that -- all we are doing is rearranging furniture on a sinking Titanic.

And THAT means capital moving from the top to start new ventures. Not "trickle-up" at a reduced rate of return. This is NOT the Great Depression. Obama is not the 2nd FDR. And the rules have changed..

 

[Intense]

Supply vs. demand.

If the supply side can create all the product that they want free of taxes and regulations it won't matter if there is no demand. If the middle class have no disposable income, the demand slows down.

Now if the middle class are flourishing and have money to spend, the demand becomes obvious and business and in turn jobs will be created to meet that demand.

The real "job creators" are not the rich, but the people who purchase the products. If they have no money, they make no purchases.

So yes, we should be catering to the job creators. It's just a matter of deciding who truly are the job creators that is the question.

Couple of things to consider.. You are correct if we lived in pre-1990 America. We don't. In fact the economic textbooks are just now catching up to the changes. Not surprising that this debate about "stimulating consumption" is so distorted -- because MOST of us were educated before 1990..

The shift to a Service sector economy changed all this.. You can no longer stimulate the economy from the bottom up and expect the same results. This happens because of the massive diff between Service jobs and Manufacturing jobs.

1) Service sectors industries are much more capital intensive and less labor dense. You only have to compare the employee parking spaces outside a Macy's store to a major manufacturing plant.

2) To double a manufacturing plant -- you just build a 2nd plant. To double a retail franchise business -- you might have to add 100 new stores in 100 different places with the commitant waste of land, resources and overhead. Extremely inefficient compared to serving the entire world from one location like a manufacturer can.

3) This alone accounts for a large chunk of corporate cash that is accumulated during a recession. Because banks, retailers, real estate companies, food services can cut LARGE amounts of spending just by shrinking their service areas. A manufacturer can't contract that easily to save money. If you have one plant, it's hard to wall off 1/2 of it.

4) Number 4 comes from #3. When Service companies contract during a recession, labor does not rebound as quickly. Because if you closed the 4th Peoria McDonalds -- it's gonna be a long time in a healthy economy -- when that restaurant comes back.. No amount of "bottom-up" stimulus is gonna hasten that decision...


So when you seed the economy TODAY with "stimulus" at the consumer level -- all you are doing is cranking up off-shore manufacturing plants and increasing the number of cargo ships coming from China. Furthermore, the amount of labor that needs to added at the retail sales level to handle the increased consumption is NOWHERE NEAR as large as it would have been to actually produce the goods.

Sure a chiropractor in the service industry MIGHT see an increase in business. But they serve a limited local market. And the results are spotty. Same with roofers, plumbers, and other Service industry participants.

We NEED to dust ourselves off, get back on the Manufacturing horse and find and build and invent NEW Industries that will invent and build stuff to serve the world from America. If we DON'T do that -- all we are doing is rearranging furniture on a sinking Titanic.

And THAT means capital moving from the top to start new ventures. Not "trickle-up" at a reduced rate of return. This is NOT the Great Depression. Obama is not the 2nd FDR. And the rules have changed..

Pretty sound reasoning. Still, even Manufacturer's have to deal with the cost and availability of Raw Materials, and or Vendors. It takes Vision and hard work.
Again, there is nothing available at the Market Place that Someone or some group, did not take a chance on in getting it there. RDD is confusing the role of the Provider with that of the Consumer. True there are two sides to the Equation, and that is where fair compensation is determined, but who is the consumer to Screw the Provider out of Fair Compensation through Dictate?

 

[Foxfyre]

Supply vs. demand.

If the supply side can create all the product that they want free of taxes and regulations it won't matter if there is no demand. If the middle class have no disposable income, the demand slows down.

Now if the middle class are flourishing and have money to spend, the demand becomes obvious and business and in turn jobs will be created to meet that demand.

The real "job creators" are not the rich, but the people who purchase the products. If they have no money, they make no purchases.

So yes, we should be catering to the job creators. It's just a matter of deciding who truly are the job creators that is the question.

Couple of things to consider.. You are correct if we lived in pre-1990 America. We don't. In fact the economic textbooks are just now catching up to the changes. Not surprising that this debate about "stimulating consumption" is so distorted -- because MOST of us were educated before 1990..

The shift to a Service sector economy changed all this.. You can no longer stimulate the economy from the bottom up and expect the same results. This happens because of the massive diff between Service jobs and Manufacturing jobs.

1) Service sectors industries are much more capital intensive and less labor dense. You only have to compare the employee parking spaces outside a Macy's store to a major manufacturing plant.

2) To double a manufacturing plant -- you just build a 2nd plant. To double a retail franchise business -- you might have to add 100 new stores in 100 different places with the commitant waste of land, resources and overhead. Extremely inefficient compared to serving the entire world from one location like a manufacturer can.

3) This alone accounts for a large chunk of corporate cash that is accumulated during a recession. Because banks, retailers, real estate companies, food services can cut LARGE amounts of spending just by shrinking their service areas. A manufacturer can't contract that easily to save money. If you have one plant, it's hard to wall off 1/2 of it.

4) Number 4 comes from #3. When Service companies contract during a recession, labor does not rebound as quickly. Because if you closed the 4th Peoria McDonalds -- it's gonna be a long time in a healthy economy -- when that restaurant comes back.. No amount of "bottom-up" stimulus is gonna hasten that decision...


So when you seed the economy TODAY with "stimulus" at the consumer level -- all you are doing is cranking up off-shore manufacturing plants and increasing the number of cargo ships coming from China. Furthermore, the amount of labor that needs to added at the retail sales level to handle the increased consumption is NOWHERE NEAR as large as it would have been to actually produce the goods.

Sure a chiropractor in the service industry MIGHT see an increase in business. But they serve a limited local market. And the results are spotty. Same with roofers, plumbers, and other Service industry participants.

We NEED to dust ourselves off, get back on the Manufacturing horse and find and build and invent NEW Industries that will invent and build stuff to serve the world from America. If we DON'T do that -- all we are doing is rearranging furniture on a sinking Titanic.

And THAT means capital moving from the top to start new ventures. Not "trickle-up" at a reduced rate of return. This is NOT the Great Depression. Obama is not the 2nd FDR. And the rules have changed..

I don't have much quarrel with your take here and you make some excellent points. I don't, however, believe that the basics of economics have changed. The principle that any business has to have a net profit over expenses or it won't operate for long has not changed.

The only things that have really changed are the kinds of businesses that are more likely to make a net profit these days versus those of twenty, thirty, fifty, seventy years ago coupled with how much more difficult our government has made it to make a profit and/or anticipate a reasonable profit these days.

What has not changed is that demand may often dictate what kinds of businesses will be developed, and woe be to the business that does not anticipate and adjust to changing demand, but unless there is a profit to be made, no amount of demand will create a single job.