How many jobs have been created by the richest people in this country?

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: herm0016
Walmart employees people, they also increase the amount of disposable income that people will have to spend in a town because of the cheaper prices and the likelihood that they employ more people than the shops they may or may not have run out of business, and increase the tax base of the community a lot. the city can then afford to hire more people to do things like fix roads and buildings, build parks, etc.... at least in my town, walmart was a great thing, more people got jobs, the town gets more money in taxes and the people save money when they buy things. Walmart paid to upgrade the highway in front of the store and offers discounts for student groups and other non-profits when we do fundraisers and such.

I have bolded the flaws in your reasoning:

the likelihood that they employ more people than the shops they may or may not have run out of business
False. The WalMart business model is to employ fewer people than its competitors

the retail that was present before walmart is still there, they have simply specialized more in a particular area of retail.

increase the tax base of the community a lot
Actually its the opposite. Assuming that the property txes are the same for the one Walmart that put x number of small businesses out of business, you still have the lower salaries and more part time workers at walmart. Meaning less taxes paid. So that means LESS money to do things like fix roads, etc.


see above also, the people that are employed there are getting paid the same or more than they would have at a private business. more income to spend in town.

least in my town, walmart was a great thing, more people got jobs, the town gets more money in taxes and the people save money when they buy things
Yes, for SOME towns Walmart is not completely evil. If your town didn't have any retail establishments before walmart came, than you can claim your town now has more employees. However, while they paid to upgrade the highway in front of the store, the greater traffic on other roads is being paid for by you.

greater traffic? there is still the same amount of people in town, they did not increase our population, or the population of any of the towns within a hour and a half that would drive to our town to have access to retail. it only increased traffic density at a particular point. everyone would have to go to get food / stuffs somewhere anyway. in fact, people are probably more likley to drive to our town now and spend money at the local places while visiting walmart.


offers discounts for student groups and other non-profits when we do fundraisers and such.
Many stores will do this. And its really just part of their public relations expenses. They are only doing it because they are getting something of value in return.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: techs
Let me try and explain it like I would to a child.
There is one car repair shop in my town and they have 4 employees and fix all the cars in town.
Another car repair company opens and they manage to get half the business in my town. Now they have 2 employees and the other company only has half the work so they cut back to 2 employees.

So there are still 4 people employed fixing cars in my town.

Now some people like Prof John in this thread want to worship the new shop that opened and claim the created 2 NEW jobs, when all they did was take away 2 jobs from another car repair place.
Which is why Prof John's thread and claim is so ludicrous.
WalMart didn't create 2.1 million jobs.
They basically took them away from other retailers (the list of companies walmart put out of business is staggering).
So this thread starts with a false assumption.
And therefore qualifies as :

/fail

Well explain this. Why has the over all employment increase from early 90s to right now if according to your logic, all the big company and the rich people take away jobs?

I mean I don't see mom and pop shops growing all over the place, the only thing I see is more Walmart stores, more mega corporations. According to your logic, all these should cost our over all employment to shrink, not to grow correct?

 

[IGBT]

using obamaLogic, every time you drive past a pedestrian and don't run them over, you've saved a life.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
better question: how many millions in the third world have died because of the richest people in this country

A better question would be how many have died since the left got DDT banned.

 

[piasabird]

How many of the workers at microsoft are H1b visas?

Microsoft also employs a lot of people in China.

http://www.microsoft.com/china/CTC/english.mspx

I wonder is you should count all the money made by illegal sales of pirated Microsoft software?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I really, REALLY hate "rich people create jobs" arguments. Like Bill Gates was bestowed his wealth by God, and he's selflessly using it to employ people. That's not how the economy works. Bill Gates provides jobs to people at Microsoft because it's profitable for him to do so, and it's profitable because averages Joes (as in, NOT the richest people in the country) buy Microsoft products. Bill Gates "creates jobs" just as much as the middle class guy who's buying a computer for his daughter because she's going to college. Without consumers, most of whom are NOT "the richest people in the country" nobody would have any jobs at all.

ProfJohn's argument amounts to trickle down economics, which is an idea that's not getting better with time. The fundamental flaw with the concept is that driving the economy from the supply side doesn't work. It doesn't matter how much extra money those at the top have, they AREN'T going to use that money to start businesses or hire more employees at the businesses they already have if there is no consumer demand for more service. The free market doesn't work the way Reaganomics says it does, at all, it's just an excuse to further enrich those at the top, to the detriment of everyone else and the overall health of the economy.

The thing is, rich people DO make most jobs. The current market is such that to start a business, one has to have huge amounts of personal assets (since most companies wont employ someone that is running their own company).

A poor person is just not likely to go out, start a business, and create a ton of jobs.

Demand can create supply, that is true. But for a new business, someone has to create a supply where there is no demand. New products are often not born out of necessity.

The argument that demand drives supply is equally as dumb as saying that supply drives demand. If it where true, then countries like Nigeria with a high demand for food would be starting large food industries.

The flaw is that really rich people do tend to stop job growth. People can't make it because business is to good. Competition is too fierce.

 

[ProfJohn]

Cogman... if what you say is true then a country in which every is poor would have insane job growth because everyone would be free to start companies... but that doesn't happen.

And actually the majority of jobs in this country are started by small business owners who are typically well off, but not wealthy.
Also, most people don't start their own companies because they don't have the drive or the ability or are not willing to risk everything. That is one reason why so many of the supper rich started their businesses at young ages because they were free to take the risks.

 

[SickBeast]

The problem is that an enormous portion of the money earned by these corporations is being funneled into the BOG. The CEO will often make 200 times more than the average worker, along with the entire BOG.

Corporations are the problem, not rich people. I have no issue with people earning money fairly. It's not fair to investors or blue collar workers if you can give yourself a raise and a golden parachute while robbing the company blind.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I really, REALLY hate "rich people create jobs" arguments. Like Bill Gates was bestowed his wealth by God, and he's selflessly using it to employ people. That's not how the economy works. Bill Gates provides jobs to people at Microsoft because it's profitable for him to do so, and it's profitable because averages Joes (as in, NOT the richest people in the country) buy Microsoft products. Bill Gates "creates jobs" just as much as the middle class guy who's buying a computer for his daughter because she's going to college. Without consumers, most of whom are NOT "the richest people in the country" nobody would have any jobs at all.

ProfJohn's argument amounts to trickle down economics, which is an idea that's not getting better with time. The fundamental flaw with the concept is that driving the economy from the supply side doesn't work. It doesn't matter how much extra money those at the top have, they AREN'T going to use that money to start businesses or hire more employees at the businesses they already have if there is no consumer demand for more service. The free market doesn't work the way Reaganomics says it does, at all, it's just an excuse to further enrich those at the top, to the detriment of everyone else and the overall health of the economy.

The thing is, rich people DO make most jobs. The current market is such that to start a business, one has to have huge amounts of personal assets (since most companies wont employ someone that is running their own company).

A poor person is just not likely to go out, start a business, and create a ton of jobs.

Demand can create supply, that is true. But for a new business, someone has to create a supply where there is no demand. New products are often not born out of necessity.

The argument that demand drives supply is equally as dumb as saying that supply drives demand. If it where true, then countries like Nigeria with a high demand for food would be starting large food industries.

The flaw is that really rich people do tend to stop job growth. People can't make it because business is to good. Competition is too fierce.

I think you're misunderstanding my point here.

I'm saying rich people don't "create jobs", that is not the same thing as arguing that "non-rich people create jobs". I am saying that supply doesn't create demand, that is not the same thing as saying that demand creates supply all by itself.

My argument, in fewer words, is that the ECONOMY creates jobs. And a strong economy requires both free enough capital to allow for the creation of industry, and enough general wealth that people can afford to buy products produced by that industry. Trickle down economics is bullshit because the basic theory is that unbalancing economic factors in favor of capital will somehow magically create jobs, even in the absence of increased consumer wealth. That does NOT mean we should give a ton of money to the middle class at the expense of the rich, that's stupid too. But nobody here is proposing that as far as I can tell.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I really, REALLY hate "rich people create jobs" arguments. Like Bill Gates was bestowed his wealth by God, and he's selflessly using it to employ people. That's not how the economy works. Bill Gates provides jobs to people at Microsoft because it's profitable for him to do so, and it's profitable because averages Joes (as in, NOT the richest people in the country) buy Microsoft products. Bill Gates "creates jobs" just as much as the middle class guy who's buying a computer for his daughter because she's going to college. Without consumers, most of whom are NOT "the richest people in the country" nobody would have any jobs at all.

ProfJohn's argument amounts to trickle down economics, which is an idea that's not getting better with time. The fundamental flaw with the concept is that driving the economy from the supply side doesn't work. It doesn't matter how much extra money those at the top have, they AREN'T going to use that money to start businesses or hire more employees at the businesses they already have if there is no consumer demand for more service. The free market doesn't work the way Reaganomics says it does, at all, it's just an excuse to further enrich those at the top, to the detriment of everyone else and the overall health of the economy.

The thing is, rich people DO make most jobs. The current market is such that to start a business, one has to have huge amounts of personal assets (since most companies wont employ someone that is running their own company).

A poor person is just not likely to go out, start a business, and create a ton of jobs.

Demand can create supply, that is true. But for a new business, someone has to create a supply where there is no demand. New products are often not born out of necessity.

The argument that demand drives supply is equally as dumb as saying that supply drives demand. If it where true, then countries like Nigeria with a high demand for food would be starting large food industries.

The flaw is that really rich people do tend to stop job growth. People can't make it because business is to good. Competition is too fierce.

I think you're misunderstanding my point here.

I'm saying rich people don't "create jobs", that is not the same thing as arguing that "non-rich people create jobs". I am saying that supply doesn't create demand, that is not the same thing as saying that demand creates supply all by itself.

My argument, in fewer words, is that the ECONOMY creates jobs. And a strong economy requires both free enough capital to allow for the creation of industry, and enough general wealth that people can afford to buy products produced by that industry. Trickle down economics is bullshit because the basic theory is that unbalancing economic factors in favor of capital will somehow magically create jobs, even in the absence of increased consumer wealth. That does NOT mean we should give a ton of money to the middle class at the expense of the rich, that's stupid too. But nobody here is proposing that as far as I can tell.

Saying 'rich people create jobs' is to parrot propaganda.

Of course there is - as there is in any good propaganda - a nugget of truth - and as in any good propaganda a false implication.

Bill Gates 'created jobs' with Microsoft - and outside. The people who built the PC's his OS ran on helped create those jobs too. His management team helped create those jobs too. The customers helped create those jobs too. The guys who wrote good games that made people want a PC helped create those jobs too.

These ideologus might like to argue, 'those workers are rpelacable'. When a billionare starts a company, someone else with that billion might not have started a better company? When a CEO expands a company, another CEO might not have expanded the company as much or more?

It's an ideology who tries to take a situation in which a lot of people play a lot of roles, and to give all the credit to the people the ideology is trying to give more to.

Even if we're well past the point where giving more to that one group has benefits, and is now counterproductive.

Just as increasing worker pay when it's low has benefits - and increasing it too much is counterproductive. But that doesn't apply to CEO's and owners in the ideology.

Anytime someone says 'the rich create jobs', give him a cracker. You are talking with a parrot. You're not going to get a lot done, I expect.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Note that it is wrong to assume that they "gave" everything that makes the job possible. They contributed the capital and business acumen to the deal, but employees also "give" a large amount of what makes the job possible. As with the other thread, the issue is, are people--business owners, executives, managers, production people--receiving as compensation the value that they contributed to the act of wealth production. In other words--how should the revenue pie be divided. It isn't an illegitimate question.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Note that it is wrong to assume that they "gave" everything that makes the job possible. They contributed the capital and business acumen to the deal, but employees also "give" a large amount of what makes the job possible. As with the other thread, the issue is, are people--business owners, executives, managers, production people--receiving as compensation the value that they contributed to the act of wealth production. In other words--how should the revenue pie be divided. It isn't an illegitimate question.

that's the whole point. if you think you are worth more, quit and find someone who will pay what you are worth. the company will pay you what it thinks your services are worth to them.

this is exactly how people in my line of work get paid, a base plus a small percentage of every job that makes the company money. In the factory we paid piece rate, so much per door built, so much per each step of the process, we paid the worker exactly what we thought the task was worth to us. a person that is quick could make a lot of money, a slow person will make peanuts, but its all in relation to how much value they bring to the table.

 

[fisheerman]

Everyone argueing that Bill Gates made it off of the hard working backs of the poor Microsoft worker does realize that most of the workers at Microsoft during the boom were rewarded with lots of money as well.

Hard to argue with numbers like these................................

"While the exact number is not known, it is reasonable to assume that there were approximately 10,000 Microsoft millionaires created by the year 2000," said Richard S. Conway Jr., a Seattle economist whom Microsoft hired to study its impact on Washington State. "The wealth that has come to this area is staggering."

Link


-fish