Sorry, Folks, Rich People Don't Create The Jobs

[Zaap]

Collective self interest of individuals making value judgement decisions based upon subjective desires...aka EVERYONE.

The rich are not rich because of the poor. The Poor are not poor because of the rich. The middle class is not middle class because of those above or below them. Yet, everyone is where they are because of everyone.

Could you be a little more vague?

So people just wake up one day and *paff* their class is decided for them by "collective self interest blah de dah subjective desires?"

Sounds nice, I guess. What did that actually entail day-to-day? I mean that any middle class person would actually recognize as how they got to be middle.class. Who signed the checks? "Courtesy of Subjective Desires"? Was there a commute involved or does C.S.I. make house.calls?

 

[realibrad]

Could you be a little more vague?

So people just wake up one day and *paff* their class is decided for them by "collective self interest blah de dah subjective desires?"

Sounds nice, I guess. What did that actually entail day-to-day? I mean that any middle class person would actually recognize as how they got to be middle.class. Who signed the checks? "Courtesy of Subjective Desires"? Was there a commute involved or does C.S.I. make house.calls?

Are you asking how markets work?

 

[Zebo]

So, what you're saying is the government creates jobs? Better raise our tax rate so we can employ more people then!

No govt facilitates it. And govt doesnt need taxes at all. Biggest scam ever. Hold over from when we had a fixed money supply.

 

[nehalem256]

Working ones dont. Go down to your local union hall (if you still have one) and survey. TPB do.

I guess you are saying that most Democrats don't work

 

[realibrad]

No govt facilitates it. And govt doesnt need taxes at all. Biggest scam ever. Hold over from when we had a fixed money supply.

I think you are advocating using inflation as a way to pay for gov activity. That is playing with fire, and has never worked long term. Milton Friedman did a lot of research on this very thing.

 

[werepossum]

Not true at all. As China gets richer due to industrialization, they will become less competitive source of cheap labor. At the same time they will use their money to start buying more American goods. Eventually an equilibrium will be reached and cheap labor will be found somewhere else. The situation is almost exactly the same as with Japan in the 60's and 70's.

It's true that they will become a less competitive source of cheap labor, although China has pegged its currency to ours to ensure it always has an advantage. The second part is not at all true - as the Chinese people demand more consumer goods or Chinese industry demands more production equipment, Chinese companies step up and meet that demand with Chinese-sourced goods. Either they force US and European companies to build factories in China - and 9 times out of 10 "force" equals "don't prevent" - or they knock off the goods with Chinese equals, often illegally. Let's also remember that Japanese goods weren't replaced with American-made goods, but with Chinese-made goods. Even if China gets knocked off its pedestal as our number one supplier, India or Indonesia or wherever replacing them doesn't actually help us. We still get cheap stuff, and we still bleed capital to get it.

I actually meant my post to be sarcasm, because in the long run, things will even out. People see China having stole our good jobs, and that we need to fight to get them back. The reality is that those jobs are not what we think they are. Those jobs would have died a long time ago in the US, as individual productivity increased to the point where a combination of automation and skilled technician can do the same job as 100 people before him, at 1/1000 the cost. The only reason the jobs are still in China, is because standard of living is so low, that they command very little in wages. But, even now there is pressure on those jobs in China. We now have robots that can be trained for around 22k. That is a large one time expense, and the cost of maintaining the machines is far lower than a yearly wage to a human.

As goods/services get cheaper, people need less to purchase them. We now live in a world where things are so easy to come by, that most lower income workers are taking the hit relative to GDP because its a good enough life. Population is growing at a rate that causes competition among laborers, so that they are competing for the wages. If people want life to go back to the good ole days, it would mean being less productive, and having less in your life.

Anyone here who reads this and is over 40, ask yourself the following. As a kid, did you have as much stuff as kids of today have? I would bet the vast majority would say no, that the kids of today have far more crap then they ever had. So, even though income relative to things like GDP and buying power are said to be lower, we have far more things. So the poor of today are better off than the poor of the past.

Two points here. First, those robots are still cheaper to operate in China. In fact, a great deal of Chinese manufacturing now is very high tech, automated production.

Second, most lower income workers are taking the hit relative to GDP not because its a good enough life, but because they have no practical alternatives. Or at least, no alternatives they perceive as practical, which I'll concede is in large part due to your point.

I guess you are saying that most Democrats don't work

lol +1

 

[Zaap]

Are you asking how markets work?

It just fascinates me how people will jump through hoops to keep from admitting the blindingly obvious: most middle class people got that way working for people with more than them, in fact, with enough money to pay.them (drum roll...) a middle class income.

Its also the class that.must be maintained the most based on reliance on someone with more money than you. You can by luck be filthy rich and do nothing to maintain it, and need no one with more than you.(good luck with it, but it is possible; inheritance, etc.) Anyone can do nothing and be dirt poor. That's pretty much the natural state of being.

You absolutely cannot fall into a.comfortable middle.class existence by accident and do nothing to maintain it. You're working for someone with more money than you.


You can't start the chain of "who creates jobs" with the middle.class, (otherwise hell, the whole world would just skip past poverty and go straight to middle.class and take it from there. *oh joy! More just print money logic!* But people will perform incredible logic acrobatics to try it.

 

[realibrad]

It's true that they will become a less competitive source of cheap labor, although China has pegged its currency to ours to ensure it always has an advantage. The second part is not at all true - as the Chinese people demand more consumer goods or Chinese industry demands more production equipment, Chinese companies step up and meet that demand with Chinese-sourced goods. Either they force US and European companies to build factories in China - and 9 times out of 10 "force" equals "don't prevent" - or they knock off the goods with Chinese equals, often illegally. Let's also remember that Japanese goods weren't replaced with American-made goods, but with Chinese-made goods. Even if China gets knocked off its pedestal as our number one supplier, India or Indonesia or wherever replacing them doesn't actually help us. We still get cheap stuff, and we still bleed capital to get it.


Two points here. First, those robots are still cheaper to operate in China. In fact, a great deal of Chinese manufacturing now is very high tech, automated production.

Second, most lower income workers are taking the hit relative to GDP not because its a good enough life, but because they have no practical alternatives. Or at least, no alternatives they perceive as practical, which I'll concede is in large part due to your point.


lol +1

The issue is that China is out competing the US. China's companies are investing and making sure to keep up with manufacturing innovation, while offering a lower cost of labor. We "won" the cold war because we had a superior economic model. China has picked a few parts of capitalism, but it too will hit a wall at some point, unless it picks up more parts. The sad irony is that what made the US the super power it is today, is being ignored because we want short term gains. For those that are older, remember when Japan was going to take over the world, and Socialism was the IT thing. Where is Japan now? Europe and the EU was going to be the next thing after that, and how is the EU doing? Now its China, and their GPD at just about 1/2 that of the US, and people think China will take over the world.

Nothing has helped the poor more than capitalism, and yet we blame it for every economic problem. Apparently all of history has capitalism wrong, because Socialism has never worked, but damn if we dont keep trying.

 

[realibrad]

It just fascinates me how people will jump through hoops to keep from admitting the blindingly obvious: most middle class people got that way working for people with more than them, in fact, with enough money to pay.them (drum roll...) a middle class income.

Its also the class that.must be maintained the most based on reliance on someone with more money than you. You can by luck be filthy rich and do nothing to maintain it, and need no one with more than you.(good luck with it, but it is possible; inheritance, etc.) Anyone can do nothing and be dirt poor. That's pretty much the natural state of being.

You absolutely cannot fall into a.comfortable middle.class existence by accident and do nothing to maintain it. You're working for someone with more money than you.


You can't start the chain of "who creates jobs" with the middle.class, (otherwise hell, the whole world would just skip past poverty and go straight to middle.class and take it from there. *oh joy! More just print money logic!* But people will perform incredible logic acrobatics to try it.

So, you believe that the middle class are only middle class because there is a upper class that trickles down wealth. So pray tell, where do the top 1% get their wealth from?

Peoples economic status derived from the value they bring to society, and society's compensation. It does not come from the poor, or the rich, but everyone. I dont think you understood my post that you quoted.

 

[Olikan]

So, what you're saying is the government creates jobs? Better raise our tax rate so we can employ more people then!

never heard about the "new deal"?

seriously, what up with this ayn rand bullshit, that the gov just destroy stuffs? and the only hope is free capitalism

just remember that most high speed trains are found in heavy socialist countryes... btw, have ever a private company build a road, for only road fee?

free market works, but not at everything, especially when the starting costs are insane

yes, i am still pro-capitalism, but this ayn rand mentality just needs to go

 

[realibrad]

never heard about the "new deal"?

seriously, what up with this ayn rand bullshit, that the gov just destroy stuffs? and the only hope is free capitalism

just remember that most high speed trains are found in heavy socialist countryes... btw, have ever a private company build a road, for only road fee?

free market works, but not at everything, especially when the starting costs are insane

yes, i am still pro-capitalism, but this ayn rand mentality just needs to go

In a free market, starting costs don't hold back something that brings a greater return than the investment relative to the alternatives. Firms in a free market will go where the profit is. If there is not a profit, its because it does not bring enough value, or 3rd parties are not paying for the Externalities, but its never for the starting costs.

 

[Zebo]

I think you are advocating using inflation as a way to pay for gov activity. That is playing with fire, and has never worked long term. Milton Friedman did a lot of research on this very thing.

We are not Greece and dont inflate like other economies. Seriously last 5 years of ginning up over 1T each year, not including trillions FED gave to businesses and foreign banks, should have shown you that.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascale...l-not-go-into-a-debt-crisis-not-now-not-ever/

 

[Zaap]

So, you believe that the middle class are only middle class because there is a upper class that trickles down wealth. So pray tell, where do the top 1% get their wealth from?

Ah I see, you're too mired in all the old class envy crap. 1%! The proletariat and bourgeoisie!

You can't seem to explain where middle.class people get their money from besides a job from someone able to pay a middle class salary... so if from elsewhere, where? Specifics please.

Where did the rich get their money? Why don't you ask some of them and/or read up on it? Go read the bios of the largest job creators. Many who create jobs came up with an idea or innovation someone else hadn't yet. They were then a combination of driven enough to make it happen and (probably most important) infleuncial enough to convince others of their idea, enough to invest capital in it. (Traditionally that's family and friends, then moving up to banks, financiers, venture capitalists, etc. Its also the thing most people... even with good ideas ans skills fail at most, or miss completely in trying to be a job-creator. If you can't convince others your ideas are worth investing in... then they don't matter that much.) People with money putting it into someone's business idea. If the business becomes successful it then employs a.lot of people at middle class wages.

If you're talking "old" money... then people got that from being land and resource owners.

Peoples economic status derived from the value they bring to society, and society's compensation. It does not come from the poor, or the rich, but everyone. I dont think you understood my post that you quoted.

That sounds good,.but it's horseshit.

Your economic status comes from your ability to convince someone else with more money than you to pay you for your time and labor. (Unless youre a business owner yourself, in which case youre likely upper middle class to wealthy).You can lose your job and drop to a lower economic status in a heartbeat. Did your value to society take a nosedive, or is it just that you're currently unable to find someone able/willing to pay you what you were previously making?

Someone who can maintain a comfortable middle class life without a job working for others with more money ISN'T middle class. They're rich. If you have a source of several thou per week other than a job that continues on year after year after year... then you're wealthy not middle class.

 

[werepossum]

The issue is that China is out competing the US. China's companies are investing and making sure to keep up with manufacturing innovation, while offering a lower cost of labor. We "won" the cold war because we had a superior economic model. China has picked a few parts of capitalism, but it too will hit a wall at some point, unless it picks up more parts. The sad irony is that what made the US the super power it is today, is being ignored because we want short term gains. For those that are older, remember when Japan was going to take over the world, and Socialism was the IT thing. Where is Japan now? Europe and the EU was going to be the next thing after that, and how is the EU doing? Now its China, and their GPD at just about 1/2 that of the US, and people think China will take over the world.

Nothing has helped the poor more than capitalism, and yet we blame it for every economic problem. Apparently all of history has capitalism wrong, because Socialism has never worked, but damn if we dont keep trying.

I never accepted that socialism was the "IT" thing and I'm a huge fan of capitalism. But just as I want environmental protections, minimum wage protections, worker's comp protections, and unemployment insurance protections, I want protections against devaluing labor by flooding the market with cheap labor both imported and abroad. I'll happily accept devaluing labor by automation and progress because they bring benefits in wealth production, but this doesn't feel like winning. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-detroit-water-20140629-story.html#page=1

One can certainly argue the Darwinism inherent in a young lady who can afford multiple tattoos but not water and I'd bet good money she has a smart phone, but the fact is that increasing numbers of Americans are unable to make ends meet. That they are probably the lower rungs of society should not justify this; they are still Americans. In Detroit, admittedly the worst of the worst for a variety of reasons, almost half of residents are critically behind on water & sewer bills. I don't think that almost half of Detroit citizens with water bills are inherently defective people. They are merely trapped in a quickly failing system inside a more slowly failing larger system inside a still more slowly failing larger system. Think of them as canaries. Maybe the rest of us aren't yet feeling the effects of bad air, but the quality hasn't stopped falling either.

 

[BoberFett]

We are not Greece and dont inflate like other economies. Seriously last 5 years of ginning up over 1T each year, not including trillions FED gave to businesses and foreign banks, should have shown you that.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascale...l-not-go-into-a-debt-crisis-not-now-not-ever/

No, it's not causing inflation in consumer goods.

But how's the stock market doing? Booming? Who's the recipient of most of that? Didn't we just have a thread complaining about stock buybacks and the wealthy getting wealthier?

Despite what Democrats try to convince their special little followers, government is not only complicit but actively funneling money to the wealthy and increasing the inequality those same useful idiots love to gripe about.

 

[dmcowen674]

Can you imagine if we treated companies the same way we treated people, and they took to message boards to complain?

For every wistful complaint about how we should have more "well paying" factory jobs in the U.S. you'd have a complaint from obsolete companies like Polaroid or Blockbuster Video complaining that customers should be forced to buy its products for a "fair price" to enable them to survive.

That is exactly what is happening now.

The incumbent Mega Corps like Fox with outdated business models are able to manipulate the Government and the Courts to stop new Technology start ups like Aereo.

 

[Olikan]

In a free market, starting costs don't hold back something that brings a greater return than the investment relative to the alternatives. Firms in a free market will go where the profit is. If there is not a profit, its because it does not bring enough value, or 3rd parties are not paying for the Externalities, but its never for the starting costs.

of course it does... ask yourself:
would you build a road that would cost 100M, and it might pay it self in 20 years?
there is value? yes, in 20 freaking years

or will you spend it in a new factory, that would pay itself in 3 years?

i bet my virgin ass that most people will say factory

there is always a better investment, and it's the reason that most roads and railroads in the world were made by the gov

 

[BoberFett]

of course it does... ask yourself:
would you build a road that would cost 100M, and it might pay it self in 20 years?
there is value? yes, in 20 freaking years

or will you spend it in a new factory, that would pay itself in 3 years?

i bet my virgin ass that most people will say factory

there is always a better investment, and it's the reason that most roads and railroads in the world were made by the gov

/facepalm

The railroads in this country were giant gifts to the wealthy using public land and money. The "robber barons" that you fools like to bitch about were created by government, you actually believe the government will rein them in?

http://mises.org/daily/6686/Crony-Capitalism-and-the-Transcontinental-Railroads

Jesus H. Fucking Christ some of you are gullible. Government has always been, and always will be, a part of the problem.

 

[Olikan]

The railroads in this country were giant gifts to the wealthy using public land and money. The "robber barons" that you fools like to bitch about were created by government, you actually believe the government will rein them in?

yes, they were, and this somehow changes my point?
the gov had to do that, or no one would...

and the problem with the "robber barons" is that they don't spend to much, the money don't circulate, just stock pile
remember how the new deal worked? the gov borrowed money, and made it circulate by building massive projects....
and that's what the "robber barons" should have done, even if they profits only came before 20 years

 

[BoberFett]

yes, they were, and this somehow changes my point?
the gov had to do that, or no one would...

and the problem with the "robber barons" is that they don't spend to much, the money don't circulate, just stock pile
remember how the new deal worked? the gov borrowed money, and made it circulate by building massive projects....
and that's what the "robber barons" should have done, even if they profits only came before 20 years

Holy comprehension failure Batman!

 

[realibrad]

Ah I see, you're too mired in all the old class envy crap. 1%! The proletariat and bourgeoisie!

You can't seem to explain where middle.class people get their money from besides a job from someone able to pay a middle class salary... so if from elsewhere, where? Specifics please.

Where did the rich get their money? Why don't you ask some of them and/or read up on it? Go read the bios of the largest job creators. Many who create jobs came up with an idea or innovation someone else hadn't yet. They were then a combination of driven enough to make it happen and (probably most important) infleuncial enough to convince others of their idea, enough to invest capital in it. (Traditionally that's family and friends, then moving up to banks, financiers, venture capitalists, etc. Its also the thing most people... even with good ideas ans skills fail at most, or miss completely in trying to be a job-creator. If you can't convince others your ideas are worth investing in... then they don't matter that much.) People with money putting it into someone's business idea. If the business becomes successful it then employs a.lot of people at middle class wages.

If you're talking "old" money... then people got that from being land and resource owners.


That sounds good,.but it's horseshit.

Your economic status comes from your ability to convince someone else with more money than you to pay you for your time and labor. (Unless youre a business owner yourself, in which case youre likely upper middle class to wealthy).You can lose your job and drop to a lower economic status in a heartbeat. Did your value to society take a nosedive, or is it just that you're currently unable to find someone able/willing to pay you what you were previously making?

Someone who can maintain a comfortable middle class life without a job working for others with more money ISN'T middle class. They're rich. If you have a source of several thou per week other than a job that continues on year after year after year... then you're wealthy not middle class.

So a few things. I think you are filtering what I'm saying through the idea that I think there is a class of people who create the jobs. Some jobs come from a new way of doing things. Others may create jobs from because they have a skill that allows them to be more productive. There are venture capitalist that may want to create a new firm and invest in an idea that may create companies. I think you are under the idea that I am anti wealthy, and that I blame them for any thing negative, and I do not.

Demand is inherent to mankind. Individual people shop in a market place to meet their desires aka consumers. There is another group who want to find new ways of meeting those desires. The typical way most people look at job creation would mean that the consumers do not create jobs.

Onto the 1% comment I made. I referenced it not because of class warfare, but because you have this idea that the wealthy are the ones to support the middle class, and that is simply not true. The wealthy may support middle class people, or they may not. If I start a computer repair business, and my clients are middle and lower class people, and I do enough volume at, I can generate a middle class income, and the wealthy would not factor into that income. That is not the only way of course, but your idea that the only way to start a business is to get investors is incorrect. If a person works a low paying job, but has a surplus, they can save money to start their own business and enter the middle class.

You also mentioned that your value can drop by losing your job, but that you keep value even while unemployed. You are incorrect about this as well. For the same reason that you can have potential energy, you can have potential value as well. When you are not working, explicitly you are not producing and thus do not have value, but you do have potential value. If you can no longer find a salary for the same work you were doing, then that is an explicit message from the market that your production is not as valuable as it once was, and then again, you have lost value to the society. An example would be blacksmiths. There was a time in history where their value was far greater. However, because of innovation, the demand dropped, and the labor had to decrease. There were too many workers relative to the demand, and it pushed prices down. So, because of innovation, your value may very well go down.

Your economic status comes from your ability to convince someone else with more money than you to pay you for your time and labor.

So the above notion is incorrect, because while it can be true, its not always true. An person who owns a auto repair shop may make a middle class wage, and only need to service people who make less.

 

[realibrad]

I never accepted that socialism was the "IT" thing and I'm a huge fan of capitalism. But just as I want environmental protections, minimum wage protections, worker's comp protections, and unemployment insurance protections, I want protections against devaluing labor by flooding the market with cheap labor both imported and abroad. I'll happily accept devaluing labor by automation and progress because they bring benefits in wealth production, but this doesn't feel like winning. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-detroit-water-20140629-story.html#page=1

One can certainly argue the Darwinism inherent in a young lady who can afford multiple tattoos but not water and I'd bet good money she has a smart phone, but the fact is that increasing numbers of Americans are unable to make ends meet. That they are probably the lower rungs of society should not justify this; they are still Americans. In Detroit, admittedly the worst of the worst for a variety of reasons, almost half of residents are critically behind on water & sewer bills. I don't think that almost half of Detroit citizens with water bills are inherently defective people. They are merely trapped in a quickly failing system inside a more slowly failing larger system inside a still more slowly failing larger system. Think of them as canaries. Maybe the rest of us aren't yet feeling the effects of bad air, but the quality hasn't stopped falling either.

Man, I like replying to your posts a lot. Because while I disagree, they are far better formed ideas.

I to wish that the American standard of living did not have to be reduced. The fact of the matter is that we live in a global world, and others act in their self interest. The market is flooded with cheap labor, no matter the tariffs we impose. Trying to isolate the US market from these outside factors only means that the US will be left behind. I know I brought this up before in another thread, but the US auto market is a great example. For a long time, the us tried to protect its auto industry. As American cars fell out of favor around the world, the US market stayed strong, because tariffs made foreign cars too expensive. The foreign markets kept innovating to meet global demand, and the US market kept making cars for the US. Eventually the US market was so stagnant and that the foreign innovation out spaced the effect of the tariffs and we saw a crash in the US market. That was the 80s and the US auto industry never recovered.

We risk doing the same thing every time we try to isolate an industry. Capitalism pushes down the price of wages and does so for a very good reason. It does not push down wages to make the rich richer, but to increase the productivity. In the past, this wage pressure was confined to old types of production. Once the car was invented, horse travel became obsolete, and demand dropped, and thus wages. The demand for cars shot up, and the increase in demand relative to the labor force meant that wages would go up. We are now in an age of automation, and its causing manual labor to be pushed down. This is actually a good thing in the long run. It means that we are becoming so productive that it takes very little resources to produce goods. These goods are so cheap, that people now have more in their lives than any time in history. Most poor have AC, refrigeration, tattoos, and cell phones. If labor pools has been protected, the price of the goods would be higher, and fewer people would have these things. All protection ends up doing is making a select group better off, at the expense of those who purchase their goods.

So, the reason incomes are down, is because innovation in the US market relative to what it had been is going down. The US is no longer creating new jobs in new fields, because innovation has been stifled for many reasons. China will act in its self interests and we should not expect anything less, as we are attempting to do the same. The question is, do those activities help anyone, other than a select few? I believe that those activities to protect labor are actually a transfer payment that many believe has a net benefit but are wrong.

I do feel sorry for those who make reasonable decisions and end up failing. I am for some social programs that help the poor or people unable to contribute because I feel its cruel to leave them be. But, we have gone far past that idea. People make bad decisions and when they start to suffer, they expect help. If someone takes a risk and over leveraged themselves, then they need to suffer some economic consequence. This is because if we absolve people from their bad decisions, we get people doing what the banks did, and take on risks that others will end up paying for. Morality aside, this is a very bad policy.

Its time for America to step up, or step aside. If we can not compete for what we want, then what claim do we have to resources. Why should American or any country take resources when they could be better used elsewhere. If we truly want the American way of life to continue, then we need to work for it, and expect that others will do the same.

 

[werepossum]

So a few things. I think you are filtering what I'm saying through the idea that I think there is a class of people who create the jobs. Some jobs come from a new way of doing things. Others may create jobs from because they have a skill that allows them to be more productive. There are venture capitalist that may want to create a new firm and invest in an idea that may create companies. I think you are under the idea that I am anti wealthy, and that I blame them for any thing negative, and I do not.

Demand is inherent to mankind. Individual people shop in a market place to meet their desires aka consumers. There is another group who want to find new ways of meeting those desires. The typical way most people look at job creation would mean that the consumers do not create jobs.

Onto the 1% comment I made. I referenced it not because of class warfare, but because you have this idea that the wealthy are the ones to support the middle class, and that is simply not true. The wealthy may support middle class people, or they may not. If I start a computer repair business, and my clients are middle and lower class people, and I do enough volume at, I can generate a middle class income, and the wealthy would not factor into that income. That is not the only way of course, but your idea that the only way to start a business is to get investors is incorrect. If a person works a low paying job, but has a surplus, they can save money to start their own business and enter the middle class.

You also mentioned that your value can drop by losing your job, but that you keep value even while unemployed. You are incorrect about this as well. For the same reason that you can have potential energy, you can have potential value as well. When you are not working, explicitly you are not producing and thus do not have value, but you do have potential value. If you can no longer find a salary for the same work you were doing, then that is an explicit message from the market that your production is not as valuable as it once was, and then again, you have lost value to the society. An example would be blacksmiths. There was a time in history where their value was far greater. However, because of innovation, the demand dropped, and the labor had to decrease. There were too many workers relative to the demand, and it pushed prices down. So, because of innovation, your value may very well go down.

So the above notion is incorrect, because while it can be true, its not always true. An person who owns a auto repair shop may make a middle class wage, and only need to service people who make less.

It is easy to forget that while the "job creators" must have saved capital or access to someone else's saved capital, probably the majority of American new jobs are started by someone with a quite modest amount of saved or borrowed capital. This is true even of manufacturing. I used to work for a major manufacturer of towing and recovery equipment, and many of our suppliers were small-time operators who bought some equipment and began manufacturing specialty parts such as custom hydraulic cylinders in a basement or garage, eventually moving out to a purposed building as they added employees. It's vitally important that the saved capital exist, but for most jobs whether it's a venture capitalist or the individually tiny accumulated savings of many people is irrelevant. The wealthy are obviously far more important for very large or very risky ventures, not so much for new small businesses.

 

[Matt1970]

Where is the "We told them it would trickle down" picture?

Here is where we told you not to buy imported crap or you will lose jobs, cept I already posted that.

 

[Matt1970]

Tsk, tsk. Those are future voters, silly rabbit!

Also, added bonuses;
* more people to steal from the wealthy white man (in social program give aways)
* an increased number of home invaders (home invaders invading white homes of course)
* further watering down the white gene pool (white women love them ethnics!),.. because mullets, overbites and cross eyes aren't enough to release the hold of this country from the white man

Your racism is still showing.