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

[Olikan]

Also, you just fell into the same issue that the government now has. Trying to tax people starts to rapidly inflate the transaction costs. You are also going to get into an issue when its politically beneficial to ignore the feedback loop. When the government fails, we put more money in. When a company fails, we used to not put more money in.

then, the tax sistem is wrong...
because the tax should be equal to what a private company would charge, creating inflation aswell, and for the very same reason

 

[glenn1]

Consumers drive the demand for jobs; investors drive the ability to create them. You need both.

Let's presume I identify a demand for widgets and build a factory. Savings and/or investors are needed to create the first few jobs. After that, consumers step in and purchase the product. If it is popular enough, I have a demand for more labor. I then need investors to help me expand my factory, allowing me to hire more.

What some people fail to consider, however, is the effect in a down economy when companies aren't operating at full capacity. If my clothing store has two registers, but I am only using one, and my employees have more downtime than they need to clean the store, no amount of investment will create a new job in my store. If, however, consumer demand increases, then I can hire another worker to operate the second register without the need for investors.

I haven't done any substantial studies, but I would hypothesize that investor-based strategies would help drive a growing economy, but consumer-based strategies are more likely to bring an economy out of recession.

The strategies would help different parts of the economy. Consumer-based strategies would most help sectors like consumer staples (food, cigarettes, beer) and consumer discretionary (entertainment, travel, electronics). Investor-based strategies would likely most help sectors like capital equipment (tools, robots, heavy machinery) and durable goods (trucks, construction equipment, industrial appliances).

 

[Zaap]

You keep pushing this idea that a job can only be created once a person gets capital from an investor. This is not the only way to start something. If I work as a janitor, save up enough money, and start my own business, I don't need an investor.

You're just describing the long/slow/ineffecient way of doing the same thing. The problem of course, is you as a janitor are 1. 100% dependent on someone else for capital- both to live and to save up for your business. That someone else has to already have the capital you need, you're just accessing it sloowly. 2. You're simply not likely to save enough capital to launch your business and hire anyone else unless your business tales off like a rocketship. Sure, it can happen, but it's not as likely and certsinly nlt as speedy as if you had investors all along. Yours might be the path to eventual self-employment, sure. But a job creator for others? Less likely.

And of course the biggest hole in your argument... it ALL 100% depends on other people who already have jobs created by someone else in some other process. So once more, its an end result, not the start of the process.

Also, the business does not need to cater to the same economic class that the owner is in.

Who said it did? If you're gonna start your own Walmart... where are you getting the money for inventory? Location? Employees? From mopping floors? (Even if you could, that'd STILL be an existing job needed... still the end result, not the start. )

It is true that without the upper classes you could not have a middle class, but thats simply due to the fact that "middle" is a relative term.

Lots of smoke before you got around to this. The bottom line without all the other smoke... the middle class is not the starting point of job creation, as it itself is a result of job creation that's already happened. You're not middle class without an existing job.

 

[Generator]

The 1% are in the business of destroying wealth. What little they do siphon off from the global quadrillion economy amounts into a massive personal fortune in billions of dollars. This is what Mitt Romney meant by creative destruction capitalism. Romney is obviously insane.

Its my theory some 30 years ago when Reagan was elected the very fabric of space, time, and dimension shattered into countless possibilities. Unfortunately for us we live in the broken reality where a senile, Hollywood loon became president. Then and there things truly went awry. Greenspan ushered in this "utopia" we now find ourselves in present day. Its hard to explain exactly what the economy is these days to a white person. White people's rigid ideologies of boot straps, 2 hour commutes, and 30 year mortgages is what they know. Its all they know. The world is more than that now. Its all that plus jews.

The jews finally figured money printing out. Fabricating money from nothing and getting whites to work for that nothing is the utopia. The middle class is reality and it can't exist in this fantasy we find ourselves in. I don't believe the fantasy to be sustainable, but for now there is a new holy trinity of funny money, warfare, and oil. These are the 3 legs of the global economy that support this utopia.

I believe reality and fantasy economies are opposing each other. Some days one loses while the other wins. I think the real economy is starting to come back. I'm sure it will be allowed to recover until some psychopath like Hank Paulson deliberately sabotages the real economy again. Because if all your wealth and power resides in the fact that your economy is essentially bullshit why would you ever let your power and wealth slip to something silly like reality?

Besides when I think about, do I really want to go back to a world when some white guy is reclining in his chair pontificating about his mastery of the universe. "Let me tell you about the Negro" - Cliven Bundy

 

[realibrad]

You're just describing the long/slow/ineffecient way of doing the same thing. The problem of course, is you as a janitor are 1. 100% dependent on someone else for capital- both to live and to save up for your business. That someone else has to already have the capital you need, you're just accessing it sloowly. 2. You're simply not likely to save enough capital to launch your business and hire anyone else unless your business tales off like a rocketship. Sure, it can happen, but it's not as likely and certsinly nlt as speedy as if you had investors all along. Yours might be the path to eventual self-employment, sure. But a job creator for others? Less likely.

And of course the biggest hole in your argument... it ALL 100% depends on other people who already have jobs created by someone else in some other process. So once more, its an end result, not the start of the process.




Who said it did? If you're gonna start your own Walmart... where are you getting the money for inventory? Location? Employees? From mopping floors? (Even if you could, that'd STILL be an existing job needed... still the end result, not the start. )


Lots of smoke before you got around to this. The bottom line without all the other smoke... the middle class is not the starting point of job creation, as it itself is a result of job creation that's already happened. You're not middle class without an existing job.

I pretty much addressed everything in your post already.

Its true the janitor would be better off if he could get an investor to back him. Your contention was that it was the only way.

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 made an absolute statement that is wrong. It can be true, and it can also not be how others survive in the middle class.

I think that your knowledge of economics is pretty weak, and you dont seem to understand what is going on in this thread. There are job creators and job sustainers. Neither of those groups require anyone to come from a a specific economic class.

You seem to be totally lost on this topic.

 

[realibrad]

The 1% are in the business of destroying wealth. What little they do siphon off from the global quadrillion economy amounts into a massive personal fortune in billions of dollars. This is what Mitt Romney meant by creative destruction capitalism. Romney is obviously insane.

Its my theory some 30 years ago when Reagan was elected the very fabric of space, time, and dimension shattered into countless possibilities. Unfortunately for us we live in the broken reality where a senile, Hollywood loon became president. Then and there things truly went awry. Greenspan ushered in this "utopia" we now find ourselves in present day. Its hard to explain exactly what the economy is these days to a white person. White people's rigid ideologies of boot straps, 2 hour commutes, and 30 year mortgages is what they know. Its all they know. The world is more than that now. Its all that plus jews.

The jews finally figured money printing out. Fabricating money from nothing and getting whites to work for that nothing is the utopia. The middle class is reality and it can't exist in this fantasy we find ourselves in. I don't believe the fantasy to be sustainable, but for now there is a new holy trinity of funny money, warfare, and oil. These are the 3 legs of the global economy that support this utopia.

I believe reality and fantasy economies are opposing each other. Some days one loses while the other wins. I think the real economy is starting to come back. I'm sure it will be allowed to recover until some psychopath like Hank Paulson deliberately sabotages the real economy again. Because if all your wealth and power resides in the fact that your economy is essentially bullshit why would you ever let your power and wealth slip to something silly like reality?

Besides when I think about, do I really want to go back to a world when some white guy is reclining in his chair pontificating about his mastery of the universe. "Let me tell you about the Negro" - Cliven Bundy

You dont know anything about economics. I surly hope people like you dont take over the world, because there will be a lot of death and destruction through your type of ignorance.

 

[Thebobo]

The 1% are in the business of destroying wealth. What little they do siphon off from the global quadrillion economy amounts into a massive personal fortune in billions of dollars. This is what Mitt Romney meant by creative destruction capitalism. Romney is obviously insane.

Its my theory some 30 years ago when Reagan was elected the very fabric of space, time, and dimension shattered into countless possibilities. Unfortunately for us we live in the broken reality where a senile, Hollywood loon became president. Then and there things truly went awry. Greenspan ushered in this "utopia" we now find ourselves in present day. Its hard to explain exactly what the economy is these days to a white person. White people's rigid ideologies of boot straps, 2 hour commutes, and 30 year mortgages is what they know. Its all they know. The world is more than that now. Its all that plus jews.

The jews finally figured money printing out. Fabricating money from nothing and getting whites to work for that nothing is the utopia. The middle class is reality and it can't exist in this fantasy we find ourselves in. I don't believe the fantasy to be sustainable, but for now there is a new holy trinity of funny money, warfare, and oil. These are the 3 legs of the global economy that support this utopia.

I believe reality and fantasy economies are opposing each other. Some days one loses while the other wins. I think the real economy is starting to come back. I'm sure it will be allowed to recover until some psychopath like Hank Paulson deliberately sabotages the real economy again. Because if all your wealth and power resides in the fact that your economy is essentially bullshit why would you ever let your power and wealth slip to something silly like reality?

Besides when I think about, do I really want to go back to a world when some white guy is reclining in his chair pontificating about his mastery of the universe. "Let me tell you about the Negro" - Cliven Bundy

Take acid at economics school? thats trippy man.

 

[BoberFett]

The 1% are in the business of destroying wealth. What little they do siphon off from the global quadrillion economy amounts into a massive personal fortune in billions of dollars. This is what Mitt Romney meant by creative destruction capitalism. Romney is obviously insane.

Its my theory some 30 years ago when Reagan was elected the very fabric of space, time, and dimension shattered into countless possibilities. Unfortunately for us we live in the broken reality where a senile, Hollywood loon became president. Then and there things truly went awry. Greenspan ushered in this "utopia" we now find ourselves in present day. Its hard to explain exactly what the economy is these days to a white person. White people's rigid ideologies of boot straps, 2 hour commutes, and 30 year mortgages is what they know. Its all they know. The world is more than that now. Its all that plus jews.

The jews finally figured money printing out. Fabricating money from nothing and getting whites to work for that nothing is the utopia. The middle class is reality and it can't exist in this fantasy we find ourselves in. I don't believe the fantasy to be sustainable, but for now there is a new holy trinity of funny money, warfare, and oil. These are the 3 legs of the global economy that support this utopia.

I believe reality and fantasy economies are opposing each other. Some days one loses while the other wins. I think the real economy is starting to come back. I'm sure it will be allowed to recover until some psychopath like Hank Paulson deliberately sabotages the real economy again. Because if all your wealth and power resides in the fact that your economy is essentially bullshit why would you ever let your power and wealth slip to something silly like reality?

Besides when I think about, do I really want to go back to a world when some white guy is reclining in his chair pontificating about his mastery of the universe. "Let me tell you about the Negro" - Cliven Bundy

Oh look, a loony lefty and his crazy racist rant. How shocking.

 

[werepossum]

One problem with that is the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires payment of prevailing wages (as opposed to competitive, market wages) on federally funded projects. It was a racist law that was passed to prevent black contractors from competing with established white-only contractor unions. The law is still intact and continues to artificially inflate public sector construction costs above what private companies are required to pay for the same work.

True, although I was thinking more about the fiddly bits that always seem to disqualify the cheaper bids by newcomers.

The 1% are in the business of destroying wealth. What little they do siphon off from the global quadrillion economy amounts into a massive personal fortune in billions of dollars. This is what Mitt Romney meant by creative destruction capitalism. Romney is obviously insane.

Its my theory some 30 years ago when Reagan was elected the very fabric of space, time, and dimension shattered into countless possibilities. Unfortunately for us we live in the broken reality where a senile, Hollywood loon became president. Then and there things truly went awry. Greenspan ushered in this "utopia" we now find ourselves in present day. Its hard to explain exactly what the economy is these days to a white person. White people's rigid ideologies of boot straps, 2 hour commutes, and 30 year mortgages is what they know. Its all they know. The world is more than that now. Its all that plus jews.

The jews finally figured money printing out. Fabricating money from nothing and getting whites to work for that nothing is the utopia. The middle class is reality and it can't exist in this fantasy we find ourselves in. I don't believe the fantasy to be sustainable, but for now there is a new holy trinity of funny money, warfare, and oil. These are the 3 legs of the global economy that support this utopia.

I believe reality and fantasy economies are opposing each other. Some days one loses while the other wins. I think the real economy is starting to come back. I'm sure it will be allowed to recover until some psychopath like Hank Paulson deliberately sabotages the real economy again. Because if all your wealth and power resides in the fact that your economy is essentially bullshit why would you ever let your power and wealth slip to something silly like reality?

Besides when I think about, do I really want to go back to a world when some white guy is reclining in his chair pontificating about his mastery of the universe. "Let me tell you about the Negro" - Cliven Bundy

Sweet Lord, I hope you don't think with that mind.

 

[boomerang]

Sweet Lord, I hope you don't think with that mind.

Or vote. Edit: Or have children.

 

[Zaap]

I pretty much addressed everything in your post already.

Its true the janitor would be better off if he could get an investor to back him. Your contention was that it was the only way.

Keep up. You were somehow trying to argue against needing access to capital... by just describing the longest/slowest way of accessing capital. The janitor in your argument could very well be charismatic and driven enough to get the backing of family/friends/loans and investors if he can convince others his business idea is good enough. You're stuck in some class-envy mode which prevents you from seeing anything lociallly except through the broken lens of al your 1% vs 99% rehashed Marxist claptrap (which you and most people blathering it have not the slightest grasp of history to know its just a rehash of outdated crap). So I guess you'll just continue to come up with silly examples that are just round-about ways of saying the same thing.

I think that your knowledge of economics is pretty weak, and you dont seem to understand what is going on in this thread. There are job creators and job sustainers. Neither of those groups require anyone to come from a a specific economic class.

You seem to be totally lost on this topic.

Yours is mostly smoke-blowing and BS you think sounds good if you type enough words. Like your hilarious attempt to smokecreen past the middle class needing existing jobs, not existing all by themselves.

So far you're the only one insisting on an economic class requirement. I've said no such thing, you just can't read. I said it requires ideas, and enough influence to access capital. That has nothing to do with the economic status of whomever manages to do that.

People insisting consumer demand drives business creation first are delusional and have no grasp of the world they live in. The places I can go around the world and find consumer demand at its absolute highest (places where people have littterally nothing and so demand for even the most basic things is sky-high) no one is tripping over all the jobs available. Demand is easy. Every human being on earth needs to consume from day 1. Meeting that demand and turning demand into jobs is infinitely harder.

 

[realibrad]

Keep up. You were somehow trying to argue against needing access to capital... by just describing the longest/slowest way of accessing capital. The janitor in your argument could very well be charismatic and driven enough to get the backing of family/friends/loans and investors if he can convince others his business idea is good enough. You're stuck in some class-envy mode which prevents you from seeing anything lociallly except through the broken lens of al your 1% vs 99% rehashed Marxist claptrap (which you and most people blathering it have not the slightest grasp of history to know its just a rehash of outdated crap). So I guess you'll just continue to come up with silly examples that are just round-about ways of saying the same thing.


Yours is mostly smoke-blowing and BS you think sounds good if you type enough words. Like your hilarious attempt to smokecreen past the middle class needing existing jobs, not existing all by themselves.

So far you're the only one insisting on an economic class requirement. I've said no such thing, you just can't read. I said it requires ideas, and enough influence to access capital. That has nothing to do with the economic status of whomever manages to do that.

People insisting consumer demand drives business creation first are delusional and have no grasp of the world they live in. The places I can go around the world and find consumer demand at its absolute highest (places where people have littterally nothing and so demand for even the most basic things is sky-high) no one is tripping over all the jobs available. Demand is easy. Every human being on earth needs to consume from day 1. Meeting that demand and turning demand into jobs is infinitely harder.

You have pretty much established that you know next to nothing about this topic. You also seem to have no idea what point I was making in all of my previous posts.


Just so we are clear, I don't believe consumers "create jobs". I made a previous post that was sarcasm, so you might be confused on that.

You said this...

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 I explained how its not always the case and thats where the janitor comment came in.

You then said this...

At the START of the chain, jobs are created by innovative people with ideas who are influential enough to gain access to capital. As much as some want to twist that, the START of the process has little to do with the poor, or really even the middle class

And I explained how it does not always happen that way, even if that is typically how it does happen. In your comment is the implication that only the upper classes can have innovative ideas. A poor person can save up money, and have an innovative idea that starts something that creates jobs. Again, it may not be typical, but it happens quite regularly.

The start of job creation in the modern world usually has a capital investment by wealthy investors. Your contention that that is the start can be true, but is not always true. Having a capital investor is usually a more efficient way, but is not the only way.

At no point did I say a person wanting to start something did not need access to capital. What I did say was that they might not need assess to someone else's capital. Once an exchange has taken place, its no longer capital of anyone else.

I think you believe that I am anti wealth, and I am not. I believe wealth comes from society compensating for something society liked either in the past or present.