Who are the job creators? (1 Viewer)

[Excon]

When about half of all jobs are created by middle class folk like me (the small business owner), it's quite clear that the middle class are job creators, and that's without even mentioning the fact that the middle class is our worker-consumer class which is the primary demand generator and supplier of labor.

In some aspect or another, most everyone is a job creator, no sense in pretending like it is only the rich.

Your response is nonsense to that which is the topic.

 

[Buck Ewer]

1.) This topic has already been posted.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/197946-pitchforks-coming-us-plutocrats.html

2.) The claim that it is the middle class, in-general, is false. They do not create the jobs.

Jobs are "created " by demand for goods and services. That demand is not generally related to any specific demographic or "class" of people.
The question "who are the job creators? Is bogus and misleading.
The question should be what creates jobs not who.

 

[Excon]

Jobs are "created " by demand for goods and services. That demand is not generally related to any specific demographic or "class" of people.

Job are created by the person with the money to invest to produce those goods and services. The employer.
Demand then allows those jobs to continue to exist.
Even if demand is more than the supply, if the employer can not expand, that demand does not create jobs.
It is the employer that creates the jobs through their investment.

 

[gdgyva]

You'd think business people would figure out the very workforce they employ is their best resource for sales? And whatever salary you pay is going to come back as profit from sales. As you said, they have the ability to make more profit off of the public than their employees can siphon back off them in wages.

we do understand our employees do indeed buy our products

but....and this is the big but.....an employee is only worth x to me.....period

that x is calculated by a few key components

1. what skills do they have, and how much will it cost to replace them?
2. how reliable are they?
3. do they look out for themselves, or the company?
4. what do they bring that i cant get from someone else?

i dont mind paying a little extra for reliability, and loyalty....but it isnt worth 30% more

and i HATE the phrase a "living wage"

you want more money....tell me what you plan on doing for ME to earn it

the company comes first....always has....always will

the employee/employer relationship is a contract.....you provide me with your labor, and i provide you a paycheck

if the check isnt big enough you have choices....i expect my employees to be adults, and make the best choice for themselves

 

[DA60]

Jobs are "created " by demand for goods and services. That demand is not generally related to any specific demographic or "class" of people.
The question "who are the job creators? Is bogus and misleading.
The question should be what creates jobs not who.

Exactly.

So, according to his thread, if the middle class was wiped out and there was only poor and rich that no jobs would ever be created...which is, of course, nonsense (not that wiping out th middle class would be a good thing).

Jobs are created by all classes.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Job are created by the person with the money to invest to produce those goods and services. The employer.
Demand then allows those jobs to continue to exist.
Even if demand is more than the supply, if the employer can not expand, that demand does not create jobs.
It is the employer that creates the jobs through their investment.

No employer is going to "create" jobs if the demand is not there.
Investment into goods and services without demand is doomed to certain failure.
That demand is the impetus ... the employer is merely the mechanism.

 

[Excon]

No employer is going to "create" jobs if the demand is not there.
Investment into goods and services without demand is doomed to certain failure.
That demand is the impetus ... the employer is merely the mechanism.

Many products have been manufactured without demand existing.
And still, without employer investment there is no job or product.

So again:

Jobs are created by the person with the money to invest to produce those goods and services. The employer.
Demand then allows those jobs to continue to exist.
Even if demand is more than the supply, if the employer can not expand, that demand does not create jobs.
It is the employer that creates the jobs through their investment.​

Nothing you say negates that. Nothing.
It is the employer who creates the jobs.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Many products have been manufactured without demand existing.
And still, without employer investment there is no job or product.

So again:

Jobs are created by the person with the money to invest to produce those goods and services. The employer.
Demand then allows those jobs to continue to exist.
Even if demand is more than the supply, if the employer can not expand, that demand does not create jobs.
It is the employer that creates the jobs through their investment.​

Nothing you say negates that. Nothing.
It is the employer who creates the jobs.

It's really a chicken and egg argument you are giving here.
If an investor wishes to create a good or service that has no existing demand he must create demand with enticing advertising. That is always going to be gamble.
If the advertising fails to create that demand no amount of hiring or manufacturing will ever sell that product or service and the jobs will dry up.
Public demand will always fuel the need for jobs and investment.
The accurate metaphor is that while investors may be the engine of job creation demand will always be the fuel.
Without fuel no engine can run.

 

[imagep]

Many products have been manufactured without demand existing....

Not for very long, unless the producer can figure out a way to create demand for his products.

The main reason that so many startups and even long existing companies go out of business is because they don't realize enough demand (at a profitable price) to keep them in business. If demand wasn't what constrained businesses, then every business would be wildly successful.

 

[imagep]

...while investors may be the engine of job creation demand will always be the fuel.
Without fuel no engine can run.

Perfect metaphor.

 

[Excon]

It's really a chicken and egg argument you are giving here.

No, I am not. And that is a totally absurd thing to say.

If an investor wishes to create a good or service that has no existing demand he must create demand with enticing advertising.


If the advertising fails to create that demand no amount of hiring or manufacturing will ever sell that product or service and the jobs will dry up.
Public demand will always fuel the need for jobs and investment.

All irrelevant as to whom the actual job creator is.

The accurate metaphor is that while investors may be the engine of job creation demand will always be the fuel.
Without fuel no engine can run.

:doh
1.) That has already been non-metaphorically stated.
You are just going in circles.
2.) It is irrelevant as to whom the actual job creators are.

You can have all the demand you want and have nothing, unless there is someone to actually invest their time and effort into creating the business and jobs in the first place. That is the job creator.

---

Not for very long, unless the producer can figure out a way to create demand for his products.

The main reason that so many startups and even long existing companies go out of business is because they don't realize enough demand (at a profitable price) to keep them in business. If demand wasn't what constrained businesses, then every business would be wildly successful.

:doh
Which is still irrelevant as to whom actually creates the jobs.

---

So again.
To both of you.

Jobs are created by the person with the money to invest to produce those goods and services. The employer.
Demand then allows those jobs to continue to exist.
Even if demand is more than the supply, if the employer can not expand, that demand does not create jobs.
It is the employer that creates the jobs through their investment.


Nothing either of you can say negates that. Nothing.
It is the employer who creates the jobs.​

 

[Lakryte]

When about half of all jobs are created by middle class folk like me (the small business owner), it's quite clear that the middle class are job creators, and that's without even mentioning the fact that the middle class is our worker-consumer class which is the primary demand generator and supplier of labor.

In some aspect or another, most everyone is a job creator, no sense in pretending like it is only the rich.

This is a very key point. Many taxes and regulations apply to all businesses generally, and people assume that they are regulating and taxing the rich corporations because to them business = rich. But many businesses are run by middle-class folk, and while mega corporations have so much money they can easily weather more taxes and regulations, many small businesses are not so flexible and will be crushed by them. The key is to make regulations that distinguish between the two. I feel, for the most part, our government sucks at doing that, and the regulations end up driving small businesses out of business, much to the delight of the corporations who can now takeover more of the market.

 

[imagep]

This is a very key point. Many taxes and regulations apply to all businesses generally, and people assume that they are regulating and taxing the rich corporations because to them business = rich. But many businesses are run by middle-class folk, and while mega corporations have so much money they can easily weather more taxes and regulations, many small businesses are not so flexible and will be crushed by them. The key is to make regulations that distinguish between the two. I feel, for the most part, our government sucks at doing that, and the regulations end up driving small businesses out of business, much to the delight of the corporations who can now takeover more of the market.

Aside from Obamacare, can you list some of those regulations?

 

[Lakryte]

Aside from Obamacare, can you list some of those regulations?

In CA, for example, a business has to pay taxes on revenue not just profit. That means that even if a business suffers losses, it has to pay taxes on those losses. Small businesses struggling to stay afloat in a tough economy are going to be more impacted by absurd tax laws like this than large corporations.

The study mentioned here points out small businesses pay more to comply with federal regulations.

Even minimum wage laws harm small businesses more, who have less resources to pay workers and less of a need to hire workers worth the higher pay.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Excerpted from post #94:
JP Hochbaum, the question to be asked should not be ”who are the job creators” but we should be concerned as to what government policies would better promote our numbers of jobs and the median wage’s purchasing power.

Transcript of post # 112:
This is a very key point. Many taxes and regulations apply to all businesses generally, and people assume that they are regulating and taxing the rich corporations because to them business = rich. But many businesses are run by middle-class folk, and while mega corporations have so much money they can easily weather more taxes and regulations, many small businesses are not so flexible and will be crushed by them. The key is to make regulations that distinguish between the two. I feel, for the most part, our government sucks at doing that, and the regulations end up driving small businesses out of business, much to the delight of the corporations who can now takeover more of the market.

Aside from Obamacare, can you list some of those regulations?

Imagep, Although the Affordable care act, (AKA Obamacare or Romneycare, or ACA) does not increase USA’s median wage, it certainly does not directly or indirectly reduce the median wage.

[With regard to small businesses, ACA applies no mandates upon enterprises with fewer than 50 employees].

ACA has only begun to be enacted but due to the uncertainties, (particularly the uncertainties instigated by political considerations rather than by enterprises genuine financial concerns), we have not yet experienced what will be the ACA’s normal affects upon USA’s numbers of jobs or their median wage or the purchasing power of the median wage.
I’m confident that the ACA will prove to a net economic benefit to our nation. This does not determine the median wage but due to the ACA a greater portion of our population has already begun to be covered by adequate medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Ganesh]

I'm amazed at those that insist on assigning job creation (usually along with all sorts of other noble functions) to the business community, and in particular the elite of the business community.

We can ask, why would job creation not take place? It wouldn't if the human resources, available capital, and physical infrastructure in place was insufficient. Without political policy that moved the economy towards more, rather than less employment, job creation would tend to closely follow corporate requirements, which as we have seen historically may or may not lead to high levels of employment. And as discussed in another thread, technical change means that high levels of employment are much less likely to lead to job creation than ever before, if simply left to the market place.

For the most part, all of these requirements- ensuring an educated population, regulating the money supply and the financial sector, ensuring basic infrastructure, and biasing the economy towards more rather than less employment- are in the hands of government. That means public policy, and at least nominally in a democratic society (unfortunately eroding today), an educated electorate.

Those are the most significant "job creators".

 

[Excon]

For the most part, all of these requirements- ensuring an educated population, regulating the money supply and the financial sector, ensuring basic infrastructure, and biasing the economy towards more rather than less employment- are in the hands of government. That means public policy, and at least nominally in a democratic society (unfortunately eroding today), an educated electorate.

Those are the most significant "job creators".

No. The job creators are those with the funds to invest, the employer.
Gary Indiana, Detroit Michigan. The employer leaves, so do the jobs.

 

[Ganesh]

No. The job creators are those with the funds to invest, the employer.
Gary Indiana, Detroit Michigan. The employer leaves, so do the jobs.

Those "job creators" are still actually creating jobs, but they are doing it increasingly in places like Shanghai or Mexico. This is a result of globalization, a political arraignment that tends to suit the corporate world to a greater degree than the working class, but whatever, that is what we have today.

We can take a further step back and also say that the reason these auto companies have so much capital to throw around the world is due to current tax policy in large measure, which has shifted resources from the public sector to the private sector. One can argue this measure, but again, it is an entirely political notion, and in no way proves that jobs can only be created by some uber-entrepreneurial class.

Whether such companies leave or stay in the country, have masses of capital or have it taxed away, are required to retain jobs in the US, or are free to outsource to where ever, are ultimately up to government, that is to say, society, at least to the extent that we still have a democratic and moderately conscious society today.

 

[imagep]

In CA, for example, a business has to pay taxes on revenue not just profit. That means that even if a business suffers losses, it has to pay taxes on those losses. Small businesses struggling to stay afloat in a tough economy are going to be more impacted by absurd tax laws like this than large corporations.

The study mentioned here points out small businesses pay more to comply with federal regulations.

Even minimum wage laws harm small businesses more, who have less resources to pay workers and less of a need to hire workers worth the higher pay.

I notice a trend here. I watch the Stossel show on Fox News frequently, and he talks about how regulations harm businesses, but virtually every time that he cites examples, those are state and local level regulations, not federal regulations.

This observation makes for a good argument against state and local governments, as they are the entities that are typically trying to micromanage and nanny state us to death.

 

[imagep]

...
Imagep, Although the Affordable care act, (AKA Obamacare or Romneycare, or ACA) does not increase USA’s median wage, it certainly does not directly or indirectly reduce the median wage.

[With regard to small businesses, ACA applies no mandates upon enterprises with fewer than 50 employees].

ACA has only begun to be enacted but due to the uncertainties, (particularly the uncertainties instigated by political considerations rather than by enterprises genuine financial concerns), we have not yet experienced what will be the ACA’s normal affects upon USA’s numbers of jobs or their median wage or the purchasing power of the median wage.
I’m confident that the ACA will prove to a net economic benefit to our nation. This does not determine the median wage but due to the ACA a greater portion of our population has already begun to be covered by adequate medical insurance.

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree. The benefits and drawbacks of the ACA roughly offset each other. I only have one real life friend who's insurance situation changed due to the ACA, and he LIKES the change that was made. Everyone else who I know in real life say that nothing changed for them.

 

[washunut]

I agree. The benefits and drawbacks of the ACA roughly offset each other. I only have one real life friend who's insurance situation changed due to the ACA, and he LIKES the change that was made. Everyone else who I know in real life say that nothing changed for them.

The reality is that the law has not had an impact on most people yet. Although just last night at dinner someone mentioned that at a college she works at some folks had their hours cut so that it did not have to pick up their health insurance. Clearly there are winners and losers in real life, lets not make it out to be a winner only for folks.

 

[imagep]

The reality is that the law has not had an impact on most people yet. Although just last night at dinner someone mentioned that at a college she works at some folks had their hours cut so that it did not have to pick up their health insurance. Clearly there are winners and losers in real life, lets not make it out to be a winner only for folks.

Sure, that has happened and will likely be even more common as we get closer to the date that the employer mandate kicks in. But like I said, the benefits and drawbacks tend to offset each other. On a macroeconomic scale, it's not hardly going to make any difference, some people will work fewer hours and will have to pay a fine or get insurance at their own expense. If this saves employers money, then those employers will use that to hire more employees, or to invest in expansion, or to return to the owners.

Of course those employees who lose their insurance or who lose working hours, are welcome to get a job at another employer who values their employees more.

If massive amounts of workers are reduced to part time hours due to Obamacare, then we will need even more workers, which should further reduce our unemployment rate. Once our unemployment rate starts to drift under 5% or so, then the worker market will tighten, and employers will have to start competing harder for workers, which may include longer working hours, or higher pay, or more benefits (assumably health insurance). It all works out in the long run.

 

[Lakryte]

I notice a trend here. I watch the Stossel show on Fox News frequently, and he talks about how regulations harm businesses, but virtually every time that he cites examples, those are state and local level regulations, not federal regulations.

This observation makes for a good argument against state and local governments, as they are the entities that are typically trying to micromanage and nanny state us to death.

That is very true. State governments often do far more harm to small businesses than the federal government. They have every right to, unfortunately.

 

[Excon]

Those "job creators" are still actually creating jobs, but they are doing it increasingly in places like Shanghai or Mexico.

No ****, as they are the job creators.

than the working class,

"The working class"? :doh

We can take a further step back and also say that the reason these auto companies have so much capital to throw around the world is due to current tax policy in large measure,

No, we really can't.

 

[Ganesh]

No ****, as they are the job creators.


"The working class"? :doh


No, we really can't.

Pretty slim response there Excon. Not feeling in a philosophical mood today?