• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who are the job creators?

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,825
Reaction score
2,689
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Made a post for another thread, but I figure I'll start a new one too, because this bugs me a bit. Any contrary or supplementary opinions would be welcome:



> If there were no consumers, there would be no jobs whatsoever. And statistically speaking, more than nine out of ten consumers do not belong to the richest 1%. True story.

> If there were no workers in one area, there would be virtually no jobs in another: That is, there'd be virtually no farming jobs if there was no-one transporting the food to the big cities; there'd be virtually no construction jobs if there was no-one producing timber, bricks and tools; there'd be no advertising jobs at all if there was no-one producing goods to advertise. And so on.

> If there were no entrepreneurs, there would be far fewer jobs, though still quite a few in older and less innovative fields like agriculture, transport, construction etc. (even many of those jobs are built up around more innovative fields, however).

> If there were no government, there would be far fewer jobs: Without security from external aggression, common currency, economic stability and civic order, businesses fare much more poorly.

> If there were no banks, there would be substantially fewer jobs: Without such convenient access to loans and financial liquidity, businesses would fare more poorly.

> If there were no corporate investors, there would be somewhat fewer jobs: Most businesses would still exist as personal, family or small group operations, but the mitigation of personal risk provided by corporatism has certainly made some ventures possible which might otherwise have never got off the ground.

> If there were no billionaires, there would be as many, or possibly even more jobs. Most entrepreneurs, small business owners and so on are not billionaires. Most corporate investors are not billionaires either, they are regular folks whose money is invested by their banks and superannuation programs. On a per capita basis billionaires do contribute a great deal to job creation as consumers; but on a dollar for dollar basis, poorer people contribute much more because a shirt or car or house or wine that costs ten times as much usually employs no more people to produce than the cheaper option.




Isolating one single segment of a vastly complex socio-economic system and claiming that those right there are the 'job creators' would be laughably simplistic propaganda even in the best of cases.

But it's particularly ironic that by all appearances the segment which far right-wing propaganda has chosen to idolize are quite possibly those with the lightest touch of all in modern society's generation of productive work. Of course, pointing this folly out will probably mean that I too am branded a 'billionaire-hater' :lol:
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There is no question that the economy is complex and that all of the groups you mention contribute to it. But basically it is business that creates jobs. Every one of the groups you mention above are a part of or affect business. It is the common denominator
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
8,520
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
> If there were no billionaires, there would be as many, or possibly even more jobs. Most entrepreneurs, small business owners and so on are not billionaires. Most corporate investors are not billionaires either, they are regular folks whose money is invested by their banks and superannuation programs. On a per capita basis billionaires do contribute a great deal to job creation as consumers; but on a dollar for dollar basis, poorer people contribute much more because a shirt or car or house or wine that costs ten times as much usually employs no more people to produce than the cheaper option.

You wont be branded a billionaire hater, you have exposed yourself as one with elementary analysis like this. You are ignoring what those billionaires did to become billionaires and even if you capped net worth at under 1 billion, people would stop growing their companies and those with big companies would even lose control of them. Most f the billionaires started major companies from scratch and those companies and their technologies have a major impact on nearly every citizen every single day.
 

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Made a post for another thread, but I figure I'll start a new one too, because this bugs me a bit. Any contrary or supplementary opinions would be welcome:



> If there were no consumers, there would be no jobs whatsoever. And statistically speaking, more than nine out of ten consumers do not belong to the richest 1%. True story.

> If there were no workers in one area, there would be virtually no jobs in another: That is, there'd be virtually no farming jobs if there was no-one transporting the food to the big cities; there'd be virtually no construction jobs if there was no-one producing timber, bricks and tools; there'd be no advertising jobs at all if there was no-one producing goods to advertise. And so on.

> If there were no entrepreneurs, there would be far fewer jobs, though still quite a few in older and less innovative fields like agriculture, transport, construction etc. (even many of those jobs are built up around more innovative fields, however).

> If there were no government, there would be far fewer jobs: Without security from external aggression, common currency, economic stability and civic order, businesses fare much more poorly.

> If there were no banks, there would be substantially fewer jobs: Without such convenient access to loans and financial liquidity, businesses would fare more poorly.

> If there were no corporate investors, there would be somewhat fewer jobs: Most businesses would still exist as personal, family or small group operations, but the mitigation of personal risk provided by corporatism has certainly made some ventures possible which might otherwise have never got off the ground.

> If there were no billionaires, there would be as many, or possibly even more jobs. Most entrepreneurs, small business owners and so on are not billionaires. Most corporate investors are not billionaires either, they are regular folks whose money is invested by their banks and superannuation programs. On a per capita basis billionaires do contribute a great deal to job creation as consumers; but on a dollar for dollar basis, poorer people contribute much more because a shirt or car or house or wine that costs ten times as much usually employs no more people to produce than the cheaper option.




Isolating one single segment of a vastly complex socio-economic system and claiming that those right there are the 'job creators' would be laughably simplistic propaganda even in the best of cases.

But it's particularly ironic that by all appearances the segment which far right-wing propaganda has chosen to idolize are quite possibly those with the lightest touch of all in modern society's generation of productive work. Of course, pointing this folly out will probably mean that I too am branded a 'billionaire-hater' :lol:

You have accurately described the Domestic Economy. What areas the banks loan to is a huge factor. What areas the Gov't attempts to encourage infrastructure at the local level is a huge factor. For example, small Renewable Energy projects are local projects that make jobs locally, reduce the amount of capital exiting the local economy to monopoly utilities, and the extra capital remaining in the local Community boosts local business. Free markets and price discovery boost economies but when controls like the Plunge Protection Team, the Exchange Stabilization Team, and paper commodity brokers that are allowed naked short sales interfere the markets are no longer free. Just my two cents.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,902
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ultimately its demand for a good or service that creates jobs. That demand can come from consumers (and it generally does), but it could also come from regulatory demands, the public sector, and so on. However, without demand, there are no jobs.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,825
Reaction score
2,689
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You wont be branded a billionaire hater, you have exposed yourself as one with elementary analysis like this. You are ignoring what those billionaires did to become billionaires and even if you capped net worth at under 1 billion, people would stop growing their companies and those with big companies would even lose control of them. Most f the billionaires started major companies from scratch and those companies and their technologies have a major impact on nearly every citizen every single day.

I don't think it's true that most billionaires are self-starting entrepreneurs. But some are, certainly, so let's pretend we went with your hypothetical, and stopped their companies from growing at some arbitrary size. What would happen then? Would people suddenly stop wanting smartphones or software or search engines or social networks? Of course not: Other companies would step up to meet the market demand. The jobs would still be required to meet that demand. So is it the business or the consumer creating the jobs?

My answer of course is that everyone contributes to job creation. And as I said, on a per capita basis billionaires undeniably contribute more than regular Joes, though not moreso overall and perhaps not even on a dollar for dollar basis. However an economy can function just as well with just as much employment (perhaps even more) without any billionaires whatsoever. Uber-wealthy people as such are possibly the least important part of the system, as far as job creation goes.


So why does far right-wing rhetoric idolize them so much?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Made a post for another thread, but I figure I'll start a new one too, because this bugs me a bit. Any contrary or supplementary opinions would be welcome:



> If there were no consumers, there would be no jobs whatsoever. And statistically speaking, more than nine out of ten consumers do not belong to the richest 1%. True story.

> If there were no workers in one area, there would be virtually no jobs in another: That is, there'd be virtually no farming jobs if there was no-one transporting the food to the big cities; there'd be virtually no construction jobs if there was no-one producing timber, bricks and tools; there'd be no advertising jobs at all if there was no-one producing goods to advertise. And so on.

> If there were no entrepreneurs, there would be far fewer jobs, though still quite a few in older and less innovative fields like agriculture, transport, construction etc. (even many of those jobs are built up around more innovative fields, however).

> If there were no government, there would be far fewer jobs: Without security from external aggression, common currency, economic stability and civic order, businesses fare much more poorly.

> If there were no banks, there would be substantially fewer jobs: Without such convenient access to loans and financial liquidity, businesses would fare more poorly.

> If there were no corporate investors, there would be somewhat fewer jobs: Most businesses would still exist as personal, family or small group operations, but the mitigation of personal risk provided by corporatism has certainly made some ventures possible which might otherwise have never got off the ground.

> If there were no billionaires, there would be as many, or possibly even more jobs. Most entrepreneurs, small business owners and so on are not billionaires. Most corporate investors are not billionaires either, they are regular folks whose money is invested by their banks and superannuation programs. On a per capita basis billionaires do contribute a great deal to job creation as consumers; but on a dollar for dollar basis, poorer people contribute much more because a shirt or car or house or wine that costs ten times as much usually employs no more people to produce than the cheaper option.




Isolating one single segment of a vastly complex socio-economic system and claiming that those right there are the 'job creators' would be laughably simplistic propaganda even in the best of cases.

But it's particularly ironic that by all appearances the segment which far right-wing propaganda has chosen to idolize are quite possibly those with the lightest touch of all in modern society's generation of productive work. Of course, pointing this folly out will probably mean that I too am branded a 'billionaire-hater' :lol:

Hey, wait. Is this the old chicken or egg argument?? ;)
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't think it's true that most billionaires are self-starting entrepreneurs. But some are, certainly, so let's pretend we went with your hypothetical, and stopped their companies from growing at some arbitrary size. What would happen then? Would people suddenly stop wanting smartphones or software or search engines or social networks? Of course not: Other companies would step up to meet the market demand. The jobs would still be required to meet that demand. So is it the business or the consumer creating the jobs?

My answer of course is that everyone contributes to job creation. And as I said, on a per capita basis billionaires undeniably contribute more than regular Joes, though not moreso overall and perhaps not even on a dollar for dollar basis. However an economy can function just as well with just as much employment (perhaps even more) without any billionaires whatsoever. Uber-wealthy people as such are possibly the least important part of the system, as far as job creation goes.


So why does far right-wing rhetoric idolize them so much?

Because they idolize greed, and to a point greed is necessary to drive the economy. There are many things with their mantras that I find laughable. You're right if we had an end game that limited a corporation's size we would just have more companies and an even better free market competition. There is no shortage of people wanting to be millionaires. If we limited personal wealth and forced retirement at some level of wealth anther would step in and it would be business as usual. They say if we tax billionaires the economy will collapse yet when taxes were at 90% it was business as usual. They say if we pay minimum wage economy will collapse, yet everywhere its done its business as usual. The point is no matter what happens if there is money to be made greedy people will go after it. They will create jobs because there are consumers that demand goods and services.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Made a post for another thread, but I figure I'll start a new one too, because this bugs me a bit. Any contrary or supplementary opinions would be welcome:



> If there were no consumers, there would be no jobs whatsoever. And statistically speaking, more than nine out of ten consumers do not belong to the richest 1%. True story.

> If there were no workers in one area, there would be virtually no jobs in another: That is, there'd be virtually no farming jobs if there was no-one transporting the food to the big cities; there'd be virtually no construction jobs if there was no-one producing timber, bricks and tools; there'd be no advertising jobs at all if there was no-one producing goods to advertise. And so on.

> If there were no entrepreneurs, there would be far fewer jobs, though still quite a few in older and less innovative fields like agriculture, transport, construction etc. (even many of those jobs are built up around more innovative fields, however).

> If there were no government, there would be far fewer jobs: Without security from external aggression, common currency, economic stability and civic order, businesses fare much more poorly.

> If there were no banks, there would be substantially fewer jobs: Without such convenient access to loans and financial liquidity, businesses would fare more poorly.

> If there were no corporate investors, there would be somewhat fewer jobs: Most businesses would still exist as personal, family or small group operations, but the mitigation of personal risk provided by corporatism has certainly made some ventures possible which might otherwise have never got off the ground.

> If there were no billionaires, there would be as many, or possibly even more jobs. Most entrepreneurs, small business owners and so on are not billionaires. Most corporate investors are not billionaires either, they are regular folks whose money is invested by their banks and superannuation programs. On a per capita basis billionaires do contribute a great deal to job creation as consumers; but on a dollar for dollar basis, poorer people contribute much more because a shirt or car or house or wine that costs ten times as much usually employs no more people to produce than the cheaper option.




Isolating one single segment of a vastly complex socio-economic system and claiming that those right there are the 'job creators' would be laughably simplistic propaganda even in the best of cases.

But it's particularly ironic that by all appearances the segment which far right-wing propaganda has chosen to idolize are quite possibly those with the lightest touch of all in modern society's generation of productive work. Of course, pointing this folly out will probably mean that I too am branded a 'billionaire-hater' :lol:

But the workers/consumers exist in almost any semi-healthy economy (there are 3rd world type exceptions), so they are a common factor to almost any economic environment. So that leaves us with the last four items. The gov't has a role in supporting the security of a nation but it is a resource consumer, not a resource producer/utilizer, making it a net economic negative (while still fulfilling it's necessary role, making it a cost of doing business). That leaves banks, entrepreneurs and "billionaires". All of these are pretty much the same animal - people or orgs. that are willing to risk their money to see a return on that investment. Trying to make it sound like all of the groups you listed are equivalent is a fallacy.
 
Top Bottom