- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 8,290
- Reaction score
- 4,099
- 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:
> 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: