I was just having a little discussion with someone in regards to how the wealthy people/business are referred to as job creators. this really seems counter to reality. how can they say they do one thing (create jobs) when that runs counter to there purpose (make money/cut costs).
You know who creates jobs...consumers. without consumers, ie: middle class, what purpose would there be for a business, and what purpose do these so called job creators serve without people to consume there products/services. I know for some this logic just blew some peoples minds.
I'd really like to see how some of you folks, like Gag, snow, and the others of similar thoughts think of this and i wonder who will be the first person to say this is a simplistic view. its suppose to be simple.
ps: i know someone will bring up the chicken and the egg
...demand in the economy either doesn't exist or doesn't matter. In their view, the economy sucks because their well padded asses aren't well padded enough.
Their largess has so enraged people, that governments have been toppled all across the Middle East, violent riots are breaking out all across Europe, and so far, mostly peaceful protests have happened all across the mid west. They don't even see the guillotine crashing down upon their necks.
-- Modified on 8/30/2011 12:34:10 AM
So you are right! If no one is buying shit, people will lose their jobs
-- Modified on 8/30/2011 5:02:30 AM
The basic problem with this kind of vague argument is that it's starting premise is wrong. Politicians from the dems point of view don't make any distinction about the "rich" and small business. Doubtful that Bill Gates creates many jobs despite being one of the richest folks in the world. So, tax him. But his tax bracket is the same one that most small businesses are in even though the wealth of the small business is but a fraction of what Mr. Gates has. Most small businesses in their early days, barely make any profit even though their balance sheet might make it seem like they are worth millions. If politicians made a distinction about this and had a way to separate the "rich" from the small businesses, life might be good. But they won't because neither the dems or the repubs can win their arguments if that distinction were made. All I can suggest here is that you accept the fact that both sides are lying through their teeth.
As for your premise, it's true but not in the beginning. Business growth is what creates the opportunity to produce jobs. Either by new businesses starting out, or existing ones getting bigger. In both cases, the business owner needs money to grow. Hence investors with their huge bucks are needed to invest in the businesses. Tax them too much and they have less to invest. But in addition, the businesses need to believe that there will be consumers to buy what they sell. Our current dilemna is that we don't have folks willing to invest much, and we don't have consumers willing to spend much. So we're stuck. Why? Because nobody has confidence in Obama's strategy for policies that will make any of this better. Instead, there is a three year track record of him doing just about anything he can to stifle these two basic needs for employment growth. Obama is very much aware, but his socialist agenda is so strong that he is unwilling to change as was the case with Clinton who once faced similar issues. Get rid of the dems in the next election, and you'll get job growth, but you probably won't get tax increases on the rich.
"Politicians from the dems point of view don't make any distinction about the 'rich' and small business."
I won't say the Dems never do this, but I can't think of an instance off the top of my head where they have. But this is most especially practiced by the GOP all the time. See the link below.
I've thought for some time, that it might be a better idea to tax people based on their wealth instead of their income.
"Business growth is what creates the opportunity to produce jobs."
And business growth is impossible without consumers. Yes, investors can kick in some seed money, but no business is going to survive indefinitely from charitable donations. Without consumers, business ceases to exist. Businesses hire more when they can no longer meet the demand from their consumers.
Jon Stewart asked an important question a few days back after Fox News called Buffett a socialist. He said, "do you even know what socialism means?"
Obama ain't a socialist. He never was. Investors are more than happy to invest, just look at volume on the S&P 500. The reason why we're stuck is because Joe 6-pack is broke. Why do you think consumer confidence is in the shitter? They're broke. Why can't Joe fill up his gas tank, pay his underwater mortgage, pay off his credit card, or buy anything fancier than ramen or canned beans? Because he's broke.
When somebody solves that problem, this economy will turn around. But not until.
-- Modified on 8/30/2011 8:07:21 AM
There is a huge difference between Mari buying a few shares of BAC and a manufacturing concern investing 500 million in a new facility.
While Mari is actually part of the process, and not some Monday morning QB who criticizes without having ever played the game, and should be commended for doing so. Mari's "investment" is not going to create a single job. What we need in this country is real investment, by real companies, that will employ real people. This simply is not going to happen in the current environment, the business climate is too unfriendly and the visibility on major issues like Obama care are too unclear for companies to make commitments like this right now.
So what happens? Trillions of dollars sit on the sidelines, waiting and begging for someplace to go. My prediction is that this money will sit on the sidelines until after the 2012 election, and I don' see any "real" growth until then. Even in a worst case scenario from a business standpoint, which would be an Obama victory, couple with an overall Democratic victory in Congress, that money will be necessity come off the sidelines and go somewhere, but if the climate here is too unfriendly, much of that money may find itself being invested somewhere else.
"What we need in this country is real investment, by real companies, that will employ real people. This simply is not going to happen in the current environment, the business climate is too unfriendly and the visibility on major issues like Obama care are too unclear for companies to make commitments like this right now."
GaG, I agree that is what we need, but just how friendly does the environment need to be? Taxes haven't gone up, rather they've gone down. Obama is even talking about cutting the corporate income tax rate, when a ton of companies are already paying NOTHING. Just how more friendly can you get than no taxes at all? GE is one of those companies...guess what? They're still shipping jobs overseas.
In 2004 all that offshored capital was given a one time 5% entry fee, so business could bring all that capital back home. How many jobs did that create?
It all goes back to Joe 6-Pack. Until Joe has money to spend then nothing is going to get fixed. When you come up with a solution for that, GaG, let me know.
My dear friend, why must you ignore so much in order to focus on the miniscule to try and make a point?
Jobs have been shipped overseas for a long time because company's first obligation is to their stockholders. When union required wages/benefits become so high compared to what could be done by folks outside the US, companies have little choice but to get their labor elsewhere and thus maximize value to shareholders.
When profits made overseas and taxed overseas, why is it fair to have the US tax those same profits again and levy extreme tax rates to boot? Just because they can? Guess what, companies don't have to bring that profit back here and they won't.
When a company is now bound by law to pay the healthcare costs of it's own employees, plus a percentage of the healthcare costs for the so-called poor, illegals, and lazy, why would a company want to do that? Where is the value to their stockholders?
Sorry Willy, but our government has lost it's fricking mind if they think any of this is the way to generate jobs at home. It just doesn't work that way. Government must simply live within it's means and people must invest their own efforts to support themselves and stop expecting something for free from a government that thinks it's ok to be Robin Hood.
"Jobs have been shipped overseas for a long time because company's first obligation is to their stockholders. When union required wages/benefits become so high compared to what could be done by folks outside the US, companies have little choice but to get their labor elsewhere"
Forget union wages, pwilley, the minimum wage is too high compared to Chinese or Vietnamese workers who will work for a nickle a day. Is the solution to reduce American wages down to a nickle a day? Strange how this didn't happen prior to these free trade agreements, eh?
"When a company is now bound by law to pay the healthcare costs of it's own employees, plus a percentage of the healthcare costs for the so-called poor, illegals, and lazy, why would a company want to do that? Where is the value to their stockholders?"
There's plenty of value to the stockholders of health care insurance companies. Gee, I wonder who donated a shit-ton of money to make that the law of the land? This is a pretty simple problem to solve. Just put everyone on Medicare, regardless of their age. Companies won't have to deal with it at all. Of course, politically that's impossible. Why is it impossible? Because politicians are owned by business interests.
I agree that gov't needs to live within it's means. We need to balance our books. That means cutting spending, and that means raising taxes. Unless you are in favor of doing both, you're not serious about solving that problem.
Whoa, that's not possible. I remember distinctly standing in front of Obama as he campaigned to become President. I remember how fervently he said under his administration he would put an end to special interests. So it's not possible that insurance companies backed Obamacare and he let them get away with it? Surely that can't be.
But nevertheless, I'm really disappointed to learn that you believe that if one company/industry benefits from Obama policies, that this is all it takes to satisfy the requirement for all companies to enhance and protect shareholder value. I guess I will have to refer you to the master sensei afterall.
I'm ok with with reduced spending and closing tax loopholes. But, I add the additional category of targeting the huge reduction or elimination of government handouts that support nearly 40% of the US population who won't do what it takes to support themselves.
Yeh, Obama certainly failed to end special interests controlling politics. Of course, it's not quite fair to call it "special interests" so much as wide spread corporate bribery. Of course, the Supreme Court didn't make matters any better, did they?
"But nevertheless, I'm really disappointed to learn that you believe that if one company/industry benefits from Obama policies, that this is all it takes to satisfy the requirement for all companies to enhance and protect shareholder value."
Pwilley, no, I'm not suggesting that at all. My apologies if that's what you think I was getting at. My point was that we have the health care system we have because the health care industry bribed our elected officials to produce a bill that would guarantee them profits. Those profits are a cost to American tax payers and to other businesses. Unfortunately, we don't have a political system that responds to what Americans and business don't want, but rather produces legislation for the highest bidder and briber.
A little reduced spending and closing tax loopholes ain't gonna solve the problem. Ending gov't handouts to regular people would be a dumb idea, as it would hurt the economy. Needy people are fast spenders. We need more people spending their money, not less.
There are some federal agencies that just need to go. I mentioned the Agriculture Dept. before, because most Americans aren't farmers anymore. I don't entirely agree with it, but one could make a similar agrument for the Post Office. I think AMTRAK should be entirely privatized. I think much of our intelligence services should be collidated. I see no reason why we should have both US Marshalls and an FBI.
But you don't pay down a 14 trillion monkey on our backs by cutting spending. Revenues need to be in the black, not the red. Everyone should chip in for this, but those who have benefited the most from the status quo should chip in more. Cutting loopholes ain't gonna get the job done.
I repeat: unless you are serious about cutting spending and raising revenues, then you're not serious about solving this problem.
dollars sitting on the sideline is absurd. Is health care the one and only issue driving business investment in this country? Absolutely not. I really would like to find out, how many people spend, let us say spend 50% of their time on helath care when writing a business plan or how banks, venture capitalists etc., say to those who seek funds to start a business, "we like your business plan, we want to give you the money but because of the uncertainty of the Obama care, wer can't". My guess is none.
Businesses adjust to prevailing and emerging business conditions continuously and have done so for centuries. End of the day someone, have to buy your goods and services and in most cases it is the consumer directly or indirectly.
Unemployment vs. skill mismatch is the real problem. I have been looking to hire three to four software developers for the past 4 months and haven't been able to find one even though I have consortium head hunters working on it. My company has over 100 jobs open, we are trying to fill aince the beginning of the year.
If the self styled business leaders (fucking oxymoron anyway), don't know how to adjust to prevailing business conditions and only know to complain, they need to get the fuck out of the way. The reality is that the economy is going to be driven by inoovation and technology in the this country and the so called firat world, while mining, toys, clothes, shoes and many traditionla factory jobs will go to emerging economies where labor is cheap, gthe biggest raw material in producing them.
Another issue is that banks are trying to dig out from the mess they got themselves in. Most banks that delat with CDO's are being sued by their customers for restititution (Bank of Amrica, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, etc.), and many cases they are paying to settle out of court which is hitting their bottom line.
Instead of addressing the real isssues, our politicians and electorate is drinking Kool-Aid of one flavor or another and blaming Obama for all the ills starting with deficit and borrowing. Borrowing is not that bad at the moment since it is cheap money, should borrow more and invest in building infrastructure, creat jobs and get the economy moving again.
If businesses only know to manage business unregulated and zero tax, those who running the business should go home and let those who can figure out how to manage the business with regulation and taxes run the business.
I agree demand is a definite factor in the equation. Demand dies, production dies, jobs die.
However, when demand does start to rise, who are the individuals who start up businesses to meet that demand, who starts hiring a few people, small business owners.
Although not practical on this board, I think if you asked people who they would for you would get a long list of companies, but I doubt anyone would say, I work for "Consumers". No they do not.
Demand drives job creation, but does not actually create jobs and it is VERY EASY to prove you wrong. Look at the roll-out of the iPhone. Huge backlog, not enough products. Why were there not enough JOBS created to cover this? Simple, because the manufacturers actually create the jobs. NOT THE CONSUMERS!!
Another example, there is a HUGE DEMAND for certain products in other parts of the world. Sometimes stuff as basic as clean bottled water. They have consumers, why no jobs ?!?!?! Another example of where your reasoning fails.
This is real simple, you are confusing a factor which drives the creation of jobs with the entity that actually creates the jobs. BTW, I would love to know how many people list "Consumer" as their employer on their tax returns. HAR HAR HAR
"Demand drives job creation, but does not actually create jobs and it is VERY EASY to prove you wrong. Look at the roll-out of the iPhone. Huge backlog, not enough products. Why were there not enough JOBS created to cover this? Simple, because the manufacturers actually create the jobs. NOT THE CONSUMERS!!"
Thanks for proving my point.apple chose to make like $5 billion instead of hiring some people, who would in turn put it back into the economy, and they still would have made $4billion. Nevermind...i forgot, its all made in china.
I bet you guys think its ok and good for the economy that a ceo vs average workers pay is hundreds of times more.
In regards to water bottles,i am not referring to 3rd world countries, I am referring to industrialized nations that have the means and abilities, but way to reach.
I was just watching capitalism,a love story, now I ain't a huge fan of michael moore, but one part stuck out to me, where I think citi or B of A issued an internal memo saying we live in a plutonomy, and the only thing that could ruin that for them is that they only have 1% of the vote.
Anthony!! You just made my case!!!
You said, and I quote...
"apple chose to make like $5 billion instead of hiring some people, who would in turn put it back into the economy"
Therefore is IS A COMPANY THAT CREATES THE JOB AND NOT DEMAND!! I could have not proven my argument more eloquently myself!!
Now if you want to talk about the morality of how many jobs a company should create, you should start a new thread...
Im pretty sure I made my point. Read my origianl post again, I said how can they be considered job creators when that runs counter to what they are created to do, make money by any means necessary,mainly cutting the labor force. You made my point perfectly with the Apple example. Instead of hiring people, they chose that extra billion which only lined the pockets of the few. How long do you think a system can be sustained when the people they want to buy there products don't have a job/enough money to buy it. I think that the first person who made the connection that its ok to make a profit, just don't forget about the people you want to buy your products was Henry Ford. I think most of you fail to see just how out of hand the greed has gotten, always arguing:well I earned it, its mine, and I want more. I doubt we can fix this unless we start making things in the US again, and good quality things, but huge profits for the few outweighs the benefits for the many, the few included. They just want more, stockpile, at the expense of EVERYONE. Fyi, there is a difference between just hiring people and being a job creator. What we have are job destroyers, looking to add to that bottom line by getting rid of as many people as possible. Working the employees who remain like a dog for little pay, shitty benefits. I am not talking about the corrupt unions, so don't bring that up cause I hate most, not because they are a union, but mostly because of the corrupt union leaders.
You said, and I quote...
"apple chose to make like $5 billion instead of hiring some people, who would in turn put it back into the economy"
Therefore is IS A COMPANY THAT CREATES THE JOB AND NOT DEMAND!! I could have not proven my argument more eloquently myself!!
Now if you want to talk about the morality of how many jobs a company should create, you should start a new thread...
Read my original response. They make $0 with an empty factory. Yes, they do it with as few people as possible which you may take issue with, but the jobs that are there, THEY CREATED.
Like I said, show me someones tax return who lists their employer as "DEMAND" and perhaps you could try to make your case.
I do hear what you are saying about producing things in the US again, but we have to face the fact those days are gone. We are in a global economy now and nothing is going to change that. The days of GM, US Steel, Ford and all the other major large scale union employers is over. A quick trip to Detroit or Flint will prove my point. If an individual wants to still be successful today, they need to find a line of work that either A) can not be done overseas for some reason or B) have a pretty unique skill set that is difficult to replace. Look, I'll be the first to admit I have never been a big fan of the Unions, but I am just speaking the truth here. We will NEVER beave to give up this pipe dream of returning to the "good old days" of Mad Men and Made in Ame the factory producing giant we once were. the global labor market will see to that. We as a nation hrica. We are going to have to adjust and produce services that are not available in other countries. We will now have to be a services economy and you will have to be educated in order to take advantage of this type of economy. Otherwise, with the lack of factory/union jobs, you will be stuck with high unemployment or doing a job that pays far less than the old factory jobs did. This will also increase the gap between those with money and those who do not have it.
WAIT A MINUTE, LOOK AROUND, DAMN THIS LOOKS FAMILIAR!!
You just proved your own point
Consumers wanted iPhones, so the company had to hire more people to meet demand.
And the demand came from Apple and Jobs creating such a good marketing plan they created huge demand and popularity - not to mention a quality product.
So I will admit there is one place where maybe the tax breaks should come first - education, educators and students to yield those who will become the engineers who create amazing products, and ad execs who know how to get consumers feening for products.
As for a small business owner - if you are paying tons in taxes you need to talk to my accountant and incorporate your business.
Kisses,
Vanica
thats true, if you are a small business owner and are paying through the teeth in taxes, you need a new tax guy. I know of several people who have very successful business but they pay little in taxes cause i believe for the first 5 years or so they can make it look like they are not making much money or even show they are taking a loss. its a tax loophole anyone can use, but not many people have the means to look up that stuff and see how to do it, and no one is going to tell them how.
Consumers wanted iPhones, so the company had to hire more people to meet demand.
And the demand came from Apple and Jobs creating such a good marketing plan they created huge demand and popularity - not to mention a quality product.
So I will admit there is one place where maybe the tax breaks should come first - education, educators and students to yield those who will become the engineers who create amazing products, and ad execs who know how to get consumers feening for products.
As for a small business owner - if you are paying tons in taxes you need to talk to my accountant and incorporate your business.
Kisses,
Vanica
No they did not hire more people. they drizzled out the supply slowly to keep demand high and prices high. High demand means high prices, not necessarily jobs.
In regards to taxes, well, if you are liberal, which I am guessing, than you sound like Warren Buffet. You talk about the evil haves and all the loopholes that need to be closed, then take advantage of as many as you can yourself. I believe the term is hypocrisy.
In regards to the BJ, if you want to advertise, please stick to your regional board.
"You talk about the evil haves and all the loopholes that need to be closed, then take advantage of as many as you can yourself. I believe the term is hypocrisy."
oy vey!
when did i ever say I take advantage of any loopholes?? i am looking for it, but i can't seem to find where i said that. i believe the expression is making shit up :P
My reply was not to you, but to Vanica. That is why it was indented beneath HER post. DUH!!!
She is the one who referred to using a great accountant to get around taxes.
Please try to keep up...
My apologies.
She is the one who referred to using a great accountant to get around taxes.
Please try to keep up...
When was the last time Apple put any one of their products on Sale for cut throat prices? Please go find out tell us.
The problem Right Wing nut jobs are they think they know but in reality they are just delusional and always trying to find fault with the otherside while burying their own fuckups. Another thing the nut jobs are good at is when they fail in rational discourse, then they start personal attacks; for example "if you want to advertise, stick to your regional board"; who the fuck made the decider to dictate where one should or should not advertise?
Vanica makes an excellent point which the right wing nuts refuse to see.
I said they DID NOT ADD TO THEIR WORK FORCE TO KEEP PRICES HIGH!!
Man, you are so far off on your post, I don't know what you are smoking!! I think perhaps you meant to post on the marijuana legalization thread a few threads up 
OK Sherlock, you tell me, where should advertisements be posted. Hell, I've got a couple of wave runners I am selling, why don't I post those as well!!
Means more people in blue shirts, more constructions, more geniuses to fix iWhatevers, more people to ship products, people out there who created careers around developing apps for Apple products. Not to mention all the people who distribute Apple products and gain revenue (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target) who all open new stores all the time - based on meeting consumer needs.
So what are you talking about?
Not all the jobs are in America, but Apple is a global company, all the jobs shouldn't be here.
I doubt any of this happened because Steve Jobs got a tax break. If you follow his career and the evolution of Apple closely, you will see this plan has been in place for a decade if not more. He was always thinking long term. Snapping up the brightest engineers, patenting the best ideas, carefully branding Apple, and creating a new market where there wasn't one. It was smarts and innovation that lead to the success of Apple, as with a lot major corporations.
Tax breaks are a temporary fix for people who cry poverty (which for some reason is often the claim of wealthy men), but it ignores and does not take into account long term growth, innovatio, and building a foundation so after you make your millions your children can make billions.
My generation (20-somethings and younger) are the first generation in the history of the country who as a whole will have/make less than the preceding generation. Tax breaks aren't going to fix that. New ideas, new approaches and new blood seem better suited.
Kisses,
Vanica
I was talking about product manufacturing for the phones. They knew there would be a backlog and did not expand production anymore. I was not referring to new apple stores.
You said....
"It was smarts and innovation that lead to the success of Apple"
You re correct. The individual entrepreneur starting a business using his skills and ability. No government programs, no group mental think, one talented individual getting the ball rolling. And what does the Obama administration want to do to thank him? Penalize him by raising his taxes even more, penalize his companies by making it impossible for them to bring revenues back into this country.
You also said...
"My generation (20-somethings and younger) are the first generation in the history of the country who as a whole will have/make less than the preceding generation. "
Don't you find it ironic that the larger the government has become, the more it has intruded into the private sector, the more the people seem to suffer. This massive government running up a massive debt where no one can figure out where the money went. Pretty easy to connect the dots. Get government the hell out of the way and the system will heal itself.
-- Modified on 8/31/2011 11:35:24 AM
ran at full throttle and created thousands of jobs but the only problem is they were in China. Consumers bought the phone, created jobs but they happen end up at Foxcom, a South Korean company in China.
Being that said, your logic is impeccable, no one lists consumer as their employer in their tax returns, no one I suppose. Eventhough, the logic has nothing to do with OP's post in the first place. Another reason to get rid of taxes alltogether. It is always the 28% to 30% is the problem.
You see this with kids. "I need a new Play-station!" Well, they really don't need it. They believe they do, but their lives will not be impacted, negatively, if they go without one. We've lived in a consumer based economy, where the industries, through their advertisers, have perpetuated this blurring of the distinctions between needing and wanting, and all the while convincing the consumer that the one's making the least can have much the same as those making the most, and in the process boost our self-esteem, and be seen by others in the most positive light. A kid can have the same athletic shoes as a million dollar athlete. The average guy can drive the same car, or one darn close to it, as a wealthy business executive. The average housewife can run down to Bristol Farms and purchase the same grub as those who's husbands make 10 time more than her's. And, the American Dream of home ownership can be had by all.
We'll that's all very nice and dandy if you have a financial industry whose willing to float you a loan (mortgage, car loan, credit card, etc.), but then the bill comes due. Ouch!!!
We are going to be coming back down to a painful reality for sometime now, and people, many of whom have never learned, will have to learn or re-learn the difference between needing and wanting. It's not any presidents fault. It's the fault of those who should have taught each and everyone of us the distinction between needing and wanting, at our very earliest ages.
P.S. I'm using "us" in a general term regarding our citizenry. I'm quite aware that there are some on this board who have, no doubt, learned the distinction, one way or another.
-- Modified on 8/30/2011 9:00:00 AM
I have said exactly this so many times. For every job I have created (only 15 in my lifetime), it was because of demand from consumers/customers. Until demand is overwhelming, I will just do the work myself and save money.
Nail on the head.
Kisses,
Vanica
A hot lady making that kind of offer on the P&R board . . . . . . . .
Vanica, sorry I missed you the last time you came through my neck of the woods . . .