DNC

[Kung Wu]

We all know that Corporations create jobs. They'll just create jobs faster if demand for their product is higher. Or they'll find ways to create their products faster and more efficiently.

@kcshocker11: and @Rocky Mountain Shock: are arguing that corporations do not create jobs, but that consumers do.

[pinstripers]

The implication was that they didn't take that much of a risk, because they could show the product off before rolling to mass production. Is that not what you meant to imply?

Creating a new product doesn't involve risk????

[Kung Wu]

Creating a new product doesn't involve risk????

That's what it appeared to me that @1979Shocker: was trying to say in his post, but I think I misunderstood what he was getting at. Apparently he was agreeing that it does carry considerable risk.

[SubGod22]

I read it the same way as @Kung Wu:.

[1979Shocker]

My official view was that I wasn't even thinking about whether they were taking a risk or not and was only mentioning that a lot of companies will test the waters by showing off their products at trade shows, etc. There's always going to be some risk, but by using these trade shows, they can lower their risks.

[kcshocker11]

1) Did you have him fill out a W4? Because that's required by law for employers.
2) Did you have him fill out an I9? Also required of bosses.
3) Did you write a check to cover his state unemployment insurance? Guess what? Required by bosses.
4) Did you determine what other roofing jobs he can work on? That's one of the tests of the IRS to see if you are his employer.
5) Did you pay 6% of his social security withholding? Required by employers.
6) Did you pay the federal and state tax on his income?
7) Do you hold the roofing license at the City of Wichita?

There's more but since you answered no to all of those questions I'll go ahead and close this debate with: You weren't even close to being an employer, Mr. Consumer.

Ok if I hire the kid next door to cut my grass, I can answer no to all those and again I am employer and consumer.
KungWu I am not saying that consumers create all jobs, needs can be created by a new tech or invention etc but I also know that that when a consumer needs arise more businesses are created to fulfill those consumer needs than employers creating the need.If there is no need for a product usually no one is stupid enough to supply it. It takes two to tango and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

If you wish to discuss tax ramifications, if I were you I wouldnt go there.

[MoValley John]

Ok if I hireid next door to cut my grass, I can answer no to all those and again I am employer and consumer.
KungWu I am not saying that consumers create all jobs, needs can be created by a new tech or invention etc but I also know that that when a consumer needs arise more businesses are created to fulfill those consumer needs than employers creating the need.If there is no need for a product usually no one is stupid enough to supply it. It takes two to tango and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

If you wish to discuss tax ramifications, if I were you I wouldnt go there.

If the kid went into the mowing business, then he has the startup costs of purchasing the mower, the gas and everything else. Once again, many of those costs would be startup costs incurred by the kid, who is now a business owner. Like every other Scenario, you are the consumer, the kid is the business owner and his own boss. If you are unhappy with his work, as a consumer, you can get another kid to mow your lawn, you have Lost nothing, the kid (business owner) is out the cost of the mower and will need to find another Client to recoup the costs and risks of buying the mower.

[MoValley John]

This Shouldn't be that hard. Really.

[WuDrWu]

This Shouldn't be that hard. Really.

Yet another thing you're really right about.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

@kcshocker11 and @Rocky Mountain Shock are arguing that corporations do not create jobs, but that consumers do.

Once again, it's a matter of your point of view. Businesses create jobs like I create posts on a message board. But I usually don't create a post unless I'm responding to another's message. Sometimes I might say something unprovoked, but not very often. So we have a cause and effect relationship. To look no farther than me typing this post and saying that I alone am responsible for creating it is an incredibly simplistic point of view and disregards everything else in this process. This post that you are reading right now would never have existed without both this thread and previous comments. So there is a shared relationship. If you want to say I could have chosen whether or not to create this post, so that I'm still the job creator, then fine--employees themselves are job creators because they chose to be hired--how's that? Good Lord.

[Kung Wu]

Once again, it's a matter of your point of view. Businesses create jobs like I create posts on a message board. But I usually don't create a post unless I'm responding to another's message. Sometimes I might say something unprovoked, but not very often. So we have a cause and effect relationship. To look no farther than me typing this post and saying that I alone am responsible for creating it is an incredibly simplistic point of view and disregards everything else in this process. This post that you are reading right now would never have existed without both this thread and previous comments. So there is a shared relationship. If you want to say I could have chosen whether or not to create this post, so that I'm still the job creator, then fine--employees themselves are job creators because they chose to be hired--how's that? Good Lord.

No, it's not a matter of point of view. It's a matter of you two trying to redefine basic economic notions to win an argument.

Consumer = end user of a good or service. Nothing more. Consumers are called consumers why?

The one thing consumers create is DEMAND. That's it. That's very important but it stops right there. It is now up to a producer to SUPPLY the demand. That's when job creation happens. The producer is the employer.

Creating DEMAND is NOT the same thing as creating a JOB. Period. Creating DEMAND creates an environment where producers will be keenly interested in SUPPLYing the DEMAND. Thus DEMAND is critical to a healthy economy. But there is no guarantee that job creation will happen just because there is demand. While typing this I was able to think of three extreme examples to prove this point, but I will leave this as an exercise to the reader (for now).

[kcshocker11]

Well guess there are now three of us

http://flaglerlive.com/38632/nick-hanauer-lv/


“I have started or helped start dozens of companies, and initially hired lots of people. But if there was no one around who could afford to buy what we had to sell, all those companies and all those jobs would have evaporated. That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses large or small. Jobs are a consequence of a circle of life-like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary consumer is more of a job creator than a capitalist like me. That’s why, when business people take credit for creating jobs [at this point, an image of Donald Trump appears on the big screen], it’s a little bit like squirrels taking credit for evolution. It’s actually the other way around. Anyone who’s ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a course of last resort for capitalists. It’s what we do if and only if rising consumer demand requires it. And in this sense, calling yourselves job creators isn’t just inaccurate. It’s disingenuous.”

[1979Shocker]

No, it's not a matter of point of view. It's a matter of you two trying to redefine basic economic notions to win an argument.

Consumer = end user of a good or service. Nothing more. Consumers are called consumers why?

The one thing consumers create is DEMAND. That's it. That's very important but it stops right there. It is now up to a producer to SUPPLY the demand. That's when job creation happens. The producer is the employer.

Creating DEMAND is NOT the same thing as creating a JOB. Period. Creating DEMAND creates an environment where producers will be keenly interested in SUPPLYing the DEMAND. Thus DEMAND is critical to a healthy economy. But there is no guarantee that job creation will happen just because there is demand. While typing this I was able to think of three extreme examples to prove this point, but I will leave this as an exercise to the reader (for now).

I agree with all that you say. That's why I don't understand the idea that if the job creators are given more tax cuts, they'll end up creating more jobs. Like you said, they're only going to create jobs when there's a demand.

If programs are cut from the middle class and others in order to give tax cuts to the job creators, there's going to be less money for the middle class and others to spend, making demand less. The only way to increase demand, and thus have the job creators create the jobs, is for the middle class to be given the big tax cuts. When they have more money, they end up spending more, which increases demand.

[Kung Wu]

Awesome. Sorry for slow response -- ran out of town for the weekend. I'm going to ignore the tax question for the moment. But it's a good topic for another post.

I agree with all that you say.

. . .

The only way to increase demand, and thus have the job creators create the jobs . . .

Ugh. You did it again. You leapt to increase demand equals job creation. But early stated you agree with me. That's the thing. You have to understand that increased demand does NOT necessarily equal job creation. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Here's an extreme example that I dreamed up that simplifies demonstrating that DEMAND does NOT equal job creation.

Scenario: Ethiopia. People literally starving to death. These people will give every last cent they own, barter the shoes off their feet, and do hard labor for food. The demand for food is insanely high. Ridiculous compared to anything I can think of an American demanding.

If DEMAND was SUFFICIENT to create jobs, then we would expect that there would be a grocery store or restaurant on every corner. And therefore the farm industry and food industry would be thriving and fueling the economy (at least to the extent it can).

But that's not what happened. Even though there is unbelievable demand we don't have a thriving food industry in Ethiopia. The reason? Because DEMAND was necessary for farmers and companies to be interested in SUPPLY but there are other forces keeping SUPPLY from happening. Probably SCARCITY of the raw resources (they were in a massive drought and couldn't grow food). There can be lots of reason that DEMAND is high, but SUPPLY isn't being met (and thus jobs not being created). SCARCITY of the raw resource, government regulations, a harsh business environment ... I'm just rattling off stuff that immediately comes to mind but there are probably a ton of them.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Awesome. Sorry for slow response -- ran out of town for the weekend. I'm going to ignore the tax question for the moment. But it's a good topic for another post.



Ugh. You did it again. You leapt to increase demand equals job creation. But early stated you agree with me. That's the thing. You have to understand that increased demand does NOT necessarily equal job creation. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Here's an extreme example that I dreamed up that simplifies demonstrating that DEMAND does NOT equal job creation.

Scenario: Ethiopia. People literally starving to death. These people will give every last cent they own, barter the shoes off their feet, and do hard labor for food. The demand for food is insanely high. Ridiculous compared to anything I can think of an American demanding.

If DEMAND was SUFFICIENT to create jobs, then we would expect that there would be a grocery store or restaurant on every corner. And therefore the farm industry and food industry would be thriving and fueling the economy (at least to the extent it can).

But that's not what happened. Even though there is unbelievable demand we don't have a thriving food industry in Ethiopia. The reason? Because DEMAND was necessary for farmers and companies to be interested in SUPPLY but there are other forces keeping SUPPLY from happening. Probably SCARCITY of the raw resources (they were in a massive drought and couldn't grow food). There can be lots of reason that DEMAND is high, but SUPPLY isn't being met (and thus jobs not being created). SCARCITY of the raw resource, government regulations, a harsh business environment ... I'm just rattling off stuff that immediately comes to mind but there are probably a ton of them.

With all due respect @Kung Wu--and you have much of that from me--that's an awful example. Ethiopians have practically no money to spend on anything. Capitalists don't respond to the demand in Ethiopia because they won't make a lot of money there. Similar reason why our economy here hasn't fully recovered yet--our population doesn't have the credit or the disposal income it had a few years ago to spend $$. That's the reason demand is down, and the "job creators" have responded.