DNC

[Kung Wu]

that's an awful example.

I chose the example to prove a single point: DEMAND doesn't equal (is not a sufficient condition for) JOB CREATION. In your own words "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." So you just gave me a reason why there is a situation where there is huge DEMAND but no JOB CREATION. Awful example or not, you verified the point.

I can give you countless other less extreme examples.

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 $$.

I'll go into this tomorrow.

That's the reason demand is down, and the "job creators" have responded.

In the meantime, what did you mean by the above? I don't understand it.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I chose the example to prove a single point: DEMAND doesn't equal (is not a sufficient condition for) JOB CREATION. In your own words "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." So you just gave me a reason why there is a situation where there is huge DEMAND but no JOB CREATION. Awful example or not, you verified the point.

If your point was that outside the US, examples exist where demand doesn't equal job creation, then yes, I verified your point. But considering that we were originally talking about this country, then I have verified nothing. Ethiopia is a whole 'nuther animal, and that's why that was a bad example.


What I meant by "demand is down, and 'job creators' have responded", is that economic activity fell off a cliff in 2008/2009. People stopped spending money. That in turn caused employers to start laying off people. Until we can get people spending again, "job creators" won't create jobs. Typical recession/expansion stuff. But again, that's my point. Businesses don't hire people just to hire people. They hire people as a last resort and as a response to increasing business. Hiring is almost always a response to external stimuli, as are layoffs--businesses don't do these things randomly. Job creation is an activity shared by the consumers who create the demand and the employers who respond to it.

[Kung Wu]

If your point was that outside the US, examples exist where demand doesn't equal job creation, then yes, I verified your point. But considering that we were originally talking about this country, then I have verified nothing. Ethiopia is a whole 'nuther animal, and that's why that was a bad example.

Your statement regarding Ethiopia is practically equivalent to saying "Algebra only works in the United States."

You want U.S. examples?

Rent controls. An example used by Thomas Sowell in his book Basic Economics. The government institutes price controls to force landlords to cap rent. People that can't afford an apartment on their own can now move out of their multifamily apartment into their own apartment. This temporarily yields a minor increase in jobs in the way of management companies hiring due to increased production (more existing rental units being rented). Great right? However ... now that families are spread across multiple apartments, the vacancy rate drops close to zero and new people in the area can't find an apartment. As demand continues to increase a problem arises: nobody will build new apartments to meet the demand -- there's no money in it due to rent controls!

The demand continues to grow, but producers won't produce. Construction jobs leave the city. Management companies stop growing. Increased demand --> gov't intervention --> stagnated supply --> decrease in available living space (per capita) and decrease in jobs.

According to the San Francisco Weekly, new construction of multifamily housing dropped by 32 percent within a decade after the city's rent control law was passed in 1979. Over the past 10 years, the number of rental units in the city has declined absolutely by 7,500. The vacancy rate is below one percent.

...

None of this is unique to San Francisco. A study of 16 cities by William Tucker of the Cato Institute showed "that the advertised rents of available apartments in rent-regulated cities are dramatically higher than they are in cities without rent control." In view of this, it is not surprising that he also found homelessness more prevalent in cities with rent control. source

Drugs. Demand is ginormous. Government launches War On Drugs and instead of real jobs being created you have a massive black market where the dealers aren't paying taxes or contributing to society in any meaningful way. Increased demand --> gov't intervention --> supply is met via black market --> no meaningful jobs created.

I ran out of time.

[wufan]

They hire people as a last resort and as a response to increasing business. Hiring is almost always a response to external stimuli, as are layoffs--businesses don't do these things randomly. Job creation is an activity shared by the consumers who create the demand and the employers who respond to it.

Sorry I joined the conversation late and haven't read the whole thread.

In my industry, job creation is done by taking calculated risks. New products are developed with an anticipation of need and by CREATING a demand. Tens of millions of dollars are on the line with each decision and the company decides that the risk is worth the reward or isn't. If the company takes on the risk then contractors are brought in to build manufacturing facilities, employees are hired and trained up front. Six months of labor is put into getting the product market ready and only then can a return on investment be recouped. My company is a job CREATOR and grosses billions of dollars a month.

With so much money being made, some wonder why we don't take more risks. The reason is that we are so heavily regulated by the US government that risk capital isn't readily available. In fact, the taxation, regulations, and risk (The FDA mandates that we destroy about 20% of our product as not fit for US consumers) are so high that if we can only make a 10% margin on a product, we discontinue that product and lay off the work force. In this case the government, which created one job to regulate killed 50 manufacturing jobs because the risk is too high. We lose money by manufacturing due to the complexity.

Next problem. There IS a demand for the 10% profit product, but we have elected not to manufacture it due to government price fixing and the inability to turn 10% profit into an actual profit. Now the US government steps in and says you will manufacture it or pay a penalty equivalent to the 100% manufacturing cost of that product. So we hire half the labor force back and manufacture it and the government uses tax dollars to supplement the losses and now we break even. If we can't meet the demand set by the government (not the consumer) the FDA fines us and we have to shut down other more profitable product lines. What the government suggests (or sometimes tells us directly to do) is to send these products overseas where the labor costs and regulations are lower. You see, the FDA only regulates at one half of one percent in India and China as compared to in the US. This way the American consumer wins by getting their product at the fixed price, though it is of lower quality. As an added bonus the rich don't make more than their fair share. The only loser here is the American laborer. As a side note, an exact replica of my factory is currently under construction in India. I wonder what that means for me in three years?

In the end, we are less profitable, which is a good thing to many democrats, but we have less capital for risk and create fewer jobs. Fewer jobs means fewer consumers which means decreased demand (for other manufactured products) and fewer small businesses adding to their work force.

As best I can tell, most government intervention (taxes or regulations) is bad for any American citizen that is/was employed.

Oh, and speaking of Ethiopia, they would absolutely LOVE our product! We used to ship our batches to them (free) when the FDA said they weren't fit for US consumption (15 years ago). Then the FDA said that was cruel to ship them such things even though the spoiled batches were 10 times safer in 1990 then the "good" batches actually sold in the US in 1950. Now we've tripled the safety measures and still won't allow batches that could be sold to US consumers in 2005 (but not now) to be shipped to poor countries for free. But guess what! You can buy this same inferior product that we can't ship to India right here in the US. The FDA allows India and China to sell them to you. Another example of the Federal Government looking out for everyone's best interests.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Good examples in rent controls and drugs. Back to Ethiopia for quick sec--this dead horse is pretty beat to death but I think you're missing my point and it could be that I'm just not communicating it very well. Comparing the US to Ethiopia is pointless. There is no lack of demand in Ethiopia, that's for sure--but there is a lack of money, economic gasoline. You can't make the economic engine run without gas. Capitalists aren't there satisfying the demand because the means to pay for their products and services is practically non-existent. By comparison, the US has the demand AND the ability to pay. HUGE difference--so huge that it renders this example farcical. Who in their right mind (as a capitalist) would want to meet the demand of population who can't pay for anything?????

Now, that transitions back to your MUCH better examples in rent controls and drugs. Now we're talking! So if your best examples are rent controls and drugs, I'll concede your point--your point being that a minuscule segment of our economy (low income housing) provides an exception to the rule, and that an illegal activity provides another. Touche! I have another example--prostitution. HUGE demand, but thanks to the government we're denied a legal widespread supply. There are thousands of aspiring hookers in this country and we're keeping them out of a job!! Now, back to reality and the big picture, and what happens most of the time--demand drives supply. There are companies out there who are adept at creating markets by themselves where none existed before, and entire chapters of marketing textbooks are devoted to this. Absolutely true, and I'm sure that countless examples are waiting to be posted to this thread. But this is the exception to the rule. I'm going to lunch in an hour or so, and I can guarantee you that no one invented the huge market for food, and that I'm supporting a local eatery and helping to keep them in business and helping to keep their people employed. If I get enough of my friends to go to that place on a regular basis, that eatery may need to hire more people. Who ultimately created those jobs then? Was it the business owner responding to the demand, or was it my friends who go there for lunch? Enough of the economic models, Keynesian theory vs supply side, etc., etc., we can use statistics until we're blue in the face and prove nothing--let's start using our pragmatic Midwestern common sense to answer that question.

[Capitol Shock II]

As a small business owner I concede that I wouldn't have a business or employees unless I had customers. The more customers I have the more people I will likely need to hire. However, I would like to think that me and my business creates that demand. If I offer a good product and outstanding service patrons will come. The government doesn't provide the idea, the product, the demand or the good service. So when the President says "You didn't build that" I take offense because because while I realize I can't succeed without customers, nobody, especially the government, forces my patrons to show up at my door everyday and write me a check. And ultimately, if my attention to customer service, performance or ethics disappears so do my employees and business.

So yes, I did build it, and it my effort and oversight that keeps the doors open and the revenue flowing. If I get fed up with the economy or the government and decide to close the doors, those jobs go away.

[kcshocker11]

As a small business owner I concede that I wouldn't have a business or employees unless I had customers. The more customers I have the more people I will likely need to hire. However, I would like to think that me and my business creates that demand. If I offer a good product and outstanding service patrons will come. The government doesn't provide the idea, the product, the demand or the good service. So when the President says "You didn't build that" I take offense because because while I realize I can't succeed without customers, nobody, especially the government, forces my patrons to show up at my door everyday and write me a check. And ultimately, if my attention to customer service, performance or ethics disappears so do my employees and business.

So yes, I did build it, and it my effort and oversight that keeps the doors open and the revenue flowing. If I get fed up with the economy or the government and decide to close the doors, those jobs go away.

And yes you didnt read the context of what The Pres. said, he said
no man is an island. Using this is as bad of cheap shot as using Romneys "I like to fire people" both out of context and out of bounds of fairness .

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/did-obama-say-if-youve-got-a-business-you-didnt-build-that/

[JohnnieBallgame]

If the President was saying I didn't build "those" roads and bridges; why did he not use the word "those" instead of the word "that"? To me, "that" indicates a singular thing, like a business, not plural thing(s) like roads and bridges!

I also own and operate businesses and I am not a great writer, nor am I the smartest man in the room. Surely, a Harvard Law Review editor could be less clumsy than his statement. I will not give him the benefit of the doubt because he has not earned it. I have reached the point that I will not listen to him because his words are just words, they are empty, hollow, and shallow. IMHO he is a disgrace to the USA and all who were/are gullible/selfish enough to vote for him. I have spent a portion of my life defending and upholding the constitution as a soldier, and another 20 years saving, investing, creating, and building businesses that pay taxes and employees, who in turn pay taxes and supply demand for other jobs.

I apparently don't get it, and I'm frustrated as hell with this moron and the useful idiots who vote for him!

[1979Shocker]

If the President was saying I didn't build "those" roads and bridges; why did he not use the word "those" instead of the word "that"? To me, "that" indicates a singular thing, like a business, not plural thing(s) like roads and bridges!

I also own and operate businesses and I am not a great writer, nor am I the smartest man in the room. Surely, a Harvard Law Review editor could be less clumsy than his statement. I will not give him the benefit of the doubt because he has not earned it. I have reached the point that I will not listen to him because his words are just words, they are empty, hollow, and shallow. IMHO he is a disgrace to the USA and all who were/are gullible/selfish enough to vote for him. I have spent a portion of my life defending and upholding the constitution as a soldier, and another 20 years saving, investing, creating, and building businesses that pay taxes and employees, who in turn pay taxes and supply demand for other jobs.

I apparently don't get it, and I'm frustrated as hell with this moron and the useful idiots who vote for him!

When that one sentence is read on its own, it sounds like President Obama is saying a business owner didn't build his own business.

If you've got a business - you didn't build that.

But when it's read in context, then it becomes clear what the President was saying was that they didn't build the "roads and bridges".

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn't – look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

[pinstripers]

I pay for fire fighting service.

[WuDrWu]

With all due respect '79, it absolutely is NOT. The contempt this man has for those that he, in his feeble and racist little mind, believes were born on 3rd base or have just been more fortunate in life, drips from his words.

He hates success, he hates individuality, he believes in redistribution and he's a liar and a FLAMING narcissist.

And if this country hasn't lost her way, he'll be searching the want ads in about 4 months.

[JohnnieBallgame]

To the current idiot president and his mind-numbed robots, the 10 years my wife and I sacrificed vacations and new cars, nicer homes...etc...to save the $80,000 to invest/start my first business mean nothing. Throw in the next several years of building the business, investing further in the business, and looking for new opportunities to invest in while further sacrificing vacations, golf outings, living in homes with values below what others who worked far less hours than I did lived in, now because I have a business or businesses I am the problem? I don't get it.

My hard work and the rules I was told to play under all of the sudden don't apply and my time, my savings, my family's sacrifices make me a villain with the moron Obama and his "jack-wipe" voters. Perhaps the wisest investment to cast a vote against this bastard!

I am to the point that I am embarassed to be a citizen of this nation with the current president in office. If he wins again (or steals the election) what is left of this once great country will be gone forever. Somethings are worth fighting for, we will get it on! I will do everything I can to make life miserable for every "taker" that votes for him. I have no problem with helping folks who are unable to help themselves, but I will rot in hell before I willingly help an Obama voter who is unwilling to help themselves.

My Christian faith prohibits me from funding abortions, why should some Muslim extremist's religous beliefs have more value to the POTUS than mine? Do the Christians need to behave like the Muslims to get the same kind of respect?

I better shut this rant down before I get in trouble, I'm just insulted and PO'd!

[1979Shocker]

With all due respect '79, it absolutely is NOT. The contempt this man has for those that he, in his feeble and racist little mind, believes were born on 3rd base or have just been more fortunate in life, drips from his words.

He hates success, he hates individuality, he believes in redistribution and he's a liar and a FLAMING narcissist.

And if this country hasn't lost her way, he'll be searching the want ads in about 4 months.

Over the last 40 years or so there has been a redistribution of wealth upwards because of cuts in the income tax rates for the upper income and cuts in the capital gains tax. I don't know exactly what Obama believes, but I think he probably just wants to slow down the redistribution, so that the middle class can have some of that wealth.

[1979Shocker]

My Christian faith prohibits me from funding abortions, why should some Muslim extremist's religous beliefs have more value to the POTUS than mine? Do the Christians need to behave like the Muslims to get the same kind of respect?

Does your Christian faith also prohibit you from funding wars? Just curious. Both abortions and wars take a life. What happens to the innocent life that was taken in war as a result of colateral damage because the President ordered a drone strike that ended up killing them? What if they were only waiting for the missionary to arrive the next day who would proclaim to them the one name whereby they could be saved?

[pinstripers]

guess they shoulda took an earlier train.........