DNC

[kcshocker11]

Wrong again ole wise ones. If the job is not performed per my work contract, I have the right to fire. I am both consumer and employer. If It ends up in court they say you hired the firmor individuals to the work.

[RoyalShock]

Wrong again ole wise ones. If the job is not performed per my work contract, I have the right to fire. I am both consumer and employer. If It ends up in court they say you hired the firmor individuals to the work.

No, all you did was take your business from him or his employer (which is not you). His position is still there. You don't have the authority to take his job away. Nor did you have the ability (or assume any risk) to create it.

[MoValley John]

Wrong again ole wise ones. If the job is not performed per my work contract, I have the right to fire. I am both consumer and employer. If It end up in court they say you hired the firm to the work.

That is litigation, not employment. You do have the right to receive goods and services as promised, but you are not the boss, employer or job creator, you are the consumer. And yes, consumers do have rights and avenues for recourse. This is now more than comical.

[MoValley John]

So your saying when I went to the phonebook and hired someone to put a new roof on my house I wasnt the boss. I didnt create the job! I could of employed several different people to do my roofbut ask about several and made my choice, was this not akin to the interview prossess? I was the consumer and the boss at the same time.

You were the consumer. You hired a contractor. Whether or not your demand for the service created a job or not depends on the contractor. He can choose to do the job himself, hire an extra guy, or a whole crew for that matter. As the consumer, you only purchased the good or service. Yes, more demand will push employment, but it is not direct. The business owner directly hired the help, took on the payroll and all risks associated, you merely bought a good or service. Your roof purchase had little to do with how many employees the contractor hires. Staffing levels are a direct result of economic conditions, future outlook of business activities and a business owners willingness to take on the risk and added payroll to expand and hopefully do more business in the future. Your roof is only one job that shouldn't come up for bid for at least 20 years. So no, your little bit of consuming didn't effect unemployment and didnt create jobs.

[wu_shizzle]

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” - Adam Smith

[Kung Wu]

Wrong again ole wise ones. If the job is not performed per my work contract, I have the right to fire. I am both consumer and employer. If It ends up in court they say you hired the firmor individuals to the work.

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.

[ShockTalk]

And Please!! You don't believe that a producer didn't create a new demand with the latest greatest flat screen, next fancy phone, latest in basketball shoes, or newest dish to get you to come in to buy, again and again. The producer is taking the risk. If the consumer doesn't like that new phone, he's at no risk, the producer is. The producer has to weigh the risks. Without "encouraging" that producer to make that product, hire new people to produce it, he may decide the risk is too great and pass on it. (Or he may decide the risk is only viable if he produces it elsewhere).

[WSU and Reds Fan]

Those who say the consumer takes no risk never bought a Pinto, a Beta tape, or quadrophonic sound system... or any thing else that was designed to be the next great thing. At least 2 of these were suppossed to be better than what was out there only to be wasted money by those who were the first to buy. The Color TV however was a great buy.

The point is that even though the producer takes a risk, real job growth comes only when the consumer deems the product important enough to buy again.

The producer is the job creator, but the consumer is the one who sustains and allows for ultimate job growth.

[SubGod22]

Those who say the consumer takes no risk never bought a Pinto, a Beta tape, or quadrophonic sound system... or any thing else that was designed to be the next great thing. At least 2 of these were suppossed to be better than what was out there only to be wasted money by those who were the first to buy. The Color TV however was a great buy.

The point is that even though the producer takes a risk, real job growth comes only when the consumer deems the product important enough to buy again.

The producer is the job creator, but the consumer is the one who sustains and allows for ultimate job growth.

I would argue that the producer is still the one who sustains and allows ultimate job growth by producing a good and reliable product. Without that, there is no demand or product to be purchased.

And the risk you described isn't even comparable to the risk that is ultimately taken by the producer. The first to buy anything know they're taking a risk on it not being a finished product or fully tested to every extreme.

[1979Shocker]

And Please!! You don't believe that a producer didn't create a new demand with the latest greatest flat screen, next fancy phone, latest in basketball shoes, or newest dish to get you to come in to buy, again and again. The producer is taking the risk. If the consumer doesn't like that new phone, he's at no risk, the producer is. The producer has to weigh the risks. Without "encouraging" that producer to make that product, hire new people to produce it, he may decide the risk is too great and pass on it. (Or he may decide the risk is only viable if he produces it elsewhere).

A lot of companies will have demos of their new products on display at events like CES (Consumer Electronics Show). If they're a big hit there, they can decide whether to put the product into full production.

[Capitol Shock II]

Somebody lock this thread up. This is f'in ridiculous! I bought some chocolate pop tarts this morning...how many jobs did I create? 0!

[Kung Wu]

A lot of companies will have demos of their new products on display at events like CES (Consumer Electronics Show). If they're a big hit there, they can decide whether to put the product into full production.

Do you have any idea whatsoever how expensive it is to even get a product to the point that you can show it off at CES? Obviously you don't or you wouldn't have just brought up an example that proves your original, feeble argument wrong.

[1979Shocker]

Do you have any idea whatsoever how expensive it is to even get a product to the point that you can show it off at CES? Obviously you don't or you wouldn't have just brought up an example that proves your original, feeble argument wrong.

You must have not have read it too well. I was agreeing with what @ShockTalk said, unless you're disagreeing with what he said too.

[1979Shocker]

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.

[Kung Wu]

You must have not have read it too well. I was agreeing with what @ShockTalk said, unless you're disagreeing with what he said too.

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?