Who Creates Jobs?

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Chizzy posted a YouTube clip of this "producer" earlier. Always good for you conks to be reminded how the economy actually works. You're welcome for the refresher.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/201 ... nauer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice example.... An individual that makes 8 figures.

How about the small business owner that makes way less than a million dollars that lays it on the line starting a business and making it successful? There are many more of these individuals than the super rich example in this article. I do not know any of these super rich people and never will but the people I know that have some money saved or have more than the average family got it by busting their ass working hard. Some started businesses, some continued in family businesses and expanded it and others worked for companies but worked hard and worked their way towards the 'top'.

Small business owners are job creators.

[CID1990]

It's never going to be so simple as one thing creating jobs. There are hundreds of factors. The government does create jobs. Multi-national billion dollar companies do create jobs. The middle class does create jobs.

However, the economy is changing.

Huge corporations do create jobs that rely on the consumption of the middle class. But, these increasingly employ people overseason.

There are also huge corporations that employ next to no one. Facebook bought WhatsApp (which I had never heard of before they bought it) for $16 billion dollars... the company employs 55 **** people. A few decades ago... a company worth that (adjusted for inflation) would be employing thousands of people.

The economy is changing and there is increasingly less room for less skilled, less educated workers. A relatively high unemployment rate is going to be the norm going forward, imo.

This is one of those occasional lucid SK posts that I feel strangely compelled to bookmark

[AZGrizFan]

The War on Poverty’s success at strengthening the social safety net — a boon in the Great Recession — should not obscure its failure as an engine of self-improvement. Government is fairly good at handing out money; it’s less good at changing behavior. The two roles intersect. If the safety net is too generous, it will weaken work incentives. If it’s too stingy, it will condone suffering. This tale of two wars has left the fight against poverty in a costly and unsatisfying stalemate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NAIL. Meet HEAD.

[kalm]

Chizzy posted a YouTube clip of this "producer" earlier. Always good for you conks to be reminded how the economy actually works. You're welcome for the refresher.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/201 ... nauer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice example.... An individual that makes 8 figures.

How about the small business owner that makes way less than a million dollars that lays it on the line starting a business and making it successful? There are many more of these individuals than the super rich example in this article. I do not know any of these super rich people and never will but the people I know that have some money saved or have more than the average family got it by busting their ass working hard. Some started businesses, some continued in family businesses and expanded it and others worked for companies but worked hard and worked their way towards the 'top'.

Small business owners are job creators.

Or...good paying jobs are small business creators.

[UNI88]

Nice example.... An individual that makes 8 figures.

How about the small business owner that makes way less than a million dollars that lays it on the line starting a business and making it successful? There are many more of these individuals than the super rich example in this article. I do not know any of these super rich people and never will but the people I know that have some money saved or have more than the average family got it by busting their ass working hard. Some started businesses, some continued in family businesses and expanded it and others worked for companies but worked hard and worked their way towards the 'top'.

Small business owners are job creators.

Or...good paying jobs are small business creators.

Huh?

People who start small businesses do so for a variety of reasons and I don't think that they have or want a good paying job is high on the list. It usually has something to do with some combination of them having an idea they think can work and wanting to be their own boss. They then put their life on hold and their funds/income at risk while they try to make the new business work. They may hope to make a comfortable living or even get rich but if they're realistic their odds of success are small. Do they create jobs? Yes. Do they hope to profit financially? Yes. Do the good paying jobs create the small businesses? I don't think so.

[kalm]

Or...good paying jobs are small business creators.

Huh?

People who start small businesses do so for a variety of reasons and I don't think that they have or want a good paying job is high on the list. It usually has something to do with some combination of them having an idea they think can work and wanting to be their own boss. They then put their life on hold and their funds/income at risk while they try to make the new business work. They may hope to make a comfortable living or even get rich but if they're realistic their odds of success are small. Do they create jobs? Yes. Do they hope to profit financially? Yes. Do the good paying jobs create the small businesses? I don't think so.

I've created a small business, but thanks for the tutorial anyway.

Hint...the only way they think it can work is if they have enough customers who will buy their product/service.

[Ibanez]

Huh?

People who start small businesses do so for a variety of reasons and I don't think that they have or want a good paying job is high on the list. It usually has something to do with some combination of them having an idea they think can work and wanting to be their own boss. They then put their life on hold and their funds/income at risk while they try to make the new business work. They may hope to make a comfortable living or even get rich but if they're realistic their odds of success are small. Do they create jobs? Yes. Do they hope to profit financially? Yes. Do the good paying jobs create the small businesses? I don't think so.

I've created a small business, but thanks for the tutorial anyway.

Hint...the only way they think it can work is if they have enough customers who will buy their product/service.

You didn't build that.

[UNI88]

Huh?

People who start small businesses do so for a variety of reasons and I don't think that they have or want a good paying job is high on the list. It usually has something to do with some combination of them having an idea they think can work and wanting to be their own boss. They then put their life on hold and their funds/income at risk while they try to make the new business work. They may hope to make a comfortable living or even get rich but if they're realistic their odds of success are small. Do they create jobs? Yes. Do they hope to profit financially? Yes. Do the good paying jobs create the small businesses? I don't think so.

I've created a small business, but thanks for the tutorial anyway.

Hint...the only way they think it can work is if they have enough customers who will buy their product/service.

I know you have, that's why I was floored by your answer.

You know that I agree with you that income disparity is an issue that is getting out of hand but I have less of an issue with an entrepreneur who creates a successful business taking a significant chunk of revenue as his/her salary than I do of corporate executives laying off hundreds and collecting a bonus as a result of decreased costs while asking the remaining employees to work harder for smaller increases. Those corporate executives are marginally more valuable than the people below them but they're making exponentially more because they fill each others Boards of Directors and are giving each other constant reach around's. The entrepreneur in all likelihood took some serious risks and deserves to benefit from the rewards.

Maybe this is a chicken and egg argument. Demand will drive whether an entrepreneur succeeds and creates jobs so no income = no demand = no jobs = no income but if there are no entrepreneurs there will be no companies to attempt to fill the demand and no jobs will be created either.

[YoUDeeMan]

I've created a small business, but thanks for the tutorial anyway.

Hint...the only way they think it can work is if they have enough customers who will buy their product/service.

You didn't build that.

Indeed, kalm did not build that.

[YoUDeeMan]

I've created a small business, but thanks for the tutorial anyway.

Hint...the only way they think it can work is if they have enough customers who will buy their product/service.

So, the guy who created Dollar Stores needed his customers to have great paying jobs?

And McDonalds needed to cater to those high wage employees so that they spend their big bucks under the arches?

C'mon, kalm, you're reaching here. Credit used to be offered only to high rollers. MBNA and Am Ex started off making a small fortune from offering cards to an exclusive clientele list, but then they both realized that there was a LOT more money to be made if you could get your cards into the hands of the unwashed masses. Sure, you'd take the loss from some of the losers (or roll the loss onto the backs of the other card holders - they got that idea from government, by the way), but even low life's can be trained to give you their money. Now anyone can get a credit card, and they have removed the minimum purchase regulations. It appears that many businesses make a good profit off of catering to the lowest common denominator.

[houndawg]

Chizzy posted a YouTube clip of this "producer" earlier. Always good for you conks to be reminded how the economy actually works. You're welcome for the refresher.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/201 ... nauer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice example.... An individual that makes 8 figures.

How about the small business owner that makes way less than a million dollars that lays it on the line starting a business and making it successful? There are many more of these individuals than the super rich example in this article. I do not know any of these super rich people and never will but the people I know that have some money saved or have more than the average family got it by busting their ass working hard. Some started businesses, some continued in family businesses and expanded it and others worked for companies but worked hard and worked their way towards the 'top'.

Small business owners are job creators.

Only if consumers want what they're selling.

Consumers are the real job creators. Consumers and war.

[CitadelGrad]

It's never going to be so simple as one thing creating jobs. There are hundreds of factors. The government does create jobs. Multi-national billion dollar companies do create jobs. The middle class does create jobs.

However, the economy is changing.

Huge corporations do create jobs that rely on the consumption of the middle class. But, these increasingly employ people overseason.

There are also huge corporations that employ next to no one. Facebook bought WhatsApp (which I had never heard of before they bought it) for $16 billion dollars... the company employs 55 **** people. A few decades ago... a company worth that (adjusted for inflation) would be employing thousands of people.

The economy is changing and there is increasingly less room for less skilled, less educated workers. A relatively high unemployment rate is going to be the norm going forward, imo.

This is one of those occasional lucid SK posts that I feel strangely compelled to bookmark

Not really.

[dbackjon]

An ordinary middle class consumer is far more of a job creator....nice theory, but that "consumer" can't "consume" anything if the rich person doesn't create the company/product in the first place because of the disincentives caused by higher taxes.

Wrong - products will be made if there is demand. If there is no demand because the 1% of sucked up all the excess cash and no one can afford anything, then nothing is produced.


A healthy middle class is the ideal - not the Republican goal of 95% underclass serving the 5% wealthy

[dbackjon]

Ummm...that's kind of his point. Who has benefited while food stamp usage has increased?

Ummm...nobody.
What? You think those people weren't going to eat?
The same money was spent on food. The only difference is who paid for it and how.
The difference is the person being fed didn't pay for that food out of their own personal income. It was paid for by someone elses seized income.

It's not really that hard to understand.

And obviously you don't. Kids go hungry. People go hungry. Food Stamps allows CITIZENS to eat. Period.

[AZGrizFan]

An ordinary middle class consumer is far more of a job creator....nice theory, but that "consumer" can't "consume" anything if the rich person doesn't create the company/product in the first place because of the disincentives caused by higher taxes.

Wrong - products will be made if there is demand. If there is no demand because the 1% of sucked up all the excess cash and no one can afford anything, then nothing is produced.


A healthy middle class is the ideal - not the Republican goal of 95% underclass serving the 5% wealthy

As opposed to the Democrat ideal of everything being provided by the government and all incentive to produce removed from the workplace.

[AZGrizFan]

Ummm...nobody.
What? You think those people weren't going to eat?
The same money was spent on food. The only difference is who paid for it and how.
The difference is the person being fed didn't pay for that food out of their own personal income. It was paid for by someone elses seized income.

It's not really that hard to understand.

And obviously you don't. Kids go hungry. People go hungry. Food Stamps allows CITIZENS to eat. Period.

And have cell phones and new trucks and designer clothes and 55 inch flat screens.

[kalm]

I've created a small business, but thanks for the tutorial anyway.

Hint...the only way they think it can work is if they have enough customers who will buy their product/service.

So, the guy who created Dollar Stores needed his customers to have great paying jobs?

And McDonalds needed to cater to those high wage employees so that they spend their big bucks under the arches?

C'mon, kalm, you're reaching here. Credit used to be offered only to high rollers. MBNA and Am Ex started off making a small fortune from offering cards to an exclusive clientele list, but then they both realized that there was a LOT more money to be made if you could get your cards into the hands of the unwashed masses. Sure, you'd take the loss from some of the losers (or roll the loss onto the backs of the other card holders - they got that idea from government, by the way), but even low life's can be trained to give you their money. Now anyone can get a credit card, and they have removed the minimum purchase regulations. It appears that many businesses make a good profit off of catering to the lowest common denominator.

Maybe we can loan our way to prosperity and/or get there by trading services?

[kalm]

And obviously you don't. Kids go hungry. People go hungry. Food Stamps allows CITIZENS to eat. Period.

And have cell phones and new trucks and designer clothes and 55 inch flat screens.

Cut them off the from the teat and they'll have no choice but to get off their lazy asses, get a job at McDonalds, and use payday loans so they afford all those things plus occasionally dining out...on Big Macs.

What a wonderful loop!

[YoUDeeMan]

Ummm...nobody.
What? You think those people weren't going to eat?
The same money was spent on food. The only difference is who paid for it and how.
The difference is the person being fed didn't pay for that food out of their own personal income. It was paid for by someone elses seized income.

It's not really that hard to understand.

And obviously you don't. Kids go hungry. People go hungry. Food Stamps allows CITIZENS to eat. Period.

Let's be very clear...NO ONE goes hungry in this country unless they have a mental deficiency and refuse help. And NO ONE goes without a roof over their heads unless they have a mental deficiency and refuse help. And now, NO ONE goes without a phone, unless they have a mental deficiency and refuse the handout.

Understanding those points is critical to understanding that all that is left for people to do is to figure out a way to provide bling and other crap for themselves (and their babies, usually without the father being around - a choice).

The American poor are by no means poor. They are envious. And the poorest of the poor are not smart enough to figure out what they want to do, or they are smart enough to have figured out that they don't need to do jack sh!t in order to live off someone else's work.

dback, your posts are loser material. You want someone else to pay for the privilege of your existence and take care of you and the other unintelligent, unmotivated jokers who play the victim role. You easily get distracted with narrow minded, selfish goals while complaining that someone else should care about you and your plight du jour.

Don't like what trickles down to you? Work harder and smarter and find something that people would want to pay you for. CREATE demand. People in this country have enough money and trinkets...make your trinket more appealing than something else and the money will flow your way. Otherwise, just keep looking at the azz in front of you, because the view ain't going to change.

Then again, you would like that view.

[JohnStOnge]

And obviously you don't. Kids go hungry. People go hungry. Food Stamps allows CITIZENS to eat. Period.

To me that set of statements reflect an outlook that has become a big problem for us. We have come to believe that, if someone needs something, it is self evident that government should provide it.

And it's not. What you are channeling is the entitlement mentality. Government should not be considered responsible for ensuring that everybody has enough to eat. It really shouldn't. YOU are responsible for making sure you have enough to eat. YOU are responsible for making sure your children have enough to eat. You have no legitimate right to force someone else that you don't even know to contribute money to buy you or your children the food you need.

Now, charity is great. Chances are there would be people who would help you get something to eat if you really need that. Chances are there are people who would help your children get something to eat.

But nobody should be FORCED to do it.

[kalm]

And obviously you don't. Kids go hungry. People go hungry. Food Stamps allows CITIZENS to eat. Period.

To me that set of statements reflect an outlook that has become a big problem for us. We have come to believe that, if someone needs something, it is self evident that government should provide it.

And it's not. What you are channeling is the entitlement mentality. Government should not be considered responsible for ensuring that everybody has enough to eat. It really shouldn't. YOU are responsible for making sure you have enough to eat. YOU are responsible for making sure your children have enough to eat. You have no legitimate right to force someone else that you don't even know to contribute money to buy you or your children the food you need.

Now, charity is great. Chances are there would be people who would help you get something to eat if you really need that. Chances are there are people who would help your children get something to eat.

But nobody should be FORCED to do it.

I think I read somewhere once where the war on poverty started because some politicians (maybe Bobby Kennedy) traveled through places like Louisiana and saw people crapping in buckets in their front yard and scavenging through dumpsters for food. You guys should have done a better job of providing a system that offered a hand up and then you wouldn't have to give a hand out.

[JohnStOnge]

I think I read somewhere once where the war on poverty started because some politicians (maybe Bobby Kennedy) traveled through places like Louisiana and saw people crapping in buckets in their front yard and scavenging through dumpsters for food. You guys should have done a better job of providing a system that offered a hand up and then you wouldn't have to give a hand out.

I actually saw a documentary on the Bobby Kennedy thing and I think it was Mississippi and I think it was more the Civil Rights issue than the War on Poverty issue. Of course the fact that the documentary I saw didn't mention Louisiana doesn't mean he didn't see things in Louisiana too.

But, either way, I stand by what I wrote: We should not be in a paradigm whereby we consider the national government to be responsible for ensuring that each individual gets what they need. Government should be seen as responsible for maintaining a basic infrastructure. Me getting enough to eat and my children getting enough to eat should be seen as MY responsibility.

[YoUDeeMan]

To me that set of statements reflect an outlook that has become a big problem for us. We have come to believe that, if someone needs something, it is self evident that government should provide it.

And it's not. What you are channeling is the entitlement mentality. Government should not be considered responsible for ensuring that everybody has enough to eat. It really shouldn't. YOU are responsible for making sure you have enough to eat. YOU are responsible for making sure your children have enough to eat. You have no legitimate right to force someone else that you don't even know to contribute money to buy you or your children the food you need.

Now, charity is great. Chances are there would be people who would help you get something to eat if you really need that. Chances are there are people who would help your children get something to eat.

But nobody should be FORCED to do it.

I think I read somewhere once where the war on poverty started because some politicians (maybe Bobby Kennedy) traveled through places like Louisiana and saw people crapping in buckets in their front yard and scavenging through dumpsters for food. You guys should have done a better job of providing a system that offered a hand up and then you wouldn't have to give a hand out.

So some clown from an American family that grew up wealthy decided that SOMEONE ELSE should have their money taken away in order to feed and shelter others.

Yup, another politician from a Liberal state deciding what to do with other people's money.

[kalm]

I think I read somewhere once where the war on poverty started because some politicians (maybe Bobby Kennedy) traveled through places like Louisiana and saw people crapping in buckets in their front yard and scavenging through dumpsters for food. You guys should have done a better job of providing a system that offered a hand up and then you wouldn't have to give a hand out.

So some clown from an American family that grew up wealthy decided that SOMEONE ELSE should have their money taken away in order to feed and shelter others.

Yup, another politician from a Liberal state deciding what to do with other people's money.

True, but at least they're no longer crapping in buckets in the front yard. Evidently, the War on Poverty was able to do in 40 years what church charities couldnt do in 200.

[D1B]

Kalm is like a cat playing with a dead mouse carcass.

Conks.