Who Really Creates Jobs? Just the Rich?

[Reverend Rick]

Respectful question time.

Is it demand that creates jobs or people who have money that want things?

If demand was the only factor, would not the poorest among us be creating jobs left and right?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rev, this is a Socialist Only Forum. Are you a Socialist?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You infer a message which isn't ours at all, so our motives & values aren't what you think they are.

You've admitted we need some government regulation, but the typical Libertarian view is to do away with them all. Obviously that would blow the door wide open to make the rich even richer, while exposing everybody else to even lower wages, worse benefits, longer work days and weeks, and more unsafe conditions. Not too mention it could also potentially mean even more environmental destruction, monopolies, and corrupt business ethics. But at least they aren't being hypocrites like the Republicans, who boast smaller government but will use it without hesitation when it comes to something they want, such as right-to-work laws.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Link. This is a progressive source, admittedly, so if anyone disputes its trustworthiness let me know.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rev, this is a Socialist Only Forum. Are you a Socialist?

Yipes! Didn't notice. Deleting posts.

 

[T-Dawg]

Yipes! Didn't notice. Deleting posts.

I think he was talking to himself.

Actually, "Rev" could either be Reverend Rick or Revoltingest, now that I think about it...




Anyway, demand creates jobs. People create demand.

The thing about capitalism is that it must constantly grow in order to keep working. Just as the bureaucracy must expand to meat the needs of the expanding bureaucracy, businesses must expand in order to accommodate population growth that fuels the expansion of the business (if this does not happen, the circular flow of capital between households and businesses will break down as businesses require profit to stay afloat, and this profit will simply sit in the pockets of the business if it is not spent on expansion). If either part of the system breaks - if people stop buying or the businesses stop producing, or one of the parts does their part excessively (ie, people rack up credit cards and artificially create a temporary demand shock or businesses produce more goods than people can buy), the economy is sent into turmoil, and a decrease in living standards will result, as either the demand will create higher prices than people can afford in the long term, or businesses will stop selling goods to people as excess supply makes it unprofitable.
So in essence, businesses "create" jobs in response to demand (which effectively allows jobs), jobs which create supply and allow for demand (as there is something to be demanded and wage-workers who can demand it), which businesses respond to by creating more jobs (assuming demand exceeds supply production, which would make the action of hiring more workers profitable), increasing the supply and allowing more demand, which... (this continues until we run out of physical resources)

 

[Darkness]

Respectful question time.

Is it demand that creates jobs or people who have money that want things?

If demand was the only factor, would not the poorest among us be creating jobs left and right?

What do you think demand is? Demand is defined as the willingness and ability to purchase a product/service. So demand and money spent are basically the same thing in this sense. Every American should be forced to read an introductory economics textbook at least once in their lives. :sarcastic

 

[Mathematician]

Almost all innovation is exclusively unrewarded under capitalism either way. The billionaires of today nearly all had enough capital to start with and marketed someone else's idea. The very system does not reward innovation but pillage.

Bill Gates,
Warren Buffet,
Donald Trump,
Steve Jobs,
etc., etc. All barely contributed anything. Hell, the latter three produced nothing new.

Socialism offers a much more rewarding experience for those who deserve it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Almost all innovation is exclusively unrewarded under capitalism either way. The billionaires of today nearly all had enough capital to start with and marketed someone else's idea. The very system does not reward innovation but pillage.

Bill Gates,
Warren Buffet,
Donald Trump,
Steve Jobs,
etc., etc. All barely contributed anything. Hell, the latter three produced nothing new.

Socialism offers a much more rewarding experience for those who deserve it.

Not just the later three, but all four. Had there not been a Steve Jobs there would have been no Bill Gates. I would argue that Edison was the last of the inventors working under a Capitalist society to really reap any benefits of his efforts. Everyone else either built of ideas that came before them or received credit postmortem.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What do you think demand is?

I'm not a socialist, I'm only allowed to ask respectful questions even when you insult my intelligence.

Demand is defined as the willingness and ability to purchase a product/service. So demand and money spent are basically the same thing in this sense. Every American should be forced to read an introductory economics textbook at least once in their lives. :sarcastic

Could you please explain how elasticity along the linear demand curve might affect the creation of jobs in the future?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you think demand is? Demand is defined as the willingness and ability to purchase a product/service. So demand and money spent are basically the same thing in this sense. Every American should be forced to read an introductory economics textbook at least once in their lives. :sarcastic

In my introductory economics course, my prof emphasized that demand is expressed not in money per se, but in dollar equivalents based on the relative valuation of the things that a person can expend to get a thing. She would reinforce this by using the made-up word "utils" (her term for units of "utility") rather than dollars.

For instance, if a person values their time at $X per hour and is willing to wait in line for 1 hour to get a particular thing for "free", then you can say that his demand for the thing is $X. However, no money is exchanged and that hour he spend waiting doesn't do anything to feed the economy or create jobs for anyone - it just disappears. It's cost that doesn't translate into a benefit for anyone else.

Also, something else that was covered in my Econ 101 class: it's price that determines how much money changes hands, not demand directly. If my level of demand for a thing is $15 but the price is set at $10, I don't pay $15; I pay the $10 and congratulate myself on what to me is a good deal. OTOH, if my level of demand was $8 for that same $10 item, I wouldn't buy it; that $8 of demand wouldn't translate into any sort of real transaction at all.