Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand your logic, but you should ask, would those jobs exists without the government demand for a product?
Did the government "create" those jobs? Perhaps not, but it did create the demand and funding for them. The line gets very blurry on close inspection.
Thats the point I'm making. Employers don't create job, demand creates jobs, at the base its always demand. Government demand, private sector demand, whatever demand.
No one hires if there is no demand for the work. So demand creates jobs, enterprising individuals with the money to seize upon that demand are simply finding means to fill that demand, not create jobs. Jobs are a side effect of demand.
One of my liberal friends just sent me this. Thoughts?
"Richard Meyers" is either an idiot, or a paid shill who's deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
Be skeptical. Be very skeptical.
Businesses are holding onto their cash right now because they don't know what's going to be happening with the economy, due primarily to to Obamacare. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it," right? Well, they're still waiting to find out. There's also the issue of whether or not we're going to have a pro-business President come January. Obama has had no problems overtly attacking "corporations," and the failed OWS experiment is a manifestation of that agenda.
If Obama wins re-election, you can expect businesses to hang onto that cash for another four years. If you want that money out there, working for us, then you want Romney to win the upcoming election. It really is that simple.
If Obama wins re-election, you can expect businesses to hang onto that cash for another four years. If you want that money out there, working for us, then you want Romney to win the upcoming election. It really is that simple.
The case you present isn't accurate, not is the reality that simple. Companies have been hording cash for a variety of reasons, the ACA only being one of them. For the companies sitting on the largest piles of cash, the ramifications of the ACA might not be more than a blip on the edge of the RADAR; more pressing issues might be Europe's ongoing problems, the effect of polarized politics in the US on the coming "fiscal cliff" debates, and the slow growth of the American economy.
But, your point about the ACA might have some merit in regards to small businesses. I just don't know.
When unemployment levels are at 4%, its almost impossible to create more jobs.
Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
"WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent."
Kinda blows holes in some of the previous posts claiming NO jobs were created.
Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
"WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent."
Kinda blows holes in some of the previous posts claiming NO jobs were created.
The important number would be the net change in jobs. Sure, 8.3 million jobs might have been created, but that number means nothing without knowing how many were also lost during that same period.
Can't balance this budget without tax increase. If you increase taxes on people who spend all of their income, 100% of their income is spent in our economy, it will slow economic growth.
You raise taxes on stagnant money, money in overseas investments, etc, it won't have the same economic effect.
We have to cut, but taxes have to go up as well. Its just that simple. Otherwise you're going to cut programs that enjoy 70% approval, like social security, and you won't win an election.
ITA as do most Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
I love that term "job creators"
Every person in this country creates jobs with their spending. As we know for a fact, private employers don't create jobs, demand for that employers product is the root cause of employment needs, which is dependent more on middle class and lower class spending.
Memphis is on a role here! Agree again.
Wanted to note that I too work in an industry that is backed by a govenrment contract. If HUD is cut, which is something Romney said that he would do - eliminate HUD and funding is cut drastically in housing, I would lose my job as would about half of the people in my company. We employ over 5K people.
I am in procurement and as such, I hire companies and individuals to do preventative maintenance and construction for us. Those companies would have a sharp decrease in business. One of our contractors who does vacancy prep for us and other property management companies who are on contracts with housing authorities, said that all of our business makes up nearly 80% of their incomes and we are the reason they have as many employees as they do. Our contractors hire subcontractors to do specific tasks, lots of those subcontractors are independent contractors - a guy coming out and doing work getting a 1099 salary for the job. That guy would lose his job. We have a guy who does cycle painting for us who falls into this category and we are basically his job.
Government can and does spur a lot of job growth via the private sector.
It did not work for FDR but what the heck..let Obama try it and that failure can be his legacy.
After the implementation of specific programs that FDR initiated, especially the CCC and WPA, millions of Americans were employed and the unemployment rate went down from 25% to about 13% which is a drastic improvement. This is why FDR had such a storied, beloved reputation from the majority of people who lived through the depression and why he was elected president 3 times - he was successful at getting people employed via government.
I wish we had similar programs for youths especially today like the CCC, give them a decent job and get them working and contributing to the economy via buying power, which would in turn cause small business growth due to more people being employed.
"Richard Meyers" is either an idiot, or a paid shill who's deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
Be skeptical. Be very skeptical.
Businesses are holding onto their cash right now because they don't know what's going to be happening with the economy, due primarily to to Obamacare. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it," right? Well, they're still waiting to find out. There's also the issue of whether or not we're going to have a pro-business President come January. Obama has had no problems overtly attacking "corporations," and the failed OWS experiment is a manifestation of that agenda.
The economy is more complex than "there be liberals afoot"
There is no reason for businesses to be spending money right now. They're enjoying low tax rates and there is no demand for products. Employees are stagnating and losing income while executives hoard it. "The rich" aren't consumers like the middle-class and poor. No one man can buy enough pairs of jeans to offset millions of men, all looking to buy jeans. And when those millions don't have the money to buy because executives are cutting salaries and downsizing, all while padding their own personal incomes, you exacerbate demand-shortage.
High taxes spur executives to reinvest in their company. "Use it or lose it." Putting money into your business instead of paying it out to yourself as an income benefits everyone. By increasing the incomes of the workers, and not just the executives, you create consumers, and consumers buy ****. Demand increases, the business does better, everyone makes more money.
The Republican mindset in this country is "we've got ours, **** everyone else." There is a reason "money people" tend to be Republican and conservative, and it isn't because of the social benefits of conservationism.
And speaking of paid shills...
Quote:
If Obama wins re-election, you can expect businesses to hang onto that cash for another four years. If you want that money out there, working for us, then you want Romney to win the upcoming election. It really is that simple.
Top-down economics are a supply solution, and we have a demand problem. You're putting out a magnesium fire with carbon dioxide. **** is going to explode if you keep that route.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
