Topic: Who creates the jobs? (Read 5082 times)

Are those the companies that get the big tax breaks? It would make sense, wouldn't it?

Actually, small and medium sized companies are creating the most jobs.
Since most of them are not running at full capacity they don't see a reason to hire more people.
They only hire more if they can sell the products.

Thats not correct.  Most investors are institutions managing the savings of working people and retirees.

+1

The robots will do the shopping obviously. They will be programmed to use currency with advertising space(ads directed at the robots) somehow associated. For example, an image on a dollar bill. The humans will own the capital and split the ad revenue amongst themselves, then pay the robots to shop.

Whos gonna buy the products if everyone is jobless?

Jobs are stupid, robots are the future.
The rich should just build or buy robots, and the robots should produce everything and build everything, the people should all be fired and YES who gives a shhh about the poor people without a job, In my opinion it is pointless to have more jobs, I think less jobs are better but more productivity using automation is the key to the future.

Atlas. Unremoursefully.

We/people create jobs, the government tries to take it away from us.

If the average person has enough money to finance his desiderata, if and when its needed, someone will invest to provide those. The idea that there isnt enough capital for investment is ludicrous; never in recent history has there been a greater concentration of wealth. That wealth is available to invest, the only thing thats missing is the incentive.. ie, profitability of the investment.

So you are saying that if the average person has enough money he will invest it himself?

If there's demand, not just a will but also means to buy something, there is capital. Demand is key. Wealth is optional.

I think the article really does not highlight the fact that the middle class must have expendable income, and rather just makes statements without good evidence. however, he does have a point, even if it is not clear. All elastic goods will not be purchased if the average consumer cannot afford them, which is the major issue here.

There is not exactly a lack of capital. US banks are literally sitting on trillions of dollars, thats not the problem. The problem is the majority of consumers are broke.


Whether a third is too much or not you can debate, what really matters is what you get for your tax dollars. I actually dont mind paying over a third (in fact I pay about 50%) since I get a lot back for it. Decent infrastructure and public transport, excellent and virtually free healthcare, top notch and virtually free education and a social security system thats good enough to give me peace of mind even in difficult times. If I were to pay all that out of my own pocket Id likely end up paying more for less.

But if people want less of that for less taxes, thats fine. As I see it the major problem in the US is the political system that legalizes corporate bribery. As a result you have a government thats not working in the people's interest, but for special interests and your tax dollars are wasted and further enrich the rich. I can understand that breeds hate for government, but  IMO the solution to that is not so much shrinking the government as fixing campaign financing and "lobbying". If one day you again have a government that is by and for the people, perhaps you may be less inclined to want to abolish it and end up with a Somalia style government-"free" country.

That's not strictly true, either.  You have to have capital (wealth) to start a business.  But without demand you will not survive long.  Like I said earlier it's a double-sided coin.  I would like to see taxes lowered on everyone and I'd rather see spending lowered then taxes raised.  The US government survived just fine without an income tax all the way up until 1913 and since then it's just been one excuse or another to keep raising taxes.  Taking a third of a working person's income seems much much too high in my perspective, especially with the sorts of things I see it spent on (undeclared wars overseas, corporate subsidies, fat wasteful defense contracts, inefficient welfare programs, etc.). 

Or pay down the debt, or lower taxes on the other 99%. Its not up to me to say how US taxpayers money should be spent, whether its on a functional healthcare system, infrastructure, education or something else, but from an economic POV its madness to have an upper 1% who own nearly 40% of the wealth and effectively tax them at lower rates than the bottom 99%. Wealth doesnt create jobs, demand does.

So you propose taxing the rich and what?  Giving the money to the poorer people to spend?  Using it on infrastructure?  Government creating jobs?

The people create jobs, not government.

The government kills job making ability of the people by creating restrictive laws, restrictive enviromental legislation, and ratification of restricting treaties.

The government used to get their money for projects and services from mainly trade tarrifs.

They are now gone and we have WTO, NAFTA, and GATT which effectively killed our manufacturing infrastructure and domestic markets.

Gone also are the farmers who once supplied this nation with food.

You can thank your representatives and the people who keep voting them into office.

Make illegal and treasonous, under penalty of death, any lobbying of our representatives or 3rd party political advertising or donations offered or accepted and you have fixed the majority of the problems. Then vote in sane legislators who will work for us because they have no one else to work for.

Now, the govenrment is so big and so many rely on it instead of themselves, that I dont see any meaningful change coming anytime soon. The masses feel entitled whether by ideology, greed, or just plain and simple need for survival.

It all boils down to us, The People. Its our own fault for our apathy and disinterest, allowing our employees to take over and tell us, their employers, what to do and how to do it, so dont expect us to bite off the hand feeding us any time soon.

All of the above I suppose. There used to be a time were people bought their cars and often even houses with money they had saved. Today thats impossible for the majority of people. There used to be a time when you didnt get 29 credit cards in your mailbox without even asking. When you didnt need loans to get through college. Where households got around nicely with just one income.  Ask your parents or grand parents, they might remember.


Perhaps, but the real solution can only be to increase wages. The current wealth inequality is back to the levels from just before the great depression:


Fixing that by at least taxing the rich IMO is not a matter of fairness, its a matter of economic common sense.

But why?  Are they simply unaware that their relative wages are falling?  Are loans to easy to get, should they be harder to get?  Is it a matter of educating a culture of savings?