If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   7.7%   (usatoday.com) divider line 205
    More: Cool, San Rafael, employers added, consensus forecasts, radio transmissions  
•       •       •

5704 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 10:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



205 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 12:19:32 PM

doublesecretprobation: dericwater: He meant the government jobs don't count because the measurement was about private-sector jobs increasing in February.

lots of private sector jobs depend on government contracts.  for example here in MA the defense industry is huge and private sector companies like iRobot have been shedding jobs on account of the sequester for at least a quarter now.


Let me correct my statement for the dim-bulbs here.

Government employment (or unemployment) aren't TABULATED because the measurement measures private-sector employment.
 
2013-03-08 12:23:12 PM

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.

right. Poor people do... wait, that's not right. No, original statement was correct. Rich people do just not in bad times, generally speaking.

Labor demand creates jobs.  Consumer demand creates labor demand.  Increased labor pool increases consumer demand for some products, and reduces it for others.

Rich people perform their function as the source of stock.  They aren't going to employ capital as stock, with all the risk associated with that employment.  If they can't expect a return on their investment that is higher than the rate of interest they'd receive by lending that money to a bank, they aren't going to employ it thus.

THEY don't create a damned thing.  The system does.  They are simply cogs in the machine.  As are we all.  As labor, the system needs me as well.  In the absence of labor, no goods could be converted into goods of increased value.  In the absence of stock, no labor can be employed in that conversion.

At this particular moment in history, we have a labor boon.  So the power is with the owners of stock.

There's nothing permanent, or even secure about that arrangement.

That's not, of course, what OP meant.


Look, talking about "Job Creators" is an ideologically driven exercise. Talking about how rich people don't create jobs is also an ideologically driven enterprise.
When I open a business and hire 10 people. I have created 10 jobs. No connotations to it, nothing about the purity of my heart and the goodness of my intentions. Simple reality. My actions have directly resulted in 10 jobs existing which did not exist previously.

Why did I open that business? Well, because I saw a demand for whatever it is I am producing. That demand indirectly lead to the creation of those jobs -  those jobs are a response to that demand. Just like polio indirectly lead to the creation of the polio vaccine.

the polio vaccine was not created by Jonas Salk. It was created by polio. Salk never would have come up with a vaccine for something that didn't exist. Ergo, he didn't "create" it. That is absurd and no one would ever say that.

Let's not be ridiculous for the sake of ideological bullshiat
 
2013-03-08 12:29:29 PM
I haven't read the thread, but I came here to find out, from the GoP shills, why this is a bad thing.
 
2013-03-08 12:32:30 PM

jst3p: I haven't read the thread, but I came here to find out, from the GoP shills, why this is a bad thing.


Obama purposefully had them only express the percentage to 1 decimal place. It was actually 7.77 and as we all know, 777 is a representation of the Holy Trinity to some Christian faiths. Study it out, libtardo
 
2013-03-08 12:32:31 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.


Nonsense - when times are good, and profitable investment opporunities abound, they invest their money in those enterprises - as self-interest would prompt any sensible person to do. But this lame-brained idea that letting them out of paying their taxes in hard times will help the economy is brain-dead. The money goes straight to the safest, most locked-down place they can put it.
 
Bf+
2013-03-08 12:35:14 PM
i0.kym-cdn.com
/foxnews
 
2013-03-08 12:39:34 PM
My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.
 
2013-03-08 12:42:40 PM

doublesecretprobation: Curious: those are government jobs and don't count.

ultimately it's money being taken out of the economy with the end result being less money being paid to business and therefore fewer jobs.  how does that not count again?


you haven't been paying attention the last few years. the government doesn't create jobs ergo government employees don't have jobs. heck how many of them are in mitt's 47%. it's time we cut the takers off.

as for business they are makers and will quickly move into the vacuum creating real jobs.
 
2013-03-08 12:50:32 PM
The shills in this thread are no good today.  WHAR SHILLS WHAR???

Step it up guys, you're usually my friday lunch entertainment.  I'm bored.
 
2013-03-08 12:51:04 PM

skullkrusher: jst3p: I haven't read the thread, but I came here to find out, from the GoP shills, why this is a bad thing.

Obama purposefully had them only express the percentage to 1 decimal place. It was actually 7.77 and as we all know, 777 is a representation of the Holy Trinity to some Christian faiths. Study it out, libtardo


Plus: Benghazi!
 
2013-03-08 12:52:50 PM

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


Given the mountains of evidence you are looking at you are right to remain skeptical.

Oh wait, your unemployed brother is your indicator of how the economy is doing? You are kinda dumb.
 
2013-03-08 12:53:48 PM

skullkrusher: Curious: doublesecretprobation: we'll see how things go over the course of the year when jobs start drying up from the sequester.

those are government jobs and don't count.

as a metric of economic health, not really


Because the money earned by public employees doesn't spend the way money earned by private employees does. Not like they'll be buying any homes or cars or toys for the kids from the private sector, right? Heck, they don't even buy food. They just go back into their pods at night and draw nutrition directly from a big pool of tax dollars.

Remember, everyone, when a dollar is taxed, it disappears from the economy entirely and is never seen again in any form. It is neither invested in private industry nor spent on public interests that help private industry. It simply vanishes, poof.
 
2013-03-08 12:58:11 PM

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.


The world needs ditch diggers too.
 
2013-03-08 01:07:19 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: The shills in this thread are no good today.  WHAR SHILLS WHAR???

Step it up guys, you're usually my friday lunch entertainment.  I'm bored.


Give them some rest, they just spent 13 hours fellating Rand Paul.
 
2013-03-08 01:13:28 PM

peasandcarrots: skullkrusher: Curious: doublesecretprobation: we'll see how things go over the course of the year when jobs start drying up from the sequester.

those are government jobs and don't count.

as a metric of economic health, not really

Because the money earned by public employees doesn't spend the way money earned by private employees does. Not like they'll be buying any homes or cars or toys for the kids from the private sector, right? Heck, they don't even buy food. They just go back into their pods at night and draw nutrition directly from a big pool of tax dollars.

Remember, everyone, when a dollar is taxed, it disappears from the economy entirely and is never seen again in any form. It is neither invested in private industry nor spent on public interests that help private industry. It simply vanishes, poof.


it's almost as if you didn't even read what I said and responded with whatever tired response you heard someone else say.
here, let me explain. The government (federal especially, but also state and local to an extent) don't operate like businesses (or households). They don't operate for a profit, they operate to provide services. As a result, they are not constrained in their hiring the same way a business would be. They don't need to be making money to expand. They have (virtually) unlimited borrowing power in the case of the Feds. They can hire more people in a downturn (Public works projects?) while, generally, a business might not be able to.
As a result, public sector employment isn't a the metric for judging economic health that private sector employment is since it isn't constrained by the macro environment in the way that private sector employment is.

Do you understand?
 
2013-03-08 01:14:41 PM

jso2897: A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.

Nonsense - when times are good, and profitable investment opporunities abound, they invest their money in those enterprises - as self-interest would prompt any sensible person to do. But this lame-brained idea that letting them out of paying their taxes in hard times will help the economy is brain-dead. The money goes straight to the safest, most locked-down place they can put it.


precisely. You managed to state the truth (which happens to coincide, to a large degree, with the "liberal" perspective) without sounding like a farking ninny
 
2013-03-08 01:15:48 PM

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


If your brother is only half as dumb as you, then no wonder he is still unemployed.
 
2013-03-08 01:20:44 PM

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


Maybe your brother is just an incompetent buffoon that nobody wants to hire.  Did you ever think of that?
 
2013-03-08 01:48:53 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 520x400]

6.35M private sector jobs in the last three years. 36 straight months of private sector job growth. More stimulus please.

The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.

So three times the replacement number is a "rats ass hair above" in your opinion

?

We've had 3x the rate of replacement each month of Obama's presidency?  Looks to me like thats been the best month ever and the average month has been right around 100,000, proving my original point.  After 5 years and trillions spent, unemployment ticks down from 7.8% to 7.7%  An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it.  If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.
 
2013-03-08 01:50:40 PM

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


My brother has a high school degree and has been working for a year, always able to find a job.
I believe things are getting better because I actually see some evidence.
Keep your accurate numbers and truths.
MSM is trustworthy.
 
2013-03-08 02:05:19 PM

Curious: you haven't been paying attention the last few years. the government doesn't create jobs ergo government employees don't have jobs. heck how many of them are in mitt's 47%. it's time we cut the takers off.

as for business they are makers and will quickly move into the vacuum creating real jobs.


Governments might create jobs, but in the USA, where the government is almost purely parasitic, it does not create wealth. In a communist country, where government owns the means of production, it does create wealth--not very efficiently, though. In the USA, government might facilitate wealth creation, but actual wealth creation is in the hands of private enterprise. Government's job is to build roads, manage the postal system, provide and administer the law. Government jobs are parasitic. They exist only through extortion of wealth from others. All taxes are, after all, ultimately collected at gunpoint.
 
2013-03-08 02:05:46 PM

o5iiawah: An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it. If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.


According to what economists?

o5iiawah: If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.


It is working, more slowly than we typically see but this was a global financial meltdown.
 
2013-03-08 02:10:28 PM
o5iiawah:

We've had 3x the rate of replacement each month of Obama's presidency?  Looks to me like thats been the best month ever and the average month has been right around 100,000, proving my original point.  After 5 years and trillions spent, unemployment ticks down from 7.8% to 7.7%  An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it.  If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.

THIS!
 
2013-03-08 02:17:13 PM

o5iiawah: We've had 3x the rate of replacement each month of Obama's presidency? Looks to me like thats been the best month ever and the average month has been right around 100,000, proving my original point. After 5 years and trillions spent, unemployment ticks down from 7.8% to 7.7% An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it. If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.


The stimulus did not kicked in on 01/20/2009...
s3.amazonaws.com

Notice has the unemployment rate started dropping soon after the stimulus went into effect...
i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-03-08 03:06:51 PM
Looks like the same old crap with cooked books to me. I see no improvement and going on BLS proves that.
 
2013-03-08 03:30:21 PM

skullkrusher: When I open a business and hire 10 people. I have created 10 jobs. No connotations to it, nothing about the purity of my heart and the goodness of my intentions. Simple reality. My actions have directly resulted in 10 jobs existing which did not exist previously.


In a macroeconomics sense, though, you didn't open that business for no reason.  You opened a business because you wanted to make money.  You think that your business can make more money by increasing the supply of your product and or service.  You can't increase supply without hiring more people.  The number of people you hire is predicated on the expected demand and subsequent increase in supply.

All you did was decide you wanted to start making bookmarks.  If people hadn't come to you, asking for more bookmarks than you could produce, you wouldn't need more labor.  If you don't need more labor, you don't hire more labor.  The people responsible for you hiring more labor are the people who drive your demand.  Consumers.

Employers have no actual power over the size of their labor force.  They *control* the size of their labor force, but they don't really get to choose it.  The market chooses it for them.  Some employers think they can reduce the labor force and still meet deadlines and order size requirements.  MANY employers thought they could do this in 2009.  Now they are all bringing headcount back up because everybody's precious "metrics" are eating it, big-time.

Demand goes up, you hire.  Demand goes down, you fire.  So no, like you say it isn't the kindness of your heart, but cold calculation.

Aggregate the cold calculations of all employers in the country and you have our UE rate.  Which represents the aggregate demand of labor vs the aggregate demand of the goods and services that labor can provide.

You'll notice that in this evaluation, the employer is another source of supply and demand, and not an engine.  The engine is the system.  The actors are the parts of the machine.  Among which number those we affectionately call "job creators"

You bring the money, I'll bring the workers.  But if nobody brings the demand, we're going out of business pretty quick.
 
2013-03-08 03:32:00 PM

SploogeTime: Looks like the same old crap with cooked books to me. I see no improvement and going on BLS proves that.


No improvement from 10% in October 2009 to today?  Did you notice anything happening when it when from 4.2% in 2001 to 10% in October 2009 (the end of Bush's last budget)
 
2013-03-08 03:34:45 PM

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: When I open a business and hire 10 people. I have created 10 jobs. No connotations to it, nothing about the purity of my heart and the goodness of my intentions. Simple reality. My actions have directly resulted in 10 jobs existing which did not exist previously.

In a macroeconomics sense, though, you didn't open that business for no reason.  You opened a business because you wanted to make money.  You think that your business can make more money by increasing the supply of your product and or service.  You can't increase supply without hiring more people.  The number of people you hire is predicated on the expected demand and subsequent increase in supply.

All you did was decide you wanted to start making bookmarks.  If people hadn't come to you, asking for more bookmarks than you could produce, you wouldn't need more labor.  If you don't need more labor, you don't hire more labor.  The people responsible for you hiring more labor are the people who drive your demand.  Consumers.

Employers have no actual power over the size of their labor force.  They *control* the size of their labor force, but they don't really get to choose it.  The market chooses it for them.  Some employers think they can reduce the labor force and still meet deadlines and order size requirements.  MANY employers thought they could do this in 2009.  Now they are all bringing headcount back up because everybody's precious "metrics" are eating it, big-time.

Demand goes up, you hire.  Demand goes down, you fire.  So no, like you say it isn't the kindness of your heart, but cold calculation.

Aggregate the cold calculations of all employers in the country and you have our UE rate.  Which represents the aggregate demand of labor vs the aggregate demand of the goods and services that labor can provide.

You'll notice that in this evaluation, the employer is another source of supply and demand, and not an engine.  The engine is the system.  The actors are the parts of the machine.  ...


yep... as I said, it isn't based on altruism but it is reality. Rich people create jobs. Not because they're nice. Not because they're patriots. Because they want to make money. To claim otherwise makes you look like an idiot as the person I was originally responding to did
 
2013-03-08 04:09:33 PM

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: skullkrusher: When I open a business and hire 10 people. I have created 10 jobs. No connotations to it, nothing about the purity of my heart and the goodness of my intentions. Simple reality. My actions have directly resulted in 10 jobs existing which did not exist previously.

In a macroeconomics sense, though, you didn't open that business for no reason.  You opened a business because you wanted to make money.  You think that your business can make more money by increasing the supply of your product and or service.  You can't increase supply without hiring more people.  The number of people you hire is predicated on the expected demand and subsequent increase in supply.

All you did was decide you wanted to start making bookmarks.  If people hadn't come to you, asking for more bookmarks than you could produce, you wouldn't need more labor.  If you don't need more labor, you don't hire more labor.  The people responsible for you hiring more labor are the people who drive your demand.  Consumers.

Employers have no actual power over the size of their labor force.  They *control* the size of their labor force, but they don't really get to choose it.  The market chooses it for them.  Some employers think they can reduce the labor force and still meet deadlines and order size requirements.  MANY employers thought they could do this in 2009.  Now they are all bringing headcount back up because everybody's precious "metrics" are eating it, big-time.

Demand goes up, you hire.  Demand goes down, you fire.  So no, like you say it isn't the kindness of your heart, but cold calculation.

Aggregate the cold calculations of all employers in the country and you have our UE rate.  Which represents the aggregate demand of labor vs the aggregate demand of the goods and services that labor can provide.

You'll notice that in this evaluation, the employer is another source of supply and demand, and not an engine.  The engine is the system.  The actors are the parts of the ...


I could argue all day that the job was created when demand increased to the point that you needed an additional laborer.  You're just doing your job by hiring them the same way that the laborers are doing their jobs of producing goods through labor.  Laborers don't manufacture goods that have no market, and you don't hire laborers to produce additional goods if there is no demand.  It's not a function of rich people.  It's a function of the system.  If rich person A didn't pay poor person B to make good C, and person D wanted good C in quantities unproduceable by those already under the employ of person A, then coconuts.

/Just realized what time it is.
//I can't actually argue all day.  That was a lie.  But I'd like to.  Because I think you're just taking a purposefully simplistic view in order to have the upper hand in the semantics game.
 
2013-03-08 04:38:17 PM

BeesNuts: I could argue all day that the job was created when demand increased to the point that you needed an additional laborer.


like how the polio vaccine was created when polio mutated into polio. Or how the labor you provide was not created by you but rather the demand for that labor. It's silly, it isn't semantics.

BeesNuts: You're just doing your job by hiring them the same way that the laborers are doing their jobs of producing goods through labor. Laborers don't manufacture goods that have no market, and you don't hire laborers to produce additional goods if there is no demand. It's not a function of rich people. It's a function of the system. If rich person A didn't pay poor person B to make good C, and person D wanted good C in quantities unproduceable by those already under the employ of person A, then coconuts.


I think you're trying to assign some connotative meaning to what I am saying. Demand does not create jobs. Demand creates the motivation to create jobs. Jobs are created when someone is hired. Just as wealth is created when you go to work every day and put your time in to help your company create value. The demand for your company's product or service is the reason WHY you "create" your labor, not the creator of the labor itself
 
2013-03-08 04:46:31 PM

MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.


I'm sure someone will someday explain to you how time flows in a linear fashion. Until you are able to grasp that concept you might want to hold off on posting.
 
2013-03-08 04:47:35 PM
Yeah the US took a stimulus approach and it (barring the damage caused by the republicans forcing of some austerity) has worked. Europe believed the Germans and went austerity, and is dead in the water. TAKE A HINT PEOPLE.
 
2013-03-08 04:49:55 PM

skullkrusher: Demand does not create jobs. Demand creates the motivation to create jobs.


Why are you attributing the verb "create" to the action of the employer, though? That's the issue, in that you might say you are using that word without any connotation, but in reality every word has a connotation, and creation has a good, powerful one. If you would just say that demand created the motivation to offer jobs, that might be more neutral.
 
2013-03-08 05:00:08 PM
If we don't cut taxes for the wealthy immediately, these kinds of positive reports will be a thing of the past.
 
2013-03-08 05:03:11 PM

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: Demand does not create jobs. Demand creates the motivation to create jobs.

Why are you attributing the verb "create" to the action of the employer, though? That's the issue, in that you might say you are using that word without any connotation, but in reality every word has a connotation, and creation has a good, powerful one. If you would just say that demand created the motivation to offer jobs, that might be more neutral.


because hours ago I was responding to "You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have."

They do - all the time. Not because they're nice. Not because they want to help people but they do create jobs and to claim otherwise is farking dumb.

Desire for a product does not create that product. People see a demand for a product and they invest money in equipment and people to create that product. Hell, a guy could see a need for a landscaper in his neighborhood and create a job for himself in providing that service. Overgrown lawns didn't create that job. The guy who went out and bought a lawnmower and advertised and got customers did.
 
2013-03-08 05:06:20 PM

skullkrusher: Desire for a product does not create that product. People see a demand for a product and they invest money in equipment and people to create that product. Hell, a guy could see a need for a landscaper in his neighborhood and create a job for himself in providing that service. Overgrown lawns didn't create that job. The guy who went out and bought a lawnmower and advertised and got customers did.


This doesn't make any sense. If the existence of a job requires two different inputs (demand for the product that job creates and the capital investment to hire the labor), why does only one of those variables get credited with the "creation"? They both have a part in creating the job. There's a reason that no rich person on Earth is hiring someone for the job of "skunk feces eater" - there's no demand for that service. So clearly you have 2 necessary conditions. Neither of them can claim the power of "job creation" for themselves.
 
2013-03-08 05:10:46 PM

DamnYankees: This doesn't make any sense. If the existence of a job requires two different inputs (demand for the product that job creates and the capital investment to hire the labor), why does only one of those variables get credited with the "creation"?


because it doesn't require those two inputs. All is required is hiring someone to perform a service.
Can demand alone create a job? Of course not. Can a person with cash to pay someone create a job? Of course.
 
2013-03-08 05:15:22 PM

skullkrusher: Can demand alone create a job? Of course not. Can a person with cash to pay someone create a job? Of course.


Why are you saying "can"? The question is "does".  Do people with cash offer jobs when there's no demand for that person's service?

The answer is, by definition, no. Demand is a necessary part of the equation. Without demand, the person with the cash doesn't do anything. Now, he can certainly hire someone to fulfill his own, personal demand. But that's still demand.
 
2013-03-08 05:34:38 PM

Silly_Sot: All taxes are, after all, ultimately collected at gunpoint.


not mine. i'm happy to help pay for roads, education, (some) defense and the folks to administer all that. if you feel that the only way you are going to help promote the common good is to be forced it's time to go somewhere that you will willingly contribute.

in paying for the things i like yes, i also pay for things i don't like. that's how our system works. and i have ways to address those concerns. ineffectual ways but my congressperson is still taking my email.
 
2013-03-08 05:35:39 PM

DamnYankees: Why are you saying "can"? The question is "does". Do people with cash offer jobs when there's no demand for that person's service?


because "can" is the important word if you're trying to claim that they are both necessary for job creation. They're not. I can create a job for skunk feces eaters whether there is demand for such a thing or not. That's part of the risk. If I create such a job and there is no demand for that service, the job will eventually be destroyed.

The demand provides the motivation. It does not actually create the job.

DamnYankees: The answer is, by definition, no. Demand is a necessary part of the equation. Without demand, the person with the cash doesn't do anything. Now, he can certainly hire someone to fulfill his own, personal demand. But that's still demand.


much like the creation of a vaccine for a disease does not happen if that disease doesn't exist. However, we would never say that the disease created the vaccine.
I have a pile of books on the floor. I could really use a shelf so I build one. Did the pile of books on the floor create the shelf or did I?
I probably wouldn't build a shelf if I didn't need it - the pile of books provides the motivation -  but the need for it doesn't actually build the shelf.

I am not a supply sider so this is not to minimize the role that demand plays in economic growth. Demand prompts supply which, in turn, spurs demand but it is a closed circle, generally speaking, with both sides feeding off of one another. Without supply, there can be demand but not for very long. Without demand, there can be supply but not for very long.

Again, this is just a continuation of a response I made to a stupid comment.
 
2013-03-08 08:22:09 PM

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: Why are you saying "can"? The question is "does". Do people with cash offer jobs when there's no demand for that person's service?

because "can" is the important word if you're trying to claim that they are both necessary for job creation. They're not. I can create a job for skunk feces eaters whether there is demand for such a thing or not. That's part of the risk. If I create such a job and there is no demand for that service, the job will eventually be destroyed.

The demand provides the motivation. It does not actually create the job.

DamnYankees: The answer is, by definition, no. Demand is a necessary part of the equation. Without demand, the person with the cash doesn't do anything. Now, he can certainly hire someone to fulfill his own, personal demand. But that's still demand.

much like the creation of a vaccine for a disease does not happen if that disease doesn't exist. However, we would never say that the disease created the vaccine.
I have a pile of books on the floor. I could really use a shelf so I build one. Did the pile of books on the floor create the shelf or did I?
I probably wouldn't build a shelf if I didn't need it - the pile of books provides the motivation -  but the need for it doesn't actually build the shelf.

I am not a supply sider so this is not to minimize the role that demand plays in economic growth. Demand prompts supply which, in turn, spurs demand but it is a closed circle, generally speaking, with both sides feeding off of one another. Without supply, there can be demand but not for very long. Without demand, there can be supply but not for very long.

Again, this is just a continuation of a response I made to a stupid comment.


And what does all that have to do with the way the economy actually works? No one creates a job for the sake of creating jobs. They're created in response to demand. It makes no sense to separate the two or assign importance to one over the other.

I think you're confusing it with agency. As in, the man who builds the bookshelf has agency and the books do not. That doesnt mean both aren't necessary. You're not going to create a bookshelf factory if there is no demand for it.
 
2013-03-08 09:35:08 PM
I just want to know what the mean and median wage of those 236,000 jobs are, otherwise the numbers are useless.
 
2013-03-08 09:50:38 PM

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: o5iiawah: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 520x400]

6.35M private sector jobs in the last three years. 36 straight months of private sector job growth. More stimulus please.

The economy needs around 80,000 jobs per month just to replace jobs lost when people retire.  Looks to me like we are spending more and more to get the same rats-ass-hair-above-baseline numbers we've had for the last 5 years.

So three times the replacement number is a "rats ass hair above" in your opinion?

We've had 3x the rate of replacement each month of Obama's presidency?  Looks to me like thats been the best month ever and the average month has been right around 100,000, proving my original point.  After 5 years and trillions spent, unemployment ticks down from 7.8% to 7.7%  An economy should be able to function on its own without trillions of borrowed paper injected into it.  If stimulus worked, it would be working here, or somewhere, or anywhere in history.


Actually, after 5 years and trillions of dollars spent, unemployment rapid increase from 7.8 to 10 was halted and then spun around back down to 7.7. But hey, snapshots in time are the most effective way of showing the health of the economy, right?
 
2013-03-08 09:58:00 PM

JunkyJu: My brother has a college degree and has been out of work for a year, unable to find a job.
I'll believe things are getting better when I actually see some evidence.
Keep your garbage numbers and lies.
MSM is about as trustworthy as the government.


I just started a new job, one that pays decently and offers me full medical coverage. Is that sufficient evidence?

It's not?

Then neither is your anecdote about your brother.

/statistics, how do they work!?
 
2013-03-08 10:38:20 PM

Thrag: MyRandomName: The horror of sequestration in action.

I'm sure someone will someday explain to you how time flows in a linear fashion. Until you are able to grasp that concept you might want to hold off on posting.


But he has already posted! Suck it, TIMELIB.
 
2013-03-08 11:22:23 PM
Weather is not climate, you dolt.
 
2013-03-08 11:24:37 PM
We have less government jobs, unemployment continues to fall, we ended one money-wasting war, and will be done with the other one next year, and the stock market is on fire. What was the GOP so mad about? Oh, yeah. He's BLACK!!!!!1!1!!
 
2013-03-09 12:34:37 AM
Boy, we've really set our standards low, haven't we?  We're still a far cry from the 5% unemployment rate that is generally considered normal, underemployment is still rather high, and people actively looking for jobs is still at low compared to historical levels.  The pendulum is swinging back, and the unemployment rate should continue to drop for a little while, but between the stats I just listed and what the strong stock markets mean (odd how people say the rich get richer, but out of the other side of their mouth, cheer when they get richer), I still don't see how anyone can think the economy is doing well right now.  It still seems like it is underperforming, and a drop back into another recession may happen a lot sooner than we think.
 
2013-03-09 09:38:14 AM

skullkrusher: jso2897: A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.

Nonsense - when times are good, and profitable investment opporunities abound, they invest their money in those enterprises - as self-interest would prompt any sensible person to do. But this lame-brained idea that letting them out of paying their taxes in hard times will help the economy is brain-dead. The money goes straight to the safest, most locked-down place they can put it.

precisely. You managed to state the truth (which happens to coincide, to a large degree, with the "liberal" perspective) without sounding like a farking ninny


Well, whenever I am right, it usually is a coincidence.
 
2013-03-09 02:29:41 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: cameroncrazy1984: The BLS is just massaging the numbers to get Obama re-elected, obviously

Hey, didn't we raise taxes in January? What happened to all the job losses? Why didn't the sky fall like the GOP said it would?

Because rich people don't "create jobs" in bad times. They only do so in good times, when we don't need the as much. In bad times, they hoard and hide their money.

You could have just stopped after "rich people don't create jobs". They don't. They never have.


Bill Gates begs to differ.
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report