Or.....How are Jobs Created?
No poll. Fill in the blanks yourselves. Ready, set, Go!
Who Creates Jobs?
Or.....How are Jobs Created?
No poll. Fill in the blanks yourselves. Ready, set, Go!
Job-creators. Various functions, organizations, people and factors create jobs. It's that very diversity that powers a dynamic economy, and that very diversity that some forget must be preserved.
When there is value to be had in paying someone else to do work, it makes sense* to seek someone to do that work.
* in lieu of a better expression
Jobs are created if the demand of goods and services increases.
Y'all should spend a few late nights watching info-mercials or QVC or HSN. Some people have figured out how to create a demand (and jobs) out of thin air.
Isn't it more like "what creates jobs"?
I agree that it is demand. Now demand is also something that can be "created".
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Job creators.
I disagree that it is demand, at least entirely. The demand for goods or services alone may not justify all jobs. In fact jobs can go up when demand goes down or vice-versa.
I was thinking more in the abstract... it all boils down to demand. If there's no demand, there are no jobs... at least in a free market economy.
Increased demand should increase the amount of jobs, theoretically. But then you have excess stock sometimes, so you don't have to hire new people. Or, productivity goes up at the same time, so you don't have to hire new people. But, excess stock doesn't last forever, and if productivity goes up that means that jobs are being created somewhere else in the economy via the re-investment (or spending) of profits by the investors who own the company where the productivity went up...
I suppose the government could hire some paper pushers to push paper... but that's also a certain "demand"... created by the government.
OP asks same thing. "How are jobs created?"
Agreed....demand can be created. People will buy things they never knew they needed or wanted, until they see it on Teevee. It's an amazing phenomenon. I almost got sucked into buying what's basically a fulcrum to lift furniture, and coated pads to move the furniture. For $19.99. BUT WAIT, there's MORE! One time offer (call now) to receive double the offer, TWO lifters and TWO sets of sliding pads [just pay separate shipping and handling] Act now and also receive....
They moved a filled china hutch, sofas, beds with mattresses, and then an automobile. Great infomercial. If they had moved a piano, I probably would have ordered the damn thing.
My gramps used to say that people will buy anything. If it's made to sound good enough, they won't even stop to think about it. That was his way of saying how foolish humans can be. "They'd probably buy tap water if it came in a fancy bottle and was sold in stores...."That was in the 70's, and sure enough, he was right.
I think it can be better to think in Job-hours if demand goes up in certain industriest, part-timers may turn to full-timers. Or they could hire additional part-timers.
Are jobs related to demand for goods? I would say yes.. you can also increase demand through advertising, and then increase jobs that way. Or you can make a new product, which given it has some demand will warrant a plant that produces it, and sellers that sell it.
anyway you can't say it's just directly related to demand, but if demand increases enough it would be.
Demand can be created, though. iPods and iPads are examples. Tablets in general weren't something people thought about a couple of years ago, but now personal computers have to compete with smart phones, tablets and e-books.Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
It's obvious that it's a bit of both the supply side and demand side. Companies that have no money won't hire people regardless of the extent of the demand (say there's a lot of demand but a very tight and competitive market with miniscule margins). But even if they have money they won't hire anyone if the demand isn't there (or isn't projected to be there). In the former case, you can help spur employment by focusing on the supply side - giving R&D tax credits, lowering payroll taxes, etc. In the latter case, you can give the corporations all the money in the world, but they won't hire unless you increase demand for their goods. The latter case, incidentally, is what's happening in the US today: most corporations are sitting on fairly substantial piles of cash, but they're not hiring/expanding/investing because they are pretty pessimistic about demand growth (there's also some uncertainty about taxes/etc.). Employment in this case will only improve by increasing demand. At the beginning of this recession, there was a short=lived period that was the opposite - corporate paper markets were completely frozen, and lots of businesses had a very tough time operating because there were no short-term loans to be had, so they fired people. Then you need to add liquidity to the market and work on the supply side.
In other words, people with jobs (income) creates demand, which creates more jobs (and more income)
But corporations aren't hiring, because they're waiting for demand (from people with jobs and income)
Fewer people have jobs (income), because corporations aren't hiring....
Pickle in the middle, huh.
There are ways to provide demand-side stimulus just like there are ways to provide supply-side stimulus.
Of course there are ways, and it doesn't necessarily mean government intervention. $2 Trillion+ private dollars are just sitting around, stagnant and waiting. Maybe if those cash-rich companies hired some people and gave them paychecks for their work, there'd be more people with money to spend, and the cycle would repeat on a positive level, and gain momentum.
Okay, but companies exist to make money, not to manage an economy or charitably hire more workers than they need. Companies have that money sitting on the sidelines because, frankly, they're very pessimistic about the economy's near-to-medium term future. Thus, they have no reason to expand. I mean, honestly: do you think companies just like holding onto billions of dollars of low-yielding cash-equivalents? They just can't see a better way to use the money.
If they suddenly had a bunch of orders for their products, they'd of course have to start hiring again, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't getting a sudden surge in demand. Thus, making it easier for them to invest/expand isn't going to help, because that's not the reason for the jobs malaise.
Perhaps their best investment would be to invest in the people themselves.
Or, the companies can give dividends, but a lot aren't I guess (or a very very small %), for some reason. Not enough motivation...?
Dividends give a lot of money back to various middle-class investment and pension funds, and to rich people. And, they provides $$tax income$$, which provides jobs in the public sectors not to mention provides public goods such as roads, crime/fire safety, education, and health care/hospitals.
So I guess we're back to... why aren't cash-rich companies SIGNIFICANTLY raising their dividends?
A number of cash-rich companies have raised dividends that they slashed during the recession, and a number of others are pursuing aggressive stock buy-back plans. Some companies are going shopping for other companies to buy. A lot of others, though, do feel like economic growth is likely to pick up at some point, and they want to have the resources positioned to quickly expand once things get moving again.
So what, Wiggin? Don't you know that's just Ziobanker trickery? Dividends, acquisitions, etc. don't matter in the real world, they only fuel the Koch-dominated global elite.
They do if you don't tax the rich people!
Creating jobs is easy; even the government can do it. The difficulty is creating productive jobs, and governments don't have a terribly good record of doing that.
Hope is the denial of reality
Define "productive".
So what, Wiggin? Don't you know that's just Ziobanker trickery? Dividends, acquisitions, etc. don't matter in the real world, they only fuel the Koch-dominated global elite.
Dividends benefit the shareholders and their Wealth Affect, but if they're mostly in the Savings Class it may not translate to spending. Acquisitions and stock buy-backs benefit company's value, but not necessarily growth and hiring. Wall Street and large corps have been doing fine, but it's not "trickling down" to jobs for Main Street. That's the point.
I agree with your final point that jobs are not "trickling down", but not how you got there.
Firstly, people and companies who spend money basically tell the economy what to do. Those who don't have money or just "save" it don't tell the economy what to do -- they let other people do it.
Now, it can be argued that rich people -- those who own a vast amount of the stock wealth in the country, and those who gain the most in acquisitions, spend their money on unproductive, "wasteful" things... like recreational planes or large boats. Yes, you have people making those planes and those boats, but the planes and boats do nothing except add some measure of fun in rich peoples' lives... they could have been used for fishing or hauling time-sensitive goods, but instead they are used for pleasure.
You can make the same argument for many of the poor... they waste money on cigarettes, booze, drugs, and lottery tickets. None of that helps the economy (in fact it hurts it... think alcoholics crashing cars, or druggies robbing people for their "fix").
The target should be to get wealth in the hands of entrepreneurs, the middle class and in small businesses. They buy things with their wealth, and they produce even more wealth by spending it on wealth-producing factories, shop expansion, and roombas (things like Roombas or home improvement would increase productivity in the home, which would create even more wealth, for instance)
I would definitely buy a huge boat and a have huge empty mansion (with a moat) if I was rich... if I was poor, I would definitely look into the possibility of being stoned out of my mind just to make it through the day.
Isn't that what I said? Companies aren't spending money to hire and expand, because fewer people -- middle class/small business -- have money to spend. Corporates wait for consumers to spend beyond the basics, but people are paying off debt and saving more, waiting for the hiring and jobs picture to get better first. And it won't look like the 80's or 90's kind of consumerism....
I guess it is what you said. :P
Clearly the stimulus created jobs. If we didn't have the stimulus unemployment would be over 8%! Oh wait...
Clearly tax cuts will create jobs. Without Bush era tax cuts those millions of jobs wouldn't have been created! Oh wait....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote