A 1 percenter tells the truth about "job creators"

[The Rabbi]

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

But just because you and 100K others demand a movie about pigs who are circus acrobats does not create the job... nor does it create the capital to create the production...

The demand is not always for the solution.. demand is for the WHIM or the WANT.. and unless the SUPPLY is there to fund the project, determine if there is profit in doing the project, paying for the supplies, getting HR to find candidates after justifying the expense for labor, etc...

With all the demand in the world, and without the supply to put things forth, NO JOB WILL EVER BE CREATED, NOR WILL ANY PRODUCT... Now supply can create a job or a product even if there is no demand, though it is not sound economic practice to do so...

Demand drives whim, demand drives want, etc.. demand does not create jobs

Did I say that demand creates jobs? Or capital? No. (Demand CAN, and very often does, create jobs, but it's not a given.) Please put your strawmen away; they're getting stinky in this heat.

All I said was that demand is only for a solution (which could be totally frivolous or a dire need), and not for a product.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Stephanie]

A 1 percenter tells the truth about "job creators"


Nick Hanauer, successful entrepreneur and one percenter, gave testimony on income inequality a few days ago before the U.S. Senate. His testimony in full should be posted in every break room in America:

For 30 years, Americans on the right and left have accepted a particular explanation for the origins of Prosperity in capitalist economies. It is that rich business people like me are “Job Creators. ” That if taxes go up on us or our companies, we will create fewer jobs. And that the lower our taxes are, the more jobs we will create and the more general prosperity we’ ll have.

Many of you in this room are certain that these claims are true. But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were certain, positive, that earth was at the center of the universe. It’s not, and anyone who doesn’t know that would have a very hard time doing astronomy.

My argument today is this: In the same way that it’s a fact that the sun, not earth is the center of the solar system, it’s also a fact that the middle class, not rich business people like me are the center of America’s economy.

I’ll argue here that prosperity in capitalist economies never trickles down from the top. Prosperity is built from the middle out. As an entrepreneur and investor, I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all would have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That’s why I am so sure that rich business people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a “circle of life” like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and
hiring. That's why the real job creators in America are middle-class consumers. The more money they have, and the more they can buy, the more people like me have to hire to meet demand.

So when businesspeople like me take credit for creating jobs, it’s a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around. Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalist’s course of last resort, something we do if and only if increasing customer demand requires it.

Further, that the goal of every business—profit-- is largely a measure of our relative ability to not create jobs compared to our competitors. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer. Since 1980 the share of income for the richest 1% of Americans has tripled while our effective tax rates have by approximately 50%. If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. If it was true that more profit for corporations or lower tax rates for corporations lead to more job creation, then it could not also be true that both corporate profits and unemployment are at 50 year highs.

There can never be enough super rich Americans like me to power a great economy. I earn 1000 times the median wage, but I do not buy 1000 times as much stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally. I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.This is why the fast increasing inequality in our society is killing our economy. When
most of the money in the economy ends up in just a few hands, it strangles consumption and creates a death spiral of falling demand.

Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as “job creators”at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from “job creator” to “The Creator.”

When someone like me calls himself a job creator, it sounds like we are describing how the economy works. What we are actually doing is making a claim on status, power and privileges.The extraordinary differential between the 15-20% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 39% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is just one of those privileges.

We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Rather, jobs are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle- class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit in a virtuous cycle of increasing returns that benefits everyone.

I’d like to finish with a quick story.About 500 years ago, Copernicus and his pal Galileo came along and proved that the earth wasn’t the center of the solar system. A great achievement, but it didn’t go to well for them with the political leaders of the time. Remember that Galileo invented the telescope, so one could see, with one’s own eyes, the fact that he was right. You may recall, however, that the leaders of the time didn’t much care, because if earth wasn’t the center of the universe, then earth was diminished—and if earth was diminished, so were they. And that fact--their status and power--was the only fact they really cared about. So they told Galileo to stick his telescope where the sun didn’t shine and put him in jail for the rest of his life.

And by so doing, put themselves on the wrong side of history forever. 500 years later, we are arguing about what or whom is at the center of the economic universe. A few rich guys like me, or the American Middle class. But as sure as the sun is the center of our solar system, the middle class is the center of our economy. If we care about building a fast growing economy that provides opportunity for every American, then we must enact policies that build it from the middle out, not the top down.

Tax the wealthy and corporations--as we once did in this country—and invest that money in the middle class as we once did in this country. Those polices won’ t just be great for the middle class, they’ll be great for the poor, for businesses large and small, and the rich.




​

He's right: except for the very wealthy global plutocrats whose fortune is in no way dependent on the health of the American middle class, most of the merely rich would in fact do better under Keynesian policies also.

But then, we also know that it's a human (and extremely American) impulse to worsen one's own circumstances just as long as it means doing better than the guy next to you. That's what's the matter with Wall Street just as much as it's what's the matter with Kansas.


.




People need to wake up and stop being the willing stooges for the obscenely wealthy.

well how many companies have you started and how many people do you employ?
some of you need to knock that green eyed monster out your lives...instead we get threads like this...and you lecturing people to stop worshiping the wealthy..

and as for1%, you people didn't mind electing some one that is that..
TWO FACED hyprocites

 

[healthmyths]

A 1 percenter tells the truth about "job creators"


Nick Hanauer, successful entrepreneur and one percenter, gave testimony on income inequality a few days ago before the U.S. Senate. His testimony in full should be posted in every break room in America:

For 30 years, Americans on the right and left have accepted a particular explanation for the origins of Prosperity in capitalist economies. It is that rich business people like me are “Job Creators. ” That if taxes go up on us or our companies, we will create fewer jobs. And that the lower our taxes are, the more jobs we will create and the more general prosperity we’ ll have.

Many of you in this room are certain that these claims are true. But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were certain, positive, that earth was at the center of the universe. It’s not, and anyone who doesn’t know that would have a very hard time doing astronomy.

My argument today is this: In the same way that it’s a fact that the sun, not earth is the center of the solar system, it’s also a fact that the middle class, not rich business people like me are the center of America’s economy.

I’ll argue here that prosperity in capitalist economies never trickles down from the top. Prosperity is built from the middle out. As an entrepreneur and investor, I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all would have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That’s why I am so sure that rich business people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a “circle of life” like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and
hiring. That's why the real job creators in America are middle-class consumers. The more money they have, and the more they can buy, the more people like me have to hire to meet demand.

So when businesspeople like me take credit for creating jobs, it’s a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around. Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalist’s course of last resort, something we do if and only if increasing customer demand requires it.

Further, that the goal of every business—profit-- is largely a measure of our relative ability to not create jobs compared to our competitors. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer. Since 1980 the share of income for the richest 1% of Americans has tripled while our effective tax rates have by approximately 50%. If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. If it was true that more profit for corporations or lower tax rates for corporations lead to more job creation, then it could not also be true that both corporate profits and unemployment are at 50 year highs.

There can never be enough super rich Americans like me to power a great economy. I earn 1000 times the median wage, but I do not buy 1000 times as much stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally. I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.This is why the fast increasing inequality in our society is killing our economy. When
most of the money in the economy ends up in just a few hands, it strangles consumption and creates a death spiral of falling demand.

Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as “job creators”at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from “job creator” to “The Creator.”

When someone like me calls himself a job creator, it sounds like we are describing how the economy works. What we are actually doing is making a claim on status, power and privileges.The extraordinary differential between the 15-20% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 39% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is just one of those privileges.

We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Rather, jobs are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle- class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit in a virtuous cycle of increasing returns that benefits everyone.

I’d like to finish with a quick story.About 500 years ago, Copernicus and his pal Galileo came along and proved that the earth wasn’t the center of the solar system. A great achievement, but it didn’t go to well for them with the political leaders of the time. Remember that Galileo invented the telescope, so one could see, with one’s own eyes, the fact that he was right. You may recall, however, that the leaders of the time didn’t much care, because if earth wasn’t the center of the universe, then earth was diminished—and if earth was diminished, so were they. And that fact--their status and power--was the only fact they really cared about. So they told Galileo to stick his telescope where the sun didn’t shine and put him in jail for the rest of his life.

And by so doing, put themselves on the wrong side of history forever. 500 years later, we are arguing about what or whom is at the center of the economic universe. A few rich guys like me, or the American Middle class. But as sure as the sun is the center of our solar system, the middle class is the center of our economy. If we care about building a fast growing economy that provides opportunity for every American, then we must enact policies that build it from the middle out, not the top down.

Tax the wealthy and corporations--as we once did in this country—and invest that money in the middle class as we once did in this country. Those polices won’ t just be great for the middle class, they’ll be great for the poor, for businesses large and small, and the rich.




​

He's right: except for the very wealthy global plutocrats whose fortune is in no way dependent on the health of the American middle class, most of the merely rich would in fact do better under Keynesian policies also.

But then, we also know that it's a human (and extremely American) impulse to worsen one's own circumstances just as long as it means doing better than the guy next to you. That's what's the matter with Wall Street just as much as it's what's the matter with Kansas.


.




People need to wake up and stop being the willing stooges for the obscenely wealthy.

THIS IDIOT!!!! Does he bury his "capital" in the back yard? Or hide it under the mattress?

What a f...king fOOL!

Obviously the economy is a "consumer" economy!
But where does Walmart get the BILLIONS to buy product that will sit on the shelf for possibly 30 days?
THEY BORROW the money!
For example:
In April 2011, Wal-Mart Stores placed a $5 billion, four-part deal,
Wal-Mart Locks In Lowest Corporate Borrowing Rates Of 2013 - Forbes

SO where did the money come from that Walmart borrowed???????
Obviously not this idiot because HE HAS NO IDEA of how capital works!!!

 

[Dragonlady]

Most businesses start small. As demand for their products increase, then the business hires more workers to fill that demand. You don't start with over-production.

First comes the product. Then demand, then expansion and hiring. You don't start by hiring. You start with a viable product.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Here is the problem.

A 1%er with good vision creates Widget company in the US. He/she is confident in his investment, starts up small and his company grows because of his vision and business sense, hiring well educated and hard working US workers. He smartly takes advantage of tax incentives and breaks to help his company. As his business grows he treats his employees well with good benefits, including a 401k and pension as well as health care to attract and retain smart and hard working people. This investment in US workers pays off as the company patents technology they develop and rapidly expands. The employees work hard with good morale and no need for union representation as they are compensated fairly.

The owner of Widget company has done well. He created thousands of jobs for US workers with his good business sense and has made a tidy sum for himself and his family for years to come. All the taxpayers of the US have helped him make this a reality by contributing to infastructure, education, safety, etc. for his company to thrive. He deserves his success and wealth due to his investment and ingenuity, and has created thousands of fair paying jobs for Americans with good benefits. Widget owner decides to sell the company and enjoy the fruits of his labor, as he deserves.

Biggee corp snaps up Widget company as well as Widget's competitor also based in the US. Biggee corp now has all the patents from both companies and controls 80% of the production in the world of these successful products. Biggee corp., based in the US, enjoys even better tax breaks than Widget co. ever did. Biggee corp lays off almost all of it's US employees for cheaper labor in China and Mexico. The CEO and board of Biggee corp. celebrate on their savings with millions in bonuses for themselves. The CEO, board, and biggest investors of Biggee are .01%ers and pay less percentage of tax per dollar than all the middle class workers of Widget co. and the 1%er that started it.

The .01% at Biggee are now enjoying paying less % in taxes than all the workers they laid off and even the 1% creator of the company they bought while enjoying all the big profits of something they had no work at all creating. The technology they bought was developed in the US aided by all US taxpayers and the hard work of the employees at Widget, including scientists and the production floor worker that did extra to help the company because they were compensated fairly for it.

The deck is stacked.

Let me give you another scenario, Wheelie...

A 1%er with a vision starts up a "green energy" company...starts small with nothing more than an idea of what COULD be. He goes to the Federal Government and because he's contributed a whole bunch of money to certain politicians election campaigns the people he's helped to elect reward him with millions of tax payer dollars for his company even though his business plan is completely unrealistic. A year later the company declares bankruptcy putting thousands of workers on unemployment and food stamps as the 1% rides off into the sunset and the auditors scratch their heads as to where all that money went to.

Does THAT screw the taxpayers less than your scenario?

You just described supply side economics, sport. Thank you for stating your agreement that government borrowing to pay out corporate welfare, the "voodoo" in voodoo economics, cannot work.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most businesses start small. As demand for their products increase, then the business hires more workers to fill that demand. You don't start with over-production.

First comes the product. Then demand, then expansion and hiring. You don't start by hiring. You start with a viable product.

Never done it yourself, I see.
No, you start with an idea fr a product and then invest capital to get it to market. In the process you end up hiring people.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Most businesses start small. As demand for their products increase, then the business hires more workers to fill that demand. You don't start with over-production.

First comes the product. Then demand, then expansion and hiring. You don't start by hiring. You start with a viable product.

Never done it yourself, I see.
No, you start with an idea fr a product and then invest capital to get it to market. In the process you end up hiring people.

No offense, but need - demand to fill a need, aka, opportunity - is where 100% of commercial success starts, not a viable product. Need/demand can be real (water) or perceived (lipstick), but without the perception of need, there isn't going to be demand, and without demand the product won't move, so supply comes later in the process.

Cell phones are a good example of creating need. Fifteen years ago they were common but today they are necessary. Yet if they disappeared tomorrow civilization wouldn't miss them for long.

There is a hierarchy of need/demand, and that hierarchy underwrites all commercial enterprise, all public enterprise and all economies.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most businesses start small. As demand for their products increase, then the business hires more workers to fill that demand. You don't start with over-production.

First comes the product. Then demand, then expansion and hiring. You don't start by hiring. You start with a viable product.

Never done it yourself, I see.
No, you start with an idea fr a product and then invest capital to get it to market. In the process you end up hiring people.

No offense, but need - demand to fill a need, aka, opportunity - is where 100% of commercial success starts, not a viable product. Need/demand can be real (water) or perceived (lipstick), but without the perception of need, there isn't going to be demand, and without demand the product won't move, so supply comes later in the process.

Cell phones are a good example of creating need. Fifteen years ago they were common but today they are necessary. Yet if they disappeared tomorrow civilization wouldn't miss them for long.

There is a hierarchy of need/demand, and that hierarchy underwrites all commercial enterprise, all public enterprise and all economies.

I dont know whether to call for a translator or a psychiatrist.

 

[bripat9643]

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

Still wrong, nimrod.

Welcome to ignore, loser.

Wow, that hurts! NOT!

'Ignore' is always the first resort of liberal cowards.

 

[AmazonTania]

Here's a simple question for some of y'all. Which came first? The mobile (cell) phone or the demand for it?

Apparently something can just be created simply by desire, without it ever being produced or created.

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

That's your opinion.

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

No, because that has zero to do with anything. I believe your initial problem is that you are confusing the solution to the relationship between supply and demand. The demand is essentially endless when it comes to a particular populous. The demand for a solution is unrelated at best and does not guarantee that a solution will be found at all. Unless someone has figured out to supply that demand, all your demands are merely desires/wants.

 

[Dragonlady]

Most businesses start small. As demand for their products increase, then the business hires more workers to fill that demand. You don't start with over-production.

First comes the product. Then demand, then expansion and hiring. You don't start by hiring. You start with a viable product.

Never done it yourself, I see.
No, you start with an idea fr a product and then invest capital to get it to market. In the process you end up hiring people.

I have done it myself, and I'm in the process of doing it again. I have a product. When production cannot keep up with demand for my product, I will be hiring more people.

I worked for many years with a lawyer who found investment capital for new start ups. NOT ONE of these people ever started big. Everyone started with one or two people and an idea. The capital that was invested to bring new ideas to market, did not entail hiring any significant numbers of people until the sales started coming in. Everything was outsourced until that point.

The guy who developed the GreenBox shopping system, started with an idea. He took the idea to Loblaws which was investing heavily in green techologies and sold them on the product. And then he went to an injection moulding company to develop a process for using plastic which 100% recycled. It took capital, but it didn't take staff. Once all of the pieces were ready to go into production, with the Loblaws contract in hand, he started hiring.

I don't know of anybody who starts hiring before they have the products and the sales contracts in hand.

Roots started as one store in Toronto. Walmart started as one store. Until you know your idea will be successful, who in their right mind would invest millions?
Sales is what drives hiring, not investment.

 

[AmazonTania]

Most businesses start small. As demand for their products increase, then the business hires more workers to fill that demand. You don't start with over-production.

First comes the product. Then demand, then expansion and hiring. You don't start by hiring. You start with a viable product.

Never done it yourself, I see.
No, you start with an idea fr a product and then invest capital to get it to market. In the process you end up hiring people.

I have done it myself, and I'm in the process of doing it again. I have a product. When production cannot keep up with demand for my product, I will be hiring more people.

I worked for many years with a lawyer who found investment capital for new start ups. NOT ONE of these people ever started big. Everyone started with one or two people and an idea. The capital that was invested to bring new ideas to market, did not entail hiring any significant numbers of people until the sales started coming in. Everything was outsourced until that point.

The guy who developed the GreenBox shopping system, started with an idea. He took the idea to Loblaws which was investing heavily in green techologies and sold them on the product. And then he went to an injection moulding company to develop a process for using plastic which 100% recycled. It took capital, but it didn't take staff. Once all of the pieces were ready to go into production, with the Loblaws contract in hand, he started hiring.

I don't know of anybody who starts hiring before they have the products and the sales contracts in hand.

Roots started as one store in Toronto. Walmart started as one store. Until you know your idea will be successful, who in their right mind would invest millions?
Sales is what drives hiring, not investment.

Where does the money come from for people to shop, and therefore, provide businesses with 'sales?'

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Apparently something can just be created simply by desire, without it ever being produced or created.

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

That's your opinion.

All right; you all appear to be confusing the product with the solution. Better?

Demand in the market is always for the solution, never for the product. (Read that 2 or 3 times before going on.)

If you buy a movie on Blu-Ray, are you handing over your $20+ just for a plastic disc? Of course not; not unless you're congenitally insane. What's driving your purchase decision is the entertainment, not the disc itself. That's the solution. And demand for the solution always exists before any serious entrepreneur even considers designing a product to deliver the solution.

Clear enough for everyone?

No, because that has zero to do with anything.

It has EVERYTHING to do with building a successful business.

I believe your initial problem is that you are confusing the solution to the relationship between supply and demand. The demand is essentially endless when it comes to a particular populous.

Incorrect, and not just because you didn't spell "populace" accurately. How can there ever be any such thing as "endless demand?"

The demand for a solution is unrelated at best and does not guarantee that a solution will be found at all. Unless someone has figured out to supply that demand, all your demands are merely desires/wants.

And any business venture that doesn't attempt to fill an existing desire or want is practically guaranteed to fail. That's the point so many on this thread are missing.

 

[AmazonTania]

You, SomeGuy, and Kevin are all confusing the product with the solution.

That's your opinion.

All right; you all appear to be confusing the product with the solution. Better?

I suppose, but it's still not our solution. At least not mine, anyway. I believe Kevin's premise regarding demand and production is that they're not mutually exclusive. Demand simply does not appear out of nowhere.

It has EVERYTHING to do with building a successful business.

You are talking about filling a void, not necessarily finding a solution. The goal of a successful entrepreneur is to find something missing in the marketplace and fill that void by using tangible and intangible resources. Although, this doesn't mean that they've found a solution, or there was a problem to begin with at all. The only metric the entrepreneur has to go by is if someone finds value in this new idea.

Incorrect, and not just because you didn't spell "populace" accurately. How can there ever be any such thing as "endless demand?"

Individuals never stop wanting 'things.' Since everything that has been produced will eventually be consumed, why does demand really matter? Even the stuff no one really wants will be consumed if the price falls far enough. But nothing can be consumed until it is produced.

And any business venture that doesn't attempt to fill an existing desire or want is practically guaranteed to fail. That's the point so many on this thread are missing.

Not true. There are some things which are guaranteed to fail on arrival. There are plenty of commodities people desire, but the market has simply decided that they are not vital consumable items at this time.

But I desired that iWatch made famously from Dick Tracey's radio watch, but Apple decided to go with their iRadio. I guess I didn't desire it enough.

 

[Dragonlady]

And any business venture that doesn't attempt to fill an existing desire or want is practically guaranteed to fail. That's the point so many on this thread are missing.

Not true. There are some things which are guaranteed to fail on arrival. There are plenty of commodities people desire, but the market has simply decided that they are not vital consumable items at this time.

But I desired that iWatch made famously from Dick Tracey's radio watch, but Apple decided to go with their iRadio. I guess I didn't desire it enough.

How are things guaranteed to fail on arrival? That makes no sense. "The market" is what exactly - the stock market, the farmer's market, the supermarket?

If you desire a radio watch, then build one. I doubt it will be successful since people use cellphones to communicate with others, but give it a go and see what it gets you. I personally have wondered why I can't listen to my favourite radio station on my iPhone since I can listen to it on my computer. It would seem logical to me that I can, so I'm very happy that iRadio is coming.

 

[AmazonTania]

And any business venture that doesn't attempt to fill an existing desire or want is practically guaranteed to fail. That's the point so many on this thread are missing.

Not true. There are some things which are guaranteed to fail on arrival. There are plenty of commodities people desire, but the market has simply decided that they are not vital consumable items at this time.

But I desired that iWatch made famously from Dick Tracey's radio watch, but Apple decided to go with their iRadio. I guess I didn't desire it enough.

How are things guaranteed to fail on arrival?

If the cost of producing exceeds overall output, this makes the product more expensive. It will fail to obtain a general demographic, and thus the product will fail. That's generally producing works. Unless you are trying to build your demographic with only the super wealthy (which is fine with me) or willing to run at a loss (which is not fine with me).

That makes no sense. "The market" is what exactly - the stock market, the farmer's market, the supermarket?

If you don't understand what 'the market' is in this context, then I do not see myself explaining things very effectively...

If you desire a radio watch, then build one. I doubt it will be successful since people use cellphones to communicate with others, but give it a go and see what it gets you.

They said the same thing about Starbucks and why it wouldn't be successful. As the last thing New York City needed was another coffee shop around the corner.

I personally have wondered why I can't listen to my favourite radio station on my iPhone since I can listen to it on my computer. It would seem logical to me that I can, so I'm very happy that iRadio is coming.

They already have podcast for this, don't they?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Never done it yourself, I see.
No, you start with an idea fr a product and then invest capital to get it to market. In the process you end up hiring people.

I have done it myself, and I'm in the process of doing it again. I have a product. When production cannot keep up with demand for my product, I will be hiring more people.

I worked for many years with a lawyer who found investment capital for new start ups. NOT ONE of these people ever started big. Everyone started with one or two people and an idea. The capital that was invested to bring new ideas to market, did not entail hiring any significant numbers of people until the sales started coming in. Everything was outsourced until that point.

The guy who developed the GreenBox shopping system, started with an idea. He took the idea to Loblaws which was investing heavily in green techologies and sold them on the product. And then he went to an injection moulding company to develop a process for using plastic which 100% recycled. It took capital, but it didn't take staff. Once all of the pieces were ready to go into production, with the Loblaws contract in hand, he started hiring.

I don't know of anybody who starts hiring before they have the products and the sales contracts in hand.

Roots started as one store in Toronto. Walmart started as one store. Until you know your idea will be successful, who in their right mind would invest millions?
Sales is what drives hiring, not investment.

Where does the money come from for people to shop, and therefore, provide businesses with 'sales?'

Money is a tool, a vehicle, a convenience at best, a score keeping mechanism at worst. There are no jobs and no salaries without "opportunity" which is created by demand. Demand creates opportunity, when opportunity is generally agreed to exist, people begin to fill the demand. It really is that simple.

No question some small pct of jobs are created by investors seeking to profit from someone else's labor or idea, but the overwhelming majority of jobs are created by businesses finding demand and following it to the bank.

Supply means nothing without willing and able consumers. That is why killing the middle class is a mistake. Fewer able consumers. And we are living the results of a bifurcated economy of haves and have-nots. There will always be losers, but there has never in the history of the US been the current number of potential contributors fenced out by voodoo policy.

To conclude the economic part here, when we read or hear some halfwit claim voodoo economics works, what they are saying is "Yes, some of us actually believe that living off of borrowed money is the way to go."

To conclude the social side, that is laugh out loud funny coming from the nutball element who apparently really are too stupid to understand that the primary effects of voodoo economics are funneling tax money into the hands of people who fully intend to keep it. That amount of sheer idiocy coming from pretend fiscal conservatives is hilarious in a sad sort of way.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most businesses start small. As demand for their products increase, then the business hires more workers to fill that demand. You don't start with over-production.

First comes the product. Then demand, then expansion and hiring. You don't start by hiring. You start with a viable product.

Never done it yourself, I see.
No, you start with an idea fr a product and then invest capital to get it to market. In the process you end up hiring people.

I have done it myself, and I'm in the process of doing it again. I have a product. When production cannot keep up with demand for my product, I will be hiring more people.

I worked for many years with a lawyer who found investment capital for new start ups. NOT ONE of these people ever started big. Everyone started with one or two people and an idea. The capital that was invested to bring new ideas to market, did not entail hiring any significant numbers of people until the sales started coming in. Everything was outsourced until that point.

The guy who developed the GreenBox shopping system, started with an idea. He took the idea to Loblaws which was investing heavily in green techologies and sold them on the product. And then he went to an injection moulding company to develop a process for using plastic which 100% recycled. It took capital, but it didn't take staff. Once all of the pieces were ready to go into production, with the Loblaws contract in hand, he started hiring.

I don't know of anybody who starts hiring before they have the products and the sales contracts in hand.

Roots started as one store in Toronto. Walmart started as one store. Until you know your idea will be successful, who in their right mind would invest millions?
Sales is what drives hiring, not investment.

Wrong. Anticipation of sales, not sales. Everyone expends capital before the first sale is made.

 

[Dragonlady]

Wrong. Anticipation of sales, not sales. Everyone expends capital before the first sale is made.

Yes we expend capital before sales, but that doesn't mean we hire. We expend capital on design, technology and equipment. When I need a pattern grader, I don't hire one, I contract the work out to a freelancer. Hiring is done by need and without sales, there is little need.

In the case of the GreenBox owner cited above, he took the idea to Loblaws before he expended any cash on it and with their commitment, went forward. The sale came before ANY expenditure of capital. The capital expenditure to bring it to market was large, mainly to develope the processes and formula for the use of 100% recycled plastic, technologies that didn't exist at the time. But ALL of this was done without hiring.

 

[bripat9643]

And any business venture that doesn't attempt to fill an existing desire or want is practically guaranteed to fail. That's the point so many on this thread are missing.

Not true. There are some things which are guaranteed to fail on arrival. There are plenty of commodities people desire, but the market has simply decided that they are not vital consumable items at this time.

But I desired that iWatch made famously from Dick Tracey's radio watch, but Apple decided to go with their iRadio. I guess I didn't desire it enough.

This whole "demand creates jobs" mantra is just left-wing propaganda designed to make people believe that government spending is somehow beneficial to taxpayers and that the people who receive the money dispensed are a net positive for the economy instead of just useless ticks on the ass of society who are sucking the life out of people who actually produce something.

Parasites are always trying to justify the nourishment they suck from their victims, and that's all this is. It's so idiotic that it doesn't really even justify a substantive response. Nevertheless, stuff like this needs to be knocked down. Otherwise the vast mass of numbskulls will start to believe it.