Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the only people who bought anything were the super rich, the economy would collapse. If the only people who worked were the super rich, factories would shut down.
We, the middle class are the true job creators
Not when everything they buy is made in China and Mexico. Sure the unemployed Americans are happily spending their unemployment checks at Walmart and buying foreign made cars -- spending is as high as it ever was, but their spending isn't creating jobs in this country.
If the only people who bought anything were the super rich, the economy would collapse. If the only people who worked were the super rich, factories would shut down.
We, the middle class are the true job creators
You're getting warmer.
Question: Why would the super-rich want their customers to be oppressed financially?
They depend on a vibrant and healthy middle-class, don't they?
Without the customers, the companies selling the products and services would not exist(and would not have ANY employees).
Companies MUST have customers buying their products and services in order to exist. If a company doesn't exist, it has 0 employees. This is why many companies have the motto " the customer is number one. or the customer is always right".
1) consumers buy more products and services
2) companies that make/sell that product or service hire more employees due to increased demand
3) employees that get hired for these new jobs are also consumers. They spend more money because of new job and they create more demand for other products and services.
4) companies sell MORE products and services due to people that got new jobs becoming bigger spenders(consumers)
On the flip side.
1) consumers stop spending money on products and services
2) companies that sell that product/service have fewer sales, less demand for product, they layoff employees.
3) those laid off employees have less money. They cut their spending drastically.
4) fewer and fewer products and services are sold due to recession. Companies lay off MORE employees. The only way these companies will hire more workers is if DEMAND for their product/service goes up and they need to make more products and need more employees on the assembly line to meet the increase demand.
We need CONSUMERS to spend and in order for JOBS to be created. You need both. The spending is what is needed FIRST. Until the spending increases, the employers will not create the jobs, because they wont have an increased demand for their product until more consumers spend money on their product.
Without the market, i.e. demand, a product or service is worthless. Consumers can demand until they are blue in the face but that won't create one single job until a producer provides the product or service. By providing that product or service, the producer creates jobs for people who produce whatever there is a market for. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement but disingenuous to think the consumer deserves the credit for producing the jobs that provided the product or service. All he provided was the demand and the wherewithal to purchase it.
Do you have anything to convince a skeptic like me? any solid numbers and an explanation why you came to your conclusion?
Have you every read history? Slave masters collected all the wealth because they owned whatever slaves made. The landed gentry collected all the wealth because they owned all the land. The US had so much free land that there was no land monopoly and was a labor and capital paradise. There era has come to an end. How can you possibly convince me is the question.
When you control things that cannot be supplied by labor, but is necessary for production then that has guaranteed buying power. The rich have taken notice. So by definition that which gives you the most buying power isn't by what you create.
You make money by controlling the supply of a monopoly.
The middle class who actually make things then have less of the surplus and have more trouble funding their ideas. Since they do most of the work, they have the best ideas.
It's no secret that the most popular source of startup financing is the personal savings of the business's founder. But while almost everyone will tell you that you must use your personal savings when starting a business, very few people will advise you on the more important question: What percentage of your personal savings should you use? Should you pour all your savings into your budding business? Should you use 50 percent less? I'm going to offer some tips on how to use your personal savings effectively to get your business off the ground.
Now because of the Slim monopoly he decides what to do with the surplus. He has become the primary decision maker.
So no, just like all through history rich people make decision little different than government bureaucrats. The reason is the same. They never actually made anything themselves by the 2nd generation. New wealth from labor and capital quickly converts it into land, national debts, mineral rights, gold and political power. Within a few generations they make decisions with their buying power. The only problem is they know virtually nothing on how to make a product.
Now if Apple and Steve Jobs etc only kept their wealth in their technology then this process would tend not to happen. Problem is that never happens because we make laws they promote old wealth. Well actually we don't. That is what old money did to our political process.
Without the market, i.e. demand, a product or service is worthless. Consumers can demand until they are blue in the face but that won't create one single job until a producer provides the product or service. By providing that product or service, the producer creates jobs for people who produce whatever there is a market for. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement but disingenuous to think the consumer deserves the credit for producing the jobs that provided the product or service. All he provided was the demand and the wherewithal to purchase it.
Demand results in more jobs.
More jobs result in increased demand.(because the new workers will spend money they didn't have)
With zero demand, there are no jobs because a company will go belly up quicky with no customers.
With zero jobs, there is STILL some demand for products/services. Because people have money that they dont get from jobs. (Retirees, folks with savings and even folks on unemployment and disability.) However, if there IS demand and zero jobs, then entrepeneurs would recognize that demand is there and they would add new jobs to produce those products/services
It is a symbiotic relationship.
Last edited by sware2cod; 09-08-2012 at 11:06 AM..
Question: Why would the super-rich want their customers to be oppressed financially?
They depend on a vibrant and healthy middle-class, don't they?
I don't think they want them to be oppressed but indebted and able to pay up every 30 days for the rest of their lives. Depending on the kind of business of course, such as banks, insurance companies, cartels, monopolies.
Without the customers, the companies selling the products and services would not exist(and would not have ANY employees).
Companies MUST have customers buying their products and services in order to exist. If a company doesn't exist, it has 0 employees. This is why many companies have the motto " the customer is number one. or the customer is always right".
1) consumers buy more products and services
2) companies that make/sell that product or service hire more employees due to increased demand
3) employees that get hired for these new jobs are also consumers. They spend more money because of new job and they create more demand for other products and services.
4) companies sell MORE products and services due to people that got new jobs becoming bigger spenders(consumers)
On the flip side.
1) consumers stop spending money on products and services
2) companies that sell that product/service have fewer sales, less demand for product, they layoff employees.
3) those laid off employees have less money. They cut their spending drastically.
4) fewer and fewer products and services are sold due to recession. Companies lay off MORE employees. The only way these companies will hire more workers is if DEMAND for their product/service goes up and they need to make more products and need more employees on the assembly line to meet the increase demand.
We need CONSUMERS to spend and in order for JOBS to be created. You need both. The spending is what is needed FIRST. Until the spending increases, the employers will not create the jobs, because they wont have an increased demand for their product until more consumers spend money on their product.
All very true, however, what most posters have failed to realize is that not all consumers are poor or middle class. The consumers of my business services are other businesses. My business provides products and services that only other businesses find useful. Not only would the poor and middle-class not find my products and services useful (except indirectly), they also could not afford my rates.
More jobs result in increased demand.(because the new workers will spend money they didn't have)
With zero demand, there are no jobs because a company will go belly up quicky with no customers.
With zero jobs, there is STILL some demand for products/services. Because people have money that dont get that money from jobs. (Retirees, folks with savings and even folks on unemployment and disability.)
It is a symbiotic relationship.
Like I said--a "mutually beneficial arrangement". Demand stimulates incentive in producers who then provide the product or service to the people who purchase the product or service. In producing whatever it is, jobs are created by the producers and customers purchase the product. Money circulates in a never-ending exchange throughout the economy.
Have you every read history? Slave masters collected all the wealth because they owned whatever slaves made. The landed gentry collected all the wealth because they owned all the land. The US had so much free land that there was no land monopoly and was a labor and capital paradise. There era has come to an end. How can you possibly convince me is the question.
When you control things that cannot be supplied by labor, but is necessary for production then that has guaranteed buying power. The rich have taken notice. So by definition that which gives you the most buying power isn't by what you create.
You make money by controlling the supply of a monopoly.
The middle class who actually make things then have less of the surplus and have more trouble funding their ideas. Since they do most of the work, they have the best ideas.
It's no secret that the most popular source of startup financing is the personal savings of the business's founder. But while almost everyone will tell you that you must use your personal savings when starting a business, very few people will advise you on the more important question: What percentage of your personal savings should you use? Should you pour all your savings into your budding business? Should you use 50 percent less? I'm going to offer some tips on how to use your personal savings effectively to get your business off the ground.
Now because of the Slim monopoly he decides what to do with the surplus. He has become the primary decision maker.
So no, just like all through history rich people make decision little different than government bureaucrats. The reason is the same. They never actually made anything themselves by the 2nd generation. New wealth from labor and capital quickly converts it into land, national debts, mineral rights, gold and political power. Within a few generations they make decisions with their buying power. The only problem is they know virtually nothing on how to make a product.
Now if Apple and Steve Jobs etc only kept their wealth in their technology then this process would tend not to happen. Problem is that never happens because we make laws they promote old wealth. Well actually we don't. That is what old money did to our political process.
The assertion was that the middle class creates more jobs in this country than any other socio-economic group, and that's fine; I have no problem with making a claim. However, the OP did not provide numbers such as business startups, employment numbers, etc. to back her claim.
It's an interesting topic, but if the intent was a discussion, then it was ruined for lack of information.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
