Who here thinks the Middle Class create the most jobs?

[RegieRocker]

Not the upper class and why.

[PSPS]

1. Demand for products is what creates jobs.

98% of the country is suffering financially so the upper 2% can get more billions they can't spend.

[RegieRocker]

2. So if people would spend more then they could get a job?

But the question was since most people don't have the money to spend their way into a job what is the best class to promote to create the most jobs.

[DJ13]

4. Not would...... if they could

Stagnant wages, high unemployment, collapsed home valuation and the 98% who arent rich cant spend like we need.

[Hosnon]

6. Purchasing power needs to be increased for the middle class.

Tax the rich and slash the taxes of everyone else.

[dkf]

15. Actually if the purchasing power of some other country increased and they

bought our stuff we could increase our jobs without extra consumption from anyone in the US.

The fact that we are so dependent on our own consumption of foreign goods is not a good thing.

[jeff47]

19. That would be the entire point of 'stimulus' bills

The government gives people jobs so they can buy stuff. As they buy stuff, other people get jobs and you no longer need those government-funded jobs.

This was all figured out by Keynes long ago, and then memory-holed when supply-side economics became all the rage.

[socialist_n_TN]

94. STILL not the capitalists.............

Capitalists will NEVER spend their money on jobs until demand is there. Conversely if the demand is there, they'll spend it ALL in order to satisfy the demand. If the demand is for hanging rope for the capitalists, the capitalists WILL fill that demand.

In your question, the best thing to create demand (hence jobs) is government spending.

[MindandSoul]

30. Exactly. . .I totally believe in Demand side economy!

It is absolutely crazy to believe that the wealthy will hire people to create more product. . .if the inventory is already too high and not moving because no one has the money to buy it! If there is no demand (because people don't have the money to buy), there is no need to produce, and therefore there is no need to hire!

And the contrary is true also: if the demand is high, and the wealthy has a chance to sell an additional $100,000 worth of product, it is crazy to believe that the wealthy will forgoe hiring to create that product that is in demand, just because the net profit (after tax profit) they will make would be $60,000 instead of $63.5000 thousand!

ANYONE with half a brain would prefer to get $60,000 than NOTHING!
So, if the demand is there. . .they would hire no matter what!

[Hosnon]

3. I do.

Small businesses employ most Americans, i.e., create the most jobs. Only 3% of all income tax filers make more than $250,000, i.e., most small business owners are middle class. Ergo, the middle class directly creates the most jobs.

And since we are a consumer-based economy, the largest class is going to consume the most. The middle class is by far the largest class. Ergo, the middle class indirectly creates the most jobs.

Add these two and it's quite clear that the middle class fucking rocks.

[RegieRocker]

7. Yep the Middle class employ half of all people in the US

So the question remains. Promote the middle class or promote the upper class? What would give the most bang for the buck.

[Hosnon]

11. Slash the taxes for everyone but the rich, who should be taxed more to compensate. nt.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RegieRocker]

44. The taxes have been slashed long ago by bush

the only thing that would happen is a increase for the rich. Nothing to be made up just gained.

[fascisthunter]

5. demand... without a demand there is no need to make product

without the worker, there is no manufacturing of product nor sale of product. A lot depends on the worker, and a demand on the service of the worker. Too many business folk want to pretend they are the sole reason for there being jobs.... why? So they don't have to pay what a worker deserves.

[RegieRocker]

8. without money in their pocket there is no demand

so what comes fist the chicken or the egg?

[fascisthunter]

14. you mean without there being a customer base making the demand

I think its time for the rich to get it through their thick heads that they are not the sole reason for jobs and that they should stop deluding themselves.

[laughingliberal]

20. They know better. They just try to keep us deluded so they can hoard their money. nt

[MindandSoul]

88. Exactly! And it is obvious that it is wiser to get a 98% consumer base

demanding a variety of products than a 2% consumer base demanding selective, very "elastic" products that can very easily be purchase oversea because that 2% consumer base has easy access to oversea market since they have the means to travel extensively!

[RegieRocker]

28. My point exactly

example: Company makes refrigerators, the pay their employees $10.00 an hour. Cost of living does not allow them to buy the product they make. LOL that pretty much sums up why we are in this position. Back in 1976 while working at GM (1st yr) I was making 16,000. I could buy 2 cars with that money. Now they start workers at $13.00 an hour. With overtime 32,500 a year. They can buy 1 car (same type of car).

[jpgray]

9. I do. A dollar of wealth in the middle class creates more demand than a dollar in the top 2%

You want to enrich the working people for this reason, not the rentiers. Note the wealth transfer to the upper class, that has accelerated since 2001, has not resulted in any massive spur to hiring.

[Mojambo]

10. No class of people create jobs.

Demand creates jobs, and then people create jobs in an attempt to meet that demand while making a profit.

[dkf]

16. Yup. And that demand doesn't have to be American demand either

[laughingliberal]

21. But who creates demand? nt

[TexasObserver]

12. Demand for goods creates jobs. Discretionary spending money creates demand.

Jobs create discretionary spending money.

Any notion that one thing is responsible for creating jobs is almost surely wrong.

[customerserviceguy]

13. There's the right wing assertion that "no poor person ever gave somebody a job"

But on the other hand, not all wealthy people give others jobs. I favor tax breaks for hiring workers, say what you want to about the Reagan tax breaks, but the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit was a part of the mid-80's recovery.

How come nobody's tried to resuscitate it now?

[proud patriot]

17. Middle class spend their money

Causing more products to be purchased . When the Middle Class can afford to go on vacation,
they go to the grand Canyon , or Yellowstone . I'll stop there because I'm sure others have many more ideas .

[RegieRocker]

18. I must post on my own post as much as I hate too

Demand does create jobs but it is a poor excuse for creating jobs and fickle. Only innovation creates jobs the best way, completely new jobs. No demand is needed, it is created. Demand is secondary after the creating of a product or service.

[Mojambo]

22. You're a supply-sider

Products and services are created to meet demand, not the other way around.

[RegieRocker]

31. So you have never bought a product that you have never heard

nor wanted or thought existed? Geez

[Mojambo]

34. We're talking economics, not philosophy. n/t

[RegieRocker]

38. Cell phone, ebook reader, dvrs are just one of countless

thousands of products that there was no demand for until the product became available. No philosophy here but a lot of attraction for rhetoric. Your stuck and can not see that the major driving force has and always will be innovation.

[Mojambo]

43. Okay, Milton. You keep stimulating the supply side. Cause it's worked SO well over the last 30 years

And I'm pretty sure people have been seeking better, more effective ways to communicate long before the great discovery of the cell phone.

The cell phone is just another innovation in communication technology that helped to meet a preexisting DEMAND that people had to communicate more conveniently.

[jeff47]

45. Wow are you wrong

Cell Phone: There was already massive demand for personal communication services. As evidenced by the enormous telephone companies that existed before the cell phone. Cell phones were created as a way to satisfy that demand. If you'd like to wander off into the 'portable' nature of the cell phone, I'll have to remind you that the CB radio was extremely popular before the cell phone was invented.

EBook Reader: Um...people have been reading books since antiquity. People have been complaining about the size and weight of books, and the storage of books since antiquity. That's one of the reasons publishers invented the "paperback" book. It's smaller and lighter.

DVRs: Seriously? This is just an improvement on the VCR's time-shifting ability. Again, demand existed before the product.

[RegieRocker]

47. Cell phones

took for ever to reach the potential they have today. For many years only a select few had them and they were enormously expensive. Big too! No one really wanted them. Wrong

[jeff47]

49. Wrong again.

There was demand at a lower price point. That demand is why manufacturers worked very hard to lower the price point.

[RegieRocker]

54. No that would be you that is wrong.

it was when they became smaller and portable and then they became popular. First mobile phones were trunk mounted and could only be used in the car.

[jeff47]

61. Clearly you were not alive during the early cell phone days

Demand for a car phone/cell phone was so high that people sold fake car phones and cell phones made out of cardboard, so you could fool people into thinking you had one.

Were they as ubiquitous as today? Of course not. Demand was huge, but the price was too high.

[RegieRocker]

63. I sold them from my own store

so clearly you are wrong. Only a few had them. Period. Truth. Fact. Do you have any idea who owned them? I do.

[jeff47]

70. Yep, I knew several people who owned them

And I am well aware of the much larger number of people who envied them and the $5/min they were spending. It was amusing having the phone beep 10 seconds before every minute so you could hang up before spending another $5.

I realize that admitting you're wrong can be difficult, but the number of total units sold at a particular price has absolutely nothing to do with the overall demand for that product. That's why it's called a "demand curve" and not a "demand point".

[RegieRocker]

77. No that would be you and most of the rest of the world is wrong right?

Here view this for a lesson on the facts.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/173033/evolution_of_the_cell_phone.html

Read and view the slide show.

I'm done trying to convince you of the truth.

[jeff47]

97. I have to admit this is extremely convenient

I can just cut-and-paste my previous post, since you completely ignored it.

I realize that admitting you're wrong can be difficult, but the number of total units sold at a particular price has absolutely nothing to do with the overall demand for that product. That's why it's called a "demand curve" and not a "demand point".

[MindandSoul]

89. You are correct. Although there is a whole marketing industry

out there that tries to convince everyone of us (and at huge cost to our wallet, but also too often to our health and mental wellbeing) that we can't live without totaly unnecessary "gadgets" or "foods"

Still, when the money is reduced (through inflation) for 98% of the people. . .no marketing effot can replace the dwidling purchasing power of that huge consumer base!

[Incitatus]

24. Both are necessary.

There are plenty of millionaires and billionaires with cash to spend on innovating new products and services. A strong middle class with money to spend is what seems to be at risk.

[jmowreader]

27. Innovation doesn't necessarily create jobs

The Chrysler Airflow and Edsel were very innovative, but they created no demand and therefore no jobs because no one liked the cars.

[RegieRocker]

29. Inovation created the car in the first place. So......

[Mojambo]

35. A demand for a more efficient means of transportation lead to the innovation. n/t

[jmowreader]

75. I think there have been more innovations in cars since then

But that's the thing: Airflows, Edsels, and hundreds of other cars have been filled with wonderful innovations, but since people didn't like the innovations enough to buy the cars, the cars didn't sell.

[jeff47]

32. Completely new jobs do not require innovation

A trivial example is as the country's population increases, we need more teachers, policemen, firefighters, grocers, barbers, etc. All those jobs are "completely new". They did not exist before the population grew.

And no, demand is not secondary. Innovate all you'd like, but if there's no demand for your new product, you will not create any jobs. Just ask Preston Tucker.

[RegieRocker]

33. Mind boogling, you really don't think first of a kind products are created

then marketed to create the demand?

[jeff47]

41. The demand exists before the marketing

Every product out there was developed to satisfy an existing demand. Then marketing made people aware of the new product.

Cars - People wanted personal transportation. The horse and buggy were satisfying this demand, but innovation lead to a better product.

Computers - People were performing calculations on vast data sets by hand, and needed a device to do it much faster. (A "Calculator" used to be a person who's job was to do math)

Supermarkets - Less free time for shopping meant people were willing to buy worse products from a store that carries everything instead of going to specialist retailers.

The Wooden Club - People were beating their enemies to death, and were looking for a better/faster/safer way to do so. That particular innovation pre-dates the invention of "marketing".

Marketing is a tool to increase demand. But demand must already be present for marketing to work.

[JackRiddler]

57. Wrong question: Sure, new junk is invented all the time...

Sure, new junk gets invented and marketed all the time. In an advanced capitalist economy already saturated with an abundance of goods, the effect of the new junk more often than not is to replace some other older junk, at a net loss of labor involved in its production (and that's not counting how much easier this labor constantly becomes to outsource). If you can leave aside the magical tech fetish for a moment, it's not hard to understand at all. Innovation -- more often than not -- tends to eliminate labor.

Which, again, is not an argument against all innovation but FOR sharing productivity gains more broadly in the form of higher wages and fewer hours per laborer. Giving Americans the same four to six months weeks vacation that many Europeans enjoy would be a great start. And for this country, that would be quite an innovation!

[JackRiddler]

36. Innovation probably eliminates more jobs than it creates.

Contrary to talk of innovation as the current buzzword of capitalist ideology, the Internet (to take one example) has wiped out whole sectors of employment. For example, Craig's List is a black hole that ate an industry worth $2 billion a year and spat out one company making $80 million a year. Talked to many typesetters lately?

Measured per capita there's more stuff being made in fewer labor-hours (and, disastrously: using more energy) than ever. Innovation leading to productivity gains is an argument for sharing wealth, for shorter hours, for higher wages so that fewer people working can at least support others in their families.

Demand and investment create jobs.

In capitalism, private investment only happens for profit (which also means: in the expectation of a demand) or because the public sector forces it.

With the inadequate (and misdirected) stimulus over, none of these basics inform current policy, except the hope that the private sector (hoarding trillions) might decide it's profitable to invest again, or the banks at least decide it's profitable to lend to anyone other than the US government.

For what reason they will do that, given the continuing weakness of demand (thanks to low wages, high debt and unemployment) one cannot see.

A New New Deal based on public sector investment to start building a green economy and debt write-downs all around to free up demand are the only way forward, but the current federal policy is moving in the opposite direction.

Besides, we must pay instead for wars and military and mountains of interest and bailouts and tax cuts to the precious rich so they can buy up real estate at currently cheap prices and go sail the Caribbean, right?

[RegieRocker]

39. Well I disagree. There would be a tremendous amount

of horse shit in the streets and many more jobs never created if the automobile was not created.

[JackRiddler]

48. Not a relevant answer.

In the US that industry reached saturation in the seventies. And I thought we were talking about jobs, not horseshit.

[RegieRocker]

50. The horse rancher, coach maker, blacksmith

didn't think the car was a good idea. Jobs were lost. New jobs sprung up. Someone would have to clean up the horseshit wouldn't they?

[jeff47]

52. The point being

there were more people employed building buggies, fixing buggies, raising horses, feeding horses and cleaning up horse shit than building cars, fixing cars and 'feeding' cars. It was mostly the horse shit cleaners who lost their jobs.

That's the way increasing efficiency can lead to job losses, which would be the parent post's point.

[RegieRocker]

56. It took more people to build a car than it did a horse

not to mention all the gas stations, garages, and parts suppliers.

[JackRiddler]

59. Then. Then. Talk about now.

Now the innovative energy goes into figuring out ways to reduce the need for labor. Or for making new junk that replaces the old junk. We are in a saturated economy where more stuff is produced per capita than ever for less labor, and innovation only makes that more so. This isn't an argument against innovation per se; it is an argument for changing the model of labor itself.

[RegieRocker]

62. I agree that people should be paid more and I stated

that in a post somewhere here. What I am saying also is that innovation can bring cost of living down and put money in the pockets of both the middle class and the lower class.

[jeff47]

66. Actually, no it didn't.

That's why cars took off.

You don't just need one male and one female horse to make a workable personal transportation system.

The number of "parts suppliers" and assemblers was similar to what was needed to make a buggy. The number involved in providing feed to the horses was similar to the number needed for gas stations. Repairs? Just as necessary on a buggy as a car, and vets were the equivalent of a mechanic.

However, cars didn't need anyone to clean up the shit. Those guys lost their jobs. As did the people making buggy whips.

Fortunately for those people, the country was still rapidly growing, so new jobs became available fairly quickly.

[RegieRocker]

68. Bogus

[jeff47]

71. My, what a stunning argument (nt)

[RegieRocker]

72. I was waiting for you to say that

I just read today that there is a whole herd of Ford Mustangs in a Utah valley just waiting for someone to round them up and make a big profit. LOL

[jeff47]

73. So what you're saying is you have no idea

what it takes to actually use a horse and buggy as personal transportation.

As I keep saying over and over, it took a lot more than just the animal.

[RegieRocker]

74. so it took a lot more than just a animal that means nothing

compared to the building of a car and the jobs it created. The car was one of many innovations that caused the economic increase of this country. Speaking of horses what is that saying? "You can lead the horse to the trough but you can't make him drink". You don't understand that you can't get a car for free but you could a horse. Break him in a hour and have transpiration? How many jobs were in that process?

[jeff47]

98. Again, you are ignoring all the jobs necessary

to make a horse and buggy work.

Obtaining an animal was the easy part. You had to maintain that animal, just like you have to maintain a car engine. You also have to build and maintain the buggy, just like a car. Then there's fuel. The horse variety was more expensive and competed with your dinner table. Repairs? Vets aren't especially cheap.

Even if we throw out the 'buggy' aspect, which makes it more like a motorcycle than a car, you still needed a saddle, bridle, shoes and food.

Cars became popular because they were CHEAPER than horses, and they satisfied the same demand.

Just like jets became popular because they were cheaper to operate. Kerosene is a hell of a lot cheaper than 100 octane gasoline. Early jets burned ridiculous amounts of fuel, but the fuel was so cheap it was worth it.

[riderinthestorm]

99. I've got a million dollar business and 12 employees that say your full of horse shit.

As an actual horse breeder, trainer, competitor and commercial barn operator, I know whereof I speak.

Buying, breeding, training and maintaining horses is extremely labor intensive. That means jobs. And I deal in just the 'direct product" if you will - the actual horses and their maintenance. Then there's the rest: saddlers, saddlery repair, buggy makers, whipmakers (oh yes, still a booming business), arena footing suppliers, bedding and feed suppliers, vets (big $$ there), construction costs (new jumps, barns, buildings, sheds, fencing - it's own annual cost), competitions (which are our "advertising"), etc. etc.

Want an old fashioned school in this?

You are a classic supply sider. I have an MBA from the U of Chicago - home of Milton Friedman and his despicable cronies. That shit don't fly. And I know shit. I have tons of it composting on the back forty to prove it.

[JackRiddler]

53. Note that your "new jobs sprung up" is in the past tense.

That was still a period of building advanced capitalist economy. That system reached saturation finally in the 1970s. Since then innovation has not been a net job creator. The innovation is to reduce costs of labor or to create industries that bottom line employ fewer people than the ones they replace. Some of the jobs created are high-skilled and well paid (and generally very intensive) but net result is fewer jobs overall.

You want innovation in this country? Localvore, solar, sustainable infrastructure, converting the sprawl into towns with centers, railways, using secondary biomass -- these would be innovative and net job-creating. Hot new cell phones and other industries that are capital and tech intensive but require less and less and cheaper labor that can be placed anywhere, not so much.

Innovation aside: demand and investment create jobs. No expectation of demand = no private investment.

[MindandSoul]

42. IF, and only IF a "creative product" is successful! Yes, trying to

find/create a new product does take some labor force. . .but if there is no demand for it. . .it will fail!

Try putting on the market at this time the most wonderful new product. . .you better have a target base that is only upper middle class and wealthy, because the rest of our nation doesn't have the money to purchase ANY new product. . .wether they would like to or not!

However, the upper middle class and the wealthy doesn't provide a huge market! You may try to create a product that targets ONLY the top 2% of wealthy in the U.S. . . .but it is a huge risk! These wealthy people like to purchase their products abroad (yachts made in Italy, clothes made in Paris, cars made in Germany, second home in Costa Rica).

No, it is still demands that runs the market. If that were not true. . .why do you think those big corporations would spend MILLIONS of dollars on marketing??? The answer is: to increase the demand for their product!

However, all the marketing in the world, all the products in the world will not entice someone who is unemployed and has just lost their unemployment benefits to buy!. . .

[RegieRocker]

51. Of course

but what came first? The product, the job or the money?

[MindandSoul]

58. The money needs to be there before people will buy.

This is why sometime good products fail. . .they arrive on the market at the wrong time.
But if the money is there, a product doesn't need to be as great. . .even marketing doesn't have to be that great. . .when the money is plentiful (relatively, of course!) and the middle class feels secure in their job. . .they are LOOKING for products to buy!

But, at this time, with no raise in income, and no job security. . .they may be looking at that I-Pad twenty times, and wishing they could. . . .but they won't!


It's not just "economy!" It's "psychology!" And the most successful marketers KNOW that!

[RegieRocker]

79. You didn't answer the question

"but what came first? The product, the job or the money?" and before you say "Demand" there is no demand for a product that know one has heard of nor thought of or used before.

[MindandSoul]

90. In my opinion, historically at least, the DEMAND for a product came first

although today, we got so used to being manipulated by huge and costly marketing efforts, that we are made to "think" we can't live without a new product!

The fact is that without disposable income, we may still WANT to purchase a product, but we can't.

There are also two basic types of products/services: one type is "elastic," and will continue to be purchase even if the disposable income goes down (i.e., necessary food like vegetable, meat and diary products, necessary health care like the setting of a broken bone, necessary transportation needs, like gas), while the other type of product services in non-elastic and will not "stretch" when the price goes up or the disposable income goes down (i.e., luxury food, cosmetic surgery, and luxury or gas gusling cars).

So here it goes: DISPOSABLE income (money)
engender the DEMAND for a product
which leads to hiring people to manufacture that product (jobs)
which closes the loop by providing income (money)

[RegieRocker]

81. Are you saying create fake money

so that people can buy things? How do they get a job and money if demand is low because no one has any money?

[MindandSoul]

93. as I said before, that is where the "elasticity" of a product comes into light:

there are products that are necessary to life. .and thus they will be less sensitive to price increase or the relative lack of money and they will continue to be purchased (i.e., food, water, basic survival needs. . .although once again, this has been stretched by marketing, so that today too many of us believe that "sodas" are a basic need!).


This kind of "elastic" products will be purchased even if people are extremely low on money. . .and one way they continue to be purchased when money is short is through food stamps and other government assistance. So, government assistance that is so decry by the Republicans is actually an integral part of the economy, and fills a real need, not only for the people who receive that government assistance, but also for industry and the economy in general. Without government assistance in period of recession, a huge sector of the economy would not only suffer, it would come almost to a stand still!

This is also why "social democracies" in Europe have been more successful at coming out of the crisis: their strong "safety nets" have allowed the poor and the lower middle class to continue purchasing at least the basic necessity, to stay in their home, to take public transportation back and forth to find a new job AND to continue receiving unemployment benefits for EXTENDED (in Belgium. . .no limit!) period of unemployment!

It is the mass that has allowed those economies to continue to exist. It is the extended unemployment Obama has been fighting for that gives us a little more chance to keep this economy going until money becomes circulating again.

However, if too much of that money continue to pile up in the 1% wealthiest's pocket, and DOESN'T circulate. . .and if, in addition, the Republicans manage to cut unemployment benefits, and decrease social security and government assistance for the poor. . .our economy will come to a stand still. . .no matter how much money accumulates at the top, that money will NOT be used for hiring anyone to produce inventory that wouldn't sell anyway!

[undergroundpanther]

65. Supply side stupidity

Innovation isn't going to do shit for this scam economy without people with enough money to cover basics of life like shelter food warmth,after that is stable,than they need enough surplus money spend to BUY whatever innovative shit you selling them they don't need but you think you tell them they want.That manufactured demand is MANIPULATIVE and morally twisted btw.. ,Jeez you go to voodoo economics school? WTF.

[RegieRocker]

80. Surplus money to buy products made

overseas? Yep that is voodoo economics and a scam.

[madokie]

25. Henry Ford figured out early on in the manufacturing of the Model T

that there wasn't enough people who could afford all the cars he was able to build so he increased his employees pay so they could possibly start buying them. It was a big success as over 17 million model T's being built is a testament to. People have to have money to have buying power and there is only three ways to get money, work, steal or inherit. The rich are killing their golden goose and haven't a clue about that apparently.

Innovation is important to this equation and the tinkerers in their basements and shops are the one who do a lot of that, we mustn't forget.

[RegieRocker]

40. Exactly

[undergroundpanther]

69. And what helped

the cars sell was DESTRUCTION of PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION and creating the lie that cars were better and status symbols,and this stupid car culture creates alot of the problems we face now,and cars still create a disincentive for public transport in county/state budgets,expanding roads does not ever reduce traffic cost the state millions that could have been spent improving lives and cars keep soul killing suburbs pedestrian unfriendly.

I hate Henry Ford.He was a curse upon this world.He was a FASCIST ASS And he STOLE his car idea from other inventors like Bill Gates did. DYK that the FIRST cars were ELECTRIC??
Get some history.
http://www.streetcarpress.com/essays/great_trillion-dollar_swindle.html
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/cars-dominant-form-transportation.htm/printable

[madokie]

76. I'm pretty well aware of the history

being a motor head all my life but that has nothing to do with what I posted. In regards to public transportation, it will not work out here where I live and there are many of us who didn't and or don't buy into the move to the cities. Myself because I like the piece and quite of this country life. Would you rather that I have to walk or use a beast of burden to get around. Are you satisfied in your all knowing that to many of us an automobile is a necessity. I can tell you what I could say about all that but out of respect for you I won't go there. I guess in your world there is no need for public hiways. I'd like to see them bring rails out here so's I can get my worthless country ass to and from the stores, of which no matter how much I'd like to think otherwise, I still have to frequent.

Me thinks you mis-direct your mad :hi:

[RegieRocker]

78. High Speed Rail

is Innovation!

[madokie]

86. I'd like to see more

won't do me much good getting to the store but it'd be good for me in the long run, air quality for one. Moving hundreds of people by rail has to be much cleaner than by either car or plane.

[mmonk]

26. When people have money and a desire to purchase goods and services,

someone meets that demand and that demand creates jobs.

[MindandSoul]

55. You got it! You are absolutely right. . . .it takes money spread around in the

middle class to create a large demand market. . .if there is no money, no matter how good a product is, it will not sell!

[Forkboy]

37. I could never figure this out, so I went into porn.

[KT2000]

46. Middle class garages

are full of crap they have purchased. The car sits in the driveway. Their closets are full of stuff and they rent storage units to park more stuff. There are many more in the middle class than the upper class.

It's the numbers - manufacturers are looking to India and China for their consumers now - they are in the many many millions.

[undergroundpanther]

60. Actually

The Poor create the most jobs.So do the disabled,and elderly.
Poor people(anyone on disability or social security) have nothing,so when they get money they spend it immediately for food and basics.THIS CREATES DEMAND..which creates JOBS.
Poor people create jobs because they SPEND everything they get to survive,they don't get enough money to save it or hoard it like the rich who sit on vast fortunes and buy nothing but luxury shit 95% of people will never afford because they need nothing,because they have it all.

[provis99]

64. the Middle class? You've got to be kidding. The middle class are parasites.

It is working class people who create jobs, not the middle class.

[RegieRocker]

67. I can see the problem now. No wonder this ecconomy is

in such a disarray. The middle class is a working class!!!!!!!!!!!

[fascisthunter]

84. WTF... the middleclass IS the working class

what the hell you talkin' about?

[MindPilot]

96. That's a real classist broad brush you got there!

[MadHound]

82. Most respected economists think so, as do I

It is obvious from your replies here that you're one of those supply side, tinkle on economics freaks. A position that has been discredited repeatedly, both by noted economists, and by real life experience over the past thirty years.

It has been shown time and again that giving the rich more tax cuts doesn't result in more jobs, but rather the rich simply investing their money or saving it, not putting it into job creating economic vehicles.

Furthermore, the large population of the middle, working and poor population is what drives demand in this country, demand for everything from food to football, college to cars. While the rich might be the first consumers of high end goods(like your example with cell phones above) the fact is their population is far to small to drive demand. The rich are used to ramp up the economies of scale during the introduction of a product, that is all. They're not driving demand.

[fascisthunter]

92. but the wealthy are spesssshul

and we should all be happy with them in control....

[slackmaster]

83. It takes both the middle class and people with money to invest in businesses

The middle class provides most of the revenue, mostly through consumer spending, which gets cycled back to people who work at all levels.

[RegieRocker]

85. Thank you all (and even the ones that disagreed with me)

I think I understand now.

Supply Side Economics conservative
Demand Side Economics liberal

Two systems left and right.
Two parties left and right.

It's always just two isn't it? Why can't we get past the 2 number?

There should be a 3rd type for a free market.

I was suggesting

Innovation Side Economics
and before you say that it is Supply Side I would like to say this.

Focus on creating jobs (R & D, start ups etc.) to create jobs with taxes from those who can afford them. Encourage large companies to create smaller production facilities at the local level reducing transportation costs. Make local economies strong and able to be self sustainable.

There are problems with both supply side and demand side, so we need to look a little deeper.

The fact and no one has answered "what came first, the product or service? the job? or the money? is a ostrich reaction". In all successful innovative product creations demand was either created or already there either knowingly or unknowingly by the consumers. This country is bleeding from lost jobs to overseas countries. There is a huge demand for those products made overseas. Thinking that giving money to those that don't have it will cure this problem is misguided. It will literally be like tossing money out the window. Most of it will go overseas. So we had better come up with something that will work and fast.

[Creative]

87. Since most small business owners are Middle Class, it is clear that

members of the "Middle Class create the most jobs."

[fascisthunter]

91. KABOOM... and employ more than large corporations overall

if you were to add up all the small businesses. Monopolies and large companies minimize jobs for higher profits.

[MindPilot]

95. Defense spending creates a lot of jobs

Of course none of here like the the fact that huge piece of the taxpayer pie goes to the DoD, but ultimately most of that money ends up in the hands of contractors who pay people to make stuff.

When the Air Force orders a couple dozen new fighter planes--that is fundamentally a jobs program.

But no single class of people or even people as individuals create jobs. Jobs are created by a demand for a product or service.

Here is the bottom line: A rich person already has enough to buy whatever they want; giving them more spending money is not going to alter their buying habits. But if the middle/working/poor have more money, they will buy more stuff, creating that demand and therefore, jobs.

And the other facet to the "big lie" is that individuals hire people; they do not, companies and corporations hire people. There are already tax breaks for hiring--it's a business expense. So if some CEO gets a 2% break on his personal income, that is just not going to instantly translate into him picking up the phone and telling the HR director to hire three more employees.