The Fiction That Rich People Create The Jobs

[Clinton Huxley]

What's the difference between "sponsor" and "subsidise".....?

[Coito ergo sum]

Rich people secrete jobs like aphids secrete honeydew. Just ask Seth.

Flourishing industries create meaningful numbers of jobs.

So, the equation is simple, if the government wants to facilitate the creation of jobs, it ought to do what it can to facilitate the expansion of industries. By way of a general mission statement, that would mean determining which industries are potentially expandable, and then figuring out ways in which such industries can be helped so as to compete against international competition.

While it may not be the case that a modest tax increase will not significantly harm an industry, it is certainly the case that tax increases do not help an industry.

Bah, you'll be advocating a centrally-planned socialist command economy next

Better that than letting all those social traitors delocalize OUR jobs, just in the name of their Holy Bottom Line.

It would be very naive to think that a central planner would not have to consider cost-saving opportunities just like a private industry planner.

The government can't even run Medicare without $50 billion a year in fraud going unpunished and unrecovered. You want them to run the entire economy now?

[Coito ergo sum]

What's the difference between "sponsor" and "subsidise".....?

I don't see the importance of the question.

But, what I'm talking about is more like the government buying trucks, jeeps, tanks, rockets and airplanes for the military. They can create a lot of jobs and a lot of industries, and spawn other areas of private industry, by doing the same thing with manned space exploration. We've seen it work. I'm just saying that we should do more of it.

it is one way to spur on high tech development and heavy, medium and light industry, and employ many thousands of people, without the goal of killing people.

[Clinton Huxley]

Re subsidy - you can get in trouble with the WTO with regards to subsidies - see the perpetual grumblings between the US and EU over subsidies to Airbus and Boeing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Re subsidy - you can get in trouble with the WTO with regards to subsidies - see the perpetual grumblings between the US and EU over subsidies to Airbus and Boeing.

Well, we've already had a manned space industry wholly government funded for 50 years, so I think their time to lodge a complaint has hit the statute of limitations.

[MrJonno]

Making the assumption that making jobs is always a good thing, if the job is dangerous, lowly paid and not enough to live on a person and society would be better if that person stayed unemployed

[Coito ergo sum]

Making the assumption that making jobs is always a good thing, if the job is dangerous, lowly paid and not enough to live on a person and society would be better if that person stayed unemployed

Start at about 1:15 in....

[Svartalf]

Rich people secrete jobs like aphids secrete honeydew. Just ask Seth.

Flourishing industries create meaningful numbers of jobs.

So, the equation is simple, if the government wants to facilitate the creation of jobs, it ought to do what it can to facilitate the expansion of industries. By way of a general mission statement, that would mean determining which industries are potentially expandable, and then figuring out ways in which such industries can be helped so as to compete against international competition.

While it may not be the case that a modest tax increase will not significantly harm an industry, it is certainly the case that tax increases do not help an industry.

Bah, you'll be advocating a centrally-planned socialist command economy next

Better that than letting all those social traitors delocalize OUR jobs, just in the name of their Holy Bottom Line.

It would be very naive to think that a central planner would not have to consider cost-saving opportunities just like a private industry planner.

The government can't even run Medicare without $50 billion a year in fraud going unpunished and unrecovered. You want them to run the entire economy now?

I know that, however, a national minded planner would deliberately avoid options that solely increase profit at the expense of the local economic structure.
Medicare costs so much because there are tons of unemployed not contributing to it. and here, where medical costs are tightly controlled in the first place, fraud is small time and doesn't run to those heights.

[Coito ergo sum]

Flourishing industries create meaningful numbers of jobs.

So, the equation is simple, if the government wants to facilitate the creation of jobs, it ought to do what it can to facilitate the expansion of industries. By way of a general mission statement, that would mean determining which industries are potentially expandable, and then figuring out ways in which such industries can be helped so as to compete against international competition.

While it may not be the case that a modest tax increase will not significantly harm an industry, it is certainly the case that tax increases do not help an industry.

Bah, you'll be advocating a centrally-planned socialist command economy next

Better that than letting all those social traitors delocalize OUR jobs, just in the name of their Holy Bottom Line.

It would be very naive to think that a central planner would not have to consider cost-saving opportunities just like a private industry planner.

The government can't even run Medicare without $50 billion a year in fraud going unpunished and unrecovered. You want them to run the entire economy now?

I know that, however, a national minded planner would deliberately avoid options that solely increase profit at the expense of the local economic structure.

Except that there is no national minded planner who would be competent to make such decisions, and the national minded planner would be a political animal.

Medicare costs so much because there are tons of unemployed not contributing to it. and here, where medical costs are tightly controlled in the first place, fraud is small time and doesn't run to those heights.

You're not correct here, but that's for another thread, methinks.

[Tyrannical]

As I said before. The corporations DO create jobs. EXCEPT THEY ARE NOT IN USA. They are creating jobs in third world countries for cheap labor which makes them more money (then they find a way not to be taxed on it) and then have the GALL to bring the product back here for us to buy.

In many places the "cheap labor" is still paid far higher than what those other countries are used to. Take India, for example, and all of the telephone customer service companies that are set up over there. They welcome those jobs, and what is considered "cheap" here makes people wealthy there.

In many countries, like Brazil for example, a business can pay a high Brazilian wage and still be paying a very low American wage. That's because in Brazil about 1/2 the population makes less than $800 a month. So, offer them $1000 a months, and you'd have people beating a path to your door, and you'd be improving their wages by 25%.

But that causes downward wage pressure in your home country. If they can pay $2 an hour in India, they aren't going to pay $15 an hour in the US. But they might pay $8. But that can be fixed with either tariffs that tax a product or service to compensate for the lower wage rate, or it can simply be outlawed.
It's not our job or responsibility to make life better in Brazil, India, or any where else.

One of the tech companies my work contracts with is moving a call center out of India because of too many complaints about them being unable to speak coherent English.

[Coito ergo sum]

As I said before. The corporations DO create jobs. EXCEPT THEY ARE NOT IN USA. They are creating jobs in third world countries for cheap labor which makes them more money (then they find a way not to be taxed on it) and then have the GALL to bring the product back here for us to buy.

In many places the "cheap labor" is still paid far higher than what those other countries are used to. Take India, for example, and all of the telephone customer service companies that are set up over there. They welcome those jobs, and what is considered "cheap" here makes people wealthy there.

In many countries, like Brazil for example, a business can pay a high Brazilian wage and still be paying a very low American wage. That's because in Brazil about 1/2 the population makes less than $800 a month. So, offer them $1000 a months, and you'd have people beating a path to your door, and you'd be improving their wages by 25%.

But that causes downward wage pressure in your home country. If they can pay $2 an hour in India, they aren't going to pay $15 an hour in the US. But they might pay $8. But that can be fixed with either tariffs that tax a product or service to compensate for the lower wage rate, or it can simply be outlawed.
It's not our job or responsibility to make life better in Brazil, India, or any where else.

One of the tech companies my work contracts with is moving a call center out of India because of too many complaints about them being unable to speak coherent English.

The thing about outlawing it, is that that just hurts the US. The US can't outlaw businesses in India or Brazil. So, if American companies can't go there to hire less expensive workers, then Brazilian and Indian companies will hire less expensive Brazilian and Indian workers and they'll just import the products to the US. It is just not practical to ban imports, and nobody will ever do it. If you do it, then they do it. And, again, that will just hurt the US because without exports, our way of life is untenable.

I don't think it's our responsibility to help India and Brazil. I think it's in our interest to have wages equalized to some extent at least, because the fact of the matter is that we can't stop third world nations from developing. And, when third world nations develop, industries develop there. And, when industries develop there, they seek to sell their products in other countries because they can make more money. That's the reality, and it will not change and it can not practically be outlawed.

[Robert_S]

It is a total lie that the wealthy "create the jobs." Jobs existed in villages when there was not a large discrepancy in wealth (well such distinctions arose, but were not required for jobs to exist.) The notion of worshiping the rich is a horrible perversion of the free market stance, that sees wealth as the virtue, rather than as something to be obtained through hard work and other virtues. I stand by the assertion that government micromanagement and over regulation (often at the behest of the wealthy) destroys jobs by creating artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace. This is the ideology of corporatism attempting to pass itself off as capitalism, and I'll have no part of it.

Yep. If I can afford more lawyers and accountants than the competition; then it is in my interest to lobby for increased regulations and miscellaneous hoops to jump through to the point where they are swamped, but I can still manage.

If I have a chain of gas stations and you have one, I can afford to replace my underground tank, but you probably can't. I wonder why a lot of independent gas stations went under in the US in the early '90s?

[Svartalf]

New standards for tanks?

[Robert_S]

New standards for tanks?

Maybe they were necessary, maybe not. But they were an example of how regulations can work for the benefit of larger corporations.

[Seth]

Rich people secrete jobs like aphids secrete honeydew. Just ask Seth.

Flourishing industries create meaningful numbers of jobs.

So, the equation is simple, if the government wants to facilitate the creation of jobs, it ought to do what it can to facilitate the expansion of industries. By way of a general mission statement, that would mean determining which industries are potentially expandable, and then figuring out ways in which such industries can be helped so as to compete against international competition.

While it may not be the case that a modest tax increase will not significantly harm an industry, it is certainly the case that tax increases do not help an industry.

Bah, you'll be advocating a centrally-planned socialist command economy next

No. The central-planners are invariably lacking in sufficient knowledge or information to make and carry out a good plan.

And it is just as true that government invariably lacks sufficient knowledge or information to "determine which industries are potentially expandable." Any such attempt will fail miserably on both ignorance and corruption grounds.

Government's sole legitimate role in the free marketplace is to act as a policeman and regulate trade so that it is not fraudulent and does not create an initiation of force against any of the participants in the transaction (or anyone else for that matter), and to criminally punish those who initiate force or fraud in commerce.