Funny thing about that. Demand for high price coffee diminished because of the crisis, and Starbucks closed stores. Cite in case you didn’t remember.
Now good capitalists find demand where no one else noticed it, and make money. But plenty of others think there is demand where there isn’t (for instance on-line pet stores) and lose money. And if general demand goes down, it is a bad time to start anything except in certain markets that still have demand - like dollar stores.
Given the high level of business sense shown here, you should wish for those high capital gain taxes that kick in without any gain, because if you actually started any businesses you would all lose your shirts.
If the job creators could just get together with the undocumented workers, I am sure they could achieve synergies to customer-centrically drive innovation and enhance quality. Then George Orwell’s corpse would explode.
I’ve only been discussing the premise of this thread. A job doesn’t create itself, there must be a job creator. So, it’s not some bullshit out-of-left-field term with no meaning–every single job was actually created by someone, and “job creator” seems like a decent descriptor of such person.
Ok, let’s assume for a moment that that is true. How do you get from that to “all wealthy people are job creators”? And by extension “non-wealthy people can’t be job creators”?
Nobody is arguing whether the term "job creators’ is a real term. The discussion is about who it is ascribed to. A blanket calling of wealthy people as “job creators’ is wrong. Lots of rich people have made money through mergers, which results in wholesale job destruction. Some made inherited money and have been sitting on piles of dough they had nothing to do with. Some are heads of corporations who have offshored thousands of jobs. Some have made a killing on the stock market . Others have made it buying and selling commodities. A few won the lottery.
Calling the wealthy” job creators’ is dishonest use of the term. Even a tiny little modifier like “some” would help take some of the propaganda out of it.
So consumers create demand for a product and then some businessman creates a job? No. The businessman creates an opening. All he’s doing is creating a demand for labor; it doesn’t become a job until someone steps up and agrees to do it.
I agree it’s bullshit to call every single rich person a “job creator.” But I don’t think anyone really uses the term that way. It’s more used in the sense of “raising taxes on wealthy people raises taxes on the job creators,” which is true (but it will also of course raises taxes on rich people who aren’t job creators).
Well, that’s true enough, but I don’t think it adds that much to the discussion really. Thanks though.
Oh please, let’s not play dumb here. The main reason the GOP is using this bullshit term is that they needed to find a palatable way of selling their opposition to tax hikes for the wealthy. Like I said earlier, “job creators” couldn’t reek anymore of being a cynical, committee conceived talking point if the words “brought to you by the RNC” flashed in big red letters on screen every time a politician said it. I have hard time believing even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives not seeing it for the crap that it is.
Just trying to turn your own argument back on you. Everyone plays a part in the economy. Consumers want something, which creates demand for a product. Someone notices that demand, and sets up or expands a company to provide the product, but needs employees to help him to do it. That creates demand for office and manufacturing space, HR staff, office furniture, machine tools, cars and gasoline for commuters. Then those needs create their own demand. And any of those employees may now look to hire a nanny, or a contractor to renovate their home.
I think it’s wrong to focus on just one step in the process, call them “job creators”, and treat everyone else as interchangeable cogs. And then to use that argument to justify special treatment for the mystical job creators.
Sure, for certain values of “many, many.” Are you willing to acknowledge that the vast majority of jobs were created by people making over $250k a year?
What’s my argument exactly? I’m not making an argument, I’m simply point out the bleeding obvious.
How have I treated anyone as an interchangeable cog?
And how do I want special treatment for “job creators”? We are discussing raising taxes on a certain group of people–if anyone is arguing for special treatment it’s those that want to raise taxes.
You may want to read the actual words in my posts instead of skimming and then spinning off your own ideas of what you believe I must be saying.
People who make over $250k/yr. are the people who’s taxes are potentially being raised. The GOP are fighting against it by disingenuously calling them “job creators.”
No business ever “created” any jobs in a vacuum. Consumers create demand, business reacts by hiring more employees. That is not “creating” a job. If a business were to start hiring employees in the absence of demand for their product or services, I might grant that does constitute job “creation”, as those jobs come out of nowhere. But that is not the normal economic cycle.
I never said that businesses create jobs in a vacuum–I’ve fully acknowledged the role of demand. But you keep refusing to acknowledge that demand by itself doesn’t create jobs–a job is created by someone in response to the demand. It’s not like the owner of a business shows up one day and there’s a new guy working there who says “yeah, so there’s more demand for your business’s products, so here I am.” If you raise taxes on the job creator, he may decide not to create a job even thogh there was an increase in demand (because the tax increase may make it unprofitable to do so).
It’s mathematically impossible for a tax increase to make a business unprofitable. The business pays tax on their profit. Raising a tax may make it somewhat less profitable, but it cannot make it unprofitable. If we were to believe the Reich Wingers, businessmen are quaking in their boots and not creating those jobs because they’re worried that they might only get to keep 72% of the profit instead of 75% (not correct numbers but you get the idea). In their infinite wisdom, those business owners decide that 100% of nothing is better than 72% of something. If you believe them, every single person makes every personal and business decision solely based on the effect on their taxes.