Short lesson in Economics for Socilaists

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

And in order to expand you have to have capital and in order to have capital you have to have profit or at least show that you can earn a profit.

In order to have customers, customers have to have jobs. In order for Customers to have jobs, businesses have to have profits.

Government can create jobs, but it can not sustain growth and jobs, because it does not create profit.

It's really simple.

P.S. New figures show today that we are back to the poverty figures we had before Liberals started the War on Poverty, NICE JOB.

[Dan J 277]

And in order to expand you have to have capital and in order to have capital you have to have profit or at least show that you can earn a profit.

In order to have customers, customers have to have jobs. In order for Customers to have jobs, businesses have to have profits.

Government can create jobs, but it can not sustain growth and jobs, because it does not create profit.

It's really simple.

P.S. New figures show today that we are back to the poverty figures we had before Liberals started the War on Poverty, NICE JOB.

At the moment, businesses have massive profits and cash (In the order of Trillions), where are the jobs? Think your missing something in your equation.

[mawilson 2,133]

At the moment, businesses have massive profits and cash (In the order of Trillions), where are the jobs? Think your missing something in your equation.

They are not firing people, are they? Be grateful.

[Dan J 277]

They are not firing people, are they? Be grateful.

So?, The argument is that profit for companies = jobs. Companies, especially large ones have a lot of cash on hand. But their job creation rate is been very anemic.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So?, The argument is that profit for companies = jobs. Companies, especially large ones have a lot of cash on hand. But their job creation rate is been very anemic.

I can only tell you for myself as a small business owner of twenty years that has seen many business acquaintances close their doors over the last five years. As long as Congress waits until the lame duck session every two years to pass legislation with members that are no longer accountable to the people that put them in office, there won't be any new jobs. When Congress finally passes a tax package that sets the tax rates in stone for the next ten years or so, then businesses can make the adjustments for sustained growth. In the meantime, all we can do is preserve capital and keep the doors open. Beyond that, there is no incentive to take any chances. Why put your capital at risk, when you have no idea what stupid ####### the fools on the hill will come up with next.

[mawilson 2,133]

So?, The argument is that profit for companies = jobs. Companies, especially large ones have a lot of cash on hand. But their job creation rate is been very anemic.

The real answer is, we can no longer increase productivity while maintaining a high material standard of living.

To stay competitive in an increasingly global marketplace, businesses must find ways to increase productivity.

Yet, productivity growth has hit the wall - since the last round of layoffs, companies have run out of ways to increase productivity from leaner workforces.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So?, The argument is that profit for companies = jobs. Companies, especially large ones have a lot of cash on hand. But their job creation rate is been very anemic.

That's because revenues are not keeping pace with what businesses are expected to earn and return to investors. Revenues aren't keeping pace because aggregate demand weakens in light of falling employment and real wages. In the short term, you can squeeze more out of less - that's what is happening now - but that is not sustainable in the long run. In the long run, demand needs to increase in order to grow revenues. Good luck increasing demand while the majority of the country continues to take home less income. It can't work no matter how rich you make the few on the very top. That's economy 101.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[mawilson 2,133]

Good luck increasing demand while the majority of the country continues to take home less income.

Demand is global. Sell your products to other countries, and you've done just that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Demand is global.

So is production - by and large it tends to move closer to where the demand is unless it is feasible and there is a cost advantage to produce far away.

[mawilson 2,133]

So is production - by and large it tends to move closer to where the demand is unless it is feasible and there is a cost advantage to produce far away.

There is a cost advantage to produce in the US - we have the cheapest energy in the world! The cheapest oil, cheapest natural gas and cheapest gasoline.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There is a cost advantage to produce in the US - we have the cheapest energy in the world! The cheapest oil, cheapest natural gas and cheapest gasoline.

And yet, consumer demand is not keeping pace because real wages keep falling - despite healthy productivity gains. That's the imbalance that needs to be addressed if we want to see jobs created here.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There is a cost advantage to produce in the US - we have the cheapest energy in the world! The cheapest oil, cheapest natural gas and cheapest gasoline.

Let the government pick up the tab for healthcare, pass tort reform, and eliminate workman's compensation costs, we could also have the cheapest labor costs per unit produced as well.

And yet, consumer demand is not keeping pace because real wages keep falling - despite healthy productivity gains. That's the imbalance that needs to be addressed if we want to see jobs created here.

Wages may be falling, but labor costs are increasing. Cut labor costs, and wages could be increasing.

[Dan J 277]

Let the government pick up the tab for healthcare, pass tort reform, and eliminate workman's compensation costs, we could also have the cheapest labor costs per unit produced as well.

Wages may be falling, but labor costs are increasing. Cut labor costs, and wages could be increasing.

So in other words, you need to cut jobs to pay people more, but if you end up with more people competing for the same jobs the wages will stay low. Who is going to create jobs again?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So in other words, you need to cut jobs to pay people more, but if you end up with more people competing for the same jobs the wages will stay low. Who is going to create jobs again?

You missed that point. If you ever had to make a payroll, you would know that the costs are more than what you pay in wages. Eliminate or reduce those costs, then you can afford to pay more in wages. The government has made it so that employees are not even aware of the contributions the employer has to make on their behalf. If you wonder why the employee portion for healthcare keeps going up, it is because the cost to the employer is going up. Add to that the employer's matching contribution for FICA, Unemployment Insurance, Workman's Compensation Insurance, Liability Insurance, etc., that doesn't leave much for actual wages.

[Dan J 277]

You missed that point. If you ever had to make a payroll, you would know that the costs are more than what you pay in wages. Eliminate or reduce those costs, then you can afford to pay more in wages. The government has made it so that employees are not even aware of the contributions the employer has to make on their behalf. If you wonder why the employee portion for healthcare keeps going up, it is because the cost to the employer is going up. Add to that the employer's matching contribution for FICA, Unemployment Insurance, Workman's Compensation Insurance, Liability Insurance, etc., that doesn't leave much for actual wages.

A company could pay more in wages, but why would they?