When poor people start creating jobs....lemme know.

Already happened, ElV. And you know it, and I know you know it, because you've been hanging around here long enough.

When poor people get money, they buy more things. That makes jobs for the people who make and sell those things.

I also remain convinced that this is why American music (and film) currently s*ck. There is a reason why we have all these teeny-bopper singers - they are on their parent's health plans!

Meanwhile, Brits with their gov't health plan are able to put in a few years being full-time artists, getting to the point where they are really good.

When the only people who can afford to be artists are trustifarians, we all lose.

Repeating a point I made at Matt's yesterday...

More anecdotally, surveys show that workers say their health benefits are the number one reason they fear losing their jobs.

The Cheap-Labor Conservatives that dominated our economic policy-making for years see this as a feature, not a bug.

Already happened, ElV.

So which poor person set up a business and hired you?

Rich people should be happy about this tradeoff. They get to pay lower wages to the people they hire, and they get to hire the best possible person for every job they create, rather than whoever they can afford to insure this month. As a result, they stand to make a lot more money.

Here's a question: One of the reasons wages have remained flat for so long is the astronomically rising cost of health care, forcing businesses to increase their payouts for benefits in order to retain talented employees and preventing them from expanding their employment base. Now, let us, for the sake of argument, accept the flawed premise that higher taxes on the mid-six figure earners and above will lead them to weigh the costs of expanding businesses. If, however, those higher taxes come with relieving most or even all costs of providing the health care benefit, isn't that raising their businesses revenue? That is, the $10,000 - 15,000 a year my employer spends per employee on health care benefits will net them the capacity to expand the workforce (if they so choose) by as much as 25% (less, really, factoring in operations and plant costs, but you get the picture).

Seriously, what possible excuse do people have for engaging in this idiotic zero-sum rhetoric? Have they never run a business?

So which poor person set up a business and hired you?

Did you not freaking read the rest of his comment? Poor people tend to live paycheck-to-paycheck, spending what they have. When people spend, it stimulates job growth as service industries, retailers, and manufacturers grow to meet increased demand from spending. Ergo, jobs are created.

That's like Economics 1A, dude. Screw that, it's one freaking semester of high school economics

Raising taxes on the rich will retard job creation. Why, Mr. Obama, do you hate jobs?

ElV and others like him confuse actions taken by the rich (or people managing their money) with the impact of policy decisions that affect the rich.

The rich do start businesses and hire people... when they see that there are some consumers that want to buy a product they could produce. They do *not* start businesses and hire people just because they have some money lying around, which would be a great way to stop being rich.

If the market is there, the financing can be produced regardless of whether taxes on the rich are 36%, 39% or even higher - financing a project that is likely to make a profit is something the market is very good at and will reliably succeed at. If the market is not there, nobody will invest in an attempt to serve it no matter how much money is burning a hole in their pocket.

In fact, it's precisely the abundance of funds in the hands of people with a low propensity to consume (thus, looking for places to invest it) combined with a *weak consumer market* that deprives them of good investment opportunities that led to the string of speculative asset bubbles. Too much investment-dedicated money chasing too few business opportunities.

Broad-based economic growth like the postwar boom starts by improving real income at all levels of the income distribution - then businesses start up to serve the growing demand.

Dear Billy Elliott,

I understand what you are saying, but you don't seem to understand that poor people don't hire anyone and why you think they are the enemy is beyond me.

Every job I had was given to me by someone that was not poor. Sure, the poor spend what you hand them...and then it's gone...unsustainable.

However, if you help small businesses, you help them create sustainable,/b> jobs. Ya' know, jobs that will still be there when the government teat dries up.

If you think handing out checks to the poor has the same impact as sustainable jobs from the private sector, you've got a screw loose.

El Viajero: the poor spend what you hand them...and then it's gone...unsustainable

Fascinating monetary theory - once money is spent it disappears. None of that silly idea that the person who receives the money then takes it and spends or invests it elsewhere.

I'll assume that the rest of your economic insights are as novel and useful.

Remember, Viajero thinks that "poor people" (we all know what he's picturing here) spend all their disposable income on crack.

He's just a bigoted slumlord who is happy to pick the pockets of the poor to line his own wallet, while cussing them out behind their backs.

Dear Billy Elliott,

You do realize that persistently calling me the name of a tap-dancing British adolescent invalidates any opinion you've ever had, right?

Ass.

I understand what you are saying, but you don't seem to understand that poor people don't hire anyone and why you think they are the enemy is beyond me.

Aside from a completely confusing sentence, wherein your second clause bears no relation to your first, you're being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe you're honestly dumb. Either one disqualifies you from participating.

If you think handing out checks to the poor has the same impact as sustainable jobs from the private sector, you've got a screw loose.

Let me explain a basic cycle here, known throughout the universe as "so obvious a twelfth-grade education is sufficient to grasp it:" Poor person A receives an assistance subsidy, perhaps the EITC, perhaps GA. Poor person A, needing some warm clothes for his or her family, purchases them. Poor person A and his or her many many cohorts, by spending this money immediately, increase demand for warm clothes. Retailer B says " I need more warm clothes!" and places an order with Producer C. Producer C says, "Holy cow, I need to expand productivity!" and hires more workers. Poor Person A, having been looking for a new or better job, is hired by Producer C, and his or her paycheck allows him or her to buy warm clothes, pet monkeys, and food without requiring public assistance. "Hooray!" cry Person A, Retailer B, and Producer C, and go on their merry way.

I can diagram it with stick figures if you prefer.

Just remember when you rely on the government to provide your health insurance the government assumes two rights. The right to deny you certain healthcare if the government deems the procedure is not "cost effective". And the government has the right to control what you eat and how much you exercise, because these decisions effect your medical costs.

Jay,
In that situation - assuming that one is on the public plan under consideration, rather than in an individual or employer-provided plan - the government controls MORE INCENTIVES related to (healthier) diet and (more) exercise. It already provides agriculture subsidies. In the meantime, employers and HMOs control the incentives...that's preferable why?

Ezra,
Don't you think that assuaging the foremost fear of American workers regarding their employment would be a timely boon to resolving this economic mess?

So,

Is there anyone who will stand up and say that handing checks to the poor is just as good as creating sustainable jobs in the private sector?

Equivalent?

Beacause Mr. Elliot's eloquent description of the economy contracts as soon as you quit handing out checks to the poor and they quit spending.

Beacause Mr. Elliot's eloquent description of the economy contracts as soon as you quit handing out checks to the poor and they quit spending.

Only if you ignore the part where they're the ones that historically take the jobs that expand the quickest -- retail and manufacturing -- jobs that are self-reinforcing because they, like the rest of us, don't stop consuming. Ergo, the "handing out checks to the poor" -- do you not understand what the EITC is? -- leads to sustainable jobs.

To reiterate: Moron.

http://www.wowpowerleveling.me

Or "The governor of the People's Bank of China said today that he fears US inflation will erode the value of US treasuries purchased by China" instead of "China fears that US inflation will erode the value of US treasuries purchased by China". One way to close off discussions and set up roadblocks is to attribute thoughts and feelings to anything other than actual people

my wow gold cheapest wow power leveling

Today,i bought a new Replica Watches. 064

TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac