• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'

Redress said:
Another thread on this, and as pointed out in that thread, it is a quote taken out of context. She is referring to "trickle down economics", or as it is referred to now since trickle down failed, "supply side economics"
Click to expand...

Her statement is false at face value. It doesn't matter what she says after it, the statement is false. What's more, she knows it's false and knew it was false when she said it. At least she's smart enough to backpeddle from it once she got caught. Apparently, her supporters aren't.
 
lifeisshort said:
If you have no job and no money you demand nothing. If you have a job created by business you have money and you demand goods and services your attempt to put the cart ahead of the horse is nuts
Click to expand...

This is obviously false. Whether you have a job or not, you still have demands for at least the basic necessities--food, water, shelter, medicine, etc. People are typically willing to give up anything of value which they possess, including (importantly) time and labor, to secure those. That's how economies get started. People work the land to create food and other raw materials. In extreme cases, people are willing to risk their lives to secure them. That's how economies crash and revolutions happen, incidentally.

The point, then, is that unless those with jobs are paid a wage which takes care of necessities and then provides enough room to spend more, the economy begins a downward spiral. Less demand, fewer positions maintained and overall fewer businesses keep their doors open. Which leads to even less demand, rinse and repeat.

The problem of economics is the problem of navigating between Scilla and Charibdis. On the one hand, pure competition leads to all the money in the hands of a very few, and pretty soon there is no economy because there are only so many cars, televisions, and yachts those few can use. On the other hand, pure cooperation leads to complacency and stagnation. Wealth is diminished because people aren't working as hard to produce resources.

There's an easy way to tell which is happening. If real unemployment is rising, and thus demand is destroyed because fewer people have money, then we've steered too close to Charibdis, the downward spiral created by going too far on the competition end of the scale. If, instead, demand is destroyed because, though everyone has a job, overall wealth in the society is diminished due to fewer resources being produced, then we've sailed too close to Scilla, the monster of complacency created by going too far to the cooperation end of the scale.

It seems pretty clear to me which is the case in contemporary America, and hence what we should do about it.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
This is obviously false. Whether you have a job or not, you still have demands for at least the basic necessities--food, water, shelter, medicine, etc. People are typically willing to give up anything of value which they possess, including (importantly) time and labor, to secure those. That's how economies get started. People work the land to create food and other raw materials. In extreme cases, people are willing to risk their lives to secure them. That's how economies crash and revolutions happen, incidentally.

The point, then, is that unless those with jobs are paid a wage which takes care of necessities and then provides enough room to spend more, the economy begins a downward spiral. Less demand, fewer positions maintained and overall fewer businesses keep their doors open. Which leads to even less demand, rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...
This is only true if people aren't willing or able to provide labor that is of value to someone else. If we all aspire to be fast food workers, then the "downward spiral" is well deserved.
 
Taylor said:
This is only true if people aren't willing or able to provide labor that is of value to someone else. If we all aspire to be fast food workers, then the "downward spiral" is well deserved.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence seems to contradict your second sentence.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, my response would be twofold:

First, that is one flaw (among many) in any purely capitalist system. Second, that very few people aspire to be nothing other than low-end labor.
 
There is an identical thread on the Government Spending and Debt forum. These should be merged.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Second, that very few people aspire to be nothing other than low-end labor.
Click to expand...
Correct. Very few people aspire to work just to subsist. They will work harder and/or smarter and therefore make enough money to buy things they want. Thus, no "downward spiral."
 
What does Hillary know anyway? She's never had a job working for a business day in and day out, try to climb the ladder to some level of security. Trickle down economy doesn't create jobs for the most part - but not because Hillary said so.
 
jmotivator said:
"Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs"

So tell me the context that shows she didn't mean what that says.
Click to expand...

Exactly, what possible context do you need to know what that means?

It's like saying 'Humans cannot breath oxygen'. It does not matter what context you say it, it is still wrong.


Demand is an emotion and emotions CANNOT create jobs, only human beings can create jobs.

And outside of government and private citizens (hiring a maid, for example), only a business can create a job.


Hilary Clinton's above statement is clear and it is 100% erroneous and completely ridiculous - no matter what context she said it in.

Businesses create the jobs and then fill them. The reason underlying the business decision might be to fulfill an anticipated demand (among other underlying reasons like filling quotas, union demands, etc.). But the business actually created and hired the individual to fill the job.

Saying an emotion like 'demand' creates jobs is absolute nonsense - just as silly as the 'War on Terror' (you cannot make war against an emotion). Emotions create nothing. Only human beings can create jobs.
 
Last edited:
Lovebug said:
I think you misunderstand the concept of demand. Yes, a private sector company creates jobs, but only when a demand for their product exists. If no one wants what they have to offer, they do not need workers to produce the product. Ergo, the non producing workers won't have a job and nothing to trickle back into the economy.
Click to expand...
Not true. Workers usually must be hired and paid prior to the production of any product or service and indepently of whether sufficient demand exists to make a profit.
 
Taylor said:
Correct. Very few people aspire to work just to subsist. They will work harder and/or smarter and therefore make enough money to buy things they want. Thus, no "downward spiral."
Click to expand...

This assumes too much, which anyone can easily see by noticing that we are in fact in the early stages of such a downward spiral. U6 (which is close to real unemployment) is running somewhere around 12-15%. That's definitely lower than it was at the recent peak in 2009-10, but still far too high. It's a simple matter of fact that our economy is struggling, as are many others. And the reason why is because fewer people are working--fewer are able to find work--and so there are fewer customers.

What's wrong with your analysis is the assumption that people can just get what they want in terms of income and wealth. In an economy with a virtuous cycle, this is mostly true. It's false in the kind of economy we have now. Again, this is just pretty obvious. Why would it be the case that, suddenly, some 15% of the workforce would just decide to not work and live ramshackle lives, when just a few years ago, those same people were making very different decisions? The leap from one to the other doesn't make any sense.

Being in a downward spiral isn't necessarily a one-way trip. It's possible to get out. But it requires giving up some cherished-but-false dogmas about how economies work.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
What's wrong with your analysis is the assumption that people can just get what they want in terms of income and wealth.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I think your analysis assumes that workers are wholly dependent on their employers, that employers do not have to compete for workers, and that people won't get what they want simply because it doesn't happen overnight.

Why would it be the case that, suddenly, some 15% of the workforce would just decide to not work and live ramshackle lives, when just a few years ago, those same people were making very different decisions? The leap from one to the other doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
This is a direct or indirect effect of the housing bubble, not because people weren't being paid sufficiently by their employers and therefore did not have enough money to buy things.
 
Taylor said:
On the contrary, I think your analysis assumes that workers are wholly dependent on their employers, that employers do not have to compete for workers, and that people won't get what they want simply because it doesn't happen overnight.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that?

Taylor said:
This is a direct it indirect effect of the housing bubble, not because people weren't being paid sufficiently by their employers and therefore did not have enough money to buy things.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point.
 
Taylor said:
Not true. Workers usually must be hired and paid prior to the production of any product or service and indepently of whether sufficient demand exists to make a profit.
Click to expand...


and especially on a NEW product that the business has no idea on what the demand will actually be

do you think Steve Jobs knew he would sell 100 million ipods when he first created them?

hell....do you think he thought he could sell 20k of them?

sometimes we dont know we need or want a product until it has been marketed.....

well...employees had to design it, build it, market it, and sell it

the product created the demand.....the demand didnt create the product or the jobs
 
lifeisshort said:
This is one of those WOW just WOW moments. Could this leftist really be our next pres?

"Appearing at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.”

“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs,” Clinton said.

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'
Click to expand...

Hillary's absolutely right: demand creates jobs; businesses and corporations have been sending those jobs overseas.
 
jet57 said:
Hillary's absolutely right: demand creates jobs; businesses and corporations have been sending those jobs overseas.
Click to expand...

Demand is an emotion...emotions cannot create anything.

Only a human can create jobs.

Hilary is wrong...and her context is irrelevant; her statement is factually impossible.
 
jet57 said:
Hillary's absolutely right: demand creates jobs; businesses and corporations have been sending those jobs overseas.
Click to expand...

How far do you get when you hook the horse to the rear of the wagon and try to make it push
 
lifeisshort said:
This is one of those WOW just WOW moments. Could this leftist really be our next pres?

"Appearing at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.”

“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs,” Clinton said.

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'
Click to expand...

On the plus side...she doesn't believe it. She is pandering.
 
3 points...

1) Is anybody shocked at all that Hillary's comment got turned into a sound bite? I'm not... context or none both parties do this RAMPANTLY...
2) Do I agree with her with the context? Nope
3) Do I understand her position? I think I do. But in practice I've found the strategy not only penalizing to the corporations that deserve it, but they also have a tendency to bite the smaller businesses that aren't. Republicans tend not to do enough to balance it even though their rhetoric tends to center around that concept. This is of course ignoring what people's opinions of either party is.

In essence, I don't like distorting what people say when the policies in practice do enough to make the statement, but people are alarmists sometimes making rational discussions of those issues difficult to mediate
 
Every company I ever worked for created more jobs when there was more demand for their product or service they provided than they could currently handle.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Every company I ever worked for created more jobs when there was more demand for their product or service they provided than they could currently handle.
Click to expand...

But they did create the jobs. Thank you for verifying that Hillary is an idiot.
 
KLATTU said:
But they did create the jobs. Thank you for verifying that Hillary is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Hillary may be a lot of things, but she is not an idiot. Its obvious what she meant is that demand creates jobs. No successful business just hires a bunch of people with the notion that demand will magically appear. Nor do they just hire a bunch of people because they got a tax break. Companies hire more employees when they can no longer increase the productivity levels of their current workforce to service the demand for the goods and services that company provides.
 
The real truth of the matter is that you'll not be creating very many jobs without both demand and business.

That Hillary doubled down on such a ridiculous assertion that jobs aren't created by business does in fact show her to be pandering. Pandering to the far left, business hating part of the electorate. Like some of those that have posted here and made themselves be known. Something about an oral fixation and business if I recall.

Without a thriving and growing business segment an economy is sure to flounder and fail. Just have to look at what Communist Russia's economic performance.

Without demand, you've got nothing to drive business to invest and expand. So you can't really do without that either. Just look at the lagging demand of any recession, and you can see the downward economic spiral (demand lags, businesses lay off people, more demand lags, more businesses lay off people, lather, rinse, repeat).

The reverse work equally well. Demand increases, businesses invest and grow, creating even more demand, lather, rinse, repeat. And upward economic spiral.

The real pity here is that some some can't come to grips with the fact that both demand and business are required for the upward economic spiral, and pretty much give in to their partisan ideology and ignore that real facts here.

Further, it's also a real pity that some are so pro-union, that they seem to propound the crippling of business in favor of the union so much so that the business would die. I guess they've never come to the realization that the two are co-dependent, and that without one, you won't long have the other; that the Union in fact relies on the business to be there, healthy and profitable, so as to be able to afford union labor.

In both cases, it's a reasonably fair and reasonably equitable balance that it the best of all situations. Tilting too far from that reasonably fair and reasonably equitable balance and one of the parties involved will start to die, and directly affect the other with great detriment.
 
Kanzaki said:
3 points...

1) Is anybody shocked at all that Hillary's comment got turned into a sound bite? I'm not... context or none both parties do this RAMPANTLY...
2) Do I agree with her with the context? Nope
3) Do I understand her position? I think I do. But in practice I've found the strategy not only penalizing to the corporations that deserve it, but they also have a tendency to bite the smaller businesses that aren't. Republicans tend not to do enough to balance it even though their rhetoric tends to center around that concept. This is of course ignoring what people's opinions of either party is.

In essence,
I don't like distorting what people say
Click to expand...
when the policies in practice do enough to make the statement, but people are alarmists sometimes making rational discussions of those issues difficult to mediate
Click to expand...

There was no distortion.
She knows she effed up and she walked it back pretty quickly.
 
VanceMack said:
On the plus side...she doesn't believe it. She is pandering.
Click to expand...
Pandering? You bet. But she'll believe it in the Primaries.
One thing is certain, she's the ersatz version of the Dem currently at the top of the heap and she doesn't like that reality one bit.
 
This is pretty cool ...
and she still had to keep glancing at her notes.
Just like with the Corporations don't create jobs silliness.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom