Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Spending money creates jobs. ( Econ 101 )

Posted 10 years ago on Jan. 25, 2012, 10:08 p.m. EST by BackRider (83)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The poor spend nearly100% of what they earn.

While the rich only spend a small portion of their earnings.

Who creates the most jobs?

18 Comments

18 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 10 years ago

More simplistic "logic." When one group controls most of the wealth, it controls the economy and determines how those they control must behave barring revolution.

Occupy,

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

BackRider summed up, rather elegantly, I think, the foundation of Keyensian economics. It is a good and accurate response to the right wing insisting that the wealthy should not be taxed because they are the job creators.

That is in no way in conflict with the understanding that wealth equals power.

Demand grows the economy and leads to job creation. Vast wealth controls how that economy is distributed and who benefits.

I therefore don't understand why you respond to the OP with hostility. It seems to me that you are both on the same side.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 10 years ago

Hostility? No, laughter, he or she makes the point for Occupy.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Perhaps I misunderstood. You wrote "more simplistic logic". You must have meant "Here is some additional SIMPLE logic." (Simplistic is derogatory, and not usually applied to a point one is making in support.)

Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 10 years ago

I like your logic

[-] 1 points by BackRider (83) 10 years ago

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

Though indirectly, compared to the rich, poor contribute a higher percentage of their income towards creating demand and job creation.

[-] 1 points by nikko (62) 10 years ago

There is only one reason a company increases employment. And that is an increase of demand (meaning the desire and ability to buy goods) or an expected increase in demand. American companies are now sitting an all time record cash level of $2 trillion dollars. Are they hiring? Of course not. What company takes on new workers to stand around? These last few decades we have been on this 'supply side" kick thinking if we give more and more tax breaks and subsidies to companies they will hire. There is actually a glut of investment capital now. Besides the cash companies have on hand interest rates are at an all time low. This whole situation is not new, we were in the same place in the 1930's. And to suggest companies will invest in R and D - no, they won't if demand is down. Historically the private sector does not do basic R and D. Studies repeatedly show that about 80 % of basic R and D are done by the public sector. Some examples are the computer - which was made by the private sector only after decades after prototypes were done at universities. Other examples' the internet and GPS. T

Also, today's rich are so rich that additional income does not translate to increased demand because they have all they need or want.

[-] 1 points by BradinUtah (32) 10 years ago

The rich, obviously. Private sector investments fuel job growth. I have never been hired by a poor person.

[-] 2 points by BackRider (83) 10 years ago

You hire a contractor to build your house. The contractor hires employees. Who created the work ? You or the contractor.

The person whom spends the money creates the work.

Poor people spend 100% of their earnings ( nearly) creating the most jobs possible. In fact it was the poor whom took out the loans that created the boom.

[-] 0 points by CatLady2 (248) from New York, NY 10 years ago

If you are using the analogy of the contractor vs the customer who is creating the jobs, yes you are correct. Without the paying customer, us contractors don't have work. However, it's is not the poor who are/were building, remodeling or renovating thier homes. The loans made ,were not to those without the means to pay those loans back, but rather the ones who could. Home equity loans were not given as freely as the sub prime mortgages. Different animal entirely.

[-] 1 points by BackRider (83) 10 years ago

The rich don't need loans.

[-] 1 points by CatLady2 (248) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Well then define rich and poor for me. Cause my clients are not 1%ers and they are not poor. Upper middle class is more like it.

[-] 1 points by BackRider (83) 10 years ago

Spending money creates demand; creates jobs. The poor spend nearly every penny they earn. If the rich would spend every penny they earned than the economy would not be in recession.

Define rich and poor? Was that a serious question !

[-] 1 points by CatLady2 (248) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Of course it is a serious question. There is not just 2 levels of income in this country. It is not just the uber wealthy and the poor. Of course plenty are struggling, but there is also a good number who are comfortable and they are spending. Not as casually as they may have 5 or 6 yrs ago, but they are. They are weighing out what is more important.. a new car or a new roof. If the poor spend everything like you claim, then they are not prioritizing thier spending.
Why in the world would the wealthy spend everything they have? Makes no sense.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 10 years ago

who bought the products that the rich got rich off of? and dont say they are shopping at walmart, best buy, target, or the dollar store or buying cars that cost under 40k. thats where the poor people spend

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 10 years ago

the rich hire people in China. Small business, a part of the 99% hires Americans

[-] 1 points by BackRider (83) 10 years ago

I see your point.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 10 years ago

A person who has nothing can buy nothing. So, what gives that person the opportunity to "acquire" or "sell" something "labor" and "knowledge"