Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Supply and Demand is a failed philosophy.

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 8, 2011, 8:32 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverA (610)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There is a huge demand for jobs.

There is no supply of jobs.

Someone goofed up !

37 Comments

37 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

You have some truly bizarre ideas about economics. Seriously, take a class at a community college; they could clear some of this up for you in a semester or two.

Labor is supply, it takes demand for its utilization. Your concept is like Buick having demand to sell a car. No, Buick is available to SUPPLY a car. Demand is someone that wants one. Geesch, you need some serious work.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

s?he is an innovator. and s?he will probably be revered as a sage in the future. remember all innovators are laughed at and mocked in the here and now, to be put an a pedestal in the future. learn from the past or drown in your ideocrocy.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Ahh, another important part of economics. A community college would help you out with this part too. Economics is about exchange. You can demand all you like, but you need to pay for it. Supply at zero prices is zero.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Via socialism, yes. Via earning it, no.

Seriously, take a class. You have an interest in economics, but lack any concept of how it works. You have a gun, but just need a little help finding the target.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

No, they're really not. They're some disaffected 20-something goofs that have a deep neediness to belong to something. They're the same crew that comes out against world trade meetings, global warming or Tibet. Anyone who's gone to college recognizes the phenomenon. All the need is the cause, no matter how loopy.

Millions hungry? Not in this country. Hunger creates thinness. Only in America could people be so detached from hunger that they could claim a hunger problem amid an utter absence of thin people.

Demand creates supply when it's PAID FOR. I have demand for a boat. I'll pay nothing for it. Gosh, why isn't the boat supplied? Are you really this dense?

See, demand and supply balance at a PRICE. If the price is too low, the demand is there, but not the supply. If the price is too high, the supply is there, but not the demand.

You're just 2 nights a week for 8 weeks away from being able to get some of this stuff. Find a community college, take a class in economics. Don't talk, just listen.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

Me too!

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 12 years ago

GED precedes the Community College....I believe in this case, we are a step behind.

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Sure, maybe he has a few prerequisites to work through first, but at some point, that community college course could really do some good. LOL.

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 12 years ago

No doubt.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Adam Smith was more clever than you are. Yeah, a lot of people are poor. What of it? There's a huge supply of people devoid of skills. Is that a surprise to you? They may or may not want to offer their labor in the market. And if they do, they should know that labor is only one part of production. Offering your labor in some village in India is, you know, different than offering it here.

When you talk out loud, do you notice over the years that you get a lot of weird looks back? Take that economics class and find out why.

[-] 3 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

There is a huge supply of workers

There is little demand for them

So they're cheaper to hire.

Supply and demand.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

The markets will say if there is an over supply of a product it is a bad thing because over supply brings prices down. But really an over supply should be considered a good thing. More is better than less. More food more houses. More jobs.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 12 years ago

The theory of economics appears to display no common sense, but lots of rhetoric. "You get what you pay for" for example. The elders should state what their college education cost them. Harvard at today's community college prices. The appointing of pro corporation judges has worked out to be the best bang for their bucks, in election spending.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

Jobs are becoming obsolete, even Obama mentioned this last week.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/jobs-are-becoming-obsolete-due-to-advances-in-tech

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 12 years ago

There are jobs, the kind that can't be outsourced like gold mining and oil drilling on a rich man's land. They will enslave the country for gold and oil, amass great wealth, then ditch this enslaved country.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

Those jobs are becoming, or will become, automated.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 12 years ago

I hope so. But since we don't have manufacturing, I'm afraid it will be profitable to pay someone to sort gravel with their bare hands for grains of gold...

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 12 years ago

Green and clean energy, new infrastructure, R&D, stronger investment in better education, community projects, environmental conservation, etc.

There are plenty of jobs available 'if' the government, and most businesses weren't so set on spending trillions to maintain the status quo of the market.

Heck we can make jobs feeding the poor, and repairing relations with foreign nations rather than bombing the crap out of them. But such activities are dangerous to the sociopathic industries that arm and train militia in these nations before bombing them for-profit.

So there are plenty of high tech/sustainable/humane jobs that can be created but greed centered groups fight such practices tooth and nail.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/technology/latest-technology

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

As a "philosophy" I would have to agree.

But as an economic theory supply/demand still holds up pretty well when it is not being intentionally subverted by the 1% for their profiteering purposes.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 12 years ago

Brilliant observation!!!now why are those jobs not there?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Ask Adam smith , it's his plan.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

what does the 'A' at the end stand for?

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Jobs aren't the commodity, labor is the actual commodity. Right now there is a large supply of labor that exceeds the demand.

That being said, supply and demand is imperfect. An assumption of the model is that people behave and make decisions rationally. In many markets though there is irrational behavior,

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

A 2 nd point. Jobs do not exceed the demand. There are millions of people in need of food. The demand is " sky high

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

So they can go grow some food, or raise some food, or hunt some food.

And if there isn't enough food for everyone, some will have to die unfortunately.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I would say jobs and labor are the same thing. Unless you ment product being the actual commodity. Is demand a commodity?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Well I guess you could say that. Jobs have a much higher value now than in the past because they are tougher to come by

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Misfit138 (172) 12 years ago

I love General Tso's chicken.

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 12 years ago

Spicey. Yum. Go Chinaman Tso with all the msg. (panda express will have to do - mind you, a corporate 1 %). GONG!

[-] 0 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 12 years ago

General tso's chicken is good, but I might like orange better.

[-] -1 points by fandango (241) 12 years ago

the "A" stands for his sphincter.

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

Yes. The government attempted to fix a self regulating system. Just like in nature. More often than not what we try to fix by introducing a new species has completely unknown and devastating consequences.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

The government doesn't control supply and demand.

[-] 2 points by Misfit138 (172) 12 years ago

No, but the government saved failed companies with the bailout. If those companies were allowed to fail, as they should have, it would have allowed smaller firms to grow and take their place. The immediate impact would have hurt, but the long run sustainability would have been much more rewarding. As our government seems to be in the business of picking winners and losers in the economy, there is no incentive to have moral or ethical business practices when Uncle Sam seems to always be willing to ensure that those poor business practices are rewarded with low interest loans. The economy should have done a reset years ago, but the government (read politicians) value their jobs more than the long term health of the nation.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

It may have been wrong , but to sit back and do nothing. No one else was offering to help. Mostly they were sitting back hoping to scavenge the pieces. At least the government has honor.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

But business is heavily involved in the government?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Business is involved in a lot of things.