If business and industry doesn't create jobs, who does?

[Ishmael]

Well,............who?

Ishmael

 

[Busybody]

tooth fairy



btw, if they dont, why do they pay employment tax?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Senate.

 

[The_Trouvere]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there have nearly been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

I wonder if the deep thinkers on the right can explain why that is true.

 

[pete]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there have nearly been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

I wonder if the deep thinkers on the right can explain why that is true.

carter created more jobs than reagan?

lets see the deep thinking on that one

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there have nearly been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

I wonder if the deep thinkers on the right can explain why that is true.

The exact usefulness of these numbers is debated. On the one hand, they include only nonfarm payroll employment, which excludes certain types of jobs, notably the self-employed. However, as a semi-balancing factor, they count one person with two jobs as two employed persons.
Additionally, for at least the first eight months of a President's term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor (as well as an overall economy which may be in decline or recovery). The data in columns shown for September (in bold) correlate better with the federal fiscal year starting each October, showing the impact of a given president and resulting federal budget on the job count.
Moreover, according to the United States Constitution, the United States Congress is responsible for government spending and thus, regardless of Presidential advocacy, bears constitutional responsibility for such things as spending and tax policy that have enormous effects upon the economy. Furthermore, it is debatable how much effect any President realistically could have on a system as large, diverse, and complex as the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the nonfarm payrolls number is the one most frequently used in the media and by economists, largely because the alternative (household survey numbers) is thought to drastically overestimate employment.
Another factor to consider is population growth, which provides opportunities for the creation of jobs, rendering these figures less impressive, or in the case of the already subpar, clearly insufficient.
The Heritage Foundation has pointed to Alan Greenspan's general economic optimism (in 2004) as support for household survey numbers over payroll numbers. However, the subsequent downturn, and Greenspan's admission of having been wrong, may have discredited that view.
Wiki

Three things that you do not take into consideration.

Democrats engage in spending wastefully as I already pointed out to you and then Republicans inherit the mess and clean it up, only because they are not spendthrifts, the Democrats come into office benefitting from the new paradigm, which they immediately take a wrecking ball to, rinse, lather, repeat.

You also need to take in account who controls the House.

It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

You cannot explain anything theory-wise, all you can do is cherry-pick. Give us some actual Science like we do for you.

 

[miles]

Troover, go back to your action figures, comic books and stupid STF Miles photoshop pic.

 

[Ishmael]

The exact usefulness of these numbers is debated. On the one hand, they include only nonfarm payroll employment, which excludes certain types of jobs, notably the self-employed. However, as a semi-balancing factor, they count one person with two jobs as two employed persons.
Additionally, for at least the first eight months of a President's term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor (as well as an overall economy which may be in decline or recovery). The data in columns shown for September (in bold) correlate better with the federal fiscal year starting each October, showing the impact of a given president and resulting federal budget on the job count.
Moreover, according to the United States Constitution, the United States Congress is responsible for government spending and thus, regardless of Presidential advocacy, bears constitutional responsibility for such things as spending and tax policy that have enormous effects upon the economy. Furthermore, it is debatable how much effect any President realistically could have on a system as large, diverse, and complex as the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the nonfarm payrolls number is the one most frequently used in the media and by economists, largely because the alternative (household survey numbers) is thought to drastically overestimate employment.
Another factor to consider is population growth, which provides opportunities for the creation of jobs, rendering these figures less impressive, or in the case of the already subpar, clearly insufficient.
The Heritage Foundation has pointed to Alan Greenspan's general economic optimism (in 2004) as support for household survey numbers over payroll numbers. However, the subsequent downturn, and Greenspan's admission of having been wrong, may have discredited that view.
Wiki

Three things that you do not take into consideration.

Democrats engage in spending wastefully as I already pointed out to you and then Republicans inherit the mess and clean it up, only because they are not spendthrifts, the Democrats come into office benefitting from the new paradigm, which they immediately take a wrecking ball to, rinse, lather, repeat.

You also need to take in account who controls the House.

It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

You cannot explain anything theory-wise, all you can do is cherry-pick. Give us some actual Science like we do for you.

Let's just start with the largest implied fallacy of that article, that being that a president, any president is the source of all job creation. Or, as you have pointed out, government (the congress) is responsible.

The article also does nothing to explain how those numbers came about. Did they come about as the result of positive interference in the markets as a result of government actions or did they come about as a result of the government reducing its interference in the markets?

The discussion of results without any discussion of causation is pointless.

Ishmael

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

NBC created a job for Chelsea. NBC's a corporation.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let's just start with the largest implied fallacy of that article, that being that a president, any president is the source of all job creation. Or, as you have pointed out, government (the congress) is responsible.

The article also does nothing to explain how those numbers came about. Did they come about as the result of positive interference in the markets as a result of government actions or did they come about as a result of the government reducing its interference in the markets?

The discussion of results without any discussion of causation is pointless.

Ishmael

I really wanted to get into that one, but it was time to get Princess off to school, so I had to go fast'n furious...

 

[Busybody]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there have nearly been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

I wonder if the deep thinkers on the right can explain why that is true.

W inherited the CLITMAN recession AND the CLITMAN 9/11 terror attacks

 

[Ishmael]

I really wanted to get into that one, but it was time to get Princess off to school, so I had to go fast'n furious...

There's a job opening at DoJ.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If you look at the Obama numbers, they look great, but they came from deflated numbers due to a crash that the previous President attempted to stave off, but was defeated by the other party who reaped the political reward for their malfeasance. Additionally, there's no metric there to define if he added on full-time well-paying jobs or part-time, low end jobs and temp jobs thanks to the uncertainty he introduced into government...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

W inherited the CLITMAN recession AND the CLITMAN 9/11 terror attacks

And he got us out of them with tax cuts and then he went out under the crash that Barney Frank refused to head off...



For some people, politics are more important than the economy.

 

[PeteHulbert37]

For many here it is irrelevant. Mommy's meatloaf is where it's at.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There's a job opening at DoJ.

Ishmael

In the movie department?

 

[RobDownSouth]

If you look at the Obama numbers, they look great, but they came from deflated numbers due to a crash that the previous President attempted to stave off, but was defeated by the other party who reaped the political reward for their malfeasance.

Tinfoil hat revisionism.

Additionally, there's no metric there to define if he added on full-time well-paying jobs or part-time, low end jobs and temp jobs thanks to the uncertainty he introduced into government...

Move them goalposts, buddy.

 

[pete]

ha, no one incorporates fact-laden retorts into a simple eyeroll like you, rob.

 

[Ishmael]

If you look at the Obama numbers, they look great, but they came form deflated numbers due to a crash that the Previous President attempted to stave off, but was defeated by the other party who reaped the political reward for their malfeasance. Additionally, there's no metric there to define if he added on full-time well-paying jobs or part-time, low end jobs and temp jobs thanks to the uncertainty he introduced into government...

That's understood, but that discussion leads to an endless argument of who, in government, did what, when, and to what effect. And that argument is going to be slanted one way or another depending on which political doctrine the participant cleaves to.

So I'm going to start with some historical examples that are genuinely inarguable.

One man with one notion is responsible for the entire National Highway System and that individual is Henry Ford. While Henry is credited with many innovations, like the moving assembly line, it was an economic decision that set the snowball rolling down the hill. And that decision was to manufacture a product that every worker in his factory could afford to purchase. He paid his workers more that any other company in the business while at the same time bringing efficiency of manufacturing to a point where he could significantly reduce the price to the consumer.

The Model 'T' became a virtual commodity item, almost everyone could afford one so everyone wanted one. But the road net in the US was essentially shit. Except under ideal weather conditions you couldn't drive your new car anywhere in what would be considered a timely manner. The horse was still the more reliable mode of transportation. This created a demand on the public's part for all weather, convenient, road network. And that public was willing to pay the taxes necessary to build that network. (And this is a VERY important point. Without tax revenue the government can't do anything.) And it was Henry's decision to pay his workers more that created the tax base that could pay for that road net.

So the highway system that the current crop of statist's claim credit for was, in reality, all made possible by one man in one industry and was an after the fact result of that mans decision.

And to this day that is still true. If an Intel where to decide to build a manufacturing facility in the middle of a corn field in the middle of Nebraska you can bet your sweet ass that the government will build a 4 lane divided highway to Intel's front door to take advantage of the tax revenues that that facility will provide to the state coffers. And you can also bet your sweet ass that no state is going to build a 4 lane divided highway to that corn field in the middle of nowhere in the hopes that an Intel will come along and build a plant.

All of the facilities and services that the government likes to take credit for all came about after the fact. Without the tax revenue base to pay for all of those facilities and services they would just not exist at all. And those that believe otherwise probably spend every available waking moment watching "Field of Dreams" over, and over, and over again.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

... when it comes to Mrs. Warren and Mr. Obama's "you didn't build that" speeches, history can tear that down, and their history is only going back a certain amount of years when it fits what they want to do. If you were to go back just a little bit further in history, there were roads before there were automobiles. These roads were generally graded by the people. Farming is an industry. My grandfather was a farmer. He graded the roads he needed to get to market.

Schools at that time were one room schoolhouses. The landowners in a four-mile section were the ones that built the school, they hired the schoolteacher to educate their children. They picked the curriculum. It wasn't until the government stepped in and said, "You're not going to do that anymore. We know better than you, and all students are gonna go by our state curriculum," and took them schools away. These are the schools that educated the greatest generation. There was industry then and the government wasn't involved in any of the aspects, including fire. On our farm, we still have a fire tank. We haven't used it in years because we have a volunteer fire department that has better equipment now, but back in the day, each farmer had one of these tanks. When the fire whistle went off, he threw the tank in the back of his pickup, he filled it full of water, and he went to the fire. Government wasn't involved in this.

Brett *******, Fairbank, Iowa

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let me add, these farmers and their towns grew up on the railheads and the roads they built led to the tracks.

The remnants of these towns litter the rural parts of America, for the great government enterprise, the building of the Interstate not only destroyed them, but rail as transportation. Now cars are viewed as the enemy of climate and we want government to rush in and somehow build commuter rail to compete with their Interstate system, which is a black hole of insatiable funding...

 

[RobDownSouth]

... when it comes to Mrs. Warren and Mr. Obama's "you didn't build that" speeches, history can tear that down, and their history is only going back a certain amount of years when it fits what they want to do. If you were to go back just a little bit further in history, there were roads before there were automobiles. These roads were generally graded by the people. Farming is an industry. My grandfather was a farmer. He graded the roads he needed to get to market.

Schools at that time were one room schoolhouses. The landowners in a four-mile section were the ones that built the school, they hired the schoolteacher to educate their children. They picked the curriculum. It wasn't until the government stepped in and said, "You're not going to do that anymore. We know better than you, and all students are gonna go by our state curriculum," and took them schools away. These are the schools that educated the greatest generation. There was industry then and the government wasn't involved in any of the aspects, including fire. On our farm, we still have a fire tank. We haven't used it in years because we have a volunteer fire department that has better equipment now, but back in the day, each farmer had one of these tanks. When the fire whistle went off, he threw the tank in the back of his pickup, he filled it full of water, and he went to the fire. Government wasn't involved in this.

Brett *******, Fairbank, Iowa

Complexity scares the modern conservative, which is why they routinely retreat to more primitive times.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there have nearly been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

I wonder if the deep thinkers on the right can explain why that is true.

you are a fucking idiot

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let me add, these farmers and their towns grew up on the railheads and the roads they built led to the tracks.

The remnants of these towns litter the rural parts of America, for the great government enterprise, the building of the Interstate not only destroyed them, but rail as transportation. Now cars are viewed as the enemy of climate and we want government to rush in and somehow build commuter rail to compete with their Interstate system, which is a black hole of insatiable funding...

Most people would agree that the Interstate Highway System is a good thing. It's a huge net positive for America. Only a very small minority (yourself included) believe otherwise. Change petrifies you.

 

[Busybody]

If you look at the Obama numbers, they look great, but they came from deflated numbers due to a crash that the previous President attempted to stave off, but was defeated by the other party who reaped the political reward for their malfeasance. Additionally, there's no metric there to define if he added on full-time well-paying jobs or part-time, low end jobs and temp jobs thanks to the uncertainty he introduced into government...

his NUMBERS are where they are

cause the participation rate crashed