It's a bit of a false distinction between consumers and producers anyway, because you can only consume something by buying it and you can only get the money to buy it by producing something for someone else (with the exception of buying something on credit, but you eventially have to pay that back, so it doesn't change the principle it just time-shifts it). Really we're all producers and consumers.
Consumers do not risk anything in the process. Producers risk everything for the chance to increase their financial prospects. Yet, the entire cycle is interdependent on each side, the supply (producer) side and the demand (consumer) side. I see no reason why those that take the risk should not have the larger reward. If you want a job, a contract is made with an offer by the employer and and acceptance by the employee. If you want more out of your employment side of the arrangement, make yourself more valuable and market yourself to the employer or go someplace else. No one forces anyone to work somewhere.
The "job creators" for the most part, do not set out to create jobs as the primary reason of their endeavors but do become dependent of job creation as a way to expand their efforts to satisfy the demand for their product.
The interactions within economies is a subject beyond the scope of our simple banter here in a forum.
Apple's paid foreign tax on that money, in theory, which is tax-deductible from the 35% rate to repatriate the money. So, not "double tax", just evening off at 35% overall. Of course, if they've already deducted the foreign tax paid on the money from it's domestic income, it would feel like double taxation...but then again, they've probably been paying less than their fair share on domestic money.
True enough, but bringing the "fair share" concept into the discussion is bound to get you into some trouble. Everybody will have their own definition of fairness. The simple fact is, hardly any U.S. corporations pay the 35% "rack" tax rate because the tax code is loaded with deductions, more or less depending on the industry. Everybody seems to agree that the corporate rate should be lowered and the amount of gaming reduced, but Congress will debate that until the Earth's crust cools and never agree on the formula, because the lobbyists rule in Washington.
Only in a trivial and uninteresting sense. If consumers stop consuming then you can have all the "employers" and "job creators" in the world, but they're all going to go under pretty damn soon.
Those "job creators" are expending effort to get the consumers' money, not to "create jobs" as an end in itself.
Demand is a constant. Everyone consumes. It takes no special effort. When do you plan to stop consuming food grown by others? The act of living causes consumption. Starting a business and employing people takes much more work and energy. Not sure why you think it's trivial or uninteresting.
Yes, for their effort, one would expect to profit from employing people at a job. Besides creating jobs, an employer has to maintain their businesses to compel employees to stick around. Doing all of this while profit is not guaranteed. It's far harder than consuming goods and services. You don't see this as critical?
^ I'm not constantly hungry, no. And I don't eat simply to appease my hunger to a constant level. Nor do I eat a constant and unchanging diet. And I certainly don't eat Apple devices, or many other things.
Pulling an argument down to the very bottom rung of Malsow's Heirarchy of Needs just shows how simplistic your argument is, and ill-suited for describing a complete economic system.
^ I'm not constantly hungry, no. And I don't eat simply to appease my hunger to a constant level. Nor do I eat a constant and unchanging diet. And I certainly don't eat Apple devices, or many other things.
Pulling an argument down to the very bottom rung of Malsow's Heirarchy of Needs just shows how simplistic your argument is, and ill-suited for describing a complete economic system.
Economics starts with basic needs. Step 1 - survive.
Use some common sense. No one constantly eat as you've described. As long as people are present, they will eventually need food. It's a constant or do you expect it to vary for some where they can go on without eating?
Main point is this. Nothing is special about being consumers. As soon as you start to breath and eat, you consume. Just being able to consume doesn't create jobs. Some need to employ themselves and/or others to produce or serve the demands of consumers. You can call them producers, business people, capitalists or even opportunists. But their roles in job creation is essential. Don't leave them out.
No one did. You entirely made up this entire tangent when you took issue with the idea that consumers and their money are the root of job creation. Because without someone to consume the fruit of labour, labour is worthless. No one suggested that was just a single relationship between consumer and employee, you made that up in your head.
Especially silly since this thread, and this forum is about Apple. Apple's products are not required by anyone to "Step 1 - survive". Demand for Apple products is not constant (and nor is demand for food. Obviously it isn't or else there would be no food supply and demand problems because the "constancy" would be entirely predictable - alas it is not).
Comments
It's a bit of a false distinction between consumers and producers anyway, because you can only consume something by buying it and you can only get the money to buy it by producing something for someone else (with the exception of buying something on credit, but you eventially have to pay that back, so it doesn't change the principle it just time-shifts it). Really we're all producers and consumers.
Hold on to it!
Because the good times don't last forever!
Consumers do not risk anything in the process. Producers risk everything for the chance to increase their financial prospects. Yet, the entire cycle is interdependent on each side, the supply (producer) side and the demand (consumer) side. I see no reason why those that take the risk should not have the larger reward. If you want a job, a contract is made with an offer by the employer and and acceptance by the employee. If you want more out of your employment side of the arrangement, make yourself more valuable and market yourself to the employer or go someplace else. No one forces anyone to work somewhere.
The "job creators" for the most part, do not set out to create jobs as the primary reason of their endeavors but do become dependent of job creation as a way to expand their efforts to satisfy the demand for their product.
The interactions within economies is a subject beyond the scope of our simple banter here in a forum.
Apple's paid foreign tax on that money, in theory, which is tax-deductible from the 35% rate to repatriate the money. So, not "double tax", just evening off at 35% overall. Of course, if they've already deducted the foreign tax paid on the money from it's domestic income, it would feel like double taxation...but then again, they've probably been paying less than their fair share on domestic money.
True enough, but bringing the "fair share" concept into the discussion is bound to get you into some trouble. Everybody will have their own definition of fairness. The simple fact is, hardly any U.S. corporations pay the 35% "rack" tax rate because the tax code is loaded with deductions, more or less depending on the industry. Everybody seems to agree that the corporate rate should be lowered and the amount of gaming reduced, but Congress will debate that until the Earth's crust cools and never agree on the formula, because the lobbyists rule in Washington.
^
Only in a trivial and uninteresting sense. If consumers stop consuming then you can have all the "employers" and "job creators" in the world, but they're all going to go under pretty damn soon.
Those "job creators" are expending effort to get the consumers' money, not to "create jobs" as an end in itself.
Demand is a constant. Everyone consumes. It takes no special effort. When do you plan to stop consuming food grown by others? The act of living causes consumption. Starting a business and employing people takes much more work and energy. Not sure why you think it's trivial or uninteresting.
Yes, for their effort, one would expect to profit from employing people at a job. Besides creating jobs, an employer has to maintain their businesses to compel employees to stick around. Doing all of this while profit is not guaranteed. It's far harder than consuming goods and services. You don't see this as critical?
Demand is a constant? What rubbish. if you're going to say silly things like that then let's not even bother. Go back to Econ 101.
Demand is a constant? What rubbish. if you're going to say silly things like that then let's not even bother. Go back to Econ 101.
I guess you don't get hungry.
^ I'm not constantly hungry, no. And I don't eat simply to appease my hunger to a constant level. Nor do I eat a constant and unchanging diet. And I certainly don't eat Apple devices, or many other things.
Pulling an argument down to the very bottom rung of Malsow's Heirarchy of Needs just shows how simplistic your argument is, and ill-suited for describing a complete economic system.
^ I'm not constantly hungry, no. And I don't eat simply to appease my hunger to a constant level. Nor do I eat a constant and unchanging diet. And I certainly don't eat Apple devices, or many other things.
Pulling an argument down to the very bottom rung of Malsow's Heirarchy of Needs just shows how simplistic your argument is, and ill-suited for describing a complete economic system.
Economics starts with basic needs. Step 1 - survive.
Use some common sense. No one constantly eat as you've described. As long as people are present, they will eventually need food. It's a constant or do you expect it to vary for some where they can go on without eating?
Main point is this. Nothing is special about being consumers. As soon as you start to breath and eat, you consume. Just being able to consume doesn't create jobs. Some need to employ themselves and/or others to produce or serve the demands of consumers. You can call them producers, business people, capitalists or even opportunists. But their roles in job creation is essential. Don't leave them out.
No one did. You entirely made up this entire tangent when you took issue with the idea that consumers and their money are the root of job creation. Because without someone to consume the fruit of labour, labour is worthless. No one suggested that was just a single relationship between consumer and employee, you made that up in your head.
Especially silly since this thread, and this forum is about Apple. Apple's products are not required by anyone to "Step 1 - survive". Demand for Apple products is not constant (and nor is demand for food. Obviously it isn't or else there would be no food supply and demand problems because the "constancy" would be entirely predictable - alas it is not).