Obama Literary Agent 1991 Booklet: "Obama born in Kenya"

[Plane]

If a person has a smaller tax bill, he can do whatever he wishes with the money6 thus obtained, and not all opf tghe options involve hiring anyone to do anything.

You are assuming that hiring more workers is the inevitable result of lower taxes. It is not.

But it is!

Unless there is some other problem going on , lower taxes directly lead to hireing.

Directly , I reinterate.

Especially in circumstances like we have now , when there are high taxes causing a drag on the economy, it is quite likely that a steep decrese in taxation would speed the economy as Forest Gump sped up when he lost his braces.

How do you think that any hireing at all is ever done? You seem to think that employers resent their workforce.

I am sure that some employers are smart enough to know that the worker that is worthy of his hire is the sorce of the profit.

[Xavier_Onassis]

You seem to think that employers resent their workforce.

==============================
Not at all. They DO resent paying more for expenses, no matter how great their profits. And if they could get by with fewer employees, they would certainly do it.

Not all, probably not even most, tax reductions would be used to hire more people. They could use their extra money to buy robots or other machinery to produce more without increasing the payroll. They might even use it to move the headquarters to Bermuda, Sark, the Caymans, or to set up a new factory in China.

[Plane]

You seem to think that employers resent their workforce.

==============================
Not at all. They DO resent paying more for expenses, no matter how great their profits. And if they could get by with fewer employees, they would certainly do it.

Not all, probably not even most, tax reductions would be used to hire more people. They could use their extra money to buy robots or other machinery to produce more without increasing the payroll. They might even use it to move the headquarters to Bermuda, Sark, the Caymans, or to set up a new factory in China.

The main reason to move to China is the tax break and the lower wages.

So what do higher taxes and high minimum wages do for this?

[sirs]

You seem to think that employers resent their workforce.
==============================
Not at all. They DO resent paying more for expenses, no matter how great their profits. And if they could get by with fewer employees, they would certainly do it.

Hard to expand, much less maximize profits with that approach

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is how many businesses have maximized profits. Robots and outsourcing. You cannot deny this.

[Plane]

That is how many businesses have maximized profits. Robots and outsourcing. You cannot deny this.

Outsorceing is never hireing fewer people , it is fleeing unions and high taxes.

Useing robots sometimes replaces workers , sometimes not, sometimes robots are doing work no human being can do and fixing a bottleneck so that there can be more people hired.

I think you are totally right to think that few companys think of themselves primarily as employers, but in many businesses each employee brings forth a certain part of the profit and in that case the more the merryer.

[sirs]

That is how many businesses have maximized profits. Robots and outsourcing. You cannot deny this.

What I deny is that companies are trying to mechanize their entire existance, cutting out employees altogether.  You seem to think business functions in a static bubble, where they get to a certain size, and ...... that's it......they now function to cut out employees, and maximize what they can within that self contained confine.  Not possible to expand, and not possible to expand WITHOUT EMPLOYEES, under that warped scenario.  And without that expansion, they can't maximize their profits 

[Plane]

If a company can make widgets with robots.

There may be no more employees making widgets , but there will be employees minding robots.

The public responds to cheaper widgets by buying and useing more widgets.

Widget making company booms , but requires more skill of its employees.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The public responds to cheaper widgets by buying and useing more widgets.

This is hardly automatic: I can see a TV set in every room, but no one is going to buy 20 TV sets or 15 pressure cookers.

Widget making company booms , but requires more skill of its employees.

It buys more robots, and one guy to operate them.

All the former widget makers are still out of work.

=====================================================

[sirs]

Damn auto industry, putting all those horse and buggie employees out of work

[Plane]

The public responds to cheaper widgets by buying and useing more widgets.

This is hardly automatic: I can see a TV set in every room, but no one is going to buy 20 TV sets or 15 pressure cookers.

Widget making company booms , but requires more skill of its employees.

It buys more robots, and one guy to operate them.

All the former widget makers are still out of work.

=====================================================

Is this really the experience we have?

Time was that only the wealthy could afford something so labor intensive as a car.

Now people below the poverty line have two.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They have two used cars at best.

They do not have 50 new cars.

There is such a thing as a saturation point for any product.

Socks are cheap. How many more pairs do you think you might own if they were free?

[Plane]

They have two used cars at best.

They do not have 50 new cars.

There is such a thing as a saturation point for any product.

Socks are cheap. How many more pairs do you think you might own if they were free?

If clothes were free I would throw away my washing machine.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I really doubt that.

You would have to pay to get dirty clothes hauled away if everyone threw clothes away.

There is a limit to the number of identical items people will buy, in any case.

[sirs]

I really doubt that.

You would have to pay to get dirty clothes hauled away if everyone threw clothes away.

Why?......so they pile up.  Big whoop, its their house, their pile.  They can do whatever they want with it, so long as it doesn't push over into someone else's "pile"

There is a limit to the number of identical items people will buy, in any case.

Why?......because you say so?  And who said they'd have to be "identical" anyway?  They're simply free