Quote Originally Posted by maladroit
i think you're putting the cart before the horse...joe's plumbing business doesn't automatically grow by increasing labour or increasing efficiency...business grows because demand grows
And demand grows with prices of products are down. Supply dictates the cost of a product. Therefore if supply (in this case you've switched to plumbers) is low and demand is high.. then Joe will have to charge a premium for his time.

While this sounds good on paper because Joe is getting more money.. it's actually bad because he is bound to have fewer customers which means less recurring business; If he loses a customer then it has a larger impact on his business, not just that but if business is doing well he will have to turn people away.. resulting in less money generated.

If he had another hand helping him then Joe could take on more business.

In addition to this let's say Chuck down the road was able to get hired because of decreased taxes on a small business near by. Now Chuck has some disposable income to give to Joe... which would increase the demand for his business. Chuck is a completely new entry into the economy. Chuck's new money can then be handed off to Joe.. which Joe then uses to hire an additional hand.. who generates more income for Joe and more taxes for the government (both for the new hires income tax and for the net income of the company.) in turn Joe's company is naturally going to need to buy more supplies than normal... he turns to some wholesale retailer to buy products.. who in turn has, let's say 200 employees which joes money in turn helps to employ, these 200 employees then go out with their money and are able to get services they need or spend it on entertainment..

either way you can see that this is a never ending cycle. In a business you plan for the worst but you implement scalable solutions. If you are not constantly trying to expand your business then it will fail.


I suspect you're going to use the argument "well if someone doesn't have any money to spend then Joe get's nothing.". Which would be a valid argument except the following:

If taxes are raised 3-6% then at best.. BEST job creations will come to a dead slow crawl or a halt altogether. Which means when you have turnovers in your workforce.. that workforce are not finding new jobs; or if they are then it takes a while. So for a while you have people with no jobs and cannot find jobs; as opposed to the people who have maintained their jobs now making an extra $10-20 a week on their paycheck.

What's better for the economy? A person with an extra 10 bucks in their pocket or a person who has a full time job with 100-200 dollars in their pocket that they can spend? Hell.. what's better morally? Putting $10 in your own pocket or passing the plate and letting the person to the right of you who has nothing be able to claim a job?