The Myth Of The "Job Creator" - How Money Works

Get access to a totally free high quality newsletter every morning by signing up to The Daily Upside at bit.ly/3HK07JJ
Sign up for my newsletter compoundeddaily.com 👈
Rich business owners and the companies that they run do indeed employ people and provide financial stability to most Americans who rely on a salary to support themselves and their families. On the opposite side of the same coin, they only do that because they really need to. Given the opportunity they would prefer to be job destroyers, but a variety of factors are making that impossible, for now
#JobCreator #Careers #HowMoneyWorks
___________________________________________________________________________
Link To The Capitalists Discord where I hang out with other creators - / discord
Music by Epidemic Sound
Stock footage by Storyblocks

[@HowMoneyWorks]

Get access to a totally free high quality newsletter every morning by signing up to The Daily Upside at bit.ly/3HK07JJ

[@roxaskinghearts]

no mcdonalds fast food most restaurants banks retail like walmart amazon Wearhouse these are not living wage jobs but comparing these to used car salesmen game maker fire fighter construction police emergency response teacher and the problem is loud and clear

[@sang3Eta]

The reason wages don't keep up with inflation is because we left the gold standard and changed the way inflation is measured with CPI instead of currency supply growth. Even the dictionary definition was changed!

[@sang3Eta]

Elon and Jeff have found work for a lot of unemployed rocket scientists lately.

[@tuckertantrums7733]

@@roxaskinghearts a

[@roxaskinghearts]

@@tuckertantrums7733 A++ grammar and punctuation are a message on its own for our birtherist party of Republicans who push Russian ideologies in America while acting like there the party of anything but godless brainless sociopaths only republicans are pushing the ponzi scheme of keeping America the same but with more debt and trickle down economics

[@WealthProfessor]

My job offered me a competitive salary. My salary is competing with my bills

[@firstislast3700]

Who's winning?

[@macpetrol]

My bills

[@WealthProfessor]

@@firstislast3700 definitely the bills, maybe if my KZbin channel takes off that will change lol

[@brandonhenley3597]

Your latest videos actually look pretty good. That's definitely rare for a random guys in the comments. I hope it works out for you!

[@jreamscape]

@@WealthProfessor you make quality videos and i subscribed. I'm sure the algorithm will help u if you stay consistent. Keep up the good work!

[@svchineeljunk-riggedschoon4038]

Me: What if I could combine nihilism and economics? How Money Works: I got you bro

[@HowMoneyWorks]

10/10 take

[@josephbrennan370]

@@HowMoneyWorks it's depressing as hell though. And the worst part is that I think it's just economics, not nihilism.

[@bivensrk]

@@josephbrennan370 I’ll find a link but I want to say Lincoln covered this thought in a speech in 1858.

[@OtherDAS]

@@josephbrennan370 Luddite thinking is flawed. Buy the Capital of a backhoe for digging replaced a lot of shovel jobs... freeing up workers for other tasks, creating more demand for dirt moving allowing more projects to be done, and the salary of Vehicle Operator was more than shovel operator.

[@nyalan8385]

@@josephbrennan370 the study of economics spreads nihilism

[@dggydddy59]

They're only "job creators" because they can't make their billions without it, but if they could, they absolutely would. Like you said, as soon as they can make those billions without "creating" a single job, they will do it. Make no mistake.

[@michaelopole1866]

Man we're all fucked when they figure out AI

[@caseyjones5145]

"We offer competitive pay." The competition is who can pay the least.

[@moneysins]

Ahhh yes, a fellow financial professional reflecting on the social waste of so much talent spent shoving money around

[@lauraigla6319]

I'd gladly keep my talent in the print graphics industry, but I'm moving into "pushing money around" because that's what's going to pay me good money lol. I don't like that it's that way, but it is what it is

[@HowMoneyWorks]

Instead of providing value for society, we decided to make money off of selling people's companies and create silly KZbin videos. Honestly I'd probably be provide more value to society as a chef in the metaverse

[@NoName-sn3db]

@@HowMoneyWorks But we need coal mines. How do you want make steel, pith for roof, and a lot of chemistry product without coal. A lot of countries can use only atom or fossil fuels for energy production because their geographic position. Mines are much more important than financial professional and youtubers.

[@superdingo9741]

@@NoName-sn3db Why do you instead of mining coal watching the video then?

[@shotelco]

​@@NoName-sn3db Coal mining is a GREAT job creator: 1.) Coal is incredibly destructive to the environment, so we need to hire more workers to clean it up 2.) Coal contains radioactive uranium and thorium, so we need scientist and engineers to de-leach it 3.) Burning Coal Causes air pollution and leads to long-term respiratory problems, so we need to hire college professors to train doctors to treat terminally ill patents. 4.) Coal on a global level contributes to climate change, so we need to hire a bunch of people to argue the scientific basis that it does, and even more people to claim its "fake news". 5.) Coal displaces communities and wildlife, so we need to hire architects, engineers, contractors, city planners, etc., to relocate humans and animals away from coal. Coal is simply Brilliant for the economy (and proof of late stage Capitalism).

[@jonathanabgrall6075]

As an Electrotechnician i'm actually not that worried about automation fully replacing human labour. At least within my lifetime. People have no idea what goes into maintaining even fairly simple automatons in function and how breakable they are. And the more stuff they do, the more moving parts, sensors, etc. you add, the more breakable they are. Just a sensor pushed in a slightly wrong angle by vibrations can paralyze a whole system. That's the puzzle they can't solve. Sure unskilled labor will get replaced more and more (and honestly what's pushing this forward, at least where i live, is labor shortages more than anything else as people simply don't want to do these jobs anymore), but the more that happens the more the companies simply end up having to hire and rely on guys like me to keep them running, and we ask for more than minimum wage as we're trained professionals. Skilled workers aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

[@tomorrow4eva]

This. And smart homes. Ka-ching.

[@OtherDAS]

This. It only changed the Labor from low skill to higher skill. Just like the backhoe got rid of shovel jobs in digging. Vehicle Operator made more income than ditch digger, less workers needed to move dirt let them go do other valued labor. they've got Luddite thinking all over again.

[@akaroth7542]

Same thing with machining. Sensors are still pretty ass at keeping tight tolerances on chip-heavy alloys, plus automated cleaning for cmm is still rough.

[@jonathanabgrall6075]

@@OtherDAS Basically yeah. I mean my whole trade exists because companies were sick of paying 3 guys to do 1 job (an industrial mechanic, an electrician and an oiler/basic maintenance guy). Specially since unions usually force people to "stay in their lane". Not saying we replace industrial mechanics or electricians either, they're still needed for more technical jobs (even if its not uncommon for us to keep pushing in one area or the other and get a dual-trade or competence cards/certificates overtime) but we're basically the jack of all trades in the company. Its rough but pretty fun.

[@peterpan4038]

Automation creates a demand for higher skilled labor, but to an extent the opposite happens as well. Few machines can really be run without human input or oversight, and in many cases the jobs attached to providing these inputs are as brainless as they come. Sure, to build our modern machines highly skilled labour is a must, the same holds true for maintenance. But most of those machines can be USED by the equivalent of a trained monkey, aka minimum wage labour.

[@lauraigla6319]

Fantastic point about equipment being assets on the balance sheet. Most people haven't thought about it this way.

[@zdenek3010]

"Let's make people have value again" Slavery coming back.

[@jdtreharne]

If they depreciate more than the labor burden of the employee then the company still loses.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

@Sweet Toother Yes, but OTOH, if you have to borrow money to hire people then either you're a start up, and automatically a higher risk, or you're overextended, a higher risk.

[@masterprattu]

It's just silly rhetoric.

[@AV57]

Step 1) Destroy small businesses and locally-based economies. Step 2) Replace small businesses and locally-based economies with multinational corporations that have no regard for the local economy. Step 3) Offer jobs with no flexibility or personal ingenuity, because all employees have to adhere to the multinational corporate agenda. Step 4) Call yourself a job creator and shame anyone who attempts to replace the multinational corporation back to a small business model.

[@michaeljordan3932]

A lot of the policies intended to help employees are in practice anti-small business. As a small business owner, you are struggling to make it and don't have the legal resources to conform to endless regulations from everything from minimum wage to discrimination nonsense as you try to avoid lawsuit landmines.

[@AV57]

@@michaeljordan3932 the red tape and constant lawsuits levied by multinational competitors definitely put a huge strain on small business owners and likely kill a lot of small business ambitions from the outset through fear. But the minimum wage usually isn’t a small business problem. If the minimum wage goes up, they raise their prices in relative proportion to compensate, which is easier to configure if you’re a single site business with a limited staff. My hometown has seen many of its longtime small businesses destroyed by multinational corporations moving in, and the employees from the small businesses typically don’t go over to the new multinational store, because they offer the bare minimum wage, which they weren’t used to at the mom and pap shop.

[@m136dalie]

So refreshing to hear someone talk about the economy as a creator of goods and services, rather than "wealth".

[@athumbi]

I came to a similar conclusion with my layman's knowledge but it sounds a lot more credible the way you put it. I keep having to explain to my friends that the work being done is more important than hiring for the sake of hiring. Money is obviously worthless without the value behind it and that value is the work we do to keep each other alive. "Creating" jobs isn't an achievement if it doesn't serve that purpose. Of course they think I'm just an ignorant loon who is unqualified to talk about such subjects. I can't possibly know better than all the PhD holders who have written lots of books about how great our economic system is. Not saying I know more than them but I'm certainly learned enough to call a spade a spade and tell it like I see it.

[@martinvuyk5326]

I completly agree with you. Money is the way that we measure created value through work, otherwise we are selling smoke to each other back and forth. I quit my Engineering job after a couple of months because I was literally counting the minutes to pass the time. I had automated and put systems in place so that I could not be there and everything kept working... I was asked why I didn't just keep shut and stayed under the radar. I explicitelly talked to my boss and showed him everything I prepared so that the position weren´t needed anymore, and who the real problem in the company was (the chief Technitian that didn´t do his job orderly). Now that I'm looking for a better job I saw that they put the same flyer up which I saw when they hired me. They just want to hire an engineer because it sound good; the position is literally not needed.

[@yourdedcat-qr7ln]

Yeah people are religious fanatics over money kinda sickening really

[@cristianion2056]

Then AFRICA SHOULD JUST TAKE YOUR ADVICE

[@Iron-Bridge]

OP: Keep doing what you do. I don't have a Phd myself but I did study at the post graduate STEM level. While I won't knock the average Phd holder, like you I've encountered sufficient numbers of credential bearing types who use that as a shield in place of putting their assumed ability to think critically to good use. The fact is, there are experienced non credential bearing types, like yourself who are able to detect and analyze and draw conclusions without necessarily having the clever sounding vocabulary.

[@MrMarinus18]

But also it's important to note that GDP isn't all that important a metric because it means what the country can make and all the work being done. It doesn't take into consideration if that thing being made is even desirable or if that work does anything at all. I think we need to remove some of our materialistic lenses in this and ask if a bigger economy is even desirable. If an economy can produce everything we need then what point is there in growing it even further? The time that higher consumption could mean more happiness ended pretty much by the end of the 1960's. I think the whole new urbanism movement is indeed based on the 60's hippie movement which are all based on the same thing: A pushback against consumerism. Many like to decry the hippies and while they had a lot of bad ideas I do think the general idea was a correct one in that materialism had taken us about as far as it could and we should start looking in other directions for our long term happiness.

[@krombopulos_michael]

I always get a bit annoyed at the term, or when I read in local news that some company is going to "create" X number of jobs with a new office or expansion. Demand is what creates jobs, the companies and people who do the hiring are just taking advantage of that demand. And it's good that they do take advantage of that, but they aren't just making jobs suddenly appear or being altruistic, they're hiring people because they have work that needs to be done for them to increase their profits.

[@TheSteinbitt]

That’s the most backwards reasoning I’ve ever heard.

[@zinjanthropus322]

Nonsense. There's a lot of unmet demand in the world. Those jobs aren't just materializing because they're are no people willing to bet the resources and work to organise businesses around them, at least none that succeed. You're also ignoring the entrepreneurs who create entirely new markets around things people didn't even know they needed until they were made.

[@sreerajr6470]

@@zinjanthropus322 yep

[@hob976]

You're my favorite character from Rick and Morty! My GF and I have a running joke that, when I leave for work, I say "Oh boy. Here I go killin again!".

[@Treefinger1]

I hope nobody ever believed they do create new jobs out of altruistic reasons...

[@BangMaster96]

A Company doesn't create job, the Company needs to hire those people in order to keep the system functioning, and as soon as they figure out a way to keep the system functioning without those people they hire, they will lay them off.

[@spaceygnat19908]

Thats just called economic its the reason why 90% of humans dont work in farms anymore people are move to more productive parts of society.(example less farmers could be more inventors)

[@MrMarinus18]

There is also the fact that many pay very low wages and demand long hours. In countries where job creation is actually a priority governments do exactly the opposite and they demand high wages and short hours. Cause one effect of high wages is actually that lots of people work part time. In Europe many countries have a less than 40 hour average work week with most being in the mid 30's and the lowest being France at 32. With a 32 hour work week that means that for the work that would employ 6 people normally in France it employs 7 people. The Soviet Union took this to the extreme but I think the problem with it was the extreme they pushed it to and not the concept in general. I think the US enforcing a higher minimum wage and increasing enforcement on overwork and second jobs would not actually negatively impact people. Lots more people will work part time and a lot of jobs will also just stop existing without taking anything away from people's standard of living.

[@fwingebritson]

One of the things I laugh at, usually sarcastically, is how politicians offer "zero taxes" on companies that "promise" a certain amount of employment. This puts a burden on the tax payer, makes an employee a defacto welfare recipient, and does not promise the workers a "living wage." Another thing is that companies get "zero taxes" because they have to match the tax burden of the workers, which is a rip off considering "sharing the burden" isn't really taking the burden off the tax payer, but robbing them of credits as applied by SS as well as other benefits. It's like, "Yeah, set up shop tax free, we will make the employees shoulder their privilege to work."

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

That's not inherently a bad deal, but it usually is a bad deal because of the lack of oversight and clawbacks for when they fail to follow through. If the new business brings in more money from outside the region, it can still be a legitimate net gain for the locality, that just usually doesn't happen.

[@fwingebritson]

@@SmallSpoonBrigade Have you noticed that big companies seem to be offered zero taxes almost everywhere? It has become standard business expectations. Unfortunately, what really attracts them is "cheap labor markets." I see a lot of California based companies come here a lot, not only to set up a new shop, they also buy up a lot of businesses. Sure, on the upfront it seems like cherry deals, but the reality is they glean from the locals and bring the wealth back to Cali. This is why I do not fault AOC for turning down Amazon, or Walmart warehouse in her district. At least, through her misgivings, she was savvy enough to realize that.

[@brettmcclain9289]

Most of the tax free benefits that local government can grant to the firm is just to not charge them property value. Local government do not tax that much stuff that the firm does in comparison to the federal government. The local government can still break even on the deal as it does create jobs in the local area and bring more consumer dollars in the region (normally). Most cities are bankrupt because they have low density with utilities that normally accompany high density building which will bankrupt them regardless.

[@davidjamesshaver]

@@brettmcclain9289 Truly capable entrepreneurs should require any kind of public subsidy. But of course, in certain instances, they are a must, such as land grants from governments to the original railroads.

[@brettmcclain9289]

@@davidjamesshaver buying the land is one of the lowest cost items involved in building a railroad. Most of the land grants where there just so the government wouldn't hamper the railroads own construction progress. Most of the land out west was barely settled and the US gov had a loose claim on it in the first place.

[@benjauron5873]

The first time I ever heard the term "job creators" was when Mitt Romney used it during the 2012 campaign. I just laughed. Because a few years earlier I had been laid off from a private-sector job that I'd held for more than five years. When I started, I just did my job. But as others quit, were fired or retired, instead of hiring new people, they just shifted their duties to people still on the payroll. So soon, I was doing the job of two people. Then three. Then four. Then, in 2008, I got laid off because they said they "couldn't afford to keep me." When I was doing the job of four people. For $16 an hour. So the idea of business owners being "job creators" is laughable. More like, "Do everything you possibly can to avoid having to be a job creator!" Yes, creating a job is their absolute LAST resort only once all other options are exhausted.

[@luigicostantini8735]

- I'm a business owner - I have the possibility to cut down expenses - I don't have to make rational decisions because...?

[@Lobos222]

I tend to use the saying that "Your mom is the job creator. She buys the food your family eat and in turn her demands is serviced by a company that wouldnt stay in bis without her."

[@iambergeson]

That’s a long saying

[@Lobos222]

@@iambergeson Europeans have longer attention span, I guess...

[@brainoverflow98]

@@Lobos222 what you mean?

[@DangRenBo]

I kind of lost you when you transitioned from "most small businesses don't employ anyone" to "let just focus on companies with more than 500 employees." What percent of private employment is that? What percentage is in those 1-500 employee companies? Almost half of employees in the US are in businesses with under 100.

[@swatik2509]

What?

[@anthonybanderas9930]

I lost him when he said that those businesses that do not have employees do not crate jobs. Yeah sure the owner just sits there and gets money doing nothing.

[@tonywalters7298]

i feel it is wrong to categorize businesses with up to 499 employees as "small" businesses.

[@AllenUry]

My father ran a public relations firm in Chicago for 25 years. He had a cartoon up on our refrigerator at home in which a business owner tells his wife, "I fired all 200 of them. I'm going it alone." This was his fantasy; to have a company so efficient no employees were required. I always believed this was the end-game of EVERY so-called "job creator." They'd all prefer to "go it alone."

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

Yes, and that wouldn't inherently be an issue if there were plans in place to ensure that everybody had the basic necessities and something to do with their time. As things get more automated, there's going to be fewer jobs that involve anything useful going on. Either you'll have make work, roving bands of hooligans or some sort of pay for hobbies going on. There are few if any alternatives.

[@factorfitness3713]

I don't know if they'd prefer it on a personal level, but they'd definitely all like to pay $0 in labor costs.

[@anitagofradump5195]

I feel like the big idea is there is a significant difference between a job creator and a problem creator

[@TechExploresNYC]

4:47 where the automation equipment is treated as asset but worker salary is treated as expense is very insightful, thank you.

[@marcusmoonstein242]

This is only partly true. Equipment does appear as an asset on the balance sheet, but its maintenance and depreciation will still appear as expenses. Eventually 100% of the assets' value will be depreciated, so it also becomes an expense over four years (or however long it takes to depreciate). In contrast, workers pay is immediately claimed as an expense in the year that it's paid. So both equipment and salaries are treated as expenses in the longer run. This accounting system actually sets up a skewed incentive in favor of hiring workers instead of buying equipment. If I spend $100 hiring a worker I can claim the entire salary immediately for tax purposes, but if I spend $100 on equipment I can only claim $25 for depreciation in the first year, $25 in the second year, and so on.

[@ProfAzimov]

@@marcusmoonstein242 You could resell the equipment

[@SPLICEKNIGHT]

The issue with jobs is, a population that relies on income to afford stuff. The systems that are created that require people facilitate this interdependence.

[@mindbuilder9507]

This is probably the best channel on work, finance and economics.

[@cmdr1911]

An employee must generate 3X their wage/salary to justify their existence. That is easy as a consultant they just bill us for 3.5 to cover staff, taxes and wages. Little more difficult as a contractor where they don't directly generate revenue.

[@nunyabidness3075]

Most people are clueless about this, and that includes many of the minority who can come close to estimating the government required additional costs of an employee. They think they get it because government demands it, but really they pay for it and more because employers have pricing power.

[@omerpasa3328]

Why 3x?

[@cmdr1911]

@@omerpasa3328 it covers the cost of support staff, wage of the employee, training costs, insurance, taxes and benefits while leaving room for profit.

[@nunyabidness3075]

@@omerpasa3328 The taxes, healthcare, and regulatory mandates alone are now a 40% uplift (plus or minus because some are fixed, some a percentage with a floor or cap). Two huge reasons for these phony stats on income disparity are that healthcare isn’t included. So while take home pay hasn’t kept up with inflation, it’s partly because health insurance is eating up the difference. Also 401k’s which are a big cost, but skew income disparity stats greatly. There’s also the cost, as discussed in the video, of paying a person who will mostly be a drain on other employees and revenues and everything until they get up to speed. Some of them leave. That often gets mischaracterized as training costs, which it only sort of is, but it’s a serious cost attributable to newer employees and promotions. Oh, and also on disparity, you get employees who are very capable, productive, and important. They make a lot more money, but they are worth it in many ways. If you give them a 3% raise it might be 6k, but it’s only 6k because at a certain point the non take home costs don’t scale up. It’s also a low risk move because those people are hard to replace and known quantities. For the same money, you cannot give three people making a third as much a 3% raise. Their raises cost you a lot more in hidden costs and taxes, and they are likely to jump ship as soon as they have the experience to get the next job up. So it’s easier on managers to not invest in the less experienced.

[@kolacao8134]

@@cmdr1911 there is a CEO in youtube that said she hired people if they can produce 3x

[@shawniscoolerthanyou]

I find it funny when people in a podunk town vote in favor of tax breaks and concessions for some tech company in the area under the guise of "bringing jobs to the area". Lol, nah. They're not bringing jobs, they're bringing employees. Billy Bob isn't going to leave his job at Quicky Lube to be an R&D engineer at a semiconductor company. Those jobs will be filled with people from elsewhere, and their high salaries are going to price you out of town. Home prices will go up, and you won't be able to afford shopping at the Whole Foods that replaced Big Jim's Corner Market because out of towners need more to eat than Slim Jims and Velveeta.

[@freedomring3022]

the whole idea of the government using tax dollars to basically bribe companies to come into their town is repugnant to me.

[@MrMarinus18]

Also having a lot of high paying jobs in one location is not really a good thing because that pushes up the cost of living which often means severe hardship for people working the low wage jobs. It's best to actually have a balance of low, medium and high paying jobs in an area. A big problem in Silicon valley is that jobs are very lob sided with either extremely high or extremely low wages which is a big cause for the large amount of poverty there as the many high paying jobs push up the cost of living to beyond what low wages can afford. A big reason for the problems of California is that a lot of medium wage jobs have disappeared because of automation and replaced by high wage jobs. The problem is that the low wage jobs were not made into medium wage jobs so there is a missing middle wage in the same way there is a missing middle housing.

[@marcusmoonstein242]

The job of the entrepreneur is to combine inputs (capital, labor, etc) that are of lower value into an output (products, services) that are of higher value. The difference between these two values is what we call "profit". Profit is actually a direct measure of the new wealth that would never have been created without the ingenuity of the entrepreneur. The creation of jobs (also known as the consumption of labor) is an accidental by-product of this process, in exactly the same way that the consumption of electricity is an accidental by-product of this process. The person who believes that the purpose of business is to create employment is a person who has never run a business or created a job in their lives.

[@sotch2271]

What ingenuity’s is there at selling drug in a street ? By your definition it’s thanks to the ingenuity of the guy that sell it, when 70 % do nothing and still sell just by staying with consumers

[@angryretailbanker5103]

I don't even think any employer creates jobs. Consumers create jobs. They create jobs through demand. That's [one of many reasons] why I support measures that put more money into people's pockets, like UBI and stronger social safety nets in general, minimum wage increases, Universal Healthcare, student debt relief, and support for unions. Those will create more job than any slick-talking businessman who takes on the mantle of "job creator" as if it were a symbol of moral and intellectual superiority.

[@dl2839]

I support measures that keep money in my pocket by reducing government spending and taxes. A great place to start is by abolishing Public Schools, Social Security, and Welfare.

[@angryretailbanker5103]

@@dl2839 That money won't have been in your pocket in the first place if we took your idea.

[@oliviastratton2169]

But minimum wage increases don't create demand. They just artificially increase the price floor for labor. They're necessary in some places where cost of living is high. But you don't make someone's labor more valuable by banning them from selling it for a lower price. UBI makes a bit more sense, but it has to be put together right. If the government pays for it with debt or by printing money it's destined for disaster. If it's tied to something more tangible, like Alaska's oil dividend, then I'm completely behind it. Unions are like any other organization. They can do a lot of good with the right leadership and market conditions. But they can also be a huge waste of time and money without them.

[@oliviastratton2169]

@@dl2839 I think those are all the last places you want to cut. First you want to cut the security state. We don't need a DOD and a DHS. Just get rid of the DHS. We don't need a separate CIA and NSA either. Axe both and bring back the pre-WWII COI. The DOE can go too. There's no evidence it's creation in 1980 has improved the education system in any way. The HHS and HUD both say they deal with homelessness. Give it to HHS and axe the HUD. Why do we need separate departments for Housing & Urban Development, Commerce, Agriculture, and Labor anyway? They all basically deal with economic activity. Why not just have one Department of Economic Development? Now we're down 5 federal departments. And we haven't even gotten to just eliminating all the weird nonsense spending inside some of these departments. I mean the State Department has an "Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment". Hello? We have an entire department for each of these. This Undersecretary, and all the programs they oversee, can be axed. Why does the USDA (that's now part if the Department of Economic Development) have the Forest Service and a food safety agency. Shouldn't those be covered by the DOI and HHS? And don't even get me started on "Government Corporations". Once we've rooted out these areas of duplication and frivolous spending, then maybe taking a closer look at welfare programs makes sense.

[@dl2839]

@@angryretailbanker5103 And how would that be, Angry Retail Banker? Public Schools, Social Security and Wefare are just the evil, failed, and twisted versions of Private Schools, Retirement investments, and voluntary charity. America is improved by their Abolition.

[@cryptoguy9126]

At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

[@Al-rn5qy]

Your last statement is so on point. Seems like McDonald's is on its way to figuring out how to get rid of all their employees. Everything is a kiosk and an app now. Back in the 80s and 90s when I was growing up, I can remember there were like 3-4 cashiers at the McDonald's counter, the kitchen was full of workers and the restaurants were packed. I go into one today, and almost no one is at the counter, maybe 4 kitchen staff and only one person sitting at a dining room table! Just order through the app, and the hand full of people they have hands you the bag. This is convenient for the customer, of course, but since they don't need as many employees it's harder to get a job there. There was a time when if no one else would hire you, you could count on McDonald's to take you! 😂😂

[@NJdaniels96]

Also worth mentioning that giant corporations like Amazon or Wal-Mart or Dollar Tree are called "job creators" despite the fact that whenever they outcompete and destroy smaller businesses, there's a net loss in jobs.

[@WindmillFighter]

Fun fact of the day: Amazon has never had a Chief Operating Officer

[@Michael-cb3uw]

LOL FUCKING SCAMMA

[@xablingos]

Man, videos like this are one of the many reason's I decided to apply for a degree on economy, thank you, keep up the good work.

[@ez4039]

5:30 “If you spend a million dollars on salaries then that’s all an expense and the value is going to the workers.” Yes Bezos and musk act in their own self interest. Yes they would replace you in a heartbeat. In the meantime you can benefit from the value of work that needs to be done. Because you are also acting in your own self interest.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

That is also a short sighted view on things. Why allow one to make the rules and decisions? In the rest of life people concider that completely unacceptable and are willing to die fighting in wars over it. Yet in the part of their lives where this has much larger and direct implications on their daily lives then it could ever have in politics people are willing to be obedient and accepting. Employers have far more control that goes much deeper over people lives then any government could ever have, and they actually ARE activly trying to exploit you as much as they are allowed to get away with and are spending huge amounts of money to try and get rid of you and leave you with nothing. I think it is a facinating phenomenon that humans can have such different toleration levels for similar situations and how that ends up being justified. Sociology surely must be one of the most interesting sciences out there.

[@bananaboyTS]

@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 thx very based

[@willy4170]

@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 all the things you are saying are quite pointless, because it is always a mutually beneficial relationship, they apply for the job because they find it better than doing a self employed one, because to start a business you need to take a lot of risks of potentially failing, while by being hired they don’t need to invest anything to start, they don’t need any business plan or idea, and specific set of skills on how to run it, and above all the responsibility for its performance, instead they have a stable income that keep flowing in, and if it fails, it is not your problem because you can hired by another one shortly after. And it can be said also the other way around, that are the workers trying to exploit the most out of the employer, because employees other than the salary also gain knowledge and experiences, so he could spend tons of money to train the employees, for them to quit shortly after, leaving him with nothing.

[@lamcho00]

​@@willy4170​ It's not the same. Once the production chains are full it's really hard to find a market niche to start a business in. The one who starts first has the advantage. It's also debatable how fair the market competition is in reality. I can tell you for sure that politicians and police can be bought. That's how you get banana republics or bankrupt competitors. But to do this you need to have funds in the first place. The person with more capital is the one who started exploiting other people first. To be more concrete in my example, please consider can you become a competitor of Amazon, Google or Apple? Your second point is invalid because the first one has a false premise as I already explained. Even if a worker gets experience and paid trainings if he leaves the company and tries to apply this experience and become a competitor of said company, he'll be at a disadvantage. So what the worker can only do is either be exploited by this company or leave and be exploited by another one. The only real chance he has is if something big happens and one of the companies goes bankrupt, then he can try and start a company and fill the hole left in the supply chains. I really wish I'd see the day when more people realize the farce we live in and finally decide to end it. It'll be the same like how we condemn feudalism or slavery today. It'll just be a failed system of the past. One way to do this while keeping capitalism would be to outlaw private enterprises or limit them to 5 workers max and after that they become coops. We should also tax stock exchange transactions so people can't profit just by re-selling a product multiple times. This type of behavior incurs losses on the production end and the final buyer, while not contributing the economy in any meaningful way. Just people living of the work of other people. To solve the hosing problem, construction companies can be subsidized by the government to build as much housing as it's needed (much like how food production is subsidized) and there will be a heavy tax on every real estate property you own after the first 2 or 3 properties. This is meant to discourage landlords from living of the tenant's salary. This limitation will prevent monopolies and also increase the number of landlords in the cities and make them compete and provide fair rent prices. To avoid pushing the house ownership problem into a land ownership problem, land would be nationalized when it's needed for the construction of public housing and the owner compensated at current land value. Also land can be temporarily nationalized in times of famine for land owners who are not using fertile land for food production.

[@ez4039]

@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 people also exploit their employers. Bezos hires people out of his own self interest but people also accept those jobs…in their own self interest. It’s a win win especially compared to the alternative where nothing gets done.

[@abarbar06]

This is an excellent video showing the nuance of markets and employment. Well done!

[@twinsen04]

Looking at it on a global scale, the less jobs we need, the more efficient we are and the more free time we have.

[@noneofyourbusiness4830]

As long as everyone actually gets their living expenses covered. Plus some leisure and quality of life.

[@talknight2]

Well unemployed people have more free time than anyone, technically.

[@sotch2271]

Then you go at place with actual unemployement at 20, 30, 50 like haiti or 80 even

[@Stroggoii]

@@noneofyourbusiness4830 Everyone could get their living expenses covered once we reach a target population circa 500M.

[@ajrobbins368]

I appreciate the relatively nuanced explanation of job creation.

[@ChocolateMilkCultLeader]

You have an exceptional channel for gaining new perspective

[@Phoenixoverburn]

Hi great video, can you also do a video on credit unions and how they work . Comparisons between traditional banks and credit unions could also be interesting.

[@Articulate99]

Always interesting, thanks.

[@OmDahake]

Thanks for the explanation and the insights

[@iBlindPanic]

Robots replacing people has happened since we invented the plow, it just means the rest can concentrate on other things to build.

[@talknight2]

What happens when we reach a point where all necessities in life can be provided with no human labor? There is only so much demand for arts and philosophy.

[@Steinchen43]

@@talknight2 It probably won't. But if it does, we should think about UBI and shorter work weeks.

[@thycaltrist]

@@talknight2 then population decreases. Unless at this point we reach the "we dont need money anymore" then that's what happens.

[@laszlo3547]

@@talknight2 That is so unrealistic it won't happen in our time or our children's time. Probably never. However if some magic did provide all the necessities, some valuables are inherently scarce regardless of technology, and people would work to get those instead. Eg social status, power, respect of others etc. Basically comparisons to other people don't go away.

[@user-zu6fe9nk6u]

Juicero, is that you?

[@nadeemchaudhry6585]

Great video As always!!

[@seanburton5298]

Very true 👍 I am glad someone else figured it out!

[@savagebeastking8703]

How money works has some of the best content. It always get me excited hyped up it inspires me

[@makisxatzimixas2372]

Here is how automation works: The wheel, the loom, computers and automation destroyed a specific job in a specific workplace. But they decreased prices all over the country. The millions of consumers has 0.5% more cash to spend. This keeps constantly happening. Every year we gain 0.5% here and there by new things that are invented. New technology, new laptops, new delivery options, new materials, better video quality, you name it. This becomes so gradually that we don't realize it. We only feel the loses, but never the gains. No-one is happy right now for the medical advancements that will be available when they will be old. That's why you have to read positive news.

[@LoLaSn]

What about the people whose jobs get replaced by machinery? Add to that removing all the unnecessary bullshit jobs and now what, you have a massive amount of unemployed people who can't do anything but leech money through welfare

[@UcheOgbiti]

Very insightful video!

[@CryptoRoast_0]

Another great video dude 👍

[@andrewrady7135]

Good video, just one question. So why do these systems get created in the first place? I felt like this drove so close to a good conclusion but stopped at a critical point. Outside the generic answer “they’re created to meet a demand of the market”. I feel like a deep dive into that concept in connection to this video would be a good follow up.

[@adamvalt6609]

to make money? (yes, for example by meeting a demand of the market :D) That is their only purpose.

[@1nsaniel]

What Is the Profit Motive? The profit motive is the intent to achieve a monetary gain in a project, transaction, or material endeavor. Profit motive can also be construed as the underlying reason why a taxpayer or company participates in business activities of any kind

[@CitizenKen1]

Thats good question but the answer to that is more broad and sociological and even philosophical than the point he was trying to get across in the video. It’s kinda like you're asking why does Capitalism exist. We live in a system that rewards competition within a market place and since most of our basic needs are traded within said market place it’s not like we can opt out of that competition so easily. Governments allow this because they reap the rewards in the form of tax payer dollars. Dollars as we know are backed by said governments based off the perceived legitimacy of their sovereignty. Of course this is just capitalism stuff that doesn’t necessarily have to do with whether or not these business leaders ‘create’ jobs or not. Why they exist has more to do with how our culture overall has evolved and how we must continue to evolve it with each generation. The conclusion that these leaders are creators of systems that allow them to compete in said market place is what really allows them to be come wealthy and we as regular people have to either learn how to become assets within that system or build another competing system to rival it. Becoming and asset is easier despite unfortunately most of schooling systems (which started as a system to bring us up to be obedient workers) do not bring us up to understand how becoming a competitive asset fundamentally works either. At least that's now what any of us are told.

[@kolacao8134]

Maybe they would have better things to do with that. Jeff Bezos is like having a big vacation...

[@sotch2271]

Its in their opinions the next best place to build X thing

[@TheGreatSovietUnion2]

Your ads are so sneaky I actually watch them all without realizing it... crafty

[@whaha]

Wow, I learned way more than I expected!

[@makatogonzo]

Great point about broken window fallacy. Advanced degrees in medicine chemistry physics and computer science talent all wasted on finance. Now how do I get into investment banking?

[@OtherDAS]

Wasted? If it provides no value then who is paying for such to be done?

[@makatogonzo]

@@OtherDAS I didn't say finance provide no value. I'm simply agreeing with the video creator that society would have been better off as a whole, if these people stayed in STEM fields rather than working as a quant. Watch 7:18 again.

[@OtherDAS]

@@makatogonzo You said wasted, which does NOT imply "valuable but not as valuable as" it implies "straight loss". But it doesn't matter, even with your restated position you are incorrect. Society would not be better off. We are better off with them working quant than their degree. This is why more is offered for them to work in that field instead. What is truly valued more is shown in action... they put their money where their mouth was so to speak and bid their services away.

[@makatogonzo]

@@OtherDAS I didn't restate my position. You were the one that said wasted = no value. I disagree.

[@OtherDAS]

@@makatogonzo So what definition of wasted are you using? And please also address the point that the work in quants is more valued because it is more beneficial to Society, hence the higher pay for the work.

[@d.bcooper2271]

I'm so happy to subscribe to this channel

[@James-gm9cs]

In theory you can get 2 types of "capitalist" economy. Demand-driven (pro-consumer power) vs Supply-side-driven (pro enterprise). Why we see so much of the latter is that politicians get the most political donations when there is a higher concentration of wealth and influence within a few businesses. That's why you'll hear politicians refer to them as the "job creators" instead of consumers.

[@hob976]

I think that Henry Hazlitt once said supply and demand are two halves of the same coin. There's no point to arguing over whether the chicken or the egg came first. Enterprising entrepreneurs and consumer demand propel each other upward, producing more and more novel goods in relatively correct amounts. Meanwhile, government and special interests interrupt and skew vital price signals that would minimize mal-investment and material waste. Any of that sound right?

[@hob976]

Also, I can't believe you landed the KZbin handle "James". That's amazing.

[@alexandermiller2975]

Love your channel. Thought this video was a little weaker than usual when it came to pacing. The lead up to the punch was a much larger percentage of the runtime than usual, and the punch itself was a little flimsy. Can't wait for the next video though!

[@Qwarm]

Another point on "Job creation", It's not necessarily a business that creates the job, but the existence of demand that created the opportunity to fill that demand. A company that creates new products may create new demand but, as pointed out in your "3 Day Work Week" video, people need time of and money to have those desires. So if a company over works and under pays employees it effectively chokes demand and destroys other jobs. This is on top of effective deflation in the consumer market as more wealth moves out of the hands of the consumer base, so big picture the worse the conditions and remuneration of work the worse it is for the economy as a whole.

[@MrMarinus18]

That actually is a problem that has been known for a long time and is pretty much what communism is based on. The idea that capitalism is a fundamentally broken system as wages will eventually lower to the point that consumption becomes impossible and the whole system collapses and Karl Marx was right. However his idea that the only solution is a violent revolution is not right and something even he later on backed down on. The minimum wage was introduced to try to fix this and it wasn't purely a humanitarian act. Many countries started to realize that a minimum wage actually benefitted the economy by increasing consumption and by reducing the power of corporations to sabotage one another which they will do in a shrinking market. Though high minimum wages work best when paired with another anti-capitalist thing: Import/export taxes. If you have those then high minimum wages mean high consumption of domestic goods and it will mean high tax income from imported foreign goods.

[@mojmirpetras1061]

Wallerstein’s world system theory is a very good overview of exactly this issue on a global scale. A lot of the points mentioned in this video could be derived from his work.

[@Motoboo_Marine]

I like your point about companies using jobs "created" as leverage to lobby the government. Part of the mindset of free market capitalism is allowing businesses to fail when they can no longer support themselves. Using the government to give yourself an unfair advantage, or bring yourself back from the brink of death actively hurts this system, because there is no punishment for failure and it allows businesses to exist that otherwise wouldn't. It also creates situations for monopolies to arise. Take that Lockheed example; at the end of the day, part of the risk of being a federal contractor is not being needed anymore when the government deems it so. If the government keeps that part of the business alive just for the sake of job creation, especially when it provides a service it no longer needs, then it ceases to add value to a society.

[@MrUnicornsinmycereal]

Also I 100% can relate to the job shouldn't exist thing...I started off as CS major and was in it for the money. Realized I wasn't going to make any world-changing algorithms so switched majors to Psychology and wanted to do the research path. I don't have the cushion of wealthy parents so as soon as I graduated I knew a bachelors wasnt gonna cut it and grad school is out of reach. Now i'm an SaaS SDR with all the other runts of the litter. money is the devil

[@alexCh-ln2gw]

haaaa. "Discovering world changing algorithms" is not the end all be all of computer science. Even Einstein probably wouldn't be able to prove Riemann's hypothesis is true. You can "world-change" without making some algorithm. Some people world-change by getting people to swipe left or right on a phone.

[@m12735]

Plus you get to learn little secrets about phones and computers that might save money, or better, time.

[@michaelbindner9883]

Job creator is the same thing as a task master. The promotion of "small business" is jargon for not hiring people - using them as contractors without benefits or union rights instead.

[@qmaster1716]

great video!

[@Neeeeecko]

If you linked the next video at the end of this one i wouldnt have stopped bingeing hahaha

[@abulelelangasiki8578]

But very insightful information

[@Chasing-the-outdoors]

The big issue is quite obvious. Machines are assets, workers are unnecessary costs. Workers used to be assets. They were valued. Given real retirement through pensions. Most older people would not survive in this workforce.

[@maximilianwenker916]

Workers are still assets, they are just not reflected on financial statements

[@VincentNoot]

I also like myself for “creating jobs” by monopolizing markets and exploiting cheap labor. Everyone should be grateful to me.

[@vaiyaktikasolarbeam1906]

Thanks!

[@robdeskrd]

Only 1 thing creates jobs: demand, something needs done

[@mmtmarathi6589]

The best option here is through Modern Monetary Theory. Here we get Federal Job Guarantee with a salary more than minimum wage but less that what a private sector would offer. Then we can create meaningful jobs or jobs that people would like to do. Businesses can tap into this human resource if they need to at a higher salary or ride on their path to be job destroyers.

[@thetrainguy1]

Do you think you can do a video on what will happen if companies were able to get rid of all their employees? What happens afterwards. Are they in a way shooting themselves in the foot as they don't have enough people to buy their products?

[@Stroggoii]

A tax on total automation is the most likely way for us to get UBI, not to free society from labor, but to sustain consumption.

[@jamiepratt9247]

I view this as the true connection to my comment about building robots to do all our work. Once an effective system has been created we can truly rely on robotics and ai to do everything.

[@zinjanthropus322]

There's no we. The robots aren't owned by the government.

[@Willsmiff1985]

@@zinjanthropus322 no, but at current, the military IS owned by the government. So yeah….

[@zinjanthropus322]

@@Willsmiff1985 Did the military make the roomba or the automated combine harvester? Companies will make and own the robots that do all the work and at that point they won't need you, your government or your monopoly money.

[@Willsmiff1985]

@@zinjanthropus322 oh you misunderstand the point of my comment. I’m saying that once the govt has vested interest in obtaining or disrupting robotics/ai, they most certainly will. They have the guns. In the end, US Govt is the ultimate mafia right now.

[@zinjanthropus322]

@@Willsmiff1985 Dude. An army of robots would wipe out the entire government in hours. Whoever wins the robot ai race wins the world. Soldiers need training, rest, pay, food, and when they die their families complain. You can use robot workers to make as many robots and extract as many resources and wage war for as long as you want. Has the US government given you any sign to indicate they have capabilities even close to private sector? They can't even run functional websites that don't crash when visitors spike.

[@user-sw1sr8bn5t]

Nice content. Regards from Saudi Arabia

[@WorldinRooView]

I saw what you did to Wells Fargo there, nice :)

[@christopherfrost3333]

Great video

[@atsanonwadsanthat166]

"Duct taping" sounds like my job: Salesforce admin.

[@jonathanpalmer228]

I am glad I don’t have to worry about my job as a diesel technician

[@locusruizlopez5997]

good video!

[@v16v]

They create systems => Systems create jobs. I am not convinced that this doesn’t equate to them => creating jobs. Whether they want it or not it doesn’t make any difference on my payday.

[@bneskylights1152]

Man, one of the good things about owning a business in roofing. My boys are never going to be out competed by a robot. You are looking at 75+ years before a robot can walk on a roof, or we have built roofs specifically for robotic maintenance. And I never say I create my guys jobs, I find work that needs to be done and then insert myself as a middle man to connect my trained professionals with that work, making my salary along the way. I actively encourage them to look for more work themselves, and subcontract myself to them if they need help so they can get a taste of making money off someone elses work. I've come to realize though, maybe 1/10 people can make money off risk, most people would prefer the stability of a job rather than the uncertainty of business.

[@robsands6656]

Workers are an asset that require investment to give good returns. Viewing them as liabilities is why they want automation.

[@ProfAzimov]

Assets you can resell

[@markchew8279]

Always like your content! This video hinges on the definition on “job creation”. Choosing to focus on the definition that jobs creation is only to protect and prevent certain values from eroding is perhaps quite one-sided. Maybe you could share concepts beyond the book BS Jobs, as it seems that’s also from that author’s point of view.

[@Addiw]

Get your hands on "That which is seen, and that which is not seen" by Frederic Bastiat. The broken window is exactly what is being said in this video.

[@MyCatsArchive]

I've been thinking... if we can autmate workers with automation, why not do it to CEOs, Investors, and board directors first?

[@aguspermana8643]

cuz they are the user of such things. The machine serve them. as costumer you can ofc make automation. like autoinvesting using nothing but claims

[@MyCatsArchive]

@@aguspermana8643 Then we should put a stop where human error might happen? Your reasoning just makes my idea even more compelling. If the user make a mistake, the rest fails.

[@dholguin6012]

Replace management with app and have an AI robot teaching people about the job and teaching people skills . That would eliminate the overpaid managers and power and egos.

[@pritishpatil7659]

Then who keeps the profit?

[@MyCatsArchive]

@@pritishpatil7659 The workers duh? Why do we need CEOs, Investors, and board directors anyways, the workers create the wealth obv

[@alimc1867]

Hey, you briefly mentioned that you work in Investment Banking, and I was wondering if you could tell me which university degree would be best for that career path. I'm at a point where I have to decide what to study in 2 years, and I wanted to become an entrepeneur, as you've mentioned before that isn't a career, so I settled for something more common and I'm still undecided on either a job in tech or a job in investment banking. Would appreciate any advice! I'm in central europe btw

[@alexpetrov5461]

Take a job in tech instead, a good salary(as long as you don't do tech support and even then there are jobs paying upwards of €45k euros for 2nd/3rd line support) and a much better quality of life.

[@syferpolski4344]

@@alexpetrov5461 You can even work in FinTech, which probably the easiest way into IB if that's what you want

[@noahcarter3868]

If you listened he said he had peers from many walks of life. Your safest bet is to go into computer science or engineering. Most investment bankers dont decide off of things like intuition or thought process anymore. Instead they use math and software to make calculated decisions. Those with heavy math backgrounds are often best suited. Unless you can get into yale or harvard as a finance students however if that waa an option for you, you wouldn't be here

[@alimc1867]

@@noahcarter3868 um I think I said I'm in central Europe????? How are you even mentioning Harvard or Yale..

[@misterchoc123]

Deutschland? Bwl ist hierzulande das einfachste Studium, dass dir glrichzeitig die Türen zu den meisten Job öffnet.

[@JOSEPHELBOSS]

6:03 this is why i follow this channel

[@The_Flamekeepers]

You (probably) unwittingly just summarized “Economics in One Lesson” by Jerry Hazlitt, the inventor of the broken window fallacy.

[@nicholasgreenwood8281]

How do you manage IB and semi-regular posting? I'm assuming you aren't doing 100+ hour EB weeks but nonetheless I think this is very impressive

[@chencohen2369]

I neither loved nor hated them for these things. still a great video.

[@PhilfreezeCH]

Here is the way I think about it: First, lets assume person A starts a business alone and hires B after working 10‘000h. Then these two people work together for 5000h before hiring a third person, person B, and all three hire a fourth one, C, after another 3000h. Your typical billionaire ‚I am a job creator‘ type would say he created three jobs. I would say he fully created one job (the one of person B) and parts of the other two jobs. After all, person B also worked and also had his part in making it possible to hire the other two people. One way to approximate this contribution would be to look at the share of total work hours. So for the first hire the person A is the only one working and therefore is responsible for 100% of person Bs job. For the second hire person A worked 15000h in total and person B worked 5000h, so person A only created 75% of that job. For the third hire A worked 18000h, B worked 8000h and C worked 3000h to create this job, so person A only contributed roughly 60% to the creation of the job. And so on, this highlights rather well that after a while the CEO or founder or whatever isn‘t the majority contributor anymore and in fact all workers contribute to job creation (which makes sense since they provide value to a company). So for a company like Amazon or Tesla the figureheads contribute very little to every new job created since they have thousands of people that work for the company and make it possible to hire new people. Edit: Pf course this isn‘t a replacement for the points you made, it is just another aspect of it.

[@janosimas]

Please add the links of the suggested videos to the description!

[@AnyVideo999]

While certain ways the banking system are setup do inflate the value of "pushing money around", the high returns and profits aren't devoid of value. Investment is essentially capital allocation and it is one of the most important jobs in aa capitalist society to ensure that those that would do the best job with the money by providing growth back to the economy are allocated funds in a win-win situation. Also acts as providing liquidity and efficient price allocation when considering things like commodities and forex. Very important job in my opinion and the high salaries reflect that, and I don't even work in that field myself. The one thing that does make the system abusable is when the flow and creation of the currency are artificially displaced from economic production, which is quite the impossible problem to solve.

[@matteopacciani9402]

I have to point out that you haven't explained wath a ' job creator' is. As an auropean I was very confused about this term and I have been able to figure out the meaning only later.

[@Roger_Gadd]

I find this video to be insightful and interesting, but it appears to me that the comparison between equipment and workers starting at about 5:12 in this video may be false. Where the discounted cash flows are identical over the would be life of the piece of equipment, there is no reason to choose one over the other. Ultimately, the cash outgoings of both can be offset against income for calculation of tax payable. The cost of the equipment goes to the equipment supplier and maintainers. The only major uncertainties are around the discount rates applicable to each type of cost. The employee cost is less certain, which suggests the npv of any nominal employee cost would be greater than the same nominal equipment cost. That is, with identical outputs, and costs identical in timing and nominal amount, the employee would cost more than the peice of equipment.

[@youngKOkid1]

Entrepreneurs create products and services people voluntarily choose to buy, and one of the costs of doing so is often labor. It’s only complicated if you make it so.

[@cardplayer2124]

Creating jobs isn’t everything. Sometimes eliminating jobs is better for the society as a whole. And later down the line could lead to more jobs, lower costing products, and overall Pareto optimality.

[@zinjanthropus322]

Before long the unemployed will be tearing down the gates.

[@forestpepper3621]

Companies are fast approaching the day when most jobs will be automated. The game-changer is "Artificial Intelligence" (AI), which did not exist, practically speaking, just a couple of decades ago. Computers now have something like "human intuition", and this will allow computers to start doing all sorts of jobs that could never have been automated in the past. AI actually teaches itself, so that people are not required to program it. Furthermore, in many applications, very sophisticated applications like complicated games, AI easily outperforms the brightest humans. The early 21'st century may witness a vast wave of unemployment, unless the government passes laws requiring that some jobs must be done by people, even if those jobs could be automated.

[@spaceygnat19908]

Not really most uses of ai have been use to improve work ai is a tool not a replacement you dont need ai to cook a burger or make a car robots can do that already. Ai isnt really going to be a job killer it might remove some jobs but definitely will be replace with loads of more jobs. To assumed that there will be no work is to assume humanity has peek which we are far from.

[@tvix6737]

In a consumer driven economy, the consumption of goods and services is what creates jobs. If consumers do not have enough currency to comfortably spend, businesses cannot operate with full staffing. If consumers have consistent and reliable income that exceeds basic living expenses, businesses need to employ more workers to maintain supply and meet demand. Businesses and the wealthy can only keep pace with what the overall consumer can afford.

[@schadowizationproductions6205]

Work for the sake of work is nothing to aim for but that's because we subconsciously agree that only work for money is work.

[@jacobethan3490]

The time is now as a newbie in the market or pro it is highly important to have different streams of income and also a diversified portfolio I've already invested in both stocks and bitcoin but I've been earning more in bitcion even on the dip it's all about creating it all up and patience to continue.

[@bellaadamas5850]

*Now Should Be The Best Time To Buy And Trade On Bitcoin Because Currently The Profits Are Good And Up To A Standard Rate*

[@Dubanowski_Bogumil]

Biggest mistake: not investing in a crypto favourable portfolio 75/25 portfolio. 75% crypto , 25% stocks.

[@ryancolton8215]

True. What about DODGE? Surely that gets in there too for diversification haha

[@Manon-Bernard]

I like to leverage 600/400 since I am young i can take some calculated risk. But I have about 19% of my portfolio in uranium bitcoin any advice on any other cryptocurrency that I can grow my $390k capital to a million dollars ?

[@MeyerAnneliese]

Just shove it into CRYPTO you will be wealthy in the long run .

[@itburnswheneyepee3228]

And once the corporations figure out how to not employ anyone, then the “worker” will no longer be exploited right? Because they will not be employed?

[@esued86]

"This video is sponsored by The Daily Upside." At no point do I associate How Money Works with having an upside.

[@pythonjava6228]

I've always disliked how people praise "job creators". They act as if getting a job is akin to being done a favour or given a handout. In reality, it's a mutually beneficial situation. Yes,a company employs workers, but it's the workers who make it possible for the company to exist in the first place

[@bignoob1790]

I've worked a couple of places, and this is anecdotal evidence, but the robots I've worked with don't get the job done