need some help in debating conservatives

[ComradeAV]

okay, the problem I have when debating, is that I am not good at properly articulating myself. I am better writer than a debater, so I need some help, when the conservative brings up the argument , "The rich create jobs , so therefore they deserve all their wealth?" what is the best way to respond? I know how to explain it in Marxist theory, but what is the simplest retraction you could give to the statement?

[tbasherizer]

If you're arguing from the point of view of tax policy, then just let them know that rich people care more about market stability than how much money they have in pocket with regards to investing in things ('creating jobs'). If they're not taxed heavily but the market is shaky, that just means they have more money to lose. If the market is stable and they don't have quite enough money to invest, they'll take out a line of credit that they know they'll make back in returns. This is why, from a bourgeois-liberal point of view, having stronger bank regulations to secure the credit market is a good thing.

Point out that the rich aren't in the business of handing out livelihoods. They want things done for them, and will pay as little as possible for it. When it comes down to it, shareholders in a company want a fatter bottom line, as HR policy is often only that which maximizes profits. Tell him that capitalism only consciously makes money for those who are lucky enough to be at its wheel. Everything else is only consequential.

[Sensible Socialist]

Where were the "job creators" when thousands of people lost their jobs in the automotive industry? If the rich created jobs, how could unemployment be so high? Tax rates for the rich have kept dropping over the decades, and yet people continue to still lose their jobs. Tell conservatives to look at the damn world.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Why can't the workers run that same business and create those same jobs?

[Sensible Socialist]

Why can't the workers run that same business and create those same jobs?
That's a good point you should bring up, ComradeAV. If capital was controlled by the community, they could creat the neccessary jobs and projects that would benefit the community as a whole, rather than relying on capitalists to provide meaningless jobs that do nothing to benefit the community as a whole. We need more schools and hospitals, not more fast-food resturants.

[jmpeer]

Investors seek gain. They hold and contribute the means of organizing jobs, and these days, what with how big businesses are, probably contribute little to nothing except that. Communism seeks to put these means in the hands of the public. If this were so, then there would be no need for investors to have these means, no reason for their gain, and thus why would they deserve to reward themselves for what need not be? This statement either needs an appropriate response to that or implies communism, as an alternative, isn't feasible, which means it isn't a valid argument against what it already rejects.

[Kotze]

"The rich create jobs, so therefore they deserve all their wealth."

The first part of that sentence is true. The rich create jobs.

Every kid understands that when somebody steals something from you and then the same individual tries to sell it back to you, we don't have to go into details of pricing to know that it is a ripoff. Capitalism is more complicated than that, but not much.

Imagine you walk through a forest, the ground under your feet collapses and you fall into a hole and you can't get out by yourself. After some time, somebody appears who is willing to help you out and says, "You owe me." You two get to a mutual agreement what you will do in exchange for getting your life saved. You catch a glimpse of a map that person carries, a map with little marks all over it, one in the place where the hole is. You ask that person, "Did you make the hole?" Answer: "How dare you say such a thing? I didn't make that one."

When you are without shelter and a landlord is willing to give you that, that landlord likely was not pivotal as an individual in causing your situation of being without shelter. But landlords as a group cause homelessness. You may have some choice between different landlords, but do you have choice in that you have to give money to the group of landlords? That it occasionally happens that somebody joins the group of landlords doesn't change much in the big picture, people usually can't.

Something similar to the story with landlords happens with capitalists. I prefer to talk about landlords first because it is more clear that they are leeching off people who work. With cappies, especially the small fishes, you often have that they also work in some sense, so income from productive activity is mixed with income from leeching, without you being able to pinpoint exact percentages. The small business owners are often painted in a favourable light compared to the big oligopolists who personally know and bribe top politicians. It is important that we don't stop at such a lukewarm criticism of the world we live in. Some landlords might also do some productive work in addition to being leeches or give to charity, that doesn't change that landlords as a group are leeching off people who work. A minority owns land, and within that minority the ownership structure is very unequal. If the ownership structure within that minority were changed so that among the landlords everybody would become an equally small player, it wouldn't change the fact that landlords as a group are ripping us off.

A cleaner who has a heart attack needs to be replaced or stuff gets dirty. If all land owners had a heart attack that wouldn't make land disappear. Factories won't disappear when private ownership of factories disappears. But the production and maintenance of stuff that is many steps away from personal consumption — building machines for building machines for building machines for building machines that make consumer items — will require some new order to replace the old one.

Private ownership of something is the power to prevent others from using it. Some people own stuff that is essential for production, essential for living. They block access to that, so the need for that essential stuff is strongly felt. When they then slightly reduce their iron grip, let a few more people work with it, that's what they call creating jobs.

Err, that wasn't really short. Take the last paragraph then. Or start your counter by saying that striking is a disruption of production, that people who strike and stop others from getting on the property and working with the machinery and tools there are demanding a reward for ceasing to sabotage production, and that when somebody gets in the way and demands reward for getting out of the way that's parasitic behaviour...

[Jimmie Higgins]

"The rich create jobs , so therefore they deserve all their wealth?"CEO compensation has gone up throughout this period of increased unemployment. In fact, some of the rich, or capitalists more accurately, can profit from job-loss and they have in the last 3 recessions.

When there is overproduction and capitalists can't make the profits they once did, usually they sit on their money and the capitalists in a better situation eat up all their competitors who fail during the crisis and then fire "redundant" workers and close factories and stores until profitability is restored. In this sense, you can say the rich destroy jobs and are rewarded for it.

[freya4]

"The rich create jobs , so therefore they deserve all their wealth?"
Well, first of all, the rich don't create jobs. DEMAND creates jobs. If you're running a business, you want to employ the right number of people. If more people want to buy your goods/services, you need to hire more workers to meet that demand. If there is less demand, you're probably not going to keep employing and paying people to do nothing.

Secondly, why would they deserve the wealth they obtained form exploiting the labor of their workers? Any profit that they earn is a result of not paying their employees the full value of their work.

[Ocean Seal]

okay, the problem I have when debating, is that I am not good at properly articulating myself. I am better writer than a debater, so I need some help, when the conservative brings up the argument , "The rich create jobs , so therefore they deserve all their wealth?" what is the best way to respond? I know how to explain it in Marxist theory, but what is the simplest retraction you could give to the statement?

The rich don't create jobs. The working class creates profit which in turn creates jobs. The working class could be fully employed without the rich as they were in the Soviet Union. In capitalism it is the market which determines who keeps their jobs and who doesn't. Also the rich have this new habit of not creating jobs in their home country but rather putting jobs in the imperial neo-colonies which is something which is sure to get their conservative nationalist feelings confused.
As far as large corporations go, they create and destroy jobs at the whim of the market, so it can't be said that the rich are creating jobs. Also what merit do they to the ownership of the establishments that they own.
Their ownership of said establishments is divided into three types in my opinion.

Type A (the most common)- inheritance. A person inherits large amounts of private property which is managed by a board of directors while said person lounges off in some island.

Type B (second most common)-the person comes from a petit-bourgeois or upper-strata proletarian family. This person has the means to go to college, earn their MBA, and move into management. After working in management they take their acquired capital and knowledge of business and with loans from family and friends they start their own business. They then cease to do work and begin their careers as major exploiters.

Type C (most rare)- the made for Hollywood type. A person comes from a working class background and through some miracle gets an opportunity to become an exploiter. Then they too move to an island and their children become Type A's.

So all these different forms of rising to exploitation are still exploitative, and unnecessary. The bourgeoisie create no wealth. The workers create the only wealth, and should therefore be in charge of their production. The workers control of the means of production is beneficial to all of the workers and to society as a whole because progress is made at tremendous rates when the workers control their own destinies. The rich hold back production and without them we could have jobs for everyone. So that's the jobs argument. Also in all seriousness most of the rich don't reinvest every penny into growing their industries but the government has to be slightly more accountable so their more trustworthy in terms of job creation. And even more trust worthy is the working class. Really push the outsourcing argument as well.