I just read The Best explanation I have read on Rmoney's vision of job creating vs reality.....

[jillan]

it was on Randi Rhodes message board and I am not a member, and I don't have the permission of the poster - so without completely plagiarizing - I will change their example a little......and add some thoughts of my own.

Let's say you own a mom & pop coffee shop. You have 10 employees working for you.
Starbucks comes along and opens a store right down the street from you. They have 9 employees working for them.
Starbucks is so busy that it eventually causes you to go out of business.

Yes, Starbucks can say they have created 9 new jobs BUT there are now 10 more people unemployed.
Net -1 on job growth.

Causing businesses to close, and opening new ones that does the same thing for cheaper, with less employees does NOT lead to job growth.
It is only job shifting. Or in this example, job destroying.

Job growth only occurs when there is a new 'market' or demand that does not take away from what is already there.

Bain Capital provides job shifting. Doing more with less and doing it cheaper does nothing to help economic growth.

Investing in clean energy (no Solyndra comments pls ) and creating a product that people want to buy - that's job growth.
Getting our infrastructure fixed = job growth, even if it is only temporary.

This is why the subject of Bain Capital is an important one to debate this election season no matter what Booker, DeVal and Bill Clinton say.

[rfranklin]

1. The Romney campaign is only claiming about a thousand jobs now and that's B.S.

Romney was in the business of extracting wealth by siphoning off money from company coffers, pensions and borrowed money, legally and with tax loopholes that let them do it without any investment. By the time they exited, the company was like a victim of Dracula, basically a lifeless corpse. If some survived it was a miracle.