We've got to stop the myth of "the rich are the ones that

[EC]

create jobs" It's not true, they profit more from cutting jobs, acquiring other small businesses and shutting them down. It's the middle class that creates jobs. They are the ones that create small businesses. That's why there are no jobs, the middle class can't get loans and besides that, there are no customers - no demand -because the ones who would make the demand can't get loans either.


Every time someone says to me that it's the rich that creates jobs I'm going to say, " No they don't...the middle-class does."

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Spending creates jobs.

When I buy a car, I am actually hiring someone to assemble it for me, someone to design it for me and managers and bookkeepers to to handle the transaction, manage the work and aggregate customers to enable efficient production.

Businesses are only intermediaries. It all comes down to labor. The income derived from my labor is spent commissioning the labor of others.

Businesses don't create shit.

[BOG PERSON]

2. broken windows create jobs

[jmowreader]

72. Have you read Henry Hazlitt's denunciation of the broken window theory?

(Hazlitt was a right-wing economist, which means he's completely full of shit.)

According to Hazlitt:
A young ruffian breaks a pane of glass in a bakery. This will cause the baker to have to spend the money he was saving for a suit on the window, and the town will be one suit poorer--because the baker couldn't afford to frequent the tailor.

Never mind the fact the baker has casualty insurance on his bakery. When the hooligan throws the rock through the window, the baker calls his insurance company. The insurance company calls the glazier, the glazier bills the insurance company and our friend the baker buys his new suit.

But just consider: The tailor is a busy man and makes one suit per day, with a two-month order backlog. The baker, who does not wear suits to work but only to church, by having to spend all his money on the window now opens a slot for the lawyer, who wears suits every day, to buy his sooner. By the time the baker's able to get the tailor's time, he will have the money for a suit.

Rather than "instead of a window and a new suit, the town only has a window and is poorer by one suit," the town in reality not only has as many suits now as it would have otherwise, but it has two other things it wouldn't have had: the baker no longer has a rock-pitted window, and the glazier has enough money to put a down payment on a new truck.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Also demand is in crisis because the rich have successfully suppressed wages for 30 years

Beyond that, though, the argument that Class X does thus-and-such in the overall division of labor within an economy, therefore Class X is entitled to a monopoly on the power to decide all economic policy has to be opposed and rejected. A dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is not more fair or functional than a Soviet Socialist Republic, in which supposedly a dictatorship of the proletariat reigns. The Republican "philosophy" is no less extreme than Leninist-Marxism and boils down to this - the rich are the indispensable class, therefore they get to decide everything according to their needs and preferences, and the suffering of everyone else which follows makes God happy up in Heaven. And sadly the Democratic philosophy seems to be "Uh...uh, metoo!11!!!."

[coalition_unwilling]

14. If you look closely at the sources of wealth for the wealthy class,

you will find that the vast majority (I believe on the order of 90%) is inherited wealth passed along from one generation to the next.

The myth of the self-made rich man (or woman) is largely that: a myth.

Instead of reducing or eliminating the inheritance tax, serious consideration should be given to sharply increasing it, imho.

Edited for typo from mouse run amok.

[Drahthaardogs]

87. You are right.

And I might add, there is too much freaking old money in this country.

[OneGrassRoot]

95. 6 of the top 10 wealthiest individuals in our country inherited their wealth:

:(

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x487860

[bigmonkey]

4. The rich also don't create wealth.

When I was a kid, I never remember anyone saying that. People said that someone "amassed" wealth, "built up" a fortune, etc. It was with Reagan that I started to hear that the rich create wealth. As if it radiates from their inner nature.

It's a very large frame, that supports the false idea that the unrestrained profit motive is natural. If you believe that, then the idea that taxes and regulation are perverse also follows naturally. From there it's an easy step to the idea that humans and human societies need to adapt to the economic policies of greedy elites.

Of course, that's all horse crap. The problem is at a very basic nomenclature level, so I agree - let's start calling it horse crap.

[TahitiNut]

84. Correct. All wealth is created by labor.

Sad fact: Labor in corporate America (S&P500) is only compensated for less than 1/3 of the wealth they create.

[The Magistrate]

92. Hear Hear, Sir!

And that is flat theft....

"Some men rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen."

[TahitiNut]

94. Good to see you again, sir ... even sans the shadow figure.

It's a wonder to me that more to appreciate the simple truth that all wealth comes from labor. That those who labor have been increasingly cheated out of a fair share over the last 30 years is the kind of breach of the 'social contract' that will eventually lead to bloody and muderous times. (IMHO)

[nuxvomica]

5. I posted an idea to correct that...

Tie the top marginal rate to the unemployment rate. If the rich really are job creators, this would be their chance to prove it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=86282&mesg_id=86282

[Rhiannon12866]

33. +1000

This idea certainly deserves its own thread. :thumbsup:

[KT2000]

6. Private equity firms

deserve closer examination for their business plan of buying American companies, sending those jobs oversease, making less quality products and raking in the money for the top execs.

[JaneQPublic]

7. factcheck.org debunks that myth...

"The vast majority of individuals who report business income or losses are not making upwards of $200,000 a year. In fact, only 2 percent of all those reporting business income in 2009 will earn enough to fall in the top two brackets."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/half-of-the-wealthy-own-small-businesses/

So if only 2 percent of those making over $2K report business income or losses, then it's only 2 percent of the rich who are even in a position to hire or fire. That sure ain't anywhere near enough to give them credit as the movers and shakers for job creation in this country.

[bobbolink]

8. In talking with poor people about this, I find that they already KNOW this.

What they don't know, and what middleclass people DON't KNOW, is the corollary..... that assistance to poor people brings money to the LOCAL economy!

For instance, for every Federal dollar spent on Food Stamps, $1.84 is returned to the local economy. I said this to a poor couple this morning, and they were stunned. They have never heard this... and now see things quite a bit differently.

I also told them that for every Federal dollar spent on Unemployment benefits, it is quite the same... about $1.75 is returned to the local economy.

Same with low-income housing... MILLIONS come into the local economy because of low-income housing subsidies, PLUS many jobs are created.

THIS is the information that needs to get out!

Poor people bring money into the local economy, AND create jobs!

[Shandris]

10. Dead-on right here, Bobbo

I've seen that in action, but you'd think the entire central power structure was blind the way they simply overlook it, then fail to pave the roads, then cut any police presence, and the next thing you know they're oh-so-sad that 'the money we invested there just seems to always go to waste, the businesses closed up completely on their own and the crime there is just terrible!'

It's disgusting.

Can't allow any evidence to even HINT that the rich aren't the solution to everyone's problems, because if that whole 'Work Hard and Get Rich, Fail To Work and Become These Poor Bastards' motivation ever gets seen for the bullshit illusion it is, there'd be blood on the mansion walls.

[SlimJimmy]

12. Wouldn't it be a *lot* more cost effective to distribute food stamps and other

assistance to the poor from state and local resources? Why filter it through a federal system that takes their share before returning it?

[EstimatedProphet]

16. You don't think state and local would take a share too?

[SlimJimmy]

23. I guarantee that the share with be a small percentage of the overhead being used up in Washington.

[EstimatedProphet]

68. Really? How do you guarantee that?

[LiberalFighter]

19. Because state and locals would find a reason not to use it as intended

if it came from their accounts instead of the federal.

[SlimJimmy]

22. I respectfully disagree. We tax locally for schools, police, fire, and roads.

That money is used for the stated purpose. Why can't we also tax for food stamps and other socially needed assistance - like housing and welfare? Why *must* it come from Washington?

[LiberalFighter]

59. Because those services are considered vital

While social programs to assist those in need would be ignored especially when economically stressed.

[unc70]

67. Taxing "locally" to deal with "local" poverty. Obvious problem with that, education

Consider the most extreme examples of what you advocate. Pick a really poor, rural county in MS or NC or most anywhere. Or take the whole state of MS, if you prefer. When there is little property and almost no income, where will you magically find the money to deal with extreme poverty?

The more local the taxes and the spending decisions, the greater the disparity between rich vs poor localities -- counties, school districts, cities towns, red-lined neighborhoods, ...

At its roots, this is the "me" vs "we" division at the heart of progressive democratic (sometimes Democratic) policies. It is the "my family earned everything by hard work and the Grace of God" (and supposedly without any help!), and anyone poor, jobless, sick, etc. brought their misfortunes upon themselves by making bad decisions, moral failures, and not being one of the chosen people, that particular sect of intolerant Calvinism that is a small fraction of WASPs with the Protestant Work Ethic.

[bobbolink]

24. Exactly. That has been demonstrated over and over and over again... we need to LEARN this.

There are things that need to be federally mandated, and safety nets for poor people is one of the prime exammples!

[JVS]

46. No. Because state and local governments are funded through less progressive measures.

And I don't know where you get the idea that the federal government takes a cut out of funds allocated.

[SlimJimmy]

51. The federal government has costs associated with administering the programs. Add

to that the costs of administering the programs locally, and we end up with wasted dollars on both ends. The last time I checked that was about 2-3% at the federal level. It doesn't sound like much until we add up the cost of all federally mandated programs.

[JVS]

52. link?

[SlimJimmy]

56. I did a quick Google and found the cost for Medicare administration.

According to the advocates for a single payer system, the cost is about 3%. I'm sure we can extrapolate that to most government plans and average it for administrative costs of something in the neighborhood of less than 5%.

Administrative Efficiencies
Perhaps the most obvious advantage of public insurance is that it is inexpensive to administer. The public Medicare plan’s administrative overhead costs (in the range of 3 percent) are well below the overhead costs of large companies that are self-insured (5 to 10 percent of premiums), companies in the small group market (25 to 27 percent of premiums), and individual insurance (40 percent of premiums).

http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jacob_Hacker_Public_Plan_Choice.pdf

[EstimatedProphet]

69. But, do you have anything to compare state/local admin costs to this figure?

2-3% might amount to a lot of money, but it's still a small proportion. I doubt local or state governments could beat it.

[underpants]

13. Top three economic stimulators

1. infrastructure expenditures
2. food programs
3. unemployment benefits


tax cuts are among the worst 11


no link but I can look it up if you want me to.

[bobbolink]

15. TERRIFIC information! Yes, a link would be very appreciated.

This is the kind of thing I have suggested that DUers raise money to propagate, but it falls on deaf ears.

Are you interested in the info I found about the return for low-income housing? I don't want to spend the time looking for it if nobody cares about it.

[underpants]

20. CBO Ranks Extending Tax Cuts as Least Effective Stimulus Option

Some argue that now is not the time to allow the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high-income households to expire because the economy is weak. But analysis in recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report decisively refutes this argument.<2> CBO examined 11 options to stimulate growth and job creation and found that extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in general came in last in effectiveness, well behind measures such as boosting unemployment insurance, providing a tax credit for new hires, extending state fiscal relief, and increasing infrastructure spending.<3>

Furthermore, CBO indicated that extending the tax cuts for high-income households in particular would rate even lower in effectiveness than extending all of the tax cuts. This is because, as CBO explained, “higher-income households … would probably save a larger fraction of their increase in after-tax income.”<4> An economy in a recession or the early stages of a recovery needs more spending, not more saving. That is why putting money into the hands of people who will promptly spend most or all of it, like unemployed workers, is much more effective at spurring economic and job growth than putting money into the hands of high-income people who are likely to save a significant portion of any additional income they receive.


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3140#_ftnref3

[bobbolink]

35. Thanks... I saw that when it came out. However, I'm not finding what you quoted

about food help, etc., being more of a stimulus.

Can you help me with that?

Thanks again! :hi:

[xmas74]

27. I'd love that link

but don't feel like you have to rush on it.
If nothing else, find it when you have time and send in a pm. I'd love the info, just to make a good argument about it later.

[bobbolink]

29. Are you referring to the one about the low-income housing?

Not clear if you're referring to the CBO link or the one I mentioned...

[xmas74]

30. The low income housing.

We have a severe lack of low income housing in my town. One of the biggest complexes was recently purchased by a "group". That "group" has moved everyone out. They are now renovating them and turning them into units advertised for college students.

There is almost nothing left for low income families and Section 8 hasn't taken applications in a couple of years. I'd love a link, if only to argue at the next city council meeting whenever they try to sell off more land to build complexes for college students instead of low income housing for the actual residents of the city.

[bobbolink]

31. You are wonderful to be willing to take this information, and use it for ACTION!!

:pals:

That is exactly what I have been begging people to do!

How 'bout a billboard with the information? :rofl:

I will look it up, 'K? May take me a bit....

Again, thanks so much, You just lifted my sagging spirits! :yourock:

[xmas74]

32. No problem.

I may not have any money but I've always had a bit mouth. That, and I view city council meetings as a form of free entertainment.

Besides, I've been poor for years now. I have a home but not by much and I'm worried about what happens next if I lose any more pay. I've always believed that housing, food, higher education, and health care should be made affordable to all.

[bobbolink]

34. Do you have others who would also testify about this kind of info?

I very much appreciate you going to city council meetings, and speaking for those of us who are ignored!

That list you have of what should be affordable.. fits in FDR's Second Bill Of Rights!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUL9tJmypI

I'm listening to it again, to try to regain a sense of sanity......

[bobbolink]

37. Here is one quote, 750 jobs, but not the one I'm looking for.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/OIT-2/OIT2/1248577525049

I don't know if that will be any help to you, but I will keep looking for the article I saw. It was by a realtor in the Denver area.

[xmas74]

38. I'll save this and read it in a bit.

I want no distractions and in the afternoon my kid can be distracting!

[bobbolink]

40. Yeah, its a little hard on reading comprehension, when I child is needing mom!

There is a lot of info, and it will take time to digest.

I hope to hear back from you as you go through it, and thanks again for your willingness! :yourock:

[xmas74]

41. np/

And I sent you a pm earlier about the "Others".

[bobbolink]

39. This is local, about the shortfall... don't know if it will be helpful to you:

http://www.fresc.org/downloads/CRD%20Housing%20Issue%20Brief.pdf.pdf

A source for EXCELLENT info about the shortfall of low-income housing and other stats:

http://www.wraphome.org/pages/downloads/2010%20Update%20Without%20Housing.pdf

http://www.wraphome.org/pages/

[SlimJimmy]

21. I'm not talking about tax cuts. I'm saying use the same dollars locally without

having them filtered through Washington.

[bobbolink]

25. That has been explained to you... done over and over with the same sad results.

But you just argue with it.

Poor people are too important to keep playing "local" games!

[SlimJimmy]

42. So you are telling me that the *only* entity capable of effectively delivering social programs is

the federal government? If that's the case, then, how do we manage to build roads, protect our homes and businesses, and educate our children using local funding? Based on your argument, it *must* be the federal government or nothing? I don't think so, not for a second. Poor people are too important to have the money filtered TWICE before they receive it.

[bobbolink]

43. I'm not that interested in a state's rights argument. Just one thing.. its among many, but I will

leave it at thhis...

What state's rights does with Medicaid, for example, is pick and choose what to use and what to throw out. It is WRONG for one state to provide dental care to children (I don't even know if there are ANY states anymore that provide dental care for adults! does it matter to you?), while a neighboring state refuses to provide that care.

That is ONE example among many others,,, but as I said, it is useless to try to reason with people bent on "state's rights".

[SlimJimmy]

45. You are long on passion, and I admire your passion for the

poor - I truly do. But your argument is extremely weak. This is absolutely *not* about state's rights - it's about administering tax dollars in an *effective* manner. When tax dollars are filtered through two sets of administrations (federal and local) the net proceeds available to those receiving that aid is diminished considerably. I would think that someone as passionate about the poor as you are, would be concerned that so many tax dollars are being wasted in this manner instead of being used for their intended purpose. In this environment of deficit spending and state shortfalls on budgets, I'm sure you can appreciate that every dollar saved then becomes a dollar spent on what *truly* matters. It's easy to point and shout "State's rights zealot." It might even make you feel better. But you should really try and determine if that's the case before screaming unnecessarily. In this case, it was a wasted breath.

[bobbolink]

47. Yes, it is "weak" to want JUSTICE for poor people. State's rights is crap!

[SlimJimmy]

49. You didn't read a damn thing I wrote - clearly. And that's a shame. (nt)

[bobbolink]

54. Its all the same.. states rights, states rights, states rights.

STATES REFUSE TO SERVE THEIR POOR CITIZENS.

[SlimJimmy]

60. Guess what? Repeating it over, and over, and over, still won't make it true

no matter how much you want it to be. Look at my signature line for a little hint. :D

[bobbolink]

61. then stop repeating it.

[SlimJimmy]

63. I'm not talking about State's rights, I'm discussing the creation

of a more efficient government. They are not even remotely the same. If implemented, these efficiencies would bring more money, not less to the poor. But I sense that you are so blinded by your opinion that you just won't see it. And that's actually, a bit sad.

[bobbolink]

65. Oh for fuck's sake.. you are right. Cut all the safety net... there's not much left now anyway.

What the hell do these lives mean, anyway?

ZERO.

ZILCH.

NADA.

Knock yourself out.

[SlimJimmy]

66. One trick pony, this one. I never said anything about State's rights, I

never said anything about cutting a safety net for *anyone* - as a matter of fact, it would have increased funding for that very thing. But no, you can't hear any of that because you have absolutely and utterly failed to read and digest *anything* I've written. You, Madam, are a lost cause. :banghead:

[unc70]

71. You are totally confused about funding and delivery of services and refuse to listen

The administration costs of programs like Medicare (2-3%) are extremely low and include much of the costs all down the line. State-wide funding of programs like public education have been legally mandated, but not enforced. Remember "separate, but equal" and think "public vs charter schools" when the charter school does not provide buses, lunch, etc.

Many of my friends and family members are in social services, mental health, public education, etc. from fairly low levels to very senior managers in various states.

Do you or your family/friends have any involvement in any of the fields? Do you understand that food stamps in a single county might be $20-50 million dollars, that those "Federal administrative costs" include many of the local delivery of these services (e.g. county), or that food stamps began as a farm subsidy program where extra cheese or whatever were given to the school lunch program?

All you do is repeat the same tired claims with nothing to back them up. Would you want each county to be responsible for processing of your Social Security checks? All the arguments you use are directly from the playbook of the groups trying to privatize those parts of government were they can overcharge everyone for the use of schools, roads, water systems, hospitals, or anything else -- things created and funded by public investment being transferred to become "private, for profit" businesses. Convert the local Interstate Highway into a toll road, take over a "failing" school and give the building to a for-profit charter school, and on and on and on.

[socialist_n_TN]

79. You still haven't proven that a local/state government............

would beat that 2% or 3% federal admin cost. That's one thing. I don't think that local governments CAN do better than that, simply because you're looking at DUPLICATING admin costs in God knows HOW many areas. Whereas with Fed control there is MUCH less duplication.

In addition and ESPECIALLY in these days and times, I'm not so sure that local governments wouldn't just use the money for the poor to cut property taxes and the poor would wind up with nothing at all.

[unc70]

91. The Federal admin usually includes reimbursing states for about halt of admin costs

It varies depending on the Federal program and the options implemented in each state. For Food Stamps, the Federal overhead includes centralized data bases, etc. making the actual "debit" cards, and reimbursing states for half their actual cost incurred for administration. In NC, county social services are tasked with enrollment, verification of qualification of applicants (residency, citizenship, income, assets), certification, fraud investigation and prosecution, ongoing case management, etc. These functions are now done in one system that includes nearly all state and federal programs available to their clients.

The State reimburses the counties for some of the remaining admin costs related to state programs, maybe allowing 2-5% of funding for a program to be used for administration, the remainder as client benefits. Some Federal programs require local funding of benefits "matching" some part of the Federal funding. In NC, part of this requirement is pushed down to the counties. NC law requires that counties must levy and collect local taxes to fully fund their share of benefits and administration costs as mandated.

How all the Federal and State programs flow down to county social services departments is very complicated and confusing, particularly wrt the ways they are interdependent. There are in constant flux from changes in legislation, budgets, and the number of clients and their needs. The high poverty rates for families with young children and for the elderly, plus all the programs for the working poor, foster care, daycare, protective services, nursing homes, veterans benefits, etc. means a very large percentage of a county's population might qualify for benefits of some type.

This gives a lot more background and history of the programs in NC.

http://www.sog.unc.edu/pubs/cmg/cmg42.pdf

The NC DHHS manuals and reports are all publicly available online.

I hope this has helped clear up the confusion by some here about administrative costs at the different levels of government.

[EstimatedProphet]

86. Fine then. Cut LOCAL and keep FEDERAL.

[BobbyBoring]

28. And yet they are the most preyed upon

That's what really burns me up. Everything is more expensive in poor neighborhoods. Groceries and gas in particular. Many have to use pawn shops and pay day loan ops for their banks. How can someone even dream of charging 300% interest on someone that can least afford it. The title loan assholes are maybe the worst. I've heard of people spending $3,500.00 to pay off a $500.00 loan.

Usury sucks!

[socialist_n_TN]

78. Rachel Maddow has done SEVERAL segments........

on this VERY thing. Money allocated to poor people is ALWAYS spent back into the economy.

[_ed_]

9. Paris Hilton creates a lot of jobs

with all of the businesses she operates, right? That's why she got her tax cut. Same thing with my rich brother-in-law who retired at 39 and hordes all of his money.

[mainer]

11. bail bondsmen, makeup, hair, nails, shoes, dresses,

cutesy outfits for her pooch, lawyers to get her out of jail...

darn tooting she creates jobs!

[Cleita]

17. Sure you can go work as their nanny for $150 a

month and some food and a bed. It doesn't necessarily mean you will get your own room or even a room to sleep in. You may get a day off every week but otherwise you are expected to be there anytime they call on you. Yes, these are the jobs they create.

[annabanana]

18. No one EVER hired someone they didn't need, no matter HOW RICH

they got...

[socialist_n_TN]

80. THANK YOU Anna.Yes it's THAT simple.............

DEMAND CREATES JOBS, NOT THE RICH.

[cognoscere]

26. Here are some other myths(lies, actually) that need to be crushed:

Their money makes the rich better than the non-rich. Really? A monkey with a million dollars is still a monkey. An asshole who gets a million dollars is still an asshole, and likely to become a bigger one. Rich people are smarter than the non-rich. Sure. They were smart enough to be born into a wealthy family. Three final words: Dubya, Limba, X. (X. being the name of any of the rich who were smart enough to get screwed by Madoff. The rich earned their wealth. This is frequently heard in reference to taxation, usually by delusional middle class people who think they will be rich some day, and usually includes something to the effect of, "Why should a guy who busts his ass all day have to pay such high taxes?" The odds of finding a rich person who "busted his ass" to get rich are about the same as finding a living Brontosaurus. Generally, the people who work for rich people are the ones who bust their asses. The rich have a special ability to make money/create wealth. Okay everybody, pipe down and listen up. Here is the secret that every rich person used, who didn't inherit wealth to begin with: BUY LOW AND SELL HIGH. This includes buying a hundred million dollar winning lotto ticket, paying for the labor of others, AND getting as much free/low-cost shit as you can from the government (land, timber, mineral rights, subsidies, and no-bid contracts with built in over runs.)

[Lorien]

75. +1. nt

[Rhiannon12866]

36. K&R!

You're certainly correct about this. We need to spread the word, since this myth has been proven wrong and yet it persists. ;(

[bobbolink]

44. I've suggested a DU campaign to use ads and billboards to deseminate info like this.

But it is always ignored.

[Rhiannon12866]

50. Have you posted in Ask the Administrators?

It's worth a try... :hi:

[bobbolink]

53. ?????????

:rofl:

[Rhiannon12866]

57. It certainly couldn't hurt

And they've faced much tougher questions. :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=437

[bobbolink]

58. .

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

48. Another way to debunk the argument is with the simple fact that

there has been a growing divide between rich and poor for the last 30 years. The rich have a greater accumulation of wealth, but we haven't seen the jobless rate decline as a result of it. They simply don't have to spend the money on jobs, and there's not much evidence that they have.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

55. in fact, they are the opposite of business mythology

they don't want to create jobs, they want to create profits at the expense of jobs

they don't want competition, they want monopolies

they don't promote small business, they squash it

[SlimJimmy]

62. In general terms that's exactly correct. It's not "big" business but

small business that creates the lion's share of jobs in this country.

[jmowreader]

73. I am going to twist your head a bit here

One very important reason for the economy going to shit is the decline of big business--specifically manufacturing--in the United States.

Quick example: a car made by Dodge. The factory they made it in has, say, 5000 employees on three shifts. Around the car plant are a LOT of small businesses--everything from a warehouse with thirty guys in it mounting tires to a series of dealerships all over the world who sell the finished cars. The factory has 1/500 the workers of the support businesses...but close the factory like the Republicans wanted to do because of their love of the vaunted small business, and all the supporting small businesses will go under in very short order unless they're owned by extremely nimble management teams.

Small business creates jobs--but big business creates small business.

[unc70]

88. Actually "medium" business create relatively more of the new jobs

The myth that small business create some unbelievable percent of new jobs is just that, -- unbelievable -- it misrepresents the underlying data. Dems and Repubs are equally guilty in hyping this, usually followed by even more tax breaks for these so-called "small" business.

The problem starts with the Federal definition of "small", typically fewer than 500 employees but several thousands possible in some industry sectors. There are all sorts of tricks with holding companies and such that make this much worse. It includes most DoD contractors.

Most "small" business as defined by common sense and everyday experience are more "lifestyle" business which are owner-operated where the owner compensation is mostly as the last employee to get paid. Your local family-run restaurant, mom-and-pop store, landscaper, plumber, Realtor, and such are unlikely to add employees in response to any of the SB Jobs tax relief legislation. While there are many of these business starting each year, most fail within a few years losing any jobs they had created, though often a NEW small business of the same type in the same location may create a similar batch of NEW jobs, maybe with just a different type cuisine. While the number of jobs created is impressive, the number of jobs lost is nearly as great, so net job creation is tiny.

Of course, add in all those who were laid off and "start" their own business as a consultant (business card to prove it), at least until they can find gainful employment elsewhere. Plus all those individuals in professions like real estate that are considered small business, most classified as sole proprietors or LLCs, and have one or maybe two employees.

Last year, there was lots of debunking of this at Salon.com and elsewhere. For examples, search "small business jobs salon.com".

This thread has many myths presented as facts. More debunking to do.

[markpkessinger]

64. The easiest response is ....

...to turn the statement around as a question to the person who made it; i.e.: Q. "When do employers create new positions?" A. "When there is a business reason (i.e., 'demand') for that position."

If they still don't get it, ask them to name a single, verifiable instance where an employer created a new job merely because he got a tax cut when there was not otherwise a business reason to create that job?

[socialist_n_TN]

81. And ANOTHER sees the TRUE answer to this...........

"rich as job creators" bullshit spewed by the puppet masters and their dupes.

Welcome to DU Mark. Since we agree, you should post more! :)

[Xicano]

70. Three Asians and one American were stranded on an island

A point I seen made before that I agree with: "Three Asians and one American were stranded on an island. One Asian was given the task to collect firewood. One Asian was given the task to gather fish and other seafood. One Asian was given the task to gather fruits and other plant food. The American was given the task of eating the food and leaving just enough for the three Asians to go out and do it again the next day. The American had convinced the Asians that he was vital to their economy because he was providing jobs for them. Of course if the Asians kick the American off the island, their lives would improve greatly."

[Lorien]

74. Not just the middle class, but low income working class people as well

I work part time as a college instructor and full time as a freelance artist. My clients are fortune 500 companies, but THEIR customers-the people who buy the stuff that I design-are blue and white collar workers. And more blue than white, since most of what I design becomes cheaply made toys and "collectibles" that appeal to the same demographic that bought beanie babies in the 1990s. They aren't the rich; they MADE the rich. The wealthy owe THEIR fortunes to the working and middle class in America, not the other way around.

[defendandprotect]

76. Notice that Obama's stimulus gave them billions in new contracts ... !!!

Even if the myth that they create jobs is true -- we still pay for their doing so!!

[socialist_n_TN]

77. You don't even have to go that far. Just say "DEMAND........

creates jobs!" Then you might want to ask if they've ever seen a rich person give somebody a job out of the goodness of their heart, WITHOUT the demand. I bet the answer is no. :)

[handmade34]

82. corporations' SOLE purpose

is to make money for the stockholders...

http://storyofstuff.org/citizensunited/maintenance.php

[Kablooie]

83. A company that used excess cash to create jobs that aren't needed would go out of business.

The theory says that if they have excess cash to produce more, the customer base will grow.

... huh? ...

There's nothing in capitalistic theory that implies this.

It is utterly stupid to claim that excess cash creates jobs beyond what is needed in the market.


And this comes from the Republicans. The ones that supposedly know and care about capitalism the most.

The whole idiocy of this fallasophy makes my head hurt.

[rucky]

90. They need workers. They just don't want to pay for them.

They've created a situation where people will be willing to settle for less, and if you look at the job boards, you'll see how they're trying to cash in. Meanwhile, they're pushing their workforce to the brink. It's a win-win for profits over people. As long as they can stay profitable while they're holding out for the labor market to dive, there's no reason for them to offer anything but sub-standard.

There's some fierce urgency lately about them trying to sink the labor market even more. They've seen the leverage it's given them, and they're trying to max that out.

[TahitiNut]

93. The SOLE morally legitimate task of management is to convert labor to capital.

When management REDUCES labor, it's announcing moral and ethical ineptitude. The management ranks are now overrun with incompetents -- where that incompetence is institutionalized by the assignation of "MBA" degrees -- who are to good business as butchers are to animal husbandry. The symptoms of incompetence are legion, from "outsourcing" (utter ineptitude in operations) to the "pump and dump" manipulation of stock pricing to the blind adherence to the politics of scarcity.

[quaker bill]

85. Correct

It is actually people who aren't currently rich but those who want to become rich that go out and create businesses and hire folks. Those who are already rich are far to comfortable to take this sort of risk.

[blindpig]

89. Because they control the means of production....

we are beholden to them. They control our livelihoods, decide who and how many work, all calculated entirely by their avarice. By what right do they do this? By the 'right' of private property. Proudhon nailed it, property is theft.

[Ganja Ninja]

96. They're creating jobs alright.

Jobs in China.

[ProfessorGAC]

97. Add To That. . .

. . .that a robust middle class creates the NEED for more jobs. A middle class with economic strength creates a greater demand for durable goods. That increased demand means more people go to work to make those goods. Those goods are then made by more good wage workers who increase the size and scope of the middle class.

The middle class is an economic engine without a rival.
GAC