[Paraphrased transcript from Seattle Venture Capitalist Nick Hanauer]
Rich people don’t create Jobs. Nor do businesses large or small.
Jobs are a consequence of a circle-of-life-like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring.
That’s why when business people take credit for creating jobs, it’s a little bit like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. It’s actually the other way around.
Anyone whose ever run business knows that hiring more people is a course of last resort for capitalists. It’s what [they] do if and only if rising consumer demand requires it.
In this sense, an ordinary consumer is more of a job creator than a capitalist.
That’s why our existing policies are so upside down. When the biggest tax exemptions and lowest tax rates benefit the richest — all in the name of job creation — all that happens is that the rich get richer.
If it was true that lower taxes for the rich and more wealth for the wealthy led to job creation, today we would be drowning in jobs.
And yet employment and under-employment is at record highs.
Another reason this idea [that tax breaks for the wealthy creates jobs] is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough super-rich people to power a great economy.
[A rich person] makes hundreds or thousands of times as much as the median American, but [they] don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times as much stuff.
We’ve had it backwards for the last 30 years. Rich people don’t create jobs.
Jobs are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop between customers and businesses. And when the middle class thrives, businesses grow and hire and owners profit.
That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is such a fantastic deal for the middle class and the rich.
In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle class consumers. And taxing the rich to make middle class investments that make the middle class grow and thrive is the single shrewdest thing we can do for the middle class, for the poor, and for the rich.
What also must be acknowledged is that the private sector cannot always provide the best means for service delivery. A classic example is healthcare. Included is large infrastructure projects and maintenance. Capitalism is limited in these areas for cost and efficiency.
Isn't this the case with entitlement/liberals? Not all liberals demand entitlements, but those who demand entitlements, happen to be liberals?
And what would you call Diane Hendricks' wish to pay less in income tax at the expense of people like me taking up the slack if not an entitlement? And your dad is a real card. The idiot driver who slid into us last spring while we were at a stop sign was a guy.
Concerning unions, it is a long and complicated story. I agree that without unions and their work early on, the worker would be much worse off. The downward slide for union membership began during the Truman Administration when the Taft-Hartley Act was passed severely limiting union actions. This essentially forced unions into getting directly political by attempting to influence legislation for their own benefit. The big hits that came against the unions occurred during the 1970s and 1980s when they were seen as a major contributor to "stagnation" and the wage/price spiral. Since then, labor unions have proven to be unpopular and their organizing has been severely curtailed. Public unions have been a different breed altogether from their private union counterparts. Public unions have been severely limited by statute from work actions open to the private unions. It is illegal for them to have work slow downs or strikes. The public unions have been forced to work on collective bargaining agreements. (continued)
Since the restriction of Wisconsin public unions to only negotiating capped wages, then much of their purpose for being has been negated and they have lost membership. Every agency that depended on the CBA to governing the work place has been forced to go back and write P & P Manuals, which has been laborious and time consuming. They have been written without employee input and have become contentious, leaving the employees highly dissatisfied. Due to this some of the best and brightest of public employees have chosen to leave, either through retirement or moving into the public sector. In any case, this damages the organization through the loss of experienced employees. I call this throwing the baby out with the bath water. All this will have to be addressed with or without the unions. If it isn't addressed then over the next few years service and service levels are sure to decline.
A business-labor structure exists because a business owner has a task that involves an amount of work. The laborer provides that work. Whether that business owner is poor, rich or super rich doesn't matter. The business gets his task finished, and the laborer gets paid. Now take some of the businesses money away. The business owner now has to set priorities as to which jobs get done based on the remaining amount of money. Which means some laborer is not going to get paid. Yes, it is that simple!
The rich, as in rich individuals do not boost the economy with enough consumption to warrant their tax breaks. As Hanauer said in another venue -- he makes 300 times the yearly income of the average worker, yet his family owns three cars, not three hundred. He doesn't have three hundred houses, nor does he watch three hundred TVs. And so on.
The other problem rests with the business owner's expectations for return on investment. Profits are not the only thing that drive business, but the discerned value of the product or service offered and the market price that can be achieved. To determine pricing based on labor costs is only part of the metrics. All of this makes the value of labor very complicated. You also assume that all wealth is made, but there is a large share that is inherited. Mit Romney is a prime example, he started out wealthy and has only built on the base. George W. Bush is another example, but he is generally regarded as a failed businessman. Even with all of his early opportunities, he still failed.
You missed the slight attempt at humor. Just tweaking the liberals. I too would like SS and Medicare to be there when I retire. Unfortunately, we can all see the writing on the wall that in it's current form, that's not going to happen. Not sure how you can be mad at people for following the tax code. I would love to see a study as to how many that were "bumped" off of BadgerCare even had a primary care doctor. I have a staff of about 50, mostly entry level jobs. A large percentage are on BadgerCare. They all still run to the emergency room for the sniffles. What do they care what service they use?
I am unaware, or perhaps unable to comprehend, how much of Bill Gates' money, or Warren Buffet's money, or anyone elses for that matters, has affected how much potential I have to make money. If they earn $100, does that mean that there's 100$ less that I have the potential to earn?
You talk about running to the ER for sniffles. It's so expensive for an uninsured person like myself that we have toughed out actual injuries rather than risk thousand dollar bills just for getting checked over.
My point was, they may have been bumped off of BadgerCare, but if they are on BadgerCare and still using the ER for every little thing, we are saving nothing by having them ON BadgerCare to begin with, because as taxpayers, and medical service users, we are paying for them either way. Isn't the idea of BadgerCare is to give the poor access to preventable health care? I'm wondering if there's some quantifiable way to see if the dollars are well spend. I know studies have shown that those with insurance tend to use medical services a lot more than those without...which seems obvious, but I'd be interested to see if the amount of emergency room visits increased when BadgerCare enrollment went up, and if they subsequently went down when the eligibility standards were rolled back.
It's how the rich get richer, he invests it. That investment drives existing and new jobs. Lyle, Lyle, Lyle. Even if the money is inherited, what happens to it? Most heirs don't rush and wast the money on foolish things. They leave it invested in the family business which again, drives existing and new jobs. As far as Romey "inheriting his wealth", read this politifact article. While he did have a comfortable life, he spent his money on a high quality education, gave away his inheritance, and built his own fortune. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/ And yes, it really is that simple. For some reason you just want to make it more difficult than it has to be.
The country is not currently lacking the capital for business growth -- it's lacking the demand.
Please put a dollar figure to this stupid notion. What should people be given (and what should therefore be taken) in order to increase demand? If investment stops because you redistributed it to a consumer, how does apple innovate. Should we be condemned to live with the original MAC because you gave the money for purchasing and stole the money from investing?
If Moneybags doesn't do his research and invests in a firm or product that is not selling, he ends up losing his money. It's not wasted since the workers get paid, but he doesn't get any return on his investment.
Elmer Fudd may be better able to explain it to you. Skip to 4:50 if you really don't want the background story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUGJmo7XzS8
Go ahead and hold onto your ignorance. In the mean time Governor Walker is moving this state forward by creating an environment where we will grow jobs and prosper. You just go ahead and stay bitter and miserable while the rest of the state celebrates. And yes, it is that simple!!!