Wealth does not create more jobs; need does. In a healthy capitalistic system, one which creates a long term economic stability, satisfying the needs of the bottom 90% of workers provides the greatest stability. Wealth becomes a byproduct of employment. Guarantying high levels of wealth to the top 10%, and especially 1% creates an overall unstable economy for the vast majority of Americans, the bottom 90%. Plutonomics is a hindrance to stable high employment and sustained new job creation.
Plutocracy: An elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth. Government controlled by the wealthy. (Basically, the richest 1% of U.S. Households)
Plutonomy: A term coined in 2005 by Citicorp's Ajay Kapur to describe the economy of the past three decades. Economy controlled by Plutocrats; Economic system run by and for the benefit of the Plutocracy.
The main impetus for business people and companies is the attainment of wealth. Rarely is it the pure pleasure of creating or expanding a product or service. They are in business to make money. If the only or fastest way to make more money is through expansion to meet demand then that's what a business will do; however, if people and businesses can make that money through tax breaks, then they can moderate or forgo the risk of expansion. The huge increase in wealth over the past three decades has not resulted in high employment and increased wages because that wealth has gone to the wealthy. In fact the bottom 90% are worse off now as a result of the wealth or rather of the distribution of the wealth.
My point is this: tax breaks, especially huge tax breaks for the wealthy, are a disincentive and counterproductive. Tax breaks tied to increasing wages is fine. Tax breaks tied to expanding a business to employ more people is fine, but tax breaks just so the wealthy, the plutocrats, can have more money is counterproductive. They are more likely to gamble it on the stock market or buy a luxury car or a house in the Hamptons and live off capital gains. That is dead money; it employs few people if any.
That same tax break shifted to the bottom 90% will be spent on necessities. The increased purchases require more goods to be made to meet the increasing need; thus, more people must be employed. When employment is high, money chases workers and wages and salaries rise. That in turn gives more people more money and a healthy employment cycles ensues. Money in the hands of the wealthy does not have that effect because there are a lot fewer of them. They have more purchasing power than the bottom 90%, but they have far less employment power. (If the money that the big corporations spend on lobbyist to garner greater tax breaks were given to their workers, it would do a lot more for the economic well-being of the country. I know. I'm dreaming.)
Additionally, economic stability, which high employment and a more even distribution of wealth creates, is disadvantageous for the wealthy because the opportunity to accumulate property and stocks at bargain prices decreases. When this economic fiasco finally calms, they will have far more wealth than before. Some already have made enormous profits. (Note that the major financial institutions are larger than they were before the crisis because some of them, with the aid of the fed, merged. Too big to fail is now way too big to fail and far too big to control. During the financial crisis, too big to fail was really too big not to be a plutonomy.)
However, regardless of how damaging plutonomy is for the working class, there is no indication that this plutonomic system will change soon or maybe at all; in fact, it will get worse because the money and power brokers are hard at work trying to get those in the 90% that are still employed to accept the concept of the jobless recovery.
Why such a grand effort? High unemployment works to the advantage of plutocrats (the rich and powerful) because it drives wages down. In bad times people accept that because they are just happy to have a job. Decreased wages mean fewer purchases and that means fewer workers are needed. And the cycle continues, except for the wealthy. The stability of the top 1% is not negatively effected. The bonuses and exorbitant salaries don't change and their life style doesn't change.
End of Part II: Tomorrow Part III: Won't somebody please help that poor man?"