The "job creator" meme has taken hold and won't let go.
"Decision makers are generally quite passive and therefore inclined to accept any fram to which they are exposed." Daniel Kahneman, Choices, Values and Frames.
Kaheneman's work and the work of others in the field of cognitive sciences describe the idea of the Cognitive Miser. It takes work to process all the information that is out there so we find shortcuts and take the easy way whenever possible.
Keith Stanovich's work, outlined well in What Intelligence Tests Miss-the psychology of rational thought explains why intelligence is not a factor in this short-cutting: we all do it....including you and I, my friend.
Frank Luntz gets this. Here's how to fight back.
Stanovich gives an example of framing a tax break as a tax penalty. Contemplate a tax system that gives a tax credit for having kids. Do you give the same break to everyone, or phase it out at higher incomes? Maybe you decide there will be no tax credit for people with over $100k AGI.
Stanovich points out that a tax credit is the same as a tax penalty for those who don't qualify. So you have a system where if you don't have kids, you pay a bit more in taxes.
Mathematically, it's the same thing.
Your progressive structure of phasing out the break at higher incomes is now regressive: the penalty for not having kids only applies to lower income people.
See how easy that was? Framing.
So let's look at the "job creator" meme. It's showing up everywhere as a defense against raising taxes on the rich.
There are a lot of ways to fight this silly meme (e.g., under Regan's, Bush's and Clinton's higher tax structure lots of companies and jobs were created, etc.), but fighting this way implies your acceptance of the "job creator" meme, and actually reinforces it. "The rich are job creators, but....."
In fact, the rich aren't job creators. They are money makers. They make money for themselves and their stockholders. If that necessitates being a job creator, that's what they do. If it necessitates being a job destroyer, that's what they do. If it's cheaper to move 50,000 jobs to China to save a few bucks for the stockholders, that's what they do. If it means replacing workers with machines, they do that. If it means fighting to pay workers less, that's what they will do.
People assume if the business does well, the workers do well. Not so. The workers are just one more variable to manipulate to make a profit.
The comment threads in your local newspaper are a petri dish for a counter-meme virus. Don't engage in name-calling or use trigger words that show your bias. Challenge the frame.
Whereever you see an opportunity to put a monkey wrench into Luntz' "job creator" meme, do so.
The best viruses don't alarm the immune system. Be stealthy. Be reasonable. Don't argue. Just inject the counter-meme. They aren't "job creators". They are money-makers, and they often destroy jobs in the service of their money-making.
Remember, your job is to cause the people in the middle, the ones who don't comment on the threads but read them, to think about the framing.
Go forth and multiply.
11:10 AM PT: Thanks for putting this on the rec list! I hope everyone who reads this gets out there and makes at least one comment in their local paper!
8:15 PM PT: Lots of great comments in the thread improving on the money-maker theme. We are the job creators, we who spend money at local businesses. That's why a strong middle class is imperative.
Take the mantle of "job creators" off the rich and put it where it belongs, on the average customer. On the 99%.
So the "monkey wrenches" are "the rich aren't the job creators, they are money makers who often destroy jobs to make more money" and "the rich aren't the job creators, you and I are."
Jam one or the other in wherever Luntz' "job creator" frame is operating.