Skip to main content

“Job Creators,” are held up as near god-like paragons, revered, nearly worshipped by pundits on the right, and far too many on the left, as well. We are told they deserve all this praise, this worship -- and tax breaks as well -- because they keep us all employed. “Give” us all jobs. Without the holy “Job Creators” we would all be job-less and penniless.

This is a lie.

This toxic conservative “Job Creator” meme is as obviously false on nearly every level as it is true on only the most basic level.

Do “Job Creators” create jobs? No. Absolutely not.

I’ll explain the truth below the little orange tangle of conservative lies.

Yes, business owners hire employees and pay them. This is the basic-level reality of the “Job Creator” meme. But, do they do this because they are “creating jobs?” “Giving” something to the rest of us? Is that their motivation?

Hogwash. Of course not.

Business owners hire people to do work that needs to be done so they can turn a profit.

This cannot be said often enough: Business owners hire people to do work that needs to be done so they, the business owners, can turn a profit.

Without the workers, business owners would be job-less and penniless.

When a worker performs their job, the business owner sells the fruit of that labor onward to their customer at a markup that covers not only the worker’s pay, but the owner’s company overhead and a tidy income for the business owner. That is how business works: Every worker generates value but is paid only a fraction of that value in return. The balance goes to the business owner.

But the profit “Job Creators” make off the work of their employees is not enough for today’s conservative “thinkers.” No, we are told, employers must not only make their profits, they must also receive inordinate tax breaks in order to “incentivize” them to create jobs.

Not only must the rest of us accept a lower standard of living as our wages are slashed to create more profits at the top, we must also cough up more taxes to make up for the shortfall created by special tax rates for the “Job Creators.” (Note that 50% of all tax “incentives” go to the top 20% of all taxpayers).

The core falsehood of the “Job Creator” meme is the idea that Job creators create jobs as a favor to the rest of us, as a “gift.” As if their entire income did not depend on hiring people and generating their profits out of other people’s work. As if rich people just have money that appears out of their glorious asses and they are doing us all a favor by hiring us. They are beneficent gods, bestowing unearned and undeserved jobs on we mere mortals out of their own holy noblesse oblige. That the rich don’t need us. We need them.

There is a nasty little screed in today’s New York Times by Amity Shlaes, that purports to call-out the new Gatsby movie on it’s lack of economic veracity (yes, because Baz Luhrman has always been such a stickler for accuracy). In it she slathers on a heavy dose of conservative lies and false history. In the twenties, we are told, middle class wages and quality of life improved. People stopped working a six day week and received -- and this is such an egregious, damnable lie it makes my blood boil -- “the arrival of a gift that still means a lot to us: Saturday.”

People in the twenties were not GIVEN the “gift” of a Saturday. They bought it with their lives, their blood and their toil and earned it through their own hard work to create and foster strong American unions which brought American workers the benefits of being more equitably paid for their labor and rewarded with a well-earned and deserved day of rest. The benefits earned by those unions reset the landscape of workers’ rights and spread throughout the working world bringing shorter working hours and better wages for ALL workers. American wages went up and working hours went down not via some “gift” from the “Job Creators,” but because those things were fought for and earned.

There is an instructive scene in the John Wayne movie, McClintock!, in which Wayne, playing the rich, eponymous rancher, hires a young ranch hand. “Thanks for giving me a job, Mr. McClintock,” simpers the new hire. Wayne glares at him like a worthless bug, “You gonna do an honest day’s work for me?” growls Wayne. “Yes Sir!” cries the ranch hand, cowering under his master’s glare. “Then I ain’t GIVING you NOTHING!” roars John Wayne.

Even the über capitalist, über conservative John Wayne understood that the employer-employee relationship is mutually beneficial and the benefits go BOTH ways (more to the employer, of course). Today’s conservatives, even farther to the right than John Wayne (Wayne would be considered a pansy liberal by today’s standards) believe that jobs come through the holy beneficence of the “Job Creators” who, somehow give up something by hiring people. They believe the employer-employee relationship is a gift to the employee and the employer gets nothing in return. “Job Creators” are GIVING people jobs, they need to get SOMETHING in return: i.e. tax cuts.

Just another toxic conservative lie designed to destroy America and turn us into a third world totalitarian dictatorship.

“If capitalism is fair, then Unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and the resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor.” - Frank Lloyd Wright
“It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt
“There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.” - frankzappatista, Daily Kos
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  my old IWW stump speech that I used to give (4+ / 0-)

    whenever I was invited to a rally or event, is still just as relevant today as it was back in the 1990's:

    When I was in school, I was not taught anything about the history of the labor movement. All I was taught was that some kindly old men in Congress decided one day, out of the goodness of their hearts, to pass laws granting rights and protections to unions and workers.

    It wasn’t until after I got out of school that I learned that labor in the US has a history, and it is a history of warfare and struggle.

    We need to keep in mind a few fundamental things.  The business interests aren’t in business to give us jobs.  They’re not there to make money for us.  They are there to make money for themselves. We are not humans to them.  We are equipment.  We are an expense—and the over-riding interest of any business is to cut the expenses. We are no different to them than a computer terminal or a pallette jack or a lump of raw material. We are just something else that they have to pay for if they want to make money.  Just another thing that they buy as cheaply as they can, use until it wears out or breaks down, then throw away and buy a new one.  And when they buy a new one, they don’t care what color it is or what language it speaks or what country it comes from.  All they care is “Can it make me money better than that one over there?”

    The business interests have never given us a damn thing. Everything we have, we have because we organized for it, we fought for it, and very many times, we died for it. And if we forget that, if we forget who we are and where we came from, then everything we have will be gone.

    We need to keep in mind those words that the Wobblies, the most militant and radical of the early labor activists, spoke over 100 years ago; “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.  Between these two classes, a struggle must go on, until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, and abolish the wage system.”

    •  The funny part (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi

      is that, in the last couple decades, capital has itself become just another expense for the management class to acquire as cheaply as possible.  Shareholders are just Other People's Money.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 10:38:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There is a middle ground here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk, nextstep, Auburn Parks

    Putting aside tax, and compensation, issues there is no doubt that entrepreneurs create jobs. Places like Silicon Valley create new jobs at a much faster pace than other parts of the US, particularly those areas where startup capital is less available and the infrastructure to nurture startups is absent. Here in Silicon Valley the economic downturn was cushioned by companies like Google, and Facebook, and a resurgent Apple, all started by legendary entrepreneurs. Clearly entrepreneurs need employees to execute even the best business plan and that is why here in Silicon Valley the typical startup makes every employee an owner by awarding everyone stock options.

    While I agree with you that no one can create a successful business by themselves the entrepreneur is a job creator and they have been essential to the economic success within the high tech areas throughout the US.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 09:02:27 AM PDT

    •  But It's Still Work That Needs Done, Because There (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi

      is a market with money to burn in its pockets. It's the market that's creating the job. Granted the entrepreneur is taking more of a gamble on it than the owner in an established market who can more easily gauge demand. Nonetheless they are no more job creators than any other business owners.

      Edison learned this painful lesson when he invented a high speed voting machine for congress. Turns out he misread demand: they didn't want it. So despite his innovation and the fact that it worked, it created no jobs.

      Invent or don't invent, today you've got much less market potential than before the 21st century because so much of the population --the job creators-- are tapped out. That's why business is sitting on 2 trillion in cash, there's little point investing it in either hardware or employees because there's few job creating consumers demanding more work be done.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 09:19:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Completely agree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Neuroptimalian

      While there is no reason to worship entrepreneurs, capitalists, and business owners, there is no reason to demonize them, either.  They are a necessary and vital part of our economic system, and the system works best when they make a profit and re-invest some of those profits into their business, because that is what helps to create jobs for others.  

      And it is undoubtedly true that if you hinder too much the ability of entrepreneurs, capitalists, or business owners to make a profit for themselves, they have no incentive to hire others.  

      There is no need to "worship" the so-called "job-creators."  They are clearly acting in their own self-interest, by trying to make a profit, which is the whole point, after all.  But there is a place where their self-interest overlaps with "job creation," because in their quest to make a profit, they can create jobs for, and hire, others.  And because of that economic reality, while some regulation to protect society is clearly necessary and proper, it is important that government not put too many obstacles in their ability to make a profit in their business because obstacles to making a profit are also obstacles to creating jobs for others.  

      •  I couldnt agree more with your last paragraph (0+ / 0-)

        Thats why we should all advocate for elimination of the traditional form of corporate taxes.  The current corporate tax code is so badly broken.  The Govt doesn't need to tax companies because the Govt "needs the money", we should be taxing companies based off of negative externalities.  Besides, our current coporate tax code actually works against small businesses that can't afford to take advantage of the tax avoidance schemes large businesses can.  Tax pollution, and other social ills because we want less of them.  Charging me 35% when the Federal Govt is the US dollar sovereign is nuts.  We need more businesses to succeed and fewer corporate taxes will help to further that goal

        "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens.................... Please join our Kos group "Money and Public Purpose". The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it.

        by Auburn Parks on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 12:49:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And yet you still seem to (0+ / 0-)

        buy into the conservative idea that the only options are worship and demonization. I said nothing that demonizes the "job creators" but I do believe they are not in any way "Job creators" they are merely business owners who need work done. Work from which they draw profit in excess of what they pay. I do not suggest the deserve not to make a profit, I just say they don't ALSO deserve special tax cuts.

        They are not gods, they are not devils. I never said they were. I do say that they get plenty of a return on their investemnt. They get plenty of profit from hiring people. They do not need tax cuts as well. You and I pay for those tax cuts and for what? To support the myth that "job creators" are special.

        It's amazing how seductive this evil idea is. Even people who are nominally liberal seem to want to believe it. But it's a lie. A pernicious and America hurting lie.

        •  Depends on what you mean by (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox, VClib

          "tax cuts."  "Tax Cuts" from what rate of tax?  You can have a tax system that becomes oppressive, discouraging the growth of business.

          Our present corporate tax system is a mess, with a stated rate of 35% which would be oppressive as compared to many other countries, but with an effective rate that is much lower.  The trouble with such a difference between the stated rate and effective rate is that those who have to pay the stated rate, and are not able to get the favored tax treatment that brings down effective rate, are often at a competitive disadvantage.  Ironically, in our system, very often the largest corporations will pay a lower effective corporate tax rate, because they are large enough to take advantage of some things that smaller businesses can't do.  

    •  In today's society, Customers create jobs. (6+ / 0-)

      Until there are customers, or the high likelihood of customers, Silicon Valley entrepreneurial startups are 5 guys, a coffee machine, and a microwave.

      Customers or the promise of customers is what creates jobs in a consumer economy.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 09:34:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There ARE Job Creaters (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        furrfu, Roger Fox

        Customers with money in their pockets are the job creators.

        It is really that simple.

        No employer wants employees.  Employees are pains in the butt.  However, if that employee will make money for the owner buy serving customers, then hiring an employee may be worth the bother.  Or two employees.  Or two hundred.  Or two thousand.

        Kids, want to get a job?  Tell the boss how you will make money for them, and serve the customers, and, by the way, make a few bucks for yourself.

      •  Very true (0+ / 0-)

        The business respond to customers. They do not create jobs on their own.

    •  Really want to see the concept of demand included (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi

      in your comment. And I agree, there is a middle ground. But trying to describe the middle ground without including demand, undermines the labor side of the balance.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 12:05:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  VClib, I tend do come down more on your side (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      in this one.  Starting a business is difficult, having that enterprise survive and thrive is even more difficult and rare.  90% + of new businesses fail within the first 5 years.  

      With that said....If you have any human empathy at all (the key trait conservatives lack compared to progressives), we should all support enforcement mechanisms that ensure a baseline standard of living for our fellow Americans that we can be proud of.  

      Capital will always try to minimize costs (RE: labor) and so we need an external force (RE: the Govt or unions) to guarantee some minimum income level for labor.  We do this via collective bargaining, minimum wage laws, welfare, food stamps, SSDI, and a myriad of other programs.  Unfortunately, current American cultural norms prevent us from expanding social spending and union membership enough to actually return to a more efficient distribution of national income.

      "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens.................... Please join our Kos group "Money and Public Purpose". The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it.

      by Auburn Parks on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 12:16:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ...stumbled upon a comparison this morning (0+ / 0-)

    I'm self employed, and I HATE the long drives I make to various work sites. It's all loss and overhead and expense.
      And that's probably pretty much how a lot of business owners view their employees.
      Except, without all that "overhead," there would be absolutely no profit.

    •  Well of course (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jhop7

      I always thought, when I ran a design company, that it would be a great business if only we didn't have to cater to the customers.  LOL

      But those clients paid my bills (if they paid THEIR bills, which they didn't always do). My employees time was billed at three times their salary. They were well paid and I made money. I didn't need a special tax cut on top of that.

      So why does Exxon? Or any other business?

  •  Good to demystify this particular piece of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, happymisanthropy

    conservative cant. If job creation can be ascribed to an agency, it is consumer and business demand writ large, i.e., jobs are created to fulfill unmet demand.

    The people who wax poetic about 'job creators' don't give a flying fuck about workers or unemployment. They only care about preserving the status of the 1% that currently controls 40% of the wealth of this country.

    They use ideology to preserve that status and, when their ideology starts to break down (as it is here), they resort to using the police forces as their private gendarmerie. Saw it happen with my own eyes with Occupy Los Angeles.

    •  Enhancing the Status nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 09:20:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not exactly true, I think. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      k9disc, VClib, CharlesInCharge, nextstep
      If job creation can be ascribed to an agency, it is consumer and business demand writ large, i.e., jobs are created to fulfill unmet demand.
      Jobs are created when someone believes that hiring a person will result in greater profitability for the business.  

      If you have greater demand, but hiring more people won't make the business more profitable, new jobs aren't created.

      And remember, profitability is not measured in the amount of revenue generate alone.  The company that generates the most net income is not necessarily the most profitable.  Profitability is measured by return on investment, among other things.  In overly simple terms, if you invest $100,000, and you make $20,000 of net income, you are far, far more profitable than if you invest $1 million and make $50,000 of net income.  

      The decision to hire more employees is far more complex than "there's more demand."  

      And, of course, "more demand," even when it "creates jobs," doesn't necessarily mean jobs in this country.  "More demand" for a product created overseas may mean most of the jobs created are overseas.  

      •  Thanks for the detailed talking out of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        issue. I think it is at least safe to say that demand is the sine qua non of job creation. That is, without underlying demand for goods and services, there is no way any business can turn a profit. (This is what makes deflationary times so treacherous for anyone other than bond-holders and folks on fixed incomes.)

        But it's good to discuss the issue for sure.

      •  But "demand" is defined (0+ / 0-)

        as people who want your product and can pay for it.  If demand exists, it's generally more profitable to serve two paying customers than just one.  

        If you're spending 600k to market to customers who mostly don't exist, your example could work.  But then the problem is back to demand failing to exist.

        Furthermore, if I have a million dollars to invest, the question is not whether it will increase the profit margin of my existing enterprise, but whether I can get better return / security investing it somewhere else.  If that's the best/safest investment I can make I will invest there even if it makes the profit margin go down.

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 10:48:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are so many factors that are at play in (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Auburn Parks, VClib

          any decision to hire another employee.

          For example, does an additional worker allow you to generate more income than the cost of that worker -- and if so, how much more?  is that  money you would spend on the worker better spent on something else (say, technology) that would address demand and increase your profitability over the long term?  Can you be more profitable by restructuring the work done by your existing employees than by taking on the cost of a new employee?  is this the right time, or place, to expand your business for the long term, or are you going to take on an additional expense for a short-term demand that may go away?  What kind of employee will best increase your profitability -- one with specific skills?  How much will you have to pay for those skills, and how likely are you to find those skills now in your market?  

          My point is, the decision is nowhere NEAR as simple as, "we have more demand, so we'll hire more people."  

          •  1) I agree that it's more complicated than any (0+ / 0-)

            simple model can accommodate
            2) Demand is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for business growth.
            3) If you don't grow to meet increasing demand, it's extremely likely somebody else will and thus jobs will be created anyway.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 11:49:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Thie only people I know who believe this: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, coffeetalk, PubliusPublicola
    The core falsehood of the “Job Creator” meme is the idea that Job creators create jobs as a favor to the rest of us, as a “gift.”
    are those clamoring for the government to be the employer, because, we are told, it just wants to help us. Moreover, since it eschews the profit motive, it must be beneficent, right? Never mind its 'profit' manifests as control, power, and enlargement, earned by taking ever more of your money.
    •  Taxes are roughly the lowest (0+ / 0-)

      they've been since undertaxation caused the last great depression.  "Ever more of your money" my ass.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 10:51:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure what your talking about here (0+ / 0-)

        We are currently overtaxed given the level of Govt spending as a % of GDP.  This is proven simply by the level of unemployment.  People don't have enough money to buy enough goods and services to employ every American that is looking for a job.  So the Federal Govt needs to add more money to the private economy through its yearly deficit.  The deficit can be increased by either cutting taxes, increasing spending or a combination of both.  They are equivalent from a fiscal or accounting POV.  Yes, I know there are different multipliers for different types of spending or tax cuts but the fact remains that the only thing that is holding us back right now is aggregate demand.  Increased spending can either come from higher  income going to labor by increasing labor's share of national income, more private sector debt, or more money added to the economy through the Govt deficit.

        "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens.................... Please join our Kos group "Money and Public Purpose". The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it.

        by Auburn Parks on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 12:28:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If that were true (0+ / 0-)

          we should have had a booming economy in the 2000s.  Instead we had to manufacture a housing bubble to hide the fact that the rest of the economy was in a depression.

          What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

          by happymisanthropy on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 12:46:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Labor has been devalued in the US. (2+ / 0-)

    Republican Religion with its job creators, tax breaks for the rich, trickle down, deregulation, and the rest of it is the biggest con job in the history of the world.  The productivity gains of the last several decades didn't trickle down.  Do people believe that they have a right to the fruits of their labor?  Is it an idea that anyone promotes as a right of labor?

    There is no existence without doubt.

    by Mark Lippman on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 09:52:37 AM PDT

    •  I think it's true that the "value" of unskilled (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      labor has declined in the U.S.  That's due in part at least to globalization, which means that companies that sell products in the United States have access to labor in other countries where it is much cheaper.  

      "More consumer demand" as many people here advocate, will not entirely change that fact.  In some instances, yes, "more consumer demand" will create jobs, but those jobs may well be overseas, where labor is cheaper.

      •  Wages are down (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nchristine

        for 97% of Americans.  That's far beyond the "unskilled labor" segment.

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 10:53:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Enough consumer demand will guarantee (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox

        full employment.  If you define "full employment" as 5% or below (I think this is still too high...... <3% is best IMO), we have had only 3 short periods of full employment in the USA since the 1980.....thats 6 years out of 30!

        http://research.stlouisfed.org/...

        And just to show how broken our current culture and economic arrangements are, it was necessary to be riding large private debt increases causing bubbles in order to even achieve "full employment" however briefly.... check out how the timing of spikes in private debt correspond perfectly to the full employment years....

        http://static.seekingalpha.com/...

        So its clearly possible to have enough consumer demand to maintain full employment, the question is......can we reach and sustain those levels through private debt creation alone?  That answer is obviously no given that Private debt is has lead directly to both the Great Depression and Recession. ....So whats left to support consumer demand?

        Either a higher share of national income going to labor is necessary since labor would spend much more of this money into the real economy

        Or

        The Govt needs to add more money to the private sector economy through its deficits.  

        "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens.................... Please join our Kos group "Money and Public Purpose". The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it.

        by Auburn Parks on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 12:42:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Which stimulates more than the US economy (0+ / 0-)

        Which is not a bad thing.

        .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 06:37:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If it was truly a gift, they wouldn't ask for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi

    anything in return. It's not a gift as they see it. It's rationale for a quid pro quo. In this case, that would be a tax cut.

  •  While your essential point is correct (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, coffeetalk

    It's hardly a novel discovery. Of course jobs are only created because they fill a need (at least in the private sector). No serious person who knows the first thing about how the world works would suggest that job creators create jobs just to create jobs.

    Moreover, I disagree with the tone of your diary, which seems to suggest that there's something fundamentally wrong with this. Whatever their motives, and I concede they are based in profit and self-interest, job creators do, in fact, create jobs. Faulting them for their motives reminds me of those people who want to take away tax breaks for charitable giving if the motive for giving is not completely altruistic.

    Job creators don't create jobs to help people out, and people don't take jobs to help job creators out. Both parties are acting out of self-interest. In a capitalistic economy, there's nothing wrong with that.

    Black Holes Suck.

    by Pi Li on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 11:21:54 AM PDT

    •  I've got to speak up on behalf of the diarist. I (0+ / 0-)

      think you are mistaking his tone and-or misreading the substance of his diary. He is taking issue with the phenomenon of tax breaks being extended to business for hiring people when those being hired are earning profits for the business hiring them.

      Speaking of tone, you don't seem to have any moral qualms with one person or group of people profiting off the labor of another person or group of people. That's exactly what happens when a business hires someone. Should the business also get a tax break as a reward for exploiting the labor of others and extracting surplus value from it????

      •  Charles - what specific tax breaks (0+ / 0-)

        are part of the current IRS code just for hiring an employee other than labor costs are an expense that can be deducted from revenue to determine pre-tax income?

        From time to time local, state and the federal governments have incentives just for hiring a new employee. I think those plans are a complete waste of money because they usually represent a small fraction of the cost of a new employee and I don't think have much of an effect at the margin on hiring decisions. However, I don't think there is a federal incentive program currently active, but you may have information that I'm not aware of.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 03:09:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know of none currently. I was writing on (0+ / 0-)

          behalf of the original diarist and his or her tone and substance. I think his larger point is valid - that the 'job creator' is a myth badly in need of demystification and certainly in no need of additioanl tax breaks.

    •  I agree, there is nothing wrong when you say both (0+ / 0-)

      Employers and employees act out of self interest.  You are bsolutely right.  But using the term 'Job Creator' to describe employers will only get traction while unemployment is above 6% and will soon become toxic.

      Anyone using the term job creators instead of employers is either trying to make the job appear more important than the employee or they are trying to justify their income or special treatment from the government.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site