Do rich people create jobs?
One multimillionaire gives a controversial speech saying that only consumer demand, and not the wealthy class, will help jobs grow.
By Jonathan Berr
Sorry, Republicans, but rich people are not "job creators." They never have been and never will be. No one ever invests in anything to create jobs. Employing people is a by-product of capitalism.
Those are the views of the venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, a multimillionaire who was recently invited to speak at a TED conference. The conferences are well-known gatherings featuring talks on a variety of topics and can be viewed online.
Update: Initially, Hanauer's speech was not posted online, which spurred a controversy that TED reacted to Thursday. The speech appeared on YouTube Thursday, and you can see it here.
Rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is 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. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.
Hanauer added this little zinger as well: "So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around."
The views of Hanauer, who made his fortune as an early investor in Amazon (AMZN), are not that radical.
The Republican focus on cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires is all wrong. For one thing, wealthy people -- ones with smart investment advisers -- know to put a good chunk of money in tax-free investments such as municipal bonds. Some also minimize their tax burden by putting their money in off-shore tax havens. If those people paid less in taxes, odds are that the windfall would wind up in those accounts. Few, if any, jobs would be created.
Another flaw in the Republican argument is the idea that the rich have an onerous tax burden. As The New York Times noted earlier this year, the tax burden paid by the wealthiest Americans has fallen significantly over the past few decades. Warren Buffett, among others, has made similar points.
"Between 1985 and 2008, the wealthiest 400 Americans saw the percentage of their income paid in federal income taxes drop from 29% to 18%," the paper reported, citing data from the Internal Revenue Service.
Income inequality should become the central issue of the presidential campaign. Heck, it should be the most important issue of the 21st century. I am not holding my breath for that to happen.
After deeming Hanauer's talk too political, perhaps TED organizers should change the conference motto from "Ideas worth spreading" to "Guardians of conventional wisdom."
TED curator Chris Anderson wrote a long response to the controversy Thursday, saying essentially that the speech just wasn't very good. The audience at TED that heard it gave it mediocre ratings, Anderson said. "Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special," he added. "And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media."
-- Follow Jonathan Berr on Twitter @jdberr.
Could someone PLEASE tell this to that lunatic loud-mouth Rick Santelli over at CNBC?!
Finally, a true capitalist decides it's time to tell it like it is. Thank you Mr. Hanauer!
Ok all you lasse-faire, free-market, Ayn Rand, economic hacks - just try to explain to me why this is wrong, and I'll show you emperical evidence why this is 100% accurate.
I dare you. And don't simply call me a "Socialist" or "wealth redistributing Commie" or what ever the insult du jour is that you label people who don't agree with you. Give me logical progression from conceptual ideology to actual measurable outcomes with examples and we can discuss. But please save your childish, narcissistic insults. I promise I love this country just as much as you do. I also promise that I believe that hard work is the only true way to success, wealth and happiness, so don't call me "lazy" or imply that I "just want a handout" because I'm not and I don't.
In the words of the late, great Rodney Dangerfield...."Well.....we're waiting...."
"produce the products that consumers will demand that create jobs "
And if consumers do not have jobs how will they purchase these new products that someone is producing. Please walk me throught the logic.
Once again, there's no point in debating the question if it's the wrong question. Innovators and practically creative people do create new products and/or new ways of making existing products better or cheaper. These people create the products that drive consumers, without which there is relatively little to drive further consumption. These people are sometimes rich, sometimes not, so it's the wrong question.
And even if consumers drive the economy--which I won't argue with--consumers who have no job are likely to be extremely frugal. So their argument is like pointing to a spot on a circle and saying "that's where the circle begins!".
The rich are the ones spreading the fairy tale about being the job creators.
Wealthy people want to keep it all for themselves.
Mr. Hanauer is correct and anyone with basic economics training will know this. As long as we continue the way we are, only the rich will get richer while the country will loose democracy and poverty will spread among the majority of the population.
We must change the way government works, because now the rich control the government and they have no reason to make changes. Both major political parties cater to the rich and neither one care what happens to anyone else.
Constitutional amendments' that allow only public funding of campaigns with no outside financing and term limits on federal and state elected officials, including judges will help give more control to the average person. If we do as our forefathers wanted to do in the first place and elect House members to 3 year terms, then we can have elections each year where one third of the House and one sixth of the Senate is elected each year. Also we need to allow publicly proposed laws on major issues with public votes each year so that the people can express their opinion rather than just those who can afford large donations to political parties and individual law makers.
Why is it assumed that rich people start businesses. Small business hires 70-80% of the employed in this country. That small business is the guy who runs the local card shop, pizza business, 7-11, gas station, etc. THEY are not rich. They are the ones making 35-60K. Is that rich? They are taking a chance because they want to work for themself. If there is NO DEMAND for there product or service i dont give a dam how much capitol you invest your business will fail.
Folks this is a DEMAND and supply world not a supply and demand world.
If I am a Canadian energ company that can only sell my oil to the midwest it will create an over supply of my product driving the price down. If I can get a pipeline to a port free refinery zone in Texas I can refine for less and sell to Europe where I will get a higher margin.
Conservative spin is that this will increase world supply and drive the price of oil down. One hundred gallons of water being sold in Chicago and now being sold in Paris does not increase the supply of oil.
It is unfortunate that political spin is so easily lapped up. Even my dog smells his water before he drinks.
"Raising taxes on businesses will just drive them overseas"
The small local business will move overseas? What percentage of business will move overseas? I thought that small business were the job creators according to conservatives. These individuals will go overseas? Raising the taxes of a CEO will drive business overseas?
Yes, life is about the pursuit of small bright shiney trinkets in this God fearing nation.
Job Creators.... trickle down economics.... buzzwords with no meaning.
Republicans do have SOME good ideas but they are so extreme it makes them look like whack jobs.
Until america calls their bluff and votes them out across the board they will keep making the rich richer.
If they wanted to be smart and truly have everyone's best interest at heart they would (1) let bush era cuts expire on the top two tiers. Then ask for a law that says you can't get back what you don't put in. Hence if you only put in $1,000 in taxes that's all you're getting back. No more 3 kids $7,500 checks to the person who doesn't work. (EIC /Child Tax Credit)
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Breaking up big banks is an untested solution to the too big to fail problem that attempts to isolate and dismantle large, troubled institutions while protecting the rest of the economy.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
[BRIEFING.COM] Stocks entered the weekend on a mixed note as the S&P 500 shed 0.1% while the Dow ended with a gain of 0.1%.
The major averages began the day on a lower note as nine of ten sectors saw losses of more than 0.5%.
The consumer staples sector was the lone exception as the group spent the entire day in positive territory thanks to the relative strength of Dow component Procter & Gamble (PG 81.89, +3.19). The second-largest staple stock advanced ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|