Businesses do not exist to create jobs.

[Tennessee Gal]

Businesses exist to create profit.

This is a fundamental flaw in the Romney claim that we need a businessman in the White House.

Two businessmen in the White House were total disasters: Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush

Just heard this argument made on the Melissa Harris Perry show.

Great points!

[dkf]

1. The question is how can government create an environment conducive to businesses creating jobs.

If government does things to make job creation or job retention more difficult they have to realize how they are impacting the economy. If they don't get it they can't fix it and they can kill any incentive to grow businesses.

[annabanana]

3. The ONLY thing that "grows businesses" is customers. . .n/t

[Tennessee Gal]

5. Yes, and when people are not working or are not making decent wages

they have no money to spend on anything but necessities. This dries up the customer base.

Consumers drive the economy. Consumers provide the wealth to the business owners.

And Republicans who want to shrink the government are completely ignorant of the fact that shrinking the government eliminates jobs. Eliminating government workers hurts the economy because those people are consumers.

Firefighters, teachers, postal workers, etc. are all consumers.

[rhett o rick]

10. Conservatives dont want to shrink government. They would expand military spending infinitly.

Bushy II was a great example. They want to shrink government associated with social safety nets because they want Americans dependent on private corps. They also want to shrink the government work force to create a larger unemployed pool for a source of cheap labor.

[Tennessee Gal]

11. Yes, you nailed their motives.

Large contributions coming from the military industrial complex and cheaper labor so their billionaire buddies can rake in more profits.

[dkf]

35. Apple gets more business internationally than domestically. 64% of its revenues are overseas.

Powering Apple sales was strong international growth, especially in Asia. "It was an incredible quarter in China," CEO Tim Cook said on a conference call. "Part of this was the pent-up demand for iPhone 4S." International sales accounted for 64% of Apple's revenue in the quarter.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-04-24/apple-earnings/54510014/1

[TheKentuckian]

58. and 36% of their sales comes from a market that is 5% or less of the global population

and that market essentially provides the security for trade routes globally and provides access to essential materials in a variety of ways.

[Major Hogwash]

62. That's a great point.

I think they have spread out to include foreign markets quite a bit lately.

[Tennessee Gal]

4. Do you have a suggestion?

[dkf]

12. We need an atmosphere of certainty for one.

We've left too many things in flux so that businesses cannot crunch the numbers and make plans. If they can't make plans how can they hire?

The biggies....taxes, how to implement the ACA, and how to implement Dodd-Frank. Then comes the other significant issues, the debt ceiling, Simpson-Bowles, the automatic trigger to cut defense if no agreements are reached.

Too many things in limbo=no new hiring.

But phased in regulations don't help either, with vague descriptions of exchanges and the constitutionality of the individual mandate in doubt.

Maybe politicians think businesses run like households, making decisions on how much house to buy without budgeting and without estimating the impact of different tax rates and deductions. But businesses don't.

[Tennessee Gal]

15. And what about the mountains of cash businesses have accumulated over the past 10-15 years?

They certainly have enough built up to take a moderate risk on some of those things.

So many things would not be in "limbo" if Republicans had any interest in governing rather than defeating Obama.

[dkf]

20. That's either cash they've built up because they can't repatriate it without paying hefty taxes or

Cash they've hoarded after the last fiasco where the commercial paper market froze up. Cash needs are different than what they were before the crash because everyone wants emergency funds. But they could do a moderate amount of hiring if only they knew what numbers to plug in.

Moreover, they don't have to move their cash back here. There are now a lot of opportunities around the world as entrepreneurs build businesses in other countries.

And we can blame the Republicans for being in limbo but the bad thing is that there is another way things will change...if Republicans take everything. Personally I think that brings us closer to future insolvency which is my greatest fear. But that won't be limbo.

[Tennessee Gal]

21. And what would recommend doing about any of these things?

Suppose Obama wins. What policies would you have him propose?

[dkf]

29. Business and Government need to cooperate.

Employing people should be a win win situation for everyone and frankly the only way you get wages up is by reducing unemployment. First things first.

And maybe we could reduce unemployment by giving money to the states to hire people. But if a Governor doesn't want to increase his future payroll costs and benefit costs after the Federal Government decides the stimulus is over then they need to think twice. Taking that money means future obligations. Local governments can't afford the number of employees they had until the real estate market recovers back to its peak, and even then they were underfunding pensions.

But one thing stands out to me...if you don't understand why corporations hire and try to create those conditions, you can't expect them to create jobs.

[Tennessee Gal]

31. So you advocate for another stimulus package?

[dkf]

34. If it is paired with longer term reform then yes.

I think that is exactly the policy that business would be excited about and that I would be excited about. Slap in a major effort in renewable energy and I would be over the moon.

But if it a stimulus that only leads to more government employment and debt then that is not reassuring at all.

[Tennessee Gal]

41. What reforms are you looking for? Which ones would excite business?

Do you favor stimulus focused on rebuilding infrastructure? For extending unemployment? For subsidizing state and local governments to hire more teachers, police, firefighters, emts, etc.?

I tend to agree with your thinking, especially the renewable energy.

[dkf]

47. Everything needs to be an investment for the future.

The stimulus should not be focused on infrastructure simply because it takes too long. We couldn't even fill potholes in a decent period of time and infrastructure needs long term funding and long term planning. This needs to be a long term funding priority.

After two years there should be no unemployment funds, instead there should be partnerships with business to train new employees and assistance with healthcare costs. Government should consult with businesses as to their needs, and tailor college loans towards those fields using accredited institutions.

Big incentives to restart manufacturing here...credits for building high tech plants, 0 repatriation taxes if the funds are used in this way. Efficiency is the way we overcome lower labor costs to compete with China. They are building robots anyway so we might as well do it here. Building things here is also the only way we innovate and push thinking.

I could go on and on but those are my pipe dreams.

As for teachers, police and firefighters...I don't believe in keeping them hired to keep them hired and I do think that localities are most appropriate to determine need. If funds are so short and needed maybe they need to establish a grant system using statistics to justify things and also show results. I like the idea of race to the top, but I can't vouch for execution.

But in terms of what moves this economy and hiring I think certainty is more important than stimulus.

[Tennessee Gal]

50. I like your ideas.

Thanks for answering my many questions.

[TheKentuckian]

53. It is quite a pipedream. It ignores demand and is based on the premise that

companies that do not need employees will hire them anyway if they have the right incentives.

Only one piece of the pipedream could be expected to have a negligible impact is driving a generation of students into the few fields that need prospects which will flood those last nooks and crannies with more options than can be considered and drive down wages in a few more fields while saddling most of those students with the debt and no job to show for unless they dislodge others down the pecking order some.

What I see is a set of tired ideas that do nothing but increase profits and reduce responsibility for the predator class even more than the record levels of both we have now.

"Certainty" is a euphemism for slavery or less labor costs, no taxes, minimal environmental regulations at best and those had used to prevent startups, no or little competition protected by regulations that leave big operators unscathed, socialized downside with private profits, lots of surplus labor making workers compete for any position at extreme levels resulting in low wages and high compliance levels, no oversight, and perhaps most of all a government that does not have to fluctuate or even compromise with the whims and demands of its populace.

"Certainty" requires very limited self determination and no broad prosperity along with a blind willingness to spoil, waste, and abuse every resource mineral, land, air, water, and human to drive bottom lines.

[dkf]

61. Our companies are finding new consumers all over this world. That is what we should be aiming for.

Moreover we are masters at how to create demand. People want what we have and that is they way to prosperity.

[xtraxritical]

17. Yes I have a suggestion, VOTE A STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC BALLOT!

[Tennessee Gal]

22. Yes, indeed!

[William deB. Mills]

49. Democrat Does Not Equal Progressive

Unfortunately, most of the Democratic Party, at least at the Congressional level, has been captured by pro-business, anti-social elitist forces. Wall St. money talks. For example, if someone can tell me the difference between Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner, I would love to hear it. Second example, how did Democrats treat Jamie Dimon during his recent testimony?

Finding progressive reformers on financial issues in the Democratic Party has become difficult. Elizabeth Warren is no radical, but she stands almost alone in opposition to financial corruption (on which, see William Black, a regulator during the S&L crisis, the test case for elite class war against society).

So I would say, those lucky enough to have a progressive Democratic candidate should vote Democratic. The rest should vote either Green or Socialist.

[Tennessee Gal]

54. Who are the Green or Socialist candidates?

And how would voting for either one of them do any good since they have no chance of winning?

Seriously.

[William deB. Mills]

56. Bringing Minor Parties into the Debate

For the Green Party, see here. For the Socialist Party, here.

First, voting for those politicians representing the rich is not working. We need to try something else.

Second, a minor party need not achieve the miracle of winning to make a difference. I would love to see the Greens or Socialists just get enough attention so that the corrupt MSM feel the necessity of admitting they exist. The goal would be to pull reformist ideas into the popular debate so we can consider the degree to which such ideas might hold water.

That goal is in line with DU, it seems. Perhaps we should make an effort to invite minor party thinkers into this forum...

[Tennessee Gal]

59. It appears neither the Green Party or Socialist Party has a set candidate.

So there is no chance of either of them being prepared for the 2012 election.

You are correct in that a third party viable candidate would bring more discussion into the mix.

However, the difference the third party candidate might make could result in the election of someone I would not want in office.

[William deB. Mills]

69. Parties in the 2012 Race

Dem, Rep, and Green conventions are all this summer.

I confess I have not read the Rep or Dem platforms (which may change at the conventions) since I am under the impression the words mean little. The Green Party platform is impressive, but of course no one knows how they might govern. As a list of ideas, however, it is worth reading. I particularly like their policy on corporations (a simple: "End corporate personhood" and their policy toward Big Finance, of which I reprint below their first four points:

a. Break up our nation's largest banks and financial institutions so that none is "too big to fail." End taxpayer-funded bailouts for banks, insurers and other financial companies.
b.Regulate all financial derivatives, ban any predatory or gambling use of derivatives, and require full transparency for all derivative trades, to control risk of systemic financial collapse. Require regulatory pre-approval of exotic financial instruments.
c. Re-enact the Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited bank holding companies from owning other financial companies and engaging in risky economic transactions.
d. Oppose the federal government being the final guarantor of speculative investments. During a financial crisis, if the federal government and/or a central bank must provide relief, it should be given in an equal manner and at the most local level possible, so that benefits are equitably dispersed and burdens are equitably borne. So rather than pouring trillions of dollars into the banking system, they should have provided direct mortgage relief to homeowners suffering the most from the housing bubble and negotiated with lenders to provide partial loan forgiveness.

[Ruby the Liberal]

52. An "atmosphere of certainty"?

Where does that fit on the risk/reward scale?

Are you suggesting that we privatize gains and socialize losses? Because that would certainly provide an "atmosphere of certainty".

What helps business is people with jobs. Money. Able and willing to purchase goods and services.

Familiar with the concept of the velocity of money? Because I am more than happy to explain that.

It goes hand in hand with the fact that Food Stamps are the numero uno ROI in the social safety net while Unemployment Insurance is second. Cutting taxes is dead solid last.

[Wounded Bear]

7. I look at it differently....

businesses won't "create jobs" if they can make profits without doing so.

Businesses often have to be coerced into creating jobs. That's what tax and trade policies are supposed to do.

[freshwest]

9. You nailed it.

[Auggie]

13. Exactly. And it's why regulation works.

[dkf]

14. You can't coerce anyone into creating a job.

Can I get you to create a job? Can I require you to hire someone to mow your lawn?

[Wounded Bear]

18. Get real....

When a company is making billions in profits, it only takes a bit of regulation and tax incentives to get them to stop pocketing it and re-invest it.

High marginal tax rates encourage companies and individuals to make a choice between reinvesting that money into making more jobs or giving it to the government. That's the way it used to be done, prior to Reagan/Bush supply side/trickle down/free market/(add euphemism of choice here) became accepted protocol.

[dkf]

30. Or it encourages them to move elsewhere.

The money is going to made outside the US. That is where the future lies.

I understand why you think as you do...you don't realize the world is changing. We are not going to stay ascendant forever.

[GOTV]

68. You may not be able to do it but people can be coerced into creating jobs.

Anyone will create a job when it's apparent that doing so will make them money.

[kestrel91316]

40. "....an environment conducive to businesses creating jobs...." = a healthy,

thriving MIDDLE CLASS.

Which the RW is working overtime to destroy. Somebody needs to read them that Aesop fable or fairy tale about the goose that laid the golden egg. We, the middle class, are that goose.

[4th law of robotics]

48. Put everyone to work either in the military or producing weapons

build up a massive debt but then in the process level the entire industrialized world.

Sell them our manufactured goods afterwards and pay down the debt while enjoying high economic activity and rising wages.

/worked once before.

[GOTV]

66. Easy. Put money in people's pockets. Only consumer demand creates jobs.

[annabanana]

2. This is something that should be repeated, and

repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated,

Until EVERY GODDAM DUNDERHEAD IN THE COUNTRY KNOWs IT!!

[nobodyspecial]

6. It depends on what you want the outcome to be

For the GOP, having a businessman in office is *exactly* what they want. The laws will be skewed in their favor, allowing them to create a bigger profit -- at the expense of fair wages, worker's rights, the environment, minorities, the poor and the general welfare of society, etc.

From the standpoint of the 1%, Bush wasn't a disaster at all. In fact, he was a huge success. Their wealth increased immensely and their taxes went down substantially.

They don't care if their policies harm the average Americans.

[Tennessee Gal]

23. They don't care .....

that is their attitude. It is scary.

[treestar]

8. True and now they are apparently more profitable than ever and not creating jobs

We need to get away from the imperative that every person have a job (it seems to be a morality thing) - it is not as if they are always out there to do. If people don't fit in to the current capitalist mode, then they ought to be provided for in some way.

[dkf]

16. How do you qualify for not fitting in the capitalist mode? Not studying and getting an education?

Not being fit enough to do manual labor? What is provided to me should I decide to do nothing? That sounds promising.

[treestar]

19. What about people with no option to get an education?

Not born into money?

No one said they decide to do nothing. It's that they can't find anything. You can get an expensive education and find a couple decades later it is obsolete.

What about people with connections, who get a job because of that? Why should they be said to have "earned" it?

There's a lot of injustice out there and no one is unemployed by choice. In a bad economy or depression, that's not a choice.

What a conservative view, to just claim people are being lazy. No one should have to fear being out on the streets. We don't have open fields for people to go out and farm them any more.

[Quantess]

26. Are you really that obtuse?

How is it possible that someone can post regularly on the DU for so many years without having a clue why pure capitalism is not an ideal society?

You could be a devil's advocate, or you could be something else. I don't have enough time to keep tabs on everything that happens here.

[dkf]

36. I'm not advocating for pure capitalism just some recognition on what drives achievement.

Those are the things that produce all the crap we enjoy and expect and demand.

[Quantess]

38. Okay, that I can understand. So you are a devil's advocate, then?

I live in Sweden right now. It is capitalistic, but we have single-payer health care, free higher education, and not much military to speak of. Sweden is doing great, and has a better average standard of living than in the USA. Very low difference between the socioeconomic classes, which studies have shown is positive for all of society. It is not a perfect place by any means, but we're kind of leading the world in many ways.

[girl gone mad]

65. The answer to your question..

is yes.

[Quantess]

45. Who in the USA decides "to do nothing"? Oh, besides trust-fund kids who

go live in cool, big cities like NYC, San Francisco, or L.A. or Chicago? Those kids have money.

Or, are you complaining about hippies who smoke a lot of weed and shit in the woods?

I just do not understand your complaint, here. Neither of the above are motivated enough to steal your money from you and cover it up so well you could never catch them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Capitalists, always see cutting labor costs as one of the best ways to make a profit.

Thus the popularity of "labor saving devices" that don't cut labor but do cut laborers.

[Zax2me]

25. Of course. And for a few hundred years formula has served well.

turning us into the most powerful nation in the world in a relative short period.
Feeding and providing for a lot of the other weaker ones.
If we are off track now look to the leadership.
The formula worked. If it is broken someone screwed up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Yes. It is customers who create the jobs. n/t

[Bluzmann57]

28. Economics 101

The key to capitalism and job creation is supply and demand. If I make a thingamajig, and people like it, I make more. And if I make more, I (theoretically) have to buy new machinery and hire people to run machinery. That is what creates jobs., not lower taxes and all that stuff.
Fer cryin' out loud, don't they teach that stuff in schools anymore?

[dkf]

37. China figured it out.

[Samantha]

63. Exactly

Let the largest driver of the deficit, the Bush* tax cuts, expire at the end of the year, provide more stimulus money to states for the express purpose of creating teaching, police, firemen, local and/or state government jobs, putting money into the hands of middle-class people and those impoverished who will SPEND IT ON GOODS, creating more demand, driving up hiring.

Fund transportation projects for one year (not one month) and pass the Obama Jobs Act which includes the rebuilding/refurbishing of infrastructure, take away corporate tax breaks except for true start-ups with need them, increase tariffs where needed, restore unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, increase food stamps, the latter two are classic economic stimuli which historically both Republicans and Democrats have supported.

This is not exactly a difficult problem to address; what is difficult is finding politicians with guts and ethics who actually care about the Country and its people, as opposed to protecting the interests of those who finance their campaigns.

Sam

[lynne]

32. Demand = Jobs. But each job must create a profit to be retained.

Businesses exist to create profit. While demand may equal jobs, if the end result of each job is not a profit, then the job will cease to exist. Every job must contribute to the overall profit by either physically producing more product or allowing more product to be produced/sold.

When the expense of the "job" begins to exceed the profit it produces, the job will be eliminated and the work done by that employee will be distributed to the remaining employees.

[BadgerKid]

46. And maintain profit (or otherwise enrich executvies) = outsourcing.

I'm not necessarily saying insourcing jobs wiil solve everything, but it's one factor in a business-cultural trend that leaves American workers behind.

[The Wizard]

33. The ultimate goal of business

is to make a profit. If increasing the bottom line for the next quarter means eliminating jobs, then that's what business will do. A stable society and improved living standards for the working class are not part of their calculus. Purge the repubes for a better world.

[hfojvt]

39. as a guy who has owned two businesses

I strongly disagree with your first line.

Neither of my businesses existed to create profit. While I was hoping that the second one would create a profit, it did not bother me too much that it didn't make a profit. I would have kept it open if I hadn't been robbed.

[Tennessee Gal]

42. Why would you establish a business if there was no intent to make profit?

Or was it a not-for-profit business bringing in just enough to cover expenses and pay employees?

[hfojvt]

51. the purpose of my business

was to provide quality literature to the people of the town where I had my bookstore.

If profit had trumped that purpose, that, to me, would be the very textbook definition of a sell out.

There can be, and are, many purposes far more important than profit, even (gasp) in a business.

[William deB. Mills]

43. So Government Should Never Be Pro-Business

Great post. You are exactly correct that businesses do not exist to create jobs. That is why we have government - to protect citizens from selfish businesses. One of the key purposes of government is to ensure that we have a just financial system that creates jobs through regulation, i.e., through the manipulation of businesses to make them serve not just the CEOs but primarily the society. As long as business serves society (thanks to government oversight), we allow business to exist. But business has no "right" to exist; only people have "rights." Institutions, be they commerical or governmental, have no rights; institutions are but tools to serve mankind. Therefore, no politician should ever be "business-friendly." The job of politicians is to be "friendly" to human beings.

[Tennessee Gal]

44. Well, Mitt says "Corporations are people, too, my friend."

The government has to be friendly to business within reason. The appropriate amount of regulation is a key. Republicans do not believe in regulation and they are far to "friendly" to business in their efforts to maintain power through high dollar donations from wealthy business owners. Republicans long ago forgot about who they are elected to represent. And some Democrats are guilty of the same thing.

[William deB. Mills]

55. Corporations Are People

Thank you for pointing that out. Exactly the context in which I was writing. Citizens United changed the American political system. It is essentially one dollar, one vote (and Romney's Israeli patron who also holds a US passport stated that he will vote an unlimited number of times) until that Supreme Court ruling is somehow rendered irrelevant. My suggestion for doing that would be free TV ads for all presidential candidates and no paid ads, by the way.

Anyway, let me throw out a flat statement, then we can see if it has weaknesses: if being friendly to business means hurting people, the Government should never be friendly to business. Put differently, the government should of course support the business activities deemed beneficial for society but because they are beneficial to society, not because they enrich an individual who will in turn pay bribes to his political buddies. When politicians claim to be pro-business, they are saying they are anti-people. Clearly, when society needs a business (and surely we need thousands of businesses), responsible politicians will support business...but not when they, say, poison the Gulf or gamble away funds that should have been loaned...to business...for socially beneficial production. It is obvious in our society that aiding business does not automatically help people. What about the reverse? Does helping people automatically help business? I would suspect so - if the population is well-off, secure, content, will it not work hard in some business and spend its wealth as customers of some business? The problem, it seems to me, comes when people and business are set as adversaries: that is what Republican policies (e.g., low capital gains taxes, absence of regulation, stock options not connected to company performance) achieve.

I suspect you understand all this at least as well as I, however, so pardon my long-winded response. I just wanted to get a bit more of the detail out in the open. It really bothers me the way mistreating low-paid, hard-working wage earners is somehow construed in the US as patriotic and good for the economy. I know why the rich say such things, but for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone else would believe such propaganda.

[Tennessee Gal]

60. Excellent. You said so much very well.

I strongly agree with these statements:

"Put differently, the government should of course support the business activities deemed beneficial for society but because they are beneficial to society, not because they enrich an individual who will in turn pay bribes to his political buddies."

"Does helping people automatically help business? I would suspect so - if the population is well-off, secure, content, will it not work hard in some business and spend its wealth as customers of some business? The problem, it seems to me, comes when people and business are set as adversaries: that is what Republican policies (e.g., low capital gains taxes, absence of regulation, stock options not connected to company performance) achieve."

Yes, that is exactly what Republican policies achieve. They know they are doing it. They know it is harmful to the average American, but they do not care. All they care about is control and power by whatever means necessary.

I do not believe that all pro-business politicians are anti-people. Admittedly they are few and far between, but I do believe they still exist.

"It really bothers me the way mistreating low-paid, hard-working wage earners is somehow construed in the US as patriotic and good for the economy. I know why the rich say such things, but for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone else would believe such propaganda."

That is very well stated. I cannot understand it either. It can only be lack of interest, lack of education on the issues, or laziness to the point of believing whatever Faux News spews. I think of it as a conundrum.

[Zalatix]

57. Businesses do not exist to create jobs. That is the fundamental problem with capitalism.

Without jobs you don't have customers. No customers equals no business. The snake eats its own tail.

[Honeycombe8]

64. True...but of course, businesses need to hire people to run them.

So the more businesses you have, the more jobs there are.

[hrmjustin]

71. Agreed! n/t

[slackmaster]

67. Every business I've ever worked for needed to hire people in order to operate

None has ever made a profit by not operating.

[Spike89]

70. True, but business 101 says hold down expense

The simplified (repub) meme that businesses create jobs is true, but because it is so simple, it is also true that businesses kill jobs in that every business person is looking for ways to minimize expense and increase efficiency. Incredible, but nuance is the key.

It isn't the golden ticket, but government can help spur employment. A high marginal business tax coupled with generous tax credits for payroll goes a long way in encouraging businesses to invest in employees. Of course, as some have pointed out, pushing this too far will only encourage business to offshore. The key is to get the tax rates up and boost the credits in balance. You don't actually hurt the companies at all--in fact, because there are more workers/consumers, the company can benefit.

A simple example: Company X makes widgets. They can sell 1000 widgets a year at $1000/widget for a gross of $1 million. To make 1000 widgets, company X needs 10 employees who average $40K ($400,000 annual payroll). Other operating expenses are basically fixed at $400,000/year (utilities, materials, machinery). Company X nets $200,000/year in taxable profit. Let's assume Company X has mediocre tax lawyers/accountants and pays 15% taxes ($30K). The owner gets to put $170,000 in their pocket. Lower the taxes to 10% and the owner will put another $10,000 in their pocket, but nothing else changes.

Raise the marginal rate to 50%, and the owner only gets to keep $100,000. Again, nothing else changes. There are still the same number of employees and demand is unaffected. The government of course gets $70K more and "might" spend that money educating students, fixing roads, or funding research into enhanced widget technologies. Those things may benefit the owner, and maybe even raise demand for widgets slightly, but essentially, the equation isn't much changed. Under this scenario, the owner has an incentive to move overseas.

Couple the tax hike to an agressive payroll credit perhaps equal to the salary and things do change. Adding 2 new employees costs $80,000, but also increases capacity to 1200 widgets for a total of $1.2 million (new employees=more money in circulation=more widget demand). Costs of course go up a bit (but many are fixed), so figure $250,000 in taxable profit. The government wants 50% of that, but first gives the business the credit for the new employees so $80,000 goes right into the owners pocket and 50% of the rest also goes into their pocket ($85,000). The net amount going into the business owner's pocket is $165,000. The business returns almost the same amount, tax revenues go up, and there are more people working (which raises demand). The business is also worth more so the owner really doesn't even lose the $5K.