Again, this goes back to the replacement question. You always need to ask yourself how much money you lose by driving out highly-paid people and replacing them with lower-paid people, whether it’s done internally or externally. And of course whether their replacements will be any worse than they perform. And whether they’ll actually leave after taking the after-tax pay cut.
My hazy answers are: Not that much, not that much, and only if it’s a truly draconian amount. A lot of people will agree to that, but then a lot of people will say ‘–but it’s not fair that Mr. CEO whose decisions demonstratively increased the profitability of the economy by 300 million dollars only sees 1 million of that!’. And you’re right, it’s not fair. But I don’t give a shit, the question I want answered is: if Mr. CEO retires and his replacement agrees to a .3% cut of the profits instead of the 20%, how much worse will the replacement perform?
Actually, the network is obligated to provide content for the entirety of prime time. Running Ms. Hilton’s reality show, which doesn’t hire as many people as a drama or comedy, cuts the number of jobs created for that half hour. Jerry Orbach created more jobs than she did, with considerably less money in the bank.
All the people in this thread talking about how demand creates jobs are only looking at half the story.
Sure, a sandwich shop (and the jobs it provides) would not exist if no one wanted sandwiches. But, the desire for sandwiches doesn’t cause a sandwich shop to spontaneously come into existence. Someone has to perceive the demand for sandwiches and take a risk by spending money to open the shop. If they don’t like the business environment and/or the tax policy of the jurisdiction, then they won’t open the sandwich shop despite the demand.
So, demand isnecessary but not sufficient for the creation of jobs–you also need a, dare I say it, “job creator.”
The factor missing in the economic equation is demand. Pouring money into the top has failed to "trickle down’. It is a failure as an economic impetus. Money has to be put near the bottom of the income ladder to generate business, which in turn will generate hiring.
Those on top actually have been job destroyers. They have offshored jobs and relocated industries . That gives them more short term profits. Big industry has been killing jobs for decades. They are not the solution but a huge part of the problem.
The left should correct all use of "job creators, and say they are “job destroyers”. They are.
No, you need a sandwich creator. Anyway, the point isn’t whether consumers should get credit for creating jobs; it’s whether the wealthy should get all of it.
Any way you look at it, “job creator” is a ridiculous phrase and I hope somebody uncreates Frank Luntz’ job soon.
I disagree wholeheartedly with whomever said consumers are job creators. Where do consumers get their income to pay for the product or service a company provides? Their jobs. Who provides said jobs? Businesses.
So if somebody makes a silly argument on this message board, you’ll respond, but if the entire Republican caucus repeats the same silly argument on TV you’ll ignore it?
Oddly enough, I don’t spend every waking second of every day paying attention to every little thing the Republican caucus says (unlike some). Shocking, I know.
And how do businesses make money? By selling goods and services to consumers?
Are you starting to see the issue here? Cutting taxes isn’t going to create a flurry of job creation if there’s not enough demand for the businesses to make any money. Business owners aren’t stupid, you know.
I’ve always liked the argument that giving wealthy people more money makes them more productive. Isn’t the starving artist slowly freezing to death in his drafty garret more productive than the rich guy lying around poolside? Sure, the rich guy could be making deals over the phone or something, but clearly he’s already made it and doesn’t have the sense of urgency the artist does.
I don’t that much care about the rich. There isn’t that much to have. Reasonable health, comfortable shoes, babies. So long as the privileges of the rich are their capacity to buy more loud, shiny crap than I can, I’m cool with that. They can have my share.
Its when that privilege extends to the civic arena, political power. The Koch Brothers have exactly the same vote I have, but their wealth affords them a political power they do not, and can not, deserve. So long as one man can buy more civil rights than another, we have not yet achieved America.
And its just about to get a whole lot worse. Didn’t take them any time at all to turn that whole “campaign finance reform” into a barrel of whale dreck, now did it?
Since the only things the Republican caucus have been saying for the past three months are “tax cut” and “job creators”, I would characterize your claim as spurious at best.
“We need sandwich creators”- LOL! That’s pretty funny
I really like Obama’s response to the ‘class warfare’ accusation: “It’s not class warfare, it’s math.” I think that is exactly it right there. I really like to view this response in the context of Boehner’s recent comments:
If Obama was always yakking away in Portuguese or something I would understand Beohner’s lack of understanding. But no, pubbies simply can’t comprehend math, as I have long suspected.
