Businesses don't create jobs?
- Thread starter davekc
- Start date
Turtle: Obama was not speaking about small business owners [the ones that big corporations haven't yet driven out of business], he specifically said it was time for the wealthy to pay their share. And you can talk about the "highest corporate tax rate", but you don't mention the many ways they have to reduce that rate, to where what they actually pay is zero.
Minimum wage is a great example: how long since it was last raised? And how much less can one do with a minimum wage paycheck now than 20 years ago?
In the places that have raised wages, the dire effects proclaimed haven't happened, and tax cuts didn't produce new or better paying jobs, and some companies [like Costco, for example] manage to pay much more than average, [because the CEO doesn't get a brazillion dollar compensation package] and they do just fine, despite the insistence that it can't be done.
I remember you asking once, in reference to CEO salaries: how much is too much? I don't know the answer, but I do know of a way to find out: let them continue to decide how much they're worth, but tie it to the wage of everyone who works under them too, at a ratio of, say, 100 to 1 for the lowest paid job, and proportionally upwards from there. Win/win.
Because when the CEO makes billions, and the entry level workers require food stamps to feed their families, the system is broken, and the billionaires have zero incentive to change it.
Minimum wage is a great example: how long since it was last raised? And how much less can one do with a minimum wage paycheck now than 20 years ago?
In the places that have raised wages, the dire effects proclaimed haven't happened, and tax cuts didn't produce new or better paying jobs, and some companies [like Costco, for example] manage to pay much more than average, [because the CEO doesn't get a brazillion dollar compensation package] and they do just fine, despite the insistence that it can't be done.
I remember you asking once, in reference to CEO salaries: how much is too much? I don't know the answer, but I do know of a way to find out: let them continue to decide how much they're worth, but tie it to the wage of everyone who works under them too, at a ratio of, say, 100 to 1 for the lowest paid job, and proportionally upwards from there. Win/win.
Because when the CEO makes billions, and the entry level workers require food stamps to feed their families, the system is broken, and the billionaires have zero incentive to change it.
Actually, he specifically said he would be willing to cut government waste (how white of him), but that he refused to cut anything that grew the economy, including taxes to the wealthy. Then he went on to make his comments quoted above, not about the wealthy, but about anyone who has been successful in business.
I didn't mention the many ways to reduce that rate, because it's irrelevant. The rate I'm talking about is what businesses actually pay, some some arbitrary rate that gets eroded with deductions and all the other tricks. So when I say we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, I'm talking about the rate at which corporations actual pay taxes, which is calculated after the reductions have taken place. Yes, a few corporations manage to pay zero in taxes, but it's hardly typical. Most pay handsomly, and at a rate that is higher than anywhere else in the world.
Minimum wage raises is a fantasy when it comes to making people better off. Minimum wage goes up 10%, inflation follows closely behind. It ends up being a wash.
Wow, what a sentence. OK, first part, yes, some of the dire effects have happened, because they always happen when minimum wage is increased, namely, the cost of goods and services related to those wages go up, and/or there are fewer of those minimum wage jobs to be found. In addition, jobs that paid just a little more than minimum wage, like $10 or $12 an hour, become even more prevalent, rather than those jobs going to $15 or $18 an hour, because of the downward pressure on wages. People will jump on a $12 an hour job versus a minimum wage job, even though the job is actually worth $20. Second, no, tax cuts in and of themselves do not create new or better paying jobs. It's not like there's a tax cut and then suddenly more people are employed. It's never been that way, either. But what does happen is lower tax rates result in reinvestment in the business and in business growth, which over time results in more and higher paying jobs. It just doesn't happen as quickly as some would like. Finally, Costco? Really? MOST companies pay more than minimum wage, because that's what the labor market demands.
So, your answer then is 100 times minimum wage. OK. If minimum wage is $9 an hour, about $18,000 a year, then that means the CEO gets maxed out at $1.8 million.
That gives the CEOs and other management exactly zero incentive to grow the business (with more jobs) beyond that of what 100 times minimum is worth. If a CEO is in charge of 5 stores, and he makes 100 times minimum wage, and that's what his job is worth, then he's maxed out. No growing the business, no adding any additional jobs. There is no way he's going to want to grow the business to 80 stores just so he can continue to get paid 100 times minimum wage despite having 1600% more responsibility. Even if he keeps the number of stores at 5, if he manages to increase sales and revenue by 300%, by seeking out new markets and bringing new products to market, he can't get rewarded for that, because ooops he's maxed it, so there's no incentive to do that, either. Just look at all the jobs that might have been with those new products, marketing and distribution. Oh, well.
Ah, the American Dream, Cheri style.
Or, hey, we pay people more, let the minimum wage increase along with the CEO salary, stores multiply, revenues bulge, everything is great. Then something happens, someone else comes up with a better widget, and now all of a sudden you've got a snotload of employees making 10 times the prevailing wage and you've got to either cut their pay or fire them all and hire cheaper alternatives. Can you say, "US auto industry."
I would agree, that raising the minimum wage nets really nothing at all. The difference between 8 and ten dollars an hour still means you have the same amount of poor people. If the problem is ever to be fixed, you have to remove the handouts and replace them with training in jobs that pay something. Whether it be ac tech, nursing, welding and the list goes on. There are a whole list of "I don't wannas" but people need a skill whether they like the job or not. They can worry about that after they get going with a decent wage.
Think it is bad now, wait until you have amnesty granted to all these current illegals. Guess what jobs they are coming after.
As for using Rick Scott or Perry for a example of business is silly. Granted that Rick Scott is a loser, but a wealthy one. Perry is a little different because his state is in the top five for job and business growth. Might still be number one. Hard to rip him when you take his state and put it up against say California. That state is a disaster no matter how you flip it around. Thing I would look for some better examples.
Think it is bad now, wait until you have amnesty granted to all these current illegals. Guess what jobs they are coming after.
As for using Rick Scott or Perry for a example of business is silly. Granted that Rick Scott is a loser, but a wealthy one. Perry is a little different because his state is in the top five for job and business growth. Might still be number one. Hard to rip him when you take his state and put it up against say California. That state is a disaster no matter how you flip it around. Thing I would look for some better examples.
Last edited:
Or you could say "made in China". It's no wonder manufacturing of everyday goods has been driven out of the country, especially labor intensive goods. Prime examples would be the textile and furniture industries that used to flourish in NC. Obama, Hillary and their liberal cronies remain clueless when it comes these fundamental economic principles, and the stagnant condition of our economy shows it.
Turtle either misread what I said, or changed it to suit his beliefs: I said the CEO can make just X times the lowest paid worker in his employ, not minimum wage. That means there's no cap - he can raise his salary as much as he likes, whenever, and everyone under him gets a raise too. Because if the company is successful, they worked for it too.
It's been used in some place I can't remember, nor can I find the article I read, but it's working. It acknowledges that the kind of person who becomes 'king of the mountain' is not the kind who willingly shares, or cares much about anything unrelated to the pursuit of more profit & power: your basic weenie waving contest. It acknowledges that such people are an asset, to a point - and then they're a liability. They will keep raising their own 'value', while doing everything they can to minimize the value of others, [and avoid taxes!] until they get billions, and their workers get food stamps. ["Socializing" the costs, but not the profits.]
Since no one seems to want to restrain them, I'm curious: how do you see this playing out? I mean, where does it end? Because people who get paid billions aren't going to settle for less money next year, right?
It's been used in some place I can't remember, nor can I find the article I read, but it's working. It acknowledges that the kind of person who becomes 'king of the mountain' is not the kind who willingly shares, or cares much about anything unrelated to the pursuit of more profit & power: your basic weenie waving contest. It acknowledges that such people are an asset, to a point - and then they're a liability. They will keep raising their own 'value', while doing everything they can to minimize the value of others, [and avoid taxes!] until they get billions, and their workers get food stamps. ["Socializing" the costs, but not the profits.]
Since no one seems to want to restrain them, I'm curious: how do you see this playing out? I mean, where does it end? Because people who get paid billions aren't going to settle for less money next year, right?
The highway and Interstate Gov't Job Creation or not U Decide. The United States government's efforts at constructing a national network of highways began on an ad hoc basis with the passage of the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, which provided for $75 million over a five-year period for matching funds to the states for the construction and improvement of highways.[SUP][5][/SUP] The nation's revenue needs associated with World War I prevented any significant implementation of this policy, which expired in 1921.
As the landmark 1916 law expired, new legislation was passed—the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 (Phipps Act). This new road construction initiative once again provided for federal matching funds for road construction and improvement, $75 million allocated annually.[SUP][5][/SUP] Moreover, this new legislation for the first time sought to target these funds to the construction of a national road grid of interconnected "primary highways" setting up cooperation among the various state highway planning boards.[SUP][5][/SUP]
The Bureau of Public Roads asked the Army to provide a list of roads it considered necessary for national defense.[SUP][6][/SUP] In 1922 General John J. Pershing, former head of the American Expeditionary Force in Europe during the war, complied by submitting a detailed network of 200,000 miles of interconnected primary highways—the so-called Pershing Map.[SUP][5][/SUP]
A boom in road construction followed throughout the decade of the 1920s, with such projects as the New York parkway system constructed as part of a new national highway system. As automobile traffic increased, planners saw a need for such an interconnected national system to supplement the existing, largely non-freeway, United States Numbered Highways system. By the late 1930s, planning had expanded to a system of new superhighways.
In 1938 President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave Thomas MacDonald, chief at the Bureau of Public Roads, a hand-drawn map of the United States marked with eight superhighway corridors for study.[SUP][6][/SUP] In 1939, Bureau of Public Roads Division of Information chief Herbert S. Fairbank wrote a report called Toll Roads and Free Roads, "the first formal description of what became the interstate highway system", and in 1944 the similarly themed Interregional Highways.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]
The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first "national" implementation of modern Germany's Autobahn network, as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[SUP][9][/SUP] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion. Well Gov't Job creation or not. Gov't Id say. But then the shelled one may argue that as well. Decide for your self. Garbage is out and on the Curb. Have a nice weekend.
As the landmark 1916 law expired, new legislation was passed—the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 (Phipps Act). This new road construction initiative once again provided for federal matching funds for road construction and improvement, $75 million allocated annually.[SUP][5][/SUP] Moreover, this new legislation for the first time sought to target these funds to the construction of a national road grid of interconnected "primary highways" setting up cooperation among the various state highway planning boards.[SUP][5][/SUP]
The Bureau of Public Roads asked the Army to provide a list of roads it considered necessary for national defense.[SUP][6][/SUP] In 1922 General John J. Pershing, former head of the American Expeditionary Force in Europe during the war, complied by submitting a detailed network of 200,000 miles of interconnected primary highways—the so-called Pershing Map.[SUP][5][/SUP]
A boom in road construction followed throughout the decade of the 1920s, with such projects as the New York parkway system constructed as part of a new national highway system. As automobile traffic increased, planners saw a need for such an interconnected national system to supplement the existing, largely non-freeway, United States Numbered Highways system. By the late 1930s, planning had expanded to a system of new superhighways.
In 1938 President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave Thomas MacDonald, chief at the Bureau of Public Roads, a hand-drawn map of the United States marked with eight superhighway corridors for study.[SUP][6][/SUP] In 1939, Bureau of Public Roads Division of Information chief Herbert S. Fairbank wrote a report called Toll Roads and Free Roads, "the first formal description of what became the interstate highway system", and in 1944 the similarly themed Interregional Highways.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]
The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first "national" implementation of modern Germany's Autobahn network, as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[SUP][9][/SUP] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion. Well Gov't Job creation or not. Gov't Id say. But then the shelled one may argue that as well. Decide for your self. Garbage is out and on the Curb. Have a nice weekend.
Last edited:
Granted the govt created the jobs made necessary by the construction of the interstate highway system, but the money to pay the salaries came from taxes collected from the earnings of individuals and govt bonds issued to private individuals and institutions. It's all spelled out in the
Financing section of the Wikipedia excerpt that was quoted above.
Interstate Highway System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Were it not for the growth of private industry and the transportation needs of private citizens and businesses the highways wouldn't have been necessary. This all goes back to the infamous "you didn't build that" Obama quote he so arrogantly aimed at the American people. Socialists like him don't understand that we may not have driven the asphalt spreading machine, but we da*n sure paid for it and its operator's salary - and private industry built the machine! Also, it's very likely a privately owned, sub-contracted paving company bought the machine, etc... It's a that trickle-down economic thing.
Financing section of the Wikipedia excerpt that was quoted above.
Interstate Highway System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Were it not for the growth of private industry and the transportation needs of private citizens and businesses the highways wouldn't have been necessary. This all goes back to the infamous "you didn't build that" Obama quote he so arrogantly aimed at the American people. Socialists like him don't understand that we may not have driven the asphalt spreading machine, but we da*n sure paid for it and its operator's salary - and private industry built the machine! Also, it's very likely a privately owned, sub-contracted paving company bought the machine, etc... It's a that trickle-down economic thing.
