Please follow my logic here.
Individuals and Corporate entities that hold or control vast amounts of wealth, are primarily motivated, generally speaking, I think, to preserve or accumulate wealth. They may or may not become “job creators”. Thus I think we should no longer allow the moniker of “job Creator” to be blithely attributed to them.
Now, it is true that, to the extent that they spend some of their wealth on goods and services, they do contribute to the preservation or creation of jobs. And in times in which there are enough other people who can spend money on goods and services, they might, very well “create” new jobs, in order to further expand their own personal wealth.
But that is it.
The term “job Creator”, if it were to be applied accurately, would refer to everyone that spends on goods and services, period.
Individuals and entities, with vast amounts of wealth, were they primarily motivated to create jobs, would spend their excess wealth. Typically, they do not. They should be called “self serving wealth preservers and accumulators”. (I do not suggest this as a pejorative term, simply as a more accurate term). But it is awfully deceptive to give them the title of “job Creators”.
By far, persons who spend the greatest percentage of their personal “wealth” on goods and services, are not the extravagantly wealthy. Thus, it is those who have the least wealth, who contribute the most of what they have, to job creation.
That is why, in an economy where the vast majority is the middle and lower economic classes, and they have little to spend on extra goods and services, new jobs are not being created, by the market system.
Corporations and individuals who do employee people, and who have vast amounts of wealth reserves, would do well for their true motivation (accumulating more wealth), if they would, in conjunction, provide higher wages for their middle and lower economic class employees. Then actual job creation could commence, as those employees would spend the extra cash on goods and services, thus creating a demand for new jobs.
Of course, these entities of extravagant wealth, are unlikely to do such a thing in conjunction, unless all were compelled to do so. I suggest, therefore, that they lobby for federally mandated, across the board, increases in the nationwide minimum wage.
As they are unlikely to do such a thing, I think, they should, at least, disavow the false honor of being called “job Creators” and accept their more accurate descriptor of “self serving wealth preservers and accumulators”.
Please follow my logic here. Individuals and Corporate entities that hold or control vast amounts of wealth, are primarily motivated, generally speaking, I think, to preserve or accumulate wealth. They may or may not become "job creators". Thus I think we should no longer allow the moniker of "job Creator" to be blithely attributed to them. Now, it is true that, to the extent that they spend some of their wealth on goods and services, they do contribute to the preservation or creation of jobs. And in times in which there are enough other people who can spend money on goods and services, they might, very well "create" new jobs, in order to further expand their own personal wealth. But that is it. The term "job Creator", if it were to be applied accurately, would refer to everyone that spends on goods and services, period. Individuals and entities, with vast amounts of wealth, were they primarily motivated to create jobs, would spend their excess wealth. Typically, they do not. They should be called "self serving wealth preservers and accumulators". (I do not suggest this as a pejorative term, simply as a more accurate term). But it is awfully deceptive to give them the title of "job Creators". By far, persons who spend the greatest percentage of their personal "wealth" on goods and services, are not the extravagantly wealthy. Thus, it is those who have the least wealth, who contribute the most of what they have, to job creation. That is why, in an economy where the vast majority is the middle and lower economic classes, and they have little to spend on extra goods and services, new jobs are not being created, by the market system. Corporations and individuals who do employee people, and who have vast amounts of wealth reserves, would do well for their true motivation (accumulating more wealth), if they would, in conjunction, provide higher wages for their middle and lower economic class employees. Then actual job creation could commence, as those employees would spend the extra cash on goods and services, thus creating a demand for new jobs. Of course, these entities of extravagant wealth, are unlikely to do such a thing in conjunction, unless all were compelled to do so. I suggest, therefore, that they lobby for federally mandated, across the board, increases in the nationwide minimum wage. As they are unlikely to do such a thing, I think, they should, at least, disavow the false honor of being called "job Creators" and accept their more accurate descriptor of "self serving wealth preservers and accumulators".I agree. Most of the wealthy create no more jobs than anyone does when they buy goods or services. The wealthy will often use the fiction that they are job creators to justify tax breaks. Lois
Quite true, and even a company which is strongly ethical, charges the lowest amount to cover production and selling expenses, and a small profit to pay stockholders will not build manufacturing facilities or hire workers beyond the amount of product it can sell.
The real job creators would be companies which charge what the market will pay for their products, but distributes all their profit to their workers as higher wages. The workers will be able to buy more of a wide variety of items, thus increasing the need for and hiring of other workers in companies making those items.
Occam
“Job creators” are the human tendencies for consumerism or needs/wants in general. Or naturally occurring events.(like the grass growing-it creates a job-lawnmower. Or disease-it creates a job…nurses or hospitals.)
That’s what creates jobs.
Some people are able to capitalize on this dynamic and reap the most from people’s needs and wants.(consumerism/capitalism).
It’s ironic that one of the “jobs” created by this dynamic is Entrepreneur or CEO or Share Holder.
It’s convenient for them to justify their wealth by claiming to be the “job creators”.
That pretty well sums it up TimB. No one person or type of person creates jobs. I have a job because people need my skills to help them do their job. This is true of everyone, janitor or CEO. Henry Ford figured out he needed customers to buy his cars and who better for that than his own employees. I can understand how someone thinks they are a job creator because they make a decision to add a new employee to their payroll.
What I can’t understand is that they think accumulating wealth makes them more secure. They can only build walls that are so high and hire so many guards. Realizing you are part of a society and contributing to the overall health of it makes so much more sense to me. That’s the attitude that built the world I grew up in.
Also, most big corps in the retail business pay employees min wage or close to it and this forces a great portion of their staff into what they refer to “entitlement” programs, subsidized by the rest of society. In addition, while they’re complaining about “entitlement” programs, they are the very people who force many people in society into them and they think no one is smart enough to catch on; and in fact, they are right, many people are not smart enough to catch onto this ridiculous cycle because you rarely hear it discussed.
Also, most big corps in the retail business pay employees min wage or close to it and this forces a great portion of their staff into what they refer to "entitlement" programs, subsidized by the rest of society. In addition, while they're complaining about "entitlement" programs, they are the very people who force many people in society into them and they think no one is smart enough to catch on; and in fact, they are right, many people are not smart enough to catch onto this ridiculous cycle because you rarely hear it discussed.In effect, businesses that pay minimum wage have their workforce subsidized by the government. To this extent, the businesses are profiting off of the general American taxpayers. "Entitlements" for their workforce, are, indirectly, a source of profit for the businesses. However, businesses, then, theoretically, would pay more taxes, as the government steps in to subsidize their workforce. They don't want to pay more taxes, as this decreases profits. They want a cheap, highly productive labor force and low taxes. They want to have it both ways. Businesses exist to make profits. They could increase profits by selling more goods and services, but this only works when there are persons who can afford their goods and services. So, alternatively, they increase profits by decreasing their labor costs relative to production. This works well until, in the society at large, there are no longer enough people making enough money to afford more goods and services. New jobs, then, cannot be created. So, ultimately, businesses cannot have it both ways. Increasing the minimum wage nationwide, should lower taxes, as it would decrease the indirect government subsidies to such businesses' workforce (perversely known as "individual entitlements"). (Persons, newly, making more than minimum wage, would be paying some taxes, then, as well.) Since the general American taxpayer is currently subsidizing businesses' labor force (that is businesses that pay low wages), it makes sense that these businesses should be, in particular, paying higher taxes.
Oh and it is more far reaching than the US…we all know the corporations will get their cheap products from factories in other countries where the people are so desperate for work, they will work for a few cents a week. This in addition to paying their US employees minimum wage and then complaining when they rely on public assistance.
Reminds me a bit of the Papa John’s CEO who has stated he will go out of business if he has to offer health insurance, but at the same time gave a way millions of dollars in free pizzas for super bowl promotions, so I heard anyway. I never verfied this story but it sounds about like something plausible enough from a food/retail corp.
I am 27 now, but recall my teenage years working retail…I was given a 5 cent raise annually which was never noticed because it didn’t keep up with the cost of living and gas prices. Also, they would work me just shy of an hour or two of being “full-time” so I wouldn’t qualify for health coverage or paid time off (not just me, everyone). Also, if you worked even a few minutes over-time, you could be written up and fired, so many of us would clock out and then finish our jobs–it was the norm in retail.
Very glad to be out of that type of environment now…it’s tolerable when you’re 18-21 and in college, still under the auspices of parental units, but if you’re an “adult” and trying to work a retail job, you will not survive without gov’t assistance.
Also, if you worked even a few minutes over-time, you could be written up and fired, so many of us would clock out and then finish our jobs--it was the norm in retail.That's a great example of the American Work Ethic. It's always a privilege to have a job. Your labor was never a part of some equalized contract with pay/corporation. It was a conditional service you provided for the privilege of having a job there. It's hard for most Americans to deconstruct this relationship. Mainly because these values are so ingrained that any counterpoint usually seems alien. This withstands even the obvious rebuttals from the usual suspects..ie CEOs, managers, and most horrendously, the majority of workers. To begin to understand it people have to look at the two words above: conditional and privilege. The "job creator" ploy is one of the foundations of this labor/wealth system that is so ingrained into the American workforce. It's a uniquely American thing that has it's roots in the "peculiar" way that enterprise and wealth evolved in this country. A great example of this is the rejection of the UAW recently in Chattanooga. Volkswagen even welcomed the Union into the factory and offered no resistance. Volkswagen even put forth the idea of Works Councils to it's employees..modeled after the Councils it has in it's other plants in Europe. The resistance to this by the majority of workers there perfectly illustrates this ingrained system of the worker in America.
With the rapid development of more and more capable robot machinery, even the overseas workers will be out of jobs because companies will move back to the U.S. to save the transportation costs and delays. And more of the profits will end up in the pockets of the CEOs and industry owners.
Even though most of the wealth is in the hands of the top 1%, enough of us are still comfortable so we aren’t complaining very much. As more and more people end up out of work or with minimum wage, part time jobs we’ll see far more dissatisfaction. However, with the shift to privatized charter schools, many will be very poorly educated so I doubt that the changes will be as helpful as they could be.
Occam
Many employers, especially large corporations and the retail industry like to promote the false assumption that an employer is doing employees a favor by hiring them so their paychecks seem to be a form of charity and they feel justified in refusing to “give away” more than the minimum.
Lois
“Skilled workers”, in the current system, are at risk of eventually having lower pay as well in the current system. New jobs will not be created if there is no one who can afford goods and services. So, eventually, even a highly paid robotics engineer will be making less, and the downward spiral will continue.
There are still lots of unskilled jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. If these unskilled workers were paid significantly more, it would be a rising tide that floats all boats in our economy.
Would there be inflation? Probably. But there would be more jobs. There would be less national debt.
I would appreciate thoughts & insight on the following:
Of course I am an advocate for raising the minimum wage as it not only will help those individuals and families who receive it, I believe it could help our stagnant economy (especially for a great jumpstart that would last a year or two). However, I am a cynic the fact that I think minimum wage increases may be taken advantage of by the wealthy and here is how: many landlords among other people who profit directly from people (on general goods and services) keep a close watch on the demographics (what people are actually making) and quickly cash in and adjust prices accordingly. For example, if a landlord charges $1000 per month for an apartment, but during the course of a year learns his renter is earning more, what’s to say he won’t be charging $1200 a year later thus cancelling out any benefit of an increase to the renter? Or from an economic standpoint, is this the reality and the cost of living and minimum wage is supposed to be some constant game of “catch-up”? If so, it seems those on the bottom rung, will remain on the bottom rung and if they do step up a few rungs, it will be short lived and they will eventually be forced back to to the bottom rung. To truly benefit bottom earners and the economy, it seems legislation would need to step a step ahead and people who are low income would want to lock in as much as possible by signing longer leases, thus being locked into lower rates for a while longer. When I used to rent apartments, landlords always asked to see proof of income to ensure ability to pay, which is reasonable, but at the same time there is a dual tacit underpinning to this: to also see the maximum he/she could possibly get away with charging, especially the next year (lease renewal) and for others coming in soon after.
Low income persons are disproportionately effected by price increases in essential goods and services, e.g., housing, utilities, food, medical care. If they suddenly, as a group, got more income, the providers of essential goods and services might well exploit this, if they could get away with it.
Always those who are proficient at using the tools of capitalism, and who have no qualms about exploiting others, will take advantage of the unwary. I wonder whether we should add “conniving capitalism” as a core course in elementary school, so that most people would be on an equal footing. So the schools would first teach reading, word processing, arithmetic, and conniving capitalism.
Political hacks (K-street types) come up with these terms or slogans for spin purposes. The right wing seems to excel at this game (the strategy, if you repeat the term or slogan enough, it sticks). It’s sort of easy considering Americans aren’t exactly the shiniest branch on the phylogenetic tree (but it still amazes me that people are dumb enough to get trapped into these political echo chambers). Some say they don’t have enough time to be politically aware, but I think that’s a cop out.
Political hacks (K-street types) come up with these terms or slogans for spin purposes. The right wing seems to excel at this game...They do indeed excel in this tactic. They could make diamonds look like shit and shit look like diamonds to the average FOX news viewer type.
Low income persons are disproportionately effected by price increases in essential goods and services, e.g., housing, utilities, food, medical care. If they suddenly, as a group, got more income, the providers of essential goods and services might well exploit this, if they could get away with it. Always those who are proficient at using the tools of capitalism, and who have no qualms about exploiting others, will take advantage of the unwary. I wonder whether we should add "conniving capitalism" as a core course in elementary school, so that most people would be on an equal footing. So the schools would first teach reading, word processing, arithmetic, and conniving capitalism.I love it! Lois
It wasn’t in the curriculum, but my 7th grade teacher had an “open discussion” about the different forms of economies, socialism, communism, etc. I put it in quotes because what he actually did was mock anyone who said anything good about anything other than capitalism.
I would appreciate thoughts & insight on the following: Of course I am an advocate for raising the minimum wage as it not only will help those individuals and families who receive it, I believe it could help our stagnant economy (especially for a great jumpstart that would last a year or two). However, I am a cynic the fact that I think minimum wage increases may be taken advantage....I think this is answered in TimB's responses above this question on Mar 31. The problem is that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, so income is trailing costs. The advantage is to the current employers who can pay what the market is currently allowing. Raising wages shouldn't inflate the economy because it is not money being created out of nothing, only distributed to people who are contributing. It will allow people to take care of themselves, go to the doctor, exercise, take a night class, read a book. All of that contributes back to that same economy. The market isn't perfect, but it does better at weeding out a few predatory landlords than it does stabilizing a society against the concentration of wealth.
Just found out, here in Maryland, we’re awaiting the Gov. to sign the bill increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour HOWEVER, to be incremental and not fully implemented until 2018! To me, if it is going to be of maximum value, it needs to happen faster. Originally, they were proposing 2016. By 2018, the cost of living will have increased and $10.10 will not be as attractive. I understand businesses need the opportunity to adjust, but July of 2018 is just too far. I can’t say I am satisfied with that timeframe. Is this unreasonable? Of course families will benefit if implemented sooner or later but also families will be able to crawl out of debt, become more independent or spend on other necessary items–this would help the economy.