Sorry, Folks, Rich People Actually Don't 'Create The Jobs'

[swag]

http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-create-jobs-2013-11#ixzz2m9DDtV4i

Henry Blodget, Business Insider

. . .

So, if rich people do not create the jobs, what does?

A healthy economic ecosystem — one in which most participants (especially the middle class) have plenty of money to spend.

Over the last couple of years, a rich investor and entrepreneur named Nick Hanauer has annoyed all manner of other rich investors and entrepreneurs by explaining this in detail. Hanauer was the founder of online advertising company aQuantive, which Microsoft bought for $6.4 billion.

What creates a company's jobs, Hanauer explains, is a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company's customers.

The company's customers buy the company's products. This, in turn, channels money to the company and allows the the company to hire employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If the company's customers and potential customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the company's jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneurs or investors do.


Economic Policy Institute
In the last 15 years, almost all of the income gains have gone to the richest Americans.




Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-create-jobs-2013-11#ixzz2mEG1wLd5

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Bookmarking for dissemination far & wide

I've basically used this argument on numerous occasions when corporate toadies worshiped at the feet of billionaires and said something along the lines of, 'no poor man ever offered me a job.' Now I have more potent ammunition for furthering my thesis.

[TheGoodNews]

14. Workers' Ownership for the 99% - A good idea

Tell them about workers' self-management or have them review this video:

[url]

[/url]

[Gothmog]

2. The job creator myth is a myth

There is no proof that trickle down economics works

[SomeGuyInEagan]

7. Even the Pope called BS on Trickle Down myth

Just last week.

Hell, it was George H.W. Bush who called it "Voodoo economics" in the Republican primaries leading up to the 1980 election. Even he knew it was bullshit and publicly called it out then.

[Gothmog]

10. This theory has been given a chance and there have been no results

The facts do not back up this theory

[uriel1972]

12. There have been plenty of results...

They just don't back up the theory. If anything they show the reverse to be true.

[Gothmog]

13. It is clear that the trickle down economics does not work

This theory has failed every time that it has been tried

[Laelth]

3. k&r for the truth. n/t

-Laelth

[L0oniX]

4. K & R off to the greatest

[DirkGently]

5. No one ever actually believed they did.

Just another inane talking point designed to shut down debate and rationalize greed.

[cantbeserious]

6. Kick And Recommend

eom

[SHRED]

8. Bush Sr. was right about one thing:

"VooDoo Economics"

[paleotn]

9. spot on....

I'd go a step further and say it began in the mid-80's with the early days of financial dereg., top end tax cuts, corporate raiders and the M&A craze. Instead of taking the long view by growing their businesses more organically by investing in operations and people in order to compete globally, financial bullshit, short term accounting gains and quarterly share price appreciation became the rage.

That's precisely what has crushed the middle class and hollowed out the US manufacturing base, stupid trade deals being icing on the cake. Economic growth since then is driven by little more than vast amounts consumer debt, since it sure as hell isn't coming from middle / lower class wage gains. My dad, to his dying day, was amazed and sickened by the amount of debt available to US consumers. 50 years ago, no one in their right minds would take on that much debt and no financial institution would be crazy enough to lend it. Even compared to the run up to the '29 crash, this is totally nuts!

The last bubble is a case in point. In the mid to late 2000s, whole sectors of the economy and millions of jobs were based solely on cheap debt used to finance and refinance real estate that would supposedly appreciate forever and ever due to ever increasing amounts of debt. No great industrial expansion. No revolutionary ways of doing things. No significant improvement in lifestyle for the vast majority of us. Just cheap debt, generating huge profits for Wall Street and the rest of the 1%, even after it all blew up. In some ways I'm glad the old man wasn't around to see it. Damn scary times we live in.

[Sirveri]

11. Link to the actual website of the graphic is below. It's interactive.

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1969&end=2008

Shift the bars to 1969 until 2008 (last year you can select).

You get the same message (but average income increased more). In 1969, something VERY bad happened economically, and I'm still trying to figure out what it was. 1948 until 1969 shows a much more balanced distro, 33% to the top 10% and the rest to everyone else.