Forum Post: Small Businesses Are NOT The True Engine Of Job Creation.....Here's Why:
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 1:31 a.m. EST by puff6962
(4052)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Who Are The Job Creators? from NPR, 9.27.2011
As President Obama pushes Congress to pass his jobs bill, Republicans argue the administration's policies hurt "job creators." The phrase "job creators" comes up often these days in political rhetoric. So we wanted to understand who exactly the jobs creators are. Melissa Block talks with Justin Wolfers, professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
MELISSA BLOCK, host: While President Obama travels the country pushing his jobs bill, Republicans insist the White House wants to raise taxes on what they call job creators, to pay for the bill. These days, House Speaker John Boehner often remarks: Job creators are on strike.
Representative JOHN BOEHNER: I can tell you the American people - the private-sector job creators - they're rattled by what they've seen out of this town over the last few years.
BLOCK: So with all the talk of job creators, who, exactly, are they? To help us answer that question, we're joined by Justin Wolfers. He's a professor of business and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. Welcome to the program.
Dr. JUSTIN WOLFERS: Melissa, a pleasure to be here.
BLOCK: And Justin, how would you define job creators in the current economy?
WOLFERS: What's funny about that Boehner quote is, I think we used to call them as - employers. So obviously, there's some political rhetoric here. But, you know, it depends where we are in the business cycle. Right now, there's a lot of hiring going on, for instance, in health, professional business services. And actually, manufacturing has been one of the bright spots as well.
BLOCK: Which is interesting because for so many months, manufacturing jobs were declining. And now there's a little bit of an upturn, right?
WOLFERS: Well, not only so many months, so many years - and in fact, so many decades. So the fact that there's actually increases in hiring going on, increases in the number of jobs in manufacturing going on, is actually historically unusual.
BLOCK: We hear a lot about small businesses being the engine of job growth in that - country. How true is that?
WOLFERS: Categorically false.
BLOCK: Really?
GO TO PART 2 BELOW
Didn't many large business start out as a small business?
They all do. But, less than 1% of all small businesses will survive and eventually employ over 500 people.
That means that a huge percentage of small businesses are simply spinning their wheels on long term job creation.
Is "long-term" job creation your big goal? You want it to be like it was when your grandfather worked for the same company for 30 years? You're looking for a big company to adopt you and look out for you and keep you safe and secure? Is that what this is all about for you?
Larger companies are more stable, pay their employees more, export more on a percentage basis, and are more likely to offer pensions and benefits.
Will it be like GM circa 1956? No. Can labor reconstitute and play a role in driving equitability in compensation? Yes.
Should the government focus on mid and larger size companies for improving our long term unemployment problem? Yes they should and they should STOP focusing solely upon small businesses. The numbers bear that out.
I understand more of what you're advocating now that I understand your labor-oriented point of view. But you seem to be looking for rationalizations to me. Do you have statistics that show that small businesses pay below market rates?
And exactly what kinds of anti-small-business policy changes are you advocating?
I'm advocating awareness that Republicans don't give a rat's ass about small business....what they care about are the 21 million voters who are self-incorporated and think that they will get some form of favored treatment by these bozos. They won't.....unless they are in the top income bracket.
So, first, there needs to be an end to this mantra about small business. It is a lie.
Second, larger, stable, and productive enterprises need strong programs to hire because THAT is where the majority, and the vast majority of high quality, jobs are produced.
That's bizarre, in another post a few minutes ago you said that part of the problem was that these self-employed people do get tax breaks and favored treatment. You have this one idea that larger businesses are better than smaller businesses, based on your desire to be taken care of. You're fumbling for rationalizations to justify favoring larger businesses but you can't keep your own rationalizations straight.
Those that are in the top income brackets DO. Those who are not, have hope.
Them what does that have to do with small businesses? You are making little sense.
Post fail.
The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 40% of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.
Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher. The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East.
This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.
MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – Florida is touting the new jobs it created Friday after a positive unemployment report. But based on numbers from all W-2’s filed in the country, the wages simply aren’t keeping up.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion.
In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of domestic wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent of Americans already own 40 percent of it's total wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. The lower 99 percent are sharing the rest. Still, the rich want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority. The rich have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
The ugly truth about the housing market, Countrywide, predatory lending, and the endorsements of Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. Ch'Ching!
The first subprime loans were issued in 1994. It was a gimmick to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, sell more homes at higher profits, foreclose on those who could not pay when the ARM rates readjusted, take their homes leaving them with nothing to show for their payments, resell the homes at a higher profit and so on. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes and artificially inflate the market. Those loans were incredibly profitable for well over a decade before the house of cards finally collapsed. In the meantime, bankers got richer along with the richest one percent who made off with higher dividends. It was a sham.
The biggest player in the game was Countrywide. Endorsed by Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. If you have their shows from '04' to '06' on tape, watch them again. All three were paid millions specifically to endorse Countrywide by name. The biggest subprime player in the game. They issued more ARM loans than anyone else. Foreclosing on those who could not make their monthy payments when the rates suddenly went through the roof. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, foreclose, and resell for a higher profit. The sham worked like a charm for 12 years before the house of cards finally fell in.
At this approximate time the worthless paper was sold to unsuspecting investors.
Oprah, Ellen, and Dr Phil were paid millions for their endorsements. Ch'Ching!
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually, more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.
The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid little or no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. Note: This claim was made by Forbes.com in April of '10'. Shortly after, they published a followup article which included a rebuttal by Exxon Mobil. Forbes.com did acknowledge a mistake based on incorrect line items filed by Exxon Mobil. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
God damn it. You die hard winner take all bloodthirsty capitalists and filthy rich pigs absolutely refuse to understand the following: First, that record high charges in health care, energy, and finance also mean record high profits and record high dividends. 40% of which are paid to the richest one percent. This causes more hardship and more concentration of wealth. At the same time, more financial aid in the form of welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid becomes necessary. Especially with those record high charges and profits. As even more wealth is concentrated, the lower majority go into debt and lose their relative buying power. This results in less demand, layoffs, and higher unemployment. This results in even more legitimate need for financial aid, a slower economy, less revenue, and higher national debt. It's a downward cycle tied directly to the relentless concentration of wealth.
I'm not making excuses for those who sit on the couch, make no attempt to find work, and sponge off the government. I'm not calling for a welfare state. But God damn it. You die hard conservatives and filthy rich pigs need to stop being such cowards, open your god damn eyes, and finally admit that there is a downside as more and more wealth becomes concentrated.
The richest one percent in America now own 40 percent of its total wealth. The lower 99 percent are sharing the rest. This is true even after you account for all taxes, charity, and financial aid.
Mark my words: this equation will get worse.
THERE IS A DOWNSIDE AS YOU GET RICHER AND RICHER!
A word for my critics: I'm no expert but I'm no fool. I predicted this socio-economic crisis in writing 6 years ago. I'm aware of all the conservative and liberal talking points. Of course, I hate politicians. But I don't hate liberals or conservatives. I agree with both on some issues. For example: I agree that we need an adequate safety net for those in need. Not for those who sit on the couch and watch TV.I agree with tax cuts for small business. But not for Wall Street and not for those making $500,000 and up. A heavy concentration of wealth is what got us here. A gradual and partial redistribution of wealth is vital.
I don't want socialism, communism, or marxism. I want modest capitalism. A reasonable scale of income opportunity for all those willing and able to work. An adequate safety net for those in need.
A word for the rich: I have received quite a bit of negative feedback from you one percent club pigs. I must be doing something right. After all, you took time away from your money bath just for me. You might want to check your ass crack for soggy bills. In the meantime, let me just say this for the record:
You can't intimidate me. You can't embarrass me. You can't make me feel uneducated, unintelligent, or otherwise insignificant. You can't confuse me. You can't divert my attention. You can't exhaust me and you sure as hell can't break my will. I know I'm getting to you because you're here with another lame psychological trick. You're here in an attempt to shut me up. It won't work. I've had it with all of you.
I won't break any laws. I would never discredit the cause with a criminal act. But I'm telling you right now that I'm virtually impossible to stop. It's a big world and I have a lot to say. If you want to break my will, you're going to have to break my neck first.
If you pull a stunt like that, a lot of people will know what happened to me and why.
Now get out of my face. I have work to do.
First of all, 'antitrust' 'Microsoft'. Look it up.
Second, Gates has personally concentrated $50,000,000,000 of the world's wealth in his own pocket. Thereby CAUSING more poverty worldwide. He has the means to throw down his pocket change in the name of 'humanity' and divert the attention of people like you.
Third, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has never been what it's made out to be. They only contribute 2 or 3 percent of their funding to charity. Another chunk is spent on super high end BMGF infrastructure like a multi-hundred-million dollar headquarters. But the lion's share of their funding has always been 'invested' in Fortune 500 companies. The same Fortune 500 companies that rape the natural environment all over the world, buy out world leaders, drive up the cost of living worldwide, and screw ordinary people.
The Utopian world of generous and noble billionaires you people fantasize about does not exist.
The rich and famous do not want to be seen as 'pigs' or go down in history as 'villains'. They want to be seen as 'heros' and go down in history as 'humanitarians'. The market for their product has become global. The fan base has become global. Therefore, the 'humanitarian' effort and 'good will' PR machine has gone global. These 'humanitarian' efforts and 'good deeds' are not chosen to address the greatest need or injustice. They are chosen almost exclusively to appeal to the largest demographic for their respective commercial products. The largest fan base. Efficiency or effect is of little or no concern. Its all about PR, marketing, image, and fame.
This is why the rich and famous have all taken up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' around the world. This is why so many have 'schools' or 'foundations' in their name. This is why so many play golf or appear on a TV game show for 'charity'. This is why so many sign motorcycles, other merchandise, or auction off their own 'personal effects' for 'charity'. This is why so many have TV shows with a 'charitable' gimmick. This is why so many arrange photo ops with wounded veterans, firefighters, or sick children. This is why so many have adopted children from around the world (Which they always pay others to care for full time. The hired professionals are sworn by legal contract to confidentiality. Not allowed to discuss or appear in public with the children they care for. Those 'photo' and 'interview' opportunities are reserved exclusively for the rich and famous 'adoptive' parents.). This is why every 'humanitarian' effort and 'good deed' is plastered all over the media worldwide. Its not about 'humanity' or 'good will'. Its all about marketing, image, fame, and PROFIT. This is why we are so often reminded of their respective 'good deeds' or 'humanitarian' efforts shortly before or after the release of their latest commercial product.
Charitywatch.org and Charitynavigator.org are both non-profit charity watchdogs. Of all the well rated charities (about 1500) only three are closely affiliated with celebrities. Michael J Fox (not the primary donor), Tiger Woods (not the primary donor), and Bill Clinton (not the primary donor). That's three well rated celebrity foundations out of 1500. In general, celebrity foundations run like crap because they blow half the money on private jet rides, five star accommodations, and PR crews.
The fans have been terribly misled. For example:
Virtually every penny 'donated' by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to date has come from repeated sales of baby photos. With each sale, the baby money goes to the 'Jolie-Pitt' foundation. A foundation which has never done anything but shelter funds. The 'donation' is immediately publicized worldwide.
When Jolie or Pitt have a new movie to promote, a portion is then donated from their own 'foundation' to a legitimate charity. This leaves their ignorant fans under the impression that 'another' donation has been made. When in fact, its the same baby money being transferred again and again. Another portion is blown on private jet rides, super-exclusive accommodations, photo ops, and PR crap. This saves Jolie and Pitt millions in travel/stay expenses and their respective studios tens of millions in advertising. It's all very calculated.
Of course, Jolie and Pitt could simply endorse any of the 1500 most efficient and effective charities. Of course, the baby money would go much further and do far more good if it were donated to such charities to begin with.
But that would be too boring.
The 'Make it Right' Foundation took in over $12,000,000 the first year alone. Tens of millions overall. Brad Pitt has never been the primary donor, planner, or designer. He is a figurehead and salesman with a position on the board of advisors. Nothing more. Still, he has been showered with glorious praise by fellow celebrities and media outlets around the world. Again, the fans have been terribly misled.
In order to move into a 'green' home, the innocent victims of Katrina are required to provide a property deed, meet a number of financial requirements, and pay an average of $150,000 UP FRONT. The difference is offered in cheap loans or on occasion (according to the website) forgiven. To date, only a few dozen former home owners have qualified.
The 'Make it Right' foundation was never intended to help the lower income residents of New Orleans reclaim anything lost in Katrina. In fact, 'Make it Right' is part of a calculated effort to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward without them. Part of a calculated effort to raise property values in the area by displacing the poor. They are by design, excluded. Unable to qualify. Of course, Brad Pitt could have simply endorsed 'Habitat For Humanity'. A well known, proven, and efficient home building operation. Of course, the tens of millions in funding would have gone MUCH further.
But that would be too boring. Big name celebrities have no desire to make the world a better place.
Their primary goal is to appear as if they do.
It's a sham. Good will has become big business.
This post will be a little sloppy for starters. I will clean it up and repost a better essay later. I just want to get the discussion started on how actors and executives use the illusion of 'good will' to maximize their own profits. It's a complicated web of affiliation.
How do modern era celebrities get so incredibly rich? It's not as simple as making movies and selling tickets anymore. Major studios and TV networks are now owned by giant corporations which also own entities within other industries. Their strategies to maximize profits are more calculated than ever.
For example, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have had a special relationship with NBC for years. Countrywide and other banking entities have been sponsors. Not to mention Lowes, Home Depot, and Electrolux. But it's not as simple as selling ad space anymore. NBC is owned by GE. GE also owns at least one major production studeo and entities within the banking industry.
Giant corporations have been working together for years with major media outlets to increase profits. Part of their strategy has been to cross-market their products and services. Also to affiliate with celebrities and create the illusion of 'good will'. When in fact, the idea is to increase awareness and demand for every product and service provided within the umbrella of parent companies and corporate sponsors. New Orleans is known worldwide for it's unique culture. Tourism has been big business in the area for decades. Make it Right is now affiliated with Hyatt Regency. A high end hotel right next to the New Orleans Stadium. There is already a giant dual promotion planned for next spring. Ellen Degeneres (NBC juggernaut) is going to play a major role in this dual promotion. Housing, the related financing and home improvements have also been big business for decades.
If the Lower Ninth Ward is redeveloped with fewer poor people, property values will be increased along with profits made by all those affiliated with Make it Right. The web of affiliation with Pitt, NBC, GE, Hyatt, Lowes, Home Depot, and the banking industry is sprawling to say the least. The operation has also been used to promote at least one 'home improvement' TV show that I know of. Holmes on Homes. I don't recall the network but the show is designed to sell more high end home improvements. It's all very calculated.
I'm telling you that good will has become big business.
If any of you have some more shady details, I'd like to read them.
Still not convinced? Here is a short list of well known public figures and executives who's respective 'good deeds' and 'humanitarian efforts' were documented and publicized at critical moments in time. Their true colors were eventually shown: Bernie Ebbers (Worldcom fraud). Kenneth Lay and Jeffery Skilling (Enron fraud). Martha Stewart (Insider trading). Bill Gates (Anti-trust). Michael Vicks (Dog fighting). Wesley Snipes (Tax fraud). Mike Tyson (Rape). Lil Kim (Perjury). Chris Langham (Child porn). Jim Baker (Ministry fraud). Michael Richards (Racist). Mel Gibson (Anti-semite). Michael Jackson (Pedophile). Al Capone (Crime boss). So what else do they all have in common besides their incredible greed, over-pay, and rotten moral character? Thats right. A MASSIVE CAMPAIGN OF 'GOOD WILL' 'HUMANITARIAN' PR MARKETING CRAP. Look it up. All of the above took part in 'good will' 'humanitarian' efforts. All were publicized. They also got caught in rotten immoral contradictory behaviour. Most were convicted on felony charges. Mark my words: There will be many more. More true colors will be shown. We are living in the most profound era of greed, fraud, and hypocrisy ever. Its nothing short of an epidemic. Not a single well known living public figure is anywhere near as noble as they are made out to be. Not a single one of them took up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' until AFTER they became well known public figures. Not Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, Bill, Melinda, Richard, Warren, Donald, Michael, or any other well known celebrity or executive. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Thats right. Before their fame and fortune, there was no time in the service. No time in the Peace Corps. No work at a soup kitchen. No work at a homeless shelter. No work at an animal shelter. No neighborhood clean-up. No anti-war protest. No anti-fur protest. No environmental work. No help-line. No foster parenting. No 'Big brother' or 'Big sister' work. No adoption of children. No sponsorship of children. No fund raising for charity. No scrubbing out of garbage cans at the local church. Before their fame and fortune, there was no philanthropy, charitable contribution, humanitarian effort, or volunteer work on their part. No attempt to make the world a better place. No documentation to prove it. Not even in public record. Why not? BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL TOO BUSY TRYING TO GET RICH AND FAMOUS. If you don't believe it, then pick any well known celebrity or executive and do the research. Find out how they spent their time and money just before they became rich and famous. You will find nothing but business school, business related work, study, investing, career building, beauty pageants, modeling, singing, dancing, auditioning, rehearsal, sports, exhibitionism, materialism, and the same old self-centered CRAP. Not that I have anything against entertainment, sports, education, business, or personal goals in general. I don't. But true heroes and humanitarians are not born from RICHES. They are not born from CELEBRITY STATUS. They are not attention grabbers. They get involved on their own without the slightest regard for fame, fortune, image, credit, or profit. Millions around the world do so at this very moment. Often putting their own modest livelyhoods or lives in jeapordy. Some even die for it. Still, they don't get even a tiny little fraction of the credit and support they truly deserve. Why not? BECAUSE TOO MANY HOLLYWOOD, PRO SPORTS, AND BIG BUSINESS 'HEROES' AND 'HUMANITARIANS' DELIBERATELY GARNER AS MUCH ATTENTION AS POSSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES. THESE PEOPLE ARE FAKE. THEY ARE CALCULATED. THEY ARE GREEDY HYPOCRITE PIGS. THEY DELIBERATELY CONCENTRATE THE WORLD'S WEALTH AND RESOURCES. THEY DELIBERATELY EXPAND THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND POOR. THEY ARE CAUSING THE VERY SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. ITS A SHAM. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN.
The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 40% of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. The bottom 90 percent of Americans share about 10 percent (that's ten percent) of all dividends. The rest are paid to the top 10 percent and foreign investors. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.
Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher. The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East.
This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.
Spend your money as wisely as possible. Especially in middle and lower class communities. Check the Fortune 500 list and limit your support of high profit/low labor industries (Hollywood, pro sports, energy, credit, pharmaceutical, cable, satelite, internet advertising, video, and music, cell phone, high fashion, jewelry, ect.). Cancel all but one credit card for emergencies only. Call the provider and demand a lower rate. Be persistent. You may get it. (By the way. I gave this piece of advice long before NBC. I'm not looking for kudos. I'm telling you that NBC is directly affiliated with the credit industry. They could have given you this piece of advice years ago. Instead, they stood by and allowed their parent company, sister companies, and network sponsors to RIP YOU OFF. Even now, they give the occasional 'good guy' financial advice only because they are pressured to do so. They carefully balance every piece of 'good guy' advice with their primary goal to GET YOUR MONEY. Which is why their 'good guy' advice is so often followed by a plug for one of their sister companies, sister channels, network sponsors, or coorporate partners. For example: They tell you to pay down your credit card debt. Good advice. They should have given it years ago. Then, they tell you to GET MORE CREDIT CARDS and use them. Bad advice. One week Jean Chatzky tells you to avoid the 'free credit report' scam because it is always followed by a monthly service charge. Good advice. They should have given it years ago. The following week she stands by as her paid fellow advisor Carmen Wong strongly implies for you to have your credit monitered on a monthly basis and praises a caller for doing so. Bad advice. This is actually a plug for one of their network sponsors, coorporate partners, or parent company. The praise is nothing but a psychological trick. DON'T FALL FOR IT. Don't take ANYTHING they say at face value. Instead, read between the lines. Carefully weigh every piece of 'good guy' advice given against their primary goal. THEY WANT YOUR MONEY.). If you need a cell phone, then do your homework and find the best deal on a local pre-pay. You may be able to get one for as little as $10 a month. Don't text. The charge may seem low at the time but their profit margins are obscene. If you want home internet access, then check for a locally based provider. They can be found in nearly every city nationwide. Otherwise, use the least expensive big name provider, and share accounts whenever possible. If you need to search, then use the less popular search engines. They usually produce about same results anyway. Don't pay for any internet download. Their profit margins for such data transfers are obscene. Don’t pay to see any blockbuster movie. Instead, wait a few months and rent the DVD from a local store, borrow it, or buy it USED. Then loan it to a friend or family member. If you prefer the outing, then choose a film produced by the lesser known studeos with lower paid actors. If you want to see a big name game or event, then watch it in a local bar, club, or at home on network TV. Don’t buy any high end official merchandise and don’t support the high end sponsors. If its endorsed by a big name celebrity, then don’t buy it. If you can afford a new car, then make an exception for GM, Ford, and Dodge. If they don’t increase their market share soon, then a lot more people are going to get screwed out of their pensions and/or benefits. Of course, you must know by now to avoid those big trucks and SUVs unless you truly need one for its utility. Don’t be ashamed to buy a foreign car if you prefer it. Afterall, those with the most fuel efficient vehicles consume a lot less foreign oil. Which accounts for a pretty big chunk of our trade deficit. Its a reasonable trade-off. Anyway, the global economy is worth supporting to some extent. Its the obscene profit margins, trade deficits, and BS from OPEC that get us into trouble. Otherwise, the global economy would be a good thing for everyone. Just keep in mind that the big 3 are struggling and they do produce a few smaller reliable cars. Don’t frequent any high end department store, mall, or any business in a newly developed center or upper class community. By doing so, you encourage greedy developers, make them richer, and draw vital support away from industrial areas and away from the middle and lower class communities. Instead, support the local retailer and the less popular shopping centers. Especially in lower or middle class communities. If you can afford to buy a home, then do so. But go smaller and less expensive. Don’t get yourself in too deep and don’t buy into the newly developed condos or gated communities. Instead, find a modest home in a building or neighborhood at least 20 years old. If you live in one of the poorer states, then try to support its economy first and foremost.
Be on the lookout for commercial brainwash plots on TV. They are written into nearly every scene of nearly every show. Most cater to network sponsors, coorporate partners, and parent companies. Especially commercial health care. In particular, high profit pharmaceuticals and excessive medical testing. These plugs are countless, calculated, and VERY well written. They have commercial brainwashing down to a science. DON'T FALL FOR IT. Get off the couch and take care of your own body the way nature intended. There is no substitute. If you must see a doctor, then DEMAND that he/she give you more than 5 minutes of their undivided attention. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Be prepared with written questions about your condition and get them answered one at a time. If they refuse, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe excessive medical testing, then ask if they personally own the equipment or if they are paid a commission for each test. If they find nothing new or signifigant, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe a pharmaceutical, then ask for a generic. Better yet, concider a change in lifestyle or simple tolerance. If they still recommend the name brand pharmaceutical, then ask about any financial ties or conflict of interest. If they get offended, then dispute their unreasonable charges and consider a new doctor. If you must drug away your sniffles, worries, jitters, aches, and pains, then at least do your homework. Be aware of the possible side-effects ahead of time. Don't be surprised to find yourself back a week or two later feeling worse. In which case, you should dispute their unreasonable charges. If you are diagnosed with another medical condition, then ask your doctor what he/she has done to rule out those possible side-effects. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't let any greedy doctor treat you like a number, make you wait an hour, or rush you out of their office. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't fall for this CRAP that doctors have no choice but to over-book their time or over-charge their patients because of a high overhead. ITS A LIE. YOUR DOCTOR IS MOST LIKELY A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE. The same goes for their bogus claim to over-test so many of their patients because they are afraid of missing something and being sued for it. THAT IS ANOTHER FLAT-OUT LIE. Afterall, if this were true, then it would only explain some of the unnecessary testing. NOT THE OBSCENE CHARGES. It also wouldn't explain their own financial ties directly to the manufacturers of said testing equipment. Thats right. Most doctors hold stock in the very same companies that produce that equipment. Its another conflict of interest. So don't fall for their CRAP. Demand their undivided attention and respect. Afterall, they took an oath. If you have the opportunity before being admitted, then check the record of your hospital. Check to see if they have been investigated or sued for providing unnecessary treatment, excessive medical testing, or fraudulent billing. Dozens have already been caught doing so. Do all of the above regardless of your coverage. Don't force your employer to cover the obscene and often fraudulent charges of a corrupt health care industry. By doing so, you make the problem worse. Keep your guard up when watching ANY talk show. These people are not your friends. They are not your advocates. They are paid actors hired to get your attention and your money. Some of them are also executive producers (Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil.). Nearly every word, smile, and stupid joke is rehearsed ahead of time. Including those which take place so often during what appear to be 'technical oversights' (Today Show. Even their stage hands are mixed in behind the scenes so that you can hear them laugh at every stupid joke.). Its all fake. Its all calculated. These people are not trying to make the world a happy place. They are trying to entertain you only because their marketing studies have shown that you are more likely to drop your guard and support their sponsors. Nearly every segment is about marketing some over-priced product or service. They will use any excuse to plug a gadget, fashion item, travel destonation, credit card, university, drug, medical test, surgical procedure, movie, TV show, book, magazine, song, website, ect. Almost all of it over-priced. Almost all of it resulting in higher profits for their sponsors, partners, and parent companies. DON'T FALL FOR IT.
Big business is fine on occasion depending on their product, ethics, employment, profit margins, and profit sharing. Do your homework. If they are screwing up our economy or society, then don't pay them for it. If you want to support any legitimate charity, then do so directly. Never support any celebrity foundation. Don't be fooled by the sale of baby photos, lies about percentage of income donated, or praise from other well known public figures. Celebrity foundations are CRAP. They spend most of their funding on PR campaigns, exotic travel, and super high end accomodations for themselves. Thats right. Filthy rich public figures have been jet-setting the world in the name of 'humanity' for years. Riding in personal jets, staying in super-exclusive resorts, and living it up in exotic locations around the world the likes of which most people could never afford even if their lives depended on it. They bring along agents, advisors, publicists, hair, make-up, wardrobe, lighting, and photo crews who are also in it for themselves. They are paid six or seven figures for their part to schedule, manage, document, showcase, praise, and publicize the 'good will' of said public figures and their respective industries. Every possible expense is passed of as 'incidental' or 'necessary' and billed right back to some 'foundation' named after said public figure and/or respective industry. Every possible tax deduction is claimed. Which are incredibly vague and diverse thanks to our sold-out government. Deals are cut with major networks who agree to praise the 'good will' or 'humanitarian' effort of said public figures and plug their latest commercial project around the same time. Others from around the world pick up the story and save these industries billions in advertising every year. Resulting in higher profits and paychecks for the 1% club. When its all said and done more wealth is transfered from poor to rich. NOT the other way around. So don't support any charity named after a living celebrity. Don't be fooled or inspired by any photo you see in a magazine, any clip on TV, any affiliation, or any short term short sighted progress report. Instead, go to Charitywatch.org and look up a top rated charity to support your favorite cause. Its all there. For example: 'Habitat For Humanity' is a top rated charity. They have been for many years. They operate with a low overhead, volunteer workforce, and donated materials. They have built homes for the less fortunate in nearly every city nationwide. Including New Orleans. They do so as we speak. No similar effort can match their progress hour for hour or dollar for dollar. So there is no legitimate reason to support a slower, less efficient effort represented by a filthy rich Hollywood actor who flies in on a personal jet, takes most of the credit, and makes a deal with a major network for plugs just days before the premier of his latest film or DVD release. By doing so, you support not only the inefficient effort, but also the filthy rich actor. Concentrating more wealth and dumbing down our society further in the process. Instead, support 'Habitat For Humanity'. Its not perfect. It is affiliated with some big business. However, it is MUCH more efficient, effective, and less corrupt than 'Make It Right'. The difference is profound. In general, support the little guy as much as possible and the big guy as little as possible.
Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
You won't acknowledge the bias coming from academia? The vested monetary interests from academia?
You won't acknowlegde the motives of NPR?
This is bologna
Is that how you spell balogna? Never new that one.
Bias from academia? Academics, you must realize, don't really give a rat's ass what you think. They do, on the other hand, care a lot about what other academics think. They have meetings, present papers, write books, and etc. and the single thing they fear most is finding out that their data, methods, or conclusions are incorrect. Such a mistake could sink a career.
So, there is unlikely to be some grand crusade to hide the truth from you, it's more likely that you're just stupid. I'm sorry, but you are likely a stupid person.
By the way, what motives does NPR have in saying that fewer than 20% of our nations jobs are held in companies of less than 500 workers?
Is that how you spell "new", wise ass?
they are about keeping their jobs and their little socialist community going, more than anything else. There's no scientific evidence or data being discussed here. And certain facts can be conveniently left out of the discussion, where you are technically correct with your one-sided argument.
Must have got you riled up. You sounded almost sane on that one. No soup for you....come back one year.
you are the one that is unable to maintain yourself long enough to have a worthwhile debate without attacking the character of your opponent.
"And Justin, how would you define job creators in the current economy?"
Of course there is no definition for job creators. It's a term made up by Frank Luntz for the GOP echo chamber. But why should it have a definition?
Everybody throws around the term "Small Business" as if it has a single unambiguous meaning and that everyone knows precisely what it means.
I submit that there isn't a single definition that will fit on two lines of this space. There isn't a single definition and I am not sure that any of them will fit on four lines or six. Not only is there not a single definition, most people couldn't even produce an approximate definition that you would call close.
Yet, you read the term ALL of the time. You hear hear it daily on TV. Do they define it? Nope. They just use it, or rather misuse it. Some definitions of small business include $2 billion businesses and hedge funds.
So, give me a definition and then we can talk about whether they create any jobs, a lot of jobs or more or less than .....
Otherwise, let stop talking nonsense.
The reason they echo the "small business" lingo is that there are 21 million individuals in this country who are, themselves, corporations. They employ nobody, but they vote. So, every time you hear "small business" from a Republican politician, they are speaking to 21 million Americans who they hope will buy their lies. Unfortunately, many do.
yes "small business" is a euphemism. But small business job creation is the healthiest for the economy. Public sector jobs at this time are parasitic and the economy has lost a lot of blood already.
You simply must go back to wherever you got that community college degree, walk up to dean, punch him in the fact, and then demand your money back.
The whole point of this forum is that the worst place to direct capital is towards small businesses. They start up, buy a bunch of stuff, and fail. The personal savings and line of credit financing are quickly consumed and.....bankruptcies follow and that used equipment isn't worth much.
that is IF they fail and even if they did what cost is it to the country? nothing. They lose their own money.
Small business is much better than creating more administrator and bureaucrat leaches or giving more handouts to large business(corporations).
Your first sentence highlights such a lack of insight into the benefits and punishments of capital allocation that this discussion ends now. Go get a degree in finance and run a business for thirty years.....then read what you actually said on 11.7.2011.
I don't have that much experience but I do know that if big banks fail the losses are nationalized and they are enormous. If the little guy fails then he loses his money which was the risk he chose to take. If a credit union lent him money for it, it was a risk they chose to take and their loss. In capitalism, you may win and you may lose, but the government and the taxpayer don't bail you out if you lose.
You won't debate me because all you can do is sling insults and attack your opponent's character, when you're losing an argument.
And the big ones, who get themselves misclassified for tax benefits or preferential treatment on government contracts, pay them off to grease the wheels.
Gotta have a way to get the little ones to vote against their own best interests, and they do. How do you tell someone who believes he is sacrificing his interests for principle that he is stupid? He feels like a hero, while they foreclose on his house.
You should read, "What's the Matter With Kansas." It's a great book that goes into great detail about that paradox.
Yeah, know about it. I grew up there and have been saying it ever since. Long before the book.
Probably should check it out of the library. Will cry or throw up on it until the pages stick together.
I still have family that exemplify exactly this. Starving to death and voting for scoundrels while losing their kids to one dumb ministry after another. Two generations of missionaries in Uganda while they pass "kill the gays" legislation, with the help of the C Street Family boys. "Here, have some civilization. Don't take too much, there." It's hard to have a conversation with them.
I grew up in Wichita....scary place.
Concordia, ditto
Good interview. I'm continually amazed at how politicians get away with this riduculous claim so easily. This is just more to contradict them, but they will keep saying it anyway.
The problem with the economy now is consumer confidence. Consumer confidence is necessary to increase demand which will lead to job growth. It's not about big business or small business, or alot of politicians point to too much regulation, reducing regulations and unproductive paperwork to stimulate jobs. This may be the most ridiculous claim of all. What business person in his right head will hire more people because there is less regulation? For what - to make more product that will sit on the shelves and not be sold? Because there is NO demand. Back to consumer confidence. People aren't buying and business are hording cash and not investing because they too are uncertain and lack confidence.
Consumer confidence creates jobs. Innovation creates jobs. The best thing the government can do is help to create an atmosphere and solid foundation for consumer confidence and innovation to take place.
I've had several 'small businesses' and on occasion still do some work where I need to hire people that me and my son need help with. Since I'm more or less retired and don't need the money I do it for my son.
We might hire a handful of people until the job is done, never for long since again, I'm not interested in working full time anymore, but I get bored sometimes and take on work.
Stupid post. What world do you live in puff the magic dragon?
The world of reality.
Well, I think you're full of it if you think any of these people are telling the truth. The fact of the matter is that most businesses have found it cheaper to run overseas because of crappy policy. Whoever you want to blame it on (Dems or Repubs) is really irrelevant in that they have both ruined the economy. Yes OWS, it's not Wall Street, it is economic policy. As long as it is cheaper to run a business overseas, do you really think job growth is even an issue worth discussing? Wake up people!! Look to Washington!!
This is my favorite religious leader.......
http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/02/26/robert-tilton-is-pastor-gas/
He reminds me a great deal of you. See if you agree.
Oh absolutely... I'm just not running a scam. Regardless, if you agree or disagree is really irrelevant to me. The truth remains though that 'sound' economic policy moved most jobs oversees. Just because you don't agree doesn't make me wrong. Better yet, why don't you let me everyone know why there are no jobs. It's all you my friend... I'm done, no money required.
How do you make a fart sound with letters?
Kinda like blowing a bubble.
Where do big businesses come from? Oh yeah, they start as small businesses. Duh.
Ya, 65 years ago.
What percentage of small businesses start, survive, and grow to eventually employ over 500 people?
And if government didn't intervene, many big businesses would be bankrupt and close now, and there would be space to replace them with up and coming new businesses that operate better.
Do you believe in evolution? Just not in the marketplace, right? Or society?
Yes I do, Walmart became successful because once upon a time there were many small businesses that were marketing their selected product so Walmart decided why don't we put all of these products under one roof for cost and convenience to the customer.
Businesses that are well run, grow. Unfortunately,most small businesses entities perform services no different than their competitors. Therefore, it is inherent that the growth of smaller entities plateaus. And, there is the inconvenient factoid that most small businesses go out of business. It is usually larger entities that exhibit gradual and sustained growth while rewarding their employees with better pay and with benefits. That is just the way it is.
Yes, government should focus on the chickens we already have since it's not guaranteed that all new eggs would produce actual chickens. Logic exists to eliminate faulty trains of thought such as this. Businesses that we already have come from somewhere, don't they? So we cannot keep expanding the population, without expanding the number of jobs. Small business doesn't just create jobs for over 10% of the workforce now, it allows for growth into larger entities. Even if only 1% of them make it to a large scale, so what? Without small business, you don't have that 1%, and then you don't have the continuance of newer bigger business. If we didn't have small business, than big business really would be "too big to fail" since we wouldn't have anything coming behind it.
Really, homie, to discredit small business is just asinine. If you understand basic economics (value is created by providing a good or service) then it's plain to see. The health of small business is vital to the health of the whole, much like egg production would be vital to the health of a chicken farm, unless you're just relying on buying new chickens when the old ones die. We just gonna buy some big businesses from China? Get outta here with your grade school logic nonsense.
I am pro small business, but I am equally pro of any business that behaves responsibly, values it's employees, and builds a better future.
My point is that it is wrong....and a political maneuver.....to single out "small business" as the engine of this economy. It is not, never has been, and never will be.
Small businesses employ less than 20% of the workforce and that number is constantly turning over because small businesses most often fail. They do not offer benefits, pay their workers less, and are usually service jobs (versus exporters of manufactured goods).
It is the height of futility to put resources where they will do not good. It is small business welfare....
I
Every fucking thing the government does is a political maneuver.
Yes.
So your point means basically nothing.
Maybe your next point should be something along the lines of how government should do less so we can all benefit.
There are some maneuvers that lead to more good than evil.
And your comment is exactly why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If you wished it was in black and white, you would do more to make it black and white, instead of just rationalizing away reality.
If you consider that every political entity's inherent positioning for advantage as the road to hell then America has, and always was, in hell.
They are few and far between, and we already have them. Or you think the most gigantic and advanced government in the history of the planet doesn't have enough yet?
We live in a world of grays.....I wish it was in black and white, but it is not.
Revolution, anarchy, and unfocused anger rarely gets anywhere.
It is, however, vital to instill in the systems the proper incentives that will lead to better governance and prosperity.
We simply have to rethink everything.....but, I am trying to highlight a political ploy by the right, not dish on small business.
Yes, let's replace it with a political ploy by the left. That'll fix everything.
The answer is hard to arrive at because often small businesses fail or our purchased by larger entities. However, if you run the numbers as best you can, less than .08 percent of start from scratch companies will, on their own, ever hope to employ over 500 people.
It is therefore more prudent for government to support the growth of existing endeavors and it is unwise for it to support pie in the sky start up companies.
My broader point is, why do politicians give so much lip service to "small business" when their record is abysmal? \
The answer is found in the fact that over 21 million people are self incorporated and Republicans are speaking directly to them with this small business as the engine of job creation nonsense.
omg.. dont believe this propaganda
Then read the rest of the article. Do some research. Learn.
Look at government statistics:
http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html
the government lies to cover mistakes. so manufactures hired.. did they hire the 11000 that just lost thier jobs. no did they even hire 1000? no did they hire 30000 that bank of america is planning to fire? no it makes no sense its just propaganda.
It's not propaganda.
When talking about small business, you have to talk about net new jobs....because small businesses are constantly being created or going out of business.
Meanwhile, larger companies tend to just gradually grow employment. Moreover, these jobs are better and often have generous benefits.
The key is don't vilify the wrong serpent.
so you do see. those jobs are never going to be replaced. we just increase the percentage in poverty. this is the plan . and it will work with people like you fighting for your hold on the status quo
If you fight for the wrong things, you'll burn a lot of energy for the wrong results.
Business, intrinsically, is not the enemy. Rather, the inappropriate influence of business over our political process IS.
Fix the influence, but businesses....particularly ethical, well run entities....are vital to our future.
The "Nip" episode of Seinfeld is on.
[Removed]
You really need to get off this support Obama kick. It's pathetic.
I'm voting with the boner party. Stimulus and jobs bills are a joke.
Small business be BS they dont got no medicasl they dont pays for retirement they gotson colege fun fo your kids and theys pay minium wage why we need small business they bes the 1%
Grandma, is that you?
Small businesses created 65% of of the new jobs created over the last 15 years. (Source: http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420 )
You're not reporting NET new jobs. While yes, there are a lot of new small businesses and these do hire, it is also true that most small businesses do not make it and these fire or lay off their workers. NET idiot.
They employ lots of people in the process of failing. The biggest expense of any small business is pay for employees. So even if the small business fails, they hand out a lot of paychecks in the process.
What the "idiot" at the end of your post part of your point that you were making? Should I somehow respond to that?
Small businesses cycling has been called "creative destruction."
The point is that, for the most part, small businesses fail and are a poor allocation of capital.
That may not be what is popular on this board, but that is reality.
Economic policies would be better suited if they encouraged larger, more stable, companies that employ more workers, pay them more, and offer benefits.
Ignore this at your peril. The jingoism centered on "small business" is a political ploy used by the right to appeal to self employed people who think that they are going to get some sort of special tax break.
You just switched topics by bringing up Charles Schumpeter's "creative destruction", because creative destruction is what happens when a small business succeeds and makes other businesses obsolete. When that happens, new jobs are created. The Industrial Revolution eliminated agricultural jobs and created factory jobs. If the businesses involved in the Industrial Revolution had failed like you're suggesting, then none of those agricultural jobs would have been eliminated in the first place. You're talking about two opposites as though they're the same thing: success and failure.
Yes, they do create jobs, but larger companies actually produce much more.
Larger companies do a lot more damage when they fail, especially if misguided policies prop them up for too long. Isn't the massive private corporation one of the things that this movement is supposed to be protesting against?
This is my favorite religious leader.......
http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/02/26/robert-tilton-is-pastor-gas/
He reminds me a great deal of you. See if you agree.
What does Tilton's scam have to do with small businesses, creative destruction, or job creation? Are you against creative destruction, also known as "innovation"? Is your point that you prefer the idea of propping up massive, centrally-planned, perpetually-static corporations aimed at conserving and protecting their existing revenue streams and guarding their stability at all costs? Instead of innovative small startups?
But, seriously, I am not up for propping up any segment of the business strata. I am just saying, again, again, that all of this political rhetoric that we must help small business is....not the best allocation of capital.
We should have, instead, programs that help existing, >50 employee, corporations continue to succeed. That would give a much bigger bang for the buck than trying to push programs that encourage your neighbor to start up a deli.
You'd rather have Wal Mart handle the deli business in your town than some guy with an SBA loan? This really is the opposite of the Tea Party...
What about special loans to mid sized companies?
I have a business that employs 173 people, yet I am not capable of tapping special programs to expand. Am I a big business? NO.
The small business lingo is a means for Republican politicians to speak to the 21 million Americans who are self incorporated. They employ no one, will add no new employees, but they want the tax breaks Republicans dangle before them at every opportunity. IT IS NOT SOUND POLICY. IT IS A POLITICAL FARCE.
Tilton added to GDP. He was a small business owner, wasn't he? Plus he makes these great fart sounds. Laugh dude. Just Laugh.
Your fundamental argument seems to be that it's a terrible thing if you have a job at one small business, then you have a job at another the next year, then you have a job at another the next year. Instead of having one job for three years at a huge corporation. So then why is everybody in Silicon Valley skipping around from job to job every year like musical chairs? They do that because they jump up in pay each time they switch jobs. They can switch because there is always some new startup on the horizon. Many of those startups fail, but the workers' pay just continues to increase as they continue to play the endless game of musical chairs. Is this somehow supposed to be a bad thing for the workers?
No change, insecurity, no 401k, no stability in insurance, and moving are all great things.
Business is not your enemy....you are being idiotic if you are anti-capitalism. And, if you are a capitalist, and you want a better life for workers in America....it has not materialized with the system you just babbled about.
The key points here....small businesses tend to fail, their employees get paid crappy and don't get benefits, and they NET produce much fewer jobs than companies that employ over 50 people.
If you want to turn around unemployment in this country, stop focusing on small business.....those contractors already built too many homes with illegal labor....start thinking about tech and manufacturing before it's too late.
PART 2
WOLFERS: Yeah. In the United States right now, the latest numbers suggest there are about 6 million firms with paid employment. Ninety percent of those are small businesses, which means they have, you know, 20 or fewer employees. Those 90 percent of all firms ONLY MAKE UP 20 PERCENT OF ALL JOBS. So while there's lot of businesses, there's not a lot of jobs in small business.
BLOCK: Does that depend, though, on how, exactly, you define small business? Because a lot of the numbers coming from the government refer to businesses of 500 workers or fewer, and they say two-thirds of all new jobs are created by those small businesses.
WOLFERS: So it sounds like - I'm actually not aware of the statistic you're referring to. The general sense of what I was just telling you, that small businesses are most businesses but very few jobs, is true no matter what the definition is. I think there is no ordinary sense of the word small business that includes firms with 500 employees. It just doesn't make sense. I regard that as a huge firm - and it would be an enormous factory, for instance. There's also - one needs to be careful about what we mean by creating jobs. So small businesses create a lot of jobs, but they also destroy a lot of jobs.
BLOCK: How so?
WOLFERS: Small businesses, firms that are just starting out, a bunch of them succeed, and a bunch of them fail. If we only count the success, which would be the wrong thing to do, we'd say they create an enormous number of jobs. But, you know, how difficult it is to start a successful small business. And so sure, they're doing a lot of hiring in total. But they're also doing a lot of firing as well.
BLOCK: Interesting, too, that a lot of small businesses are so small that it's essentially one person. It's maybe an independent corporation, or someone who's self-employed could be a small business?
WOLFERS: Yeah. And so this is actually one of the parts where the rhetoric of small business, I think, really leads us astray. If you actually look at the data, what we mean by small businesses, what they actually are, they're things like real estate agents or my hairdresser. They're lawyers; they're doctors. You talk to these folks, do they have any interest in innovating or bringing new products to market or any of the things we think of as being the engine of economic growth? The answer is no. My dry cleaner likes to take my clothes and then give them to me four days later. MOST SMALL BUSINESSES DON'T EVEN HAVE AMBITIONS OF BEING THE ENGINES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, OR THE ENGINES OF JOBS.
BLOCK: OK. Professor Wolfers, thank you very much.
WOLFERS: You're welcome.
BLOCK: Justin Wolfers is a professor at the Wharton School, at the University of Pennsylvania. He also co-edits a series of papers on economic activity for the Brookings Institution.
For additional reading, look to: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/rethinking-the-boosterism-about-small-business-09282011_page_2.html
The message that I am trying to convey is that big business must be reformed, but it is a vital institution in our democracy. Manufacturers will be the most vital instruments in developing well paying and stable jobs to Americans. Do not vilify them en bloc. Instead, support them when they behave ethically and in the best interests of this country. But, show your dissent and opposition when they do not.
If you wonder, then, why Republicans repeat the mantra of small business like something out of 1984, here is the reason.
There are roughly 27 million corporations in America. 21 million of those employ NOBODY. They are an individual....a doctor, plumber, etc. who has incorporated for tax reasons....but they employ only themselves. Moreover, because they tend to have a reason for employing only themselves, they are unlikely to hire anyone.
So, if you're John Boaner, and you're spewing this mantra, you are doing so because you're language about small business automatically resonates very strongly with 21 MILLION Americans.
That, not economics, is the reason behind the Right's love affair with small business owners. They tend to be in higher tax brackets and breaks to small businesses will benefit them directly (even though they have no employees).
As most small businesses fail, it is quite natural that they would do most of the hiring. Unfortunately, they also do most of the firing (or layoffs when they implode). Larger businesses (over 500) produce the majority of jobs and the great majority of stable, well paying, opportunities.
So, why are we constantly advocating expensive programs to boost small business (particularly when these programs have not produced real changes in the statistics)?
One word: VOTES.
Bigger businesses are necessary for jobs that are stable, pay well, and come with benefits.
It may not be popular on this board, but facts are difficult things.
To bring this full circle, many big businesses gain more profits if they mechanize/automate the jobs they already provide.
Automation is more productive and work longer periods without breaks so technological unemployment will continue.
Most of the agricultural and manufacturing sectors are already automated. The service sector is also being automated more frequently. Unfortunately, in a monetary system 'jobs' are necessary for money which is necessary to survive within a monetary society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2xVey00nMI
full movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Yet larger manufacturers have continued to hire throughout the current economic crisis. The facts don't agree with your thesis.
saying that is propaganda. you know they are not hiring the 11000 lost jobs. you just say that to make it sound good. its not the real truth of the matter.
Blah blah blah....business is bad.....blah blah blah.....corporate greed....blah blah blah....pawn of the oppressor.
You want to revive the American dream? Then you're going to have to simultaneously court and reform business in this country. Facts are difficult things.
we are doing that
Blah blah blah....class warfare....blah blah blah.....
You know, I don't often do this, but I will tell you the single most important thing that you can do to make your efforts work....
Go into the offices of American manufacturers and apply for jobs. Get it on tape. Promise to work hard, show up every day on time, get any additional education that you need, be loyal to the company, take pride in the things that you produce, and someday lead that company in an ethical and productive direction. Do that, and your movement has a chance.
there are thousands of people doing just that everyday. what is your point
The people of OWS need to be the ones who become those corporate leaders.
The questions to ask here are what industries, what do they manufacture, and what is the process they currently use to manufacture?
If the industry is relatively new they may not have the resources to automate immediately (it can be expensive) If the product is new then the process can be optimized. Eventually the largest job sectors will be limited to non-essential functions of society that can be better handled with machines, play around with laws, or push money around.
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/01/why_the_increase_in_us_manufac.html
Productivity will continue to rise and that stems from dynamics that include automation. But, productivity gains, in the long run, are necessary to maintain and improve our standard of living.
I agree, productivity does impact our standard of living.
Unfortunately increased productivity doesn't increase the public's access to the abundance created. Money itself restricts access.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOO_AVwfZ9Q (explanation from 8:00 on the video)
Also, the typical measurement used to indicate a nations standard of living is GDP. GDP is based purely on monetary values rather than human values. E.g. a car accident can increase the overall GDP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b7mgxaxN1U
The monetary system is outdated in this age of technology
The monetary system adapts to the challenges that face it. During stagflation, the fed tightening and lower marginal rates on taxation may have worked. During severe recessions, easing and fiscal stimulus has been the traditional remedy.
But, the fed has never....in modern history.....dealt with a deflationary spiral in the midst of a debt crisis.
We're making it up as we go along. But, to blast the Fed for trying to do anything and everything policy is shortsighted. Congress has not married fiscal stimulus to the fed actions and that is like trying to push on the end of a wet noodle.
The monetary system reacts after errors are made. Little is done to prevent errors because it is often unprofitable to do so.
Ecological issues aren't even factored into monetary economics as we continue to utilize oil, freshwater, and other finite resources at unsustainable rates.
The only ecological solution is to create a steady state economy based on what is sustainable. The infinite growth paradigm is very profitable but will be forced to come to a screeching halt.
The monetary system also creates an incentive for waste through the supply/demand mechanism. If you can successfully create artificial scarcity (destroy crops, build products to be discarded quickly after purchase) then you can generate bigger profits. Lobby successfully to regulate competitors or deregulate unethical practices and again bigger profits are made.
On a sidenote: the fed is a private institution in bed with Goldman Sachs. Our government doesn't even buy federal reserve notes from this privately regulated institution (the FED). It buys notes from Goldman Sachs which multiplies the cost of these notes which our government should be able to print directly in the first place.
Sustainable economics is necessary and debt-based economics just isn't sustainable.
The monetary system attempts to contain capitalism so that the abilities and initiatives of the whole of our citizenry are maximized. When there is reduced effective demand, we loosen monetary policy. When there is excessive demand and inflationary pressures, we tighten. That's it.
Monetary policy tries to buffet unrestrained capitalism from itself.
Small business is the great black hole of capital investment. Go buy stock in a company worth less than 30 million. Buy a hundred of them. Come back in 5 years and tell me how you did.
As a nation, particularly at this juncture, we would be better off focusing on existing businesses than start ups and small entities that really don't hire that many people to start with.
True, monetary policy 'tries' to buffet capitalism from itself. Unfortunately it fails because the monetary system is created with competition at its foundation. In otherwords for one group to win, another must lose.
In order to restrain one group rules/laws/regulations must be created. In order for these restraints to be effective there must be oversight and they must be enforced. Not only that, the overseers themselves must have oversight to maintain fairness. The same for that group, and so on.
In a competitive system, it is practically a guarantee that at least one link in the chain will become corrupted unless everyone is looking over their shoulder.
Sure, many small businesses are redundant just as many things in a monetary system are. When the system is dependent on competition it is necessary to prevent groups (businesses) from collaborating because it will likely be detrimental to another group (the people). And even if the small business has something innovative to offer, they must compete their way into the market often stealing profits from larger companies. So large companies waste resources squashing these small businesses.
At best a competitive system is win/lose. But since we can create abundance through technology today, interactions are more often lose/lose.
Also, it wouldn't be wise to simply ignore fiat currency, usury, fractional reserve banking, the 700+ trillion dollar derivatives bubble, and the collapse of foreign economies in our international market.
Point is, we need a sustainable economic system and unfortunately that means drastically changing the one currently failing us.
Keynes thought that monetary policy could avoid the issue of anti-competition by sticking to the goal of maximizing long term effective demand for goods. Macroeconomics was the role of the central banker. Microeconomics, sector economics, etc. had little relevance.
Thus, you can buffet the macro without, in theory, ever knowing who the microeconomic players are. If only it were that simple.
The fed, during the past 3 years, has done everything it can do to not make the error of omission....or benign neglect....that characterized the fed during most of the Great Depression. It's actions can only be judged by a very long lens. If fiscal policy had been so aggressive, smaller measures could have had a much more robust impact than the options that may become necessary.
The key point, when studying great deflations, is that it is much less painful to simply goose the system to inspire some inflation than it is to go through the very inefficient process of bringing prices for goods and labor downwards to a new equilibrium.
We still have deflation....it's somewhat silent because it's concentrated so highly in the values of homes....and the effect of that deflation is to slow the velocity of money. People paying down debts also tends to lower demand deposits.....and shrinks the effective money supply.
The solutions that I've seen presented, in order to fix the Fed, would have been advantageous when it was under the guidance of Alan Greenspan. They would have been, however, disastrous during the current crisis.