As the war over income inequality wages on, super-rich Seattle entrepreneur Nick Hanauer has been raising the hackles of his fellow 1-percenters, espousing the contrarian argument that rich people don't actually create jobs.
The position is controversial — so much so that TED is refusing to post a talk that Hanauer gave on the subject.
So now even TED TV has uncovered that they have an agenda to promote.
"Can't let the little guy see too much of the big picture."
I always like the format, but I'll never see it the same again.
At least you can still look at the slide show! _________________ *some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
It is true that job creation comes about through the wondrous integration and workings of the market, but the more taxes taken out of an economy, the less allocative efficiency.
If investors don't create jobs, then who does? The government? And where did they get the money?
ruveyn
Public wealth and consumer demand create jobs. Differently put: A handful of people that own billions of dollars will create far less jobs than millions of people with enough disposable income to afford some luxury items, pay for all kinds of services and entertainment, take regular vacations, and hire a cleaning lady, a babysitter and a home tutor. More importantly, their demand for local services -- hairdressers, dentists, vets, whathaveyou -- creates jobs where it counts, not in China and India.
It looks like the reason this TED TV talk wasn't going to be broadcast was because it wasn't much of a TED TV talk. Watching it now, it doesn't does look like it leaves more to be desired. _________________ *some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
Joined: Sep 22, 2008 Age: 76 Posts: 29705 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 10:30 pm Post subject:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If investors don't create jobs, then who does? The government? And where did they get the money?
ruveyn
Public wealth and consumer demand create jobs. Differently put: A handful of people that own billions of dollars will create far less jobs than millions of people with enough disposable income to afford some luxury items, pay for all kinds of services and entertainment, take regular vacations, and hire a cleaning lady, a babysitter and a home tutor. More importantly, their demand for local services -- hairdressers, dentists, vets, whathaveyou -- creates jobs where it counts, not in China and India.
It still takes folks with disposable income to invest and create productive enterprises. It is well that such folks do not have to be super rich. Jobs are the result of invested assets not needed for immediate consumption.
If investors don't create jobs, then who does? The government? And where did they get the money?
ruveyn
Public wealth and consumer demand create jobs. Differently put: A handful of people that own billions of dollars will create far less jobs than millions of people with enough disposable income to afford some luxury items, pay for all kinds of services and entertainment, take regular vacations, and hire a cleaning lady, a babysitter and a home tutor. More importantly, their demand for local services -- hairdressers, dentists, vets, whathaveyou -- creates jobs where it counts, not in China and India.
Producers create jobs. You can't buy a PlayStation 3 if it doesn't exist.
If you don't believe me, how many magical flying cars were sold last year?
Joined: May 08, 2008 Age: 44 Posts: 4000 Location: in my brain
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:44 pm Post subject:
I've never been hired by a poor person, but I,ve also never seen a poor person shut down a factory and outsource all the jobs overseas. The job creators are also the job destroyers. Why should they only be recognized for half of what they do?
I've never been hired by a poor person, but I,ve also never seen a poor person shut down a factory and outsource all the jobs overseas. The job creators are also the job destroyers. Why should they only be recognized for half of what they do?
Producers create jobs. You can't buy a PlayStation 3 if it doesn't exist.
Interesting example. I don't know where you live, but the PS3 was designed in Japan and produced in China. And if you call the customer support hotline, chances are that you'll be connected to a call center in India. So yes, producers create jobs. The question is, where do they create these jobs?
Interesting example. I don't know where you live, but the PS3 was designed in Japan and produced in China. And if you call the customer support hotline, chances are that you'll be connected to a call center in India. So yes, producers create jobs. The question is, where do they create these jobs?
Interesting example. I don't know where you live, but the PS3 was designed in Japan and produced in China. And if you call the customer support hotline, chances are that you'll be connected to a call center in India. So yes, producers create jobs. The question is, where do they create these jobs?
Again...
CSBurks wrote:
Mercantilism was debunked two centuries ago.
You might want to read up on mercantilism to find out what it really means. Hint: The statement "public wealth creates more jobs than corporate wealth" has little to do with it.
Nobody has argued that companies shouldn't be allowed to outsource their production to other countries. The only argument here is that local jobs and fair wages that create disposable public wealth are the backbone of an economy. It is very hard to argue against that. Without jobs and money, people can neither buy locally produced nor imported goods.
PS: Criticism of an economic idea doesn't mean that it has been "debunked".
