The National Journal reports today that TED is refusing to publish a recent talk from megarich venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, which argued that rich people actually don't create jobs, and that cutting their taxes is harmful to the middle class.

Obviously, Hanauer's position is anathema to most of his fellow billionaires. Although his talk was well-received, TED officials eventually decided that it was too "politically controversial" to post the presentation on the TED website.

In an email to Business Insider this afternoon, Hanauer said that he accepts TED's right not to post his presentation, but that he disagrees with their reasoning:

"I got a sensational reaction to the talk at the conference itself, including a big standing ovation. Even the people who I spoke to who disagreed were intrigued and moved by the eco-systemic argument," Hanauer said in the email. "And many of the talks at the conference and on the TED website are similarly controversial. That's what makes them interesting."

He added: "Further, if it was too political, why have me do it in the first place? They knew months in advance what I would speak about and I gave the talk word for word. My arguments threaten an economic orthodoxy and political structure that many powerful people have a huge stake in defending. They will not go easily."

I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-bill...z1vFAfqT1u

(05-18-2012 12:33 PM)b Wrote:  The National Journal reports today that TED is refusing to publish a recent talk from megarich venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, which argued that rich people actually don't create jobs, and that cutting their taxes is harmful to the middle class.

Obviously, Hanauer's position is anathema to most of his fellow billionaires. Although his talk was well-received, TED officials eventually decided that it was too "politically controversial" to post the presentation on the TED website.

In an email to Business Insider this afternoon, Hanauer said that he accepts TED's right not to post his presentation, but that he disagrees with their reasoning:

"I got a sensational reaction to the talk at the conference itself, including a big standing ovation. Even the people who I spoke to who disagreed were intrigued and moved by the eco-systemic argument," Hanauer said in the email. "And many of the talks at the conference and on the TED website are similarly controversial. That's what makes them interesting."

He added: "Further, if it was too political, why have me do it in the first place? They knew months in advance what I would speak about and I gave the talk word for word. My arguments threaten an economic orthodoxy and political structure that many powerful people have a huge stake in defending. They will not go easily."

I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-bill...z1vFAfqT1u

Venture capitalists are investors. Like me or you when we invest in the stock market we look for good opportunities (buy low, sell high). If venture capitalists see a bloated company with an upside, they will buy it low, redo it and sell or hold.

Also please define rich for me.

Quote:"circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

Can you get more fuzzy than "circle of life like feedback loop"!!!

Just because a guy is super rich doesn't make him an authority on macro-economic theory any more that Tom Cruise playing a convincing laywer makes him a constitutional scholar.

The theory he refers to is best known as "Say's Law".

When Farmer joined Cintas, known as Acme and a small family business, with a small number of employees, he needed $$$ to
expand into the uniform business. He convinced a local lawyer to invest (lawyer became a venture capitalist at that point)
in the company. As the company grew to 34,000 employees, became publicly traded etc. that lawyer made millions off of
a somewhat small cash investment. He became rich although he didn't personally create any jobs himself.

See how easy that was.

(05-18-2012 12:33 PM)b Wrote:  The National Journal reports today that TED is refusing to publish a recent talk from megarich venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, which argued that rich people actually don't create jobs, and that cutting their taxes is harmful to the middle class.

Obviously, Hanauer's position is anathema to most of his fellow billionaires. Although his talk was well-received, TED officials eventually decided that it was too "politically controversial" to post the presentation on the TED website.

In an email to Business Insider this afternoon, Hanauer said that he accepts TED's right not to post his presentation, but that he disagrees with their reasoning:

"I got a sensational reaction to the talk at the conference itself, including a big standing ovation. Even the people who I spoke to who disagreed were intrigued and moved by the eco-systemic argument," Hanauer said in the email. "And many of the talks at the conference and on the TED website are similarly controversial. That's what makes them interesting."

He added: "Further, if it was too political, why have me do it in the first place? They knew months in advance what I would speak about and I gave the talk word for word. My arguments threaten an economic orthodoxy and political structure that many powerful people have a huge stake in defending. They will not go easily."

I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-bill...z1vFAfqT1u

So...jobs are created by poor people?

How many poor people have given you a job?

Just asking...

This is one of those articles where nothing new is said, but the headline screams flame, imo.

I don't think anyone disagrees with his premise that the consumer is the biggest driver of the economy. However, to thrive, the economy needs new products and new companies to come to the fore.

Venture Capitalist can and do put up their own money for a piece of a startup or newer business (look at a lot of tech compainies that sprouted in the 80's and 90's, ie Microsoft).

As for anyones stance on whether the the job creation happened because the company had enough funding to make it through the early years, or because consumers bought the product later in the business cycle, your call. Also your call on whether increasing taxes on the rich supresses the VC or the established company.

I'm confused. If, according to Mr. Hanauer, consumers creat jobs by driving demand, then where exactly do these consumers receive their money to pay for these products?

(05-18-2012 11:25 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  I'm confused. If, according to Mr. Hanauer, consumers creat jobs by driving demand, then where exactly do these consumers receive their money to pay for these products?

They just need more stimulus. Which comes from the government "revenue". And the revenue surely comes from public golf courses, not rich people that pay taxes.

(05-18-2012 01:35 PM)converrl Wrote:  So...jobs are created by poor people?

How many poor people have given you a job?

Just asking...

I mowed lawns as a kid. Some people I cut grass for were poor. So I guess they were job creators.

How about people who work for the unemployment or welfare department? Aren't poor people creating jobs for them?

See how how easy it is?

Hell, murderers are job creators. How many different occupation go into solving and prosecuting murderer?

Couldn't you also just as easy call them job destroyers?

Rich people invested in the technology of lawn mowers and built them so you could cut the grass. You're welcome.

(05-20-2012 10:36 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  Rich people invested in the technology of lawn mowers and built them so you could cut the grass. You're welcome.

Oooo, burn, b!

The article is clearly focused on where the money comes from to create jobs. The author is of the opinion consumers (only?) create jobs by buying products or services.

The govt created the agency jobs for unemployment and welfare. Where does the govt get their money?

I would guess most murderers are given free legal rep... guess who pays that?

No one is going to work for free just because demand is there.

b, you should read "A Treastise into the Cause of the Wealth of Nations" written by Adam Smith and first published in 1776. Therein lie the answers you seek. Your posts contain multiple falacies that are all too commonly displayed and the aforementioned book will set you straight.

(05-20-2012 07:52 PM)b Wrote:  How about people who work for the unemployment or welfare department? Aren't poor people creating jobs for them?

Aren't those departments funded by taxpayer dollars that come from people who work for companies that were built by....rich people?

(05-20-2012 07:52 PM)b Wrote:  Hell, murderers are job creators. How many different occupation go into solving and prosecuting murderer?

Aren't police departments funded by taxpayer dollars that come from people who work for companies that were built by....rich people?

Aren't lawyers employed by lawfirms that were built by....rich people?

See how easy it is?

Quote:Aren't those departments funded by taxpayer dollars that come from people who work for companies that were built by....rich people?

So every one works for a rich person? I can assure you that's not true. I've hired people and I'm pretty damn sure i'm not rich.

Would those departments exist if the 'Job creators" did there job and created job for those jobless john/jane q's ?

and they hire enough ( or not enough) police to service the community. They don't hire anymore just for the sake of creating jobs do they? In fact many communities employ cameras and volunteers to take the place of hiring or creating jobs.

again not all law firms are built or founded by the rich. I worked for a law firm and was surprised at how little some make.

(05-21-2012 02:17 PM)b Wrote:  

Quote:Aren't those departments funded by taxpayer dollars that come from people who work for companies that were built by....rich people?

So every one works for a rich person? I can assure you that's not true. I've hired people and I'm pretty damn sure i'm not rich.

Would those departments exist if the 'Job creators" did there job and created job for those jobless john/jane q's ?

and they hire enough ( or not enough) police to service the community. They don't hire anymore just for the sake of creating jobs do they? In fact many communities employ cameras and volunteers to take the place of hiring or creating jobs.

again not all law firms are built or founded by the rich. I worked for a law firm and was surprised at how little some make.

You may not be rich, but you were richer than the people you hired--right? It's all relative--you have to have means to create a business that can employ people..that ain't coming from the poor.

And no...businesses aren't in business to make jobs that meet zero demand--they are in business to make a profit so that the profit can be re-invested in the growth of the company, which, ....wait for it...creates more jobs. Granted, many of those jobs may not be stateside, but nonetheless, the universe of jobs expands when a business grows.

And before you post a tome about the decline of the buggy-whip industry, keep in mind that as one sector contracts, another sector grows--that's what a dynamic economy is all about.

As far as law firms not founded by rich people...I'm certain those firms were funded by taxes paid by rich people...so, in the end, yes, most jobs exist because of the wealth created....and taxed from...rich people.

Where do you think value added products and services come from? Outer space?

(05-21-2012 05:45 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  b, you should read "A Treastise into the Cause of the Wealth of Nations" written by Adam Smith and first published in 1776. Therein lie the answers you seek. Your posts contain multiple falacies that are all too commonly displayed and the aforementioned book will set you straight.

x2. Should be required reading.

(05-21-2012 03:12 PM)converrl Wrote:  You may not be rich, but you were richer than the people you hired--right? It's all relative--you have to have means to create a business that can employ people..that ain't coming from the poor.

Nupe, you are not always richer then the person you higher. Sometimes a small outfit may pay a worker more then they pay themselves Not to mention the debt their in. If i owned a small club I may not be richer then the acts that come through.

Quote:And no...businesses aren't in business to make jobs that meet zero demand--they are in business to make a profit so that the profit can be re-invested in the growth of the company, which, ....wait for it...creates more jobs. Granted, many of those jobs may not be stateside, but nonetheless, the universe of jobs expands when a business grows.

Not all companies are in it for growth. Some, like a mom and pop for instance just want to maintain a steady profit. Businesses are not in business to create jobs so this "job creator" title you throw around just bunk. Sometimes those companies re invest in machinery that... wait for it... cut jobs. so it goes both ways. if you want to call companies job creators then they should be called job killers as well. Does growing the company automatically mean creating jobs? Nope.

Quote:And before you post a tome about the decline of the buggy-whip industry, keep in mind that as one sector contracts, another sector grows--that's what a dynamic economy is all about.

I've never suggested any such thing although i'm sure you wish I did. Let me argue my own case thank you.

Quote:As far as law firms not founded by rich people...I'm certain those firms were funded by taxes paid by rich people

Umm. I'm certain you're wrong.

Quote:in the end, yes, most jobs exist because of the wealth created....and taxed from...rich people.

many small businesses owners are no rich,

Also Mcdonalds is a very successful company, how many which people are ordering a #4? Think about it.

(05-21-2012 06:33 PM)b Wrote:  If i owned a small club I may not be richer then the acts that come through.

Oh man, I could only imagine the circus acts you would book.

(05-21-2012 06:33 PM)b Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 03:12 PM)converrl Wrote:  You may not be rich, but you were richer than the people you hired--right? It's all relative--you have to have means to create a business that can employ people..that ain't coming from the poor.

Nupe, you are not always richer then the person you higher. Sometimes a small outfit may pay a worker more then they pay themselves Not to mention the debt their in. If i owned a small club I may not be richer then the acts that come through.

Quote:And no...businesses aren't in business to make jobs that meet zero demand--they are in business to make a profit so that the profit can be re-invested in the growth of the company, which, ....wait for it...creates more jobs. Granted, many of those jobs may not be stateside, but nonetheless, the universe of jobs expands when a business grows.

Not all companies are in it for growth. Some, like a mom and pop for instance just want to maintain a steady profit. Businesses are not in business to create jobs so this "job creator" title you throw around just bunk. Sometimes those companies re invest in machinery that... wait for it... cut jobs. so it goes both ways. if you want to call companies job creators then they should be called job killers as well. Does growing the company automatically mean creating jobs? Nope.

Quote:And before you post a tome about the decline of the buggy-whip industry, keep in mind that as one sector contracts, another sector grows--that's what a dynamic economy is all about.

I've never suggested any such thing although i'm sure you wish I did. Let me argue my own case thank you.

Quote:As far as law firms not founded by rich people...I'm certain those firms were funded by taxes paid by rich people

Umm. I'm certain you're wrong.

Quote:in the end, yes, most jobs exist because of the wealth created....and taxed from...rich people.

many small businesses owners are no rich,

Also Mcdonalds is a very successful company, how many which people are ordering a #4? Think about it.

Let's try something here...what is your definition of "rich"?

Have you ever heard of Ray Kroc? Google that name...

Every large business started as a small business--which created wealth and jobs. Every successful small business makes the owners wealthier than when they began their venture--otherwise there would be no point in creating a business. Much of this profit goes into expanding the business, or it's invested in areas that create more jobs.

I'm fairly certain that public defenders have part (or all) of their salaries paid by taxes...if those are the law firms you are referring to, then their salaries are basically paid by rich people through taxes...

As far as these automated businesses you decry..do you think those robots build and maintain themselves? who replaces those parts when they wear out?...more robots? Who performs the R&D that produces these machines? More machines?

Try this one...most "rich people" put their money in stocks, securities, and banks..what do you think happens to the money they invest?

I'll give you a hint...it creates jobs...

Everyone I know has a job because of their employment with a company (owned by rich people) or in the public sector (paid for by taxes that come from rich people)...you'll have to fill me in on those who are employed by people with little to no assets who don't make a profit...and exactly how do they get paid?

There are so many holes in your argument that it's hard to fill all of them...look around you at the products and services you use every day and ask yourself:

Where do they come from?