Who Are The Job Creators?

[alan1]

22.4% is lower on the graph than 9.3%.
Oh wait, it's an emotional thing.

 

[itfitzme]

So, Mark Zuckerman, what was he when he created Facebook? Who created Genentech? How about Hewlett and Packard, what where they doing when they started their company? How about Dyson?

Name actual new products, what the original creators were doing at the time that they started it, and how many jobs they ended up creating?

 

[Lakhota]

Anderson said he "hired teams before launching and before knowing whether anyone would buy", which I contend is disingenuous, because he had an educated and calculated expectation of future demand. Hanauer summed it up nicely in his statement:

I would like to add that there are two ways to interpret his statement. Either as you do, that he in fact did have significant reason to believe that the gamble would pay off.

Or, he had no reason to believe it would pay off and is there for an idiot and lousy business person.

If, in fact, he is an idiot, his points lack credibility. If he is disingenuous, his points lack credibility. Either way, his points lack credibility.

Your logic escapes me. I feel sure he's not an idiot, but his argument with Hanauer is shallow and disingenious. Remember, we're talking about jobs - and the demand that creates them.

 

[itfitzme]

22.4% is lower on the graph than 9.3%.
Oh wait, it's an emotional thing.

Oh, my god. They are two separate vertical scales.

One line goes up while the other line goes down.

That is a math thing.

You are very dumb.

 

[itfitzme]

Anderson said he "hired teams before launching and before knowing whether anyone would buy", which I contend is disingenuous, because he had an educated and calculated expectation of future demand. Hanauer summed it up nicely in his statement:

I would like to add that there are two ways to interpret his statement. Either as you do, that he in fact did have significant reason to believe that the gamble would pay off.

Or, he had no reason to believe it would pay off and is there for an idiot and lousy business person.

If, in fact, he is an idiot, his points lack credibility. If he is disingenuous, his points lack credibility. Either way, his points lack credibility.

Your logic escapes me. I feel sure he's not an idiot, but his argument with Hanauer is shallow and disingenious. Remember, we're talking about jobs - and the demand that creates them.

No intelligent and educated business person would hire a team and attempt to bring a product to market without some reason to believe the demand exists. I think we both agree on this.

Your point it that he is educated and intelligent, therefore he must be disingenuous.

My point is the alternative explanation, that he is not disingenuous but rather neither educated or intelligent.

Either way, his point isn't credible because he is either disingenuous or an idiot.

I see your stuck simply on "I feel sure he's not an idiot".

I am not sure.

But, it doesn't matter. Either way, his point lacks credulity.

 

[Lakhota]

I would like to add that there are two ways to interpret his statement. Either as you do, that he in fact did have significant reason to believe that the gamble would pay off.

Or, he had no reason to believe it would pay off and is there for an idiot and lousy business person.

If, in fact, he is an idiot, his points lack credibility. If he is disingenuous, his points lack credibility. Either way, his points lack credibility.

Your logic escapes me. I feel sure he's not an idiot, but his argument with Hanauer is shallow and disingenious. Remember, we're talking about jobs - and the demand that creates them.

No intelligent and educated business person would hire a team and attempt to bring a product to market without some reason to believe the demand exists. I think we both agree on this.

Your point it that he is educated and intelligent, therefore he must be disingenuous.

My point is the alternative explanation, that he is not disingenuous but rather neither educated or intelligent.

Either way, his point isn't credible because he is either disingenuous or an idiot.

I see your stuck simply on "I feel sure he's not an idiot".

I am not sure.

But, it doesn't matter. Either way, his point lacks credulity.

Okay, on that we can generally agree. Now, what about all the other supposed "educated and intelligent" ones who agree with Anderson's economic philosophy of supply and demand (supply-siders)?

 

[Lakhota]

I still believe in the basic concepts of economics.

What Are the Concepts of Economics? | eHow.com

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yeah, it seems off.

So I checked the correlation between the top marginal rate and the average unemployment rate for each year.

For the span of 1995 through 2007, we get a coefficient of -0.26. For the span from 1995 through 2011, the coefficient is -0.42. What this means is that as the marginal rate decreases, unemployment increases.

A linear regression gives the relationship of (unemployment rate) = -0.3945 (top marginal rate) + 0.2042. And 25% of the variation in unemployment rate is accounted for by the top marginal rate.

So, what this says is that for every 1% decrease in the top marginal rate, there is a 2.53% increase in unemployment.

The chart shown, while questionable, comes out to a 2.11% increase in unemployment for every 1% decrease in the tax rate.

So, while it seems awfully questionable, it is actually a bit forgiving. It appears to be a bad presentation of the right conclusion

The facts is that tax decreases for the top marginal rate for individual income tax is far more detrimental to employment.

There are two ways to take this. Either lowering the rate caused increased unemployment or the increased unemployment drove the lowering of the rate which did no good.

Either way, lowering the tax rate on the wealthy does not create jobs.

There is also the fact that an economic crash occurred due to the housing bubble, a factor not taken into consideration. There are a slew of factors that determine economic strength which the maker of this graph completely ignores. Tax rates are but one of many that have an affect.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Anderson said he "hired teams before launching and before knowing whether anyone would buy", which I contend is disingenuous, because he had an educated and calculated expectation of future demand. Hanauer summed it up nicely in his statement:

I would like to add that there are two ways to interpret his statement. Either as you do, that he in fact did have significant reason to believe that the gamble would pay off.

Or, he had no reason to believe it would pay off and is there for an idiot and lousy business person.

If, in fact, he is an idiot, his points lack credibility. If he is disingenuous, his points lack credibility. Either way, his points lack credibility.

Your logic escapes me

.

Real shocker there.

 

[kiwiman127]

Around 70% of the US economy is driven by consumer spending. .
Has the US economy ever been even good when consumers weren't buying?
Also, someone brought up the unemployment numbers after the 2001 recession and after the reduction of the Capital Gains rate. But comparing the workforce participation rate during that timeframe to the worker participation rate prior to 2001 when the unemployment rates were similiar, the unemployment rate really wasn't that great.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Who Creates Jobs? Taxes, Spending, and Class War | Working-Class Perspectives
^Providing poor people (unemployed) with more money creates around 7 times more jobs than providing the rich with more money. So this means that poor/middle class peoples spending creates the vast majority of all jobs while rich peoples spending creates the least amount of jobs per dollar spent.

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject
Employment Situation Summary
http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/us_06ss.pdf
http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/business/business.htm
^Government employs a total of 25-35 million People
http://socialsecurityinstitute.com/blog_post/show/672
^There are total of 130 million jobs in America.
^Small business (including agriculture) employs 65 million people.
^10 million Americans are self employed
This means that 85% of the American work force is not employed by someone who is "rich" or under a company with a "rich CEO".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Providing poor people (unemployed) with more money creates around 7 times more jobs than providing the rich with more money.

of course thats perfectly idiotic.

Imagine a society with 10 people. If you gave the dumbest 2 money from the smartest two you'd be encouraging the dumbest two to do more dumb things whereas if you gave it the smartest 2 you'd be encouraging them to do things smart people do like invent the products that got us from the stone to here.

And now the liberal knows too.

 

[Lakhota]

CHART: Lower Taxes On The Rich Don't Lead To Job Growth | ThinkProgress

CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress

An Uber-Wealthy Venture Capitalist Gave A TED Talk Saying Rich People Don't Create Jobs

TED Refuses to Post Talk By Venture Capitalist Who Says Rich People Don't Create Jobs | Crooks and Liars

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI&feature=player_embedded]Nick Hanauer - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Rshermr]

Really STUPID posts here. Lots of the normal conservative stuff - spouting the normal FOX dogma, in their true bobble head manner. No complex thoughts, bumper sticker statements, NEVER check their facts. JESUS, it must be miserable being that ignorant.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Really STUPID posts here. Lots of the normal conservative stuff - spouting the normal FOX dogma, in their true bobble head manner. No complex thoughts, bumper sticker statements, NEVER check their facts. JESUS, it must be miserable being that ignorant.

Why pick out Fox when Rush alone has 25 million listeners? Why pick on Fox or Rush when they both take their views about freedom from liberal government from our Founders? Now you've learned why the liberals spied for Stalin and why BO voted to the left of Bernie Sanders?

Also, why are you so afraid to give us your most substantive example of what is wrong with the Fox/Founders dogma. What does your fear tell you about liberalism?