• Hilary Clinton: "Don't let anyone tell you businesses create jobs."
    74 replies, posted
[url]http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/10/25/Hillary-Clinton-Businesses-and-corporations-dont-create-jobs/5441414281708/[/url] [quote]"Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses create jobs," Clinton said. "You know that old theory, 'trickle-down economics,'" she continued. "That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly." She also jested that she tells people her husband brought arithmetic to Washington, D.C.[/quote]
What does then?
I see she's thinking about taking the left side of the street in 2016.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;46331304]What does then?[/QUOTE] Demand. And businesses don't create demand.
Smells like pandering.
I know what she's saying, but she's going about it a bad way. Businesses are the jobs for the most part, but they don't have jobs unless something needs to be done. Like in the case of Kansas, removing all taxes for some business doesn't proportionally create jobs if the business already has enough people.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;46331329]Smells like pandering.[/QUOTE] Just was about to post this.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;46331339]I know what she's saying, but she's going about it a bad way. Businesses are the jobs for the most part, but they don't have jobs unless something needs to be done. Like in the case of Kansas, removing all taxes for some business doesn't proportionally create jobs if the business already has enough people.[/QUOTE] The problem is that alot needs to be done; feed the poor, shelter the homeless, but that doesn't create money backed demand, only moral demand. Herein lies the problem of capitalism if not taken with a cold darwinian edge.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46331328]Demand. And businesses don't create demand.[/QUOTE] So Apple didn't create demand for the iPhone? Something has to be created in order for there to be a demand.
Listen, Hillary, I hate "trickle down economics" as much as you do, but please stop making our side look like idiots. What she [I]should[/I] say is that [I]lowering taxes for the rich[/I] doesn't create jobs. Because like she said, we've tested that, like with the 2001 Bush tax cuts. It didn't do shit for the lower class.
Somehow I don't think she meant for that to sound the way it did.
In a some ways, she's right. America's involvement in World War II dragged it out of the Great Depression and created tons of jobs. Still, entering a major war for jobs isn't exactly ideal.
There's no way that quote wasn't specifically designed for Republicans to spread as an example of how bad Liberals are. It's just to on-the-nose. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I find it near impossible to believe that Hillary could say that and not know it would serve as massive ammo against her.
I'm kinda hoping she gets elected so her and bill will be the first two presidents in the history the USA to fuck each other.
I witnessed a small company that turned six homeless people into employed workers who now live in their own houses/apartments with an average pay of $12-$18 bucks an hour. This was all under a few months and is only getting more and more business. Is that to say that all companies are like this? No, so you could say I'm cherry picking or not looking at the big picture. But my point is that they can indeed create jobs. Hilary Clinton is obviously referring to something else here, but her sentence is obviously worded like this to woo the Democrats. If there's one more thing I hate more than the bogus "trickle-down" economics it has to be politics.
Okay since this seems to be a controversial issue but nobody's really getting the fire going: Businesses ALONE don't create jobs. The republican mantra is that businesses are just waiting to hire people, but government taxes and regulations are making it unprofitable to do so. This is not true. You cut regulations, you cut taxes, yet businesses still lay people off. And that's partly not their fault. They simply don't NEED those people to run. Why? because business is slow. The truth of the matter is that if there's no demand for a product, if you cut the businesses taxes and deregulate their market to make it less expensive for them to operate, they're still going to cut jobs in places that aren't making any money. It would be ridiculous to expect them to keep the branches or employees that aren't giving them productive output. Now, some people are reading into Hilary's statement as: The government create jobs. No, but the government CAN create jobs, if money is spent properly. Instead of tax breaks for the private sector, perhaps a tax break for the average american (if we want to go to tax breaks instinctively; we shouldn't in my opinion). This would put more money in their pocket at the end of the month, perhaps to spend on christmas gifts, luxury items, or even a more expensive brand of toilet paper. This is demand. However, when tax breaks are given to rich companies, that savings is not passed off to the consumer. It instead goes to cut administrative costs (for example) so that the 1$ burgers at mcdonalds will fetch them a nice $0.80 instead of a nice $0.75 (5% increase in profit!) Sure, they may turn that 5% profit into new capitol and expand more branches to other parts of the country, but they will only do that [i]if there is a demand[/i] for a branch in that part of the country. McDonalds is a bad example because there will always be demand for cheap tasty food, but you can extrapolate this to Cable TV for example. Young people more and more are graduating college or otherwise moving out on their own, strapped for cash. As a result, they make a decision to not choose cable, and instead opt for Netflix and an internet connection. The government could give comcast a tax break to try to save the jobs of cable technicians no longer needed in some parts of the country, but the reality is that there simply isn't any demand for cable, and comcast will make layoffs accordingly and keep the 5% for a rainy day (or pass it off to their CEO and board). So what CAN the government do? It's about stimulating effective demand. I don't pretend to hold the answers. The old 20th century way of doing things was to create government bureaus and have the government directly employ people, giving them income and thus stimulating effective demand. However, this would never fit into the political paradigm today, where Obama is [i]actually[/i] considered to be left wing by many, and even a [i]marxist[/i] by some. The reality is that the democratic party is a more center-right party in its actions, and center-left in its rhetoric. therefore, a "new deal" type of thing would require a depression of epic proportions to push through the political right. What is more in line with today's liberal capitalist system is the government buys lots of shit. Unfortunately, this means the government buys lots of bombs and guns for our oversize military. For two big reasons: there are a lot of people who want the government to buy bombs and guns for our oversized military, and because the jobs created by defense contracts are middle class jobs (which make up for probably most of demand in consumer products). The typical response nowadays is to tell the government to fix our nations highways and bridges and build infrastructure. This could be achieved through the paradigm of contracting out, but the issue is that construction jobs are LOWER middle class [i]at best[/i], which accounts for less disposable income than middle class workers. Don't get me wrong, fixing the nations infrastructure is a smart decision in its own right, but I don't think it's going to be enough to rebuild middle class demand. Like all things, there are a multitude of solutions. I think there's more sense in the consumer tech industry rather than the military-defense complex (and it's far less costly in the foreign policy sector as well). So if you ask me "what to do about the economy?" I would say "if an honest economist starts running for office against austerity, vote for him/her regardless of political party." Because I'm not an economist. but if you ask me "does business create jobs?" I would resoundingly say "no. consumers create jobs."
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46331496] Now, some people are reading into Hilary's statement as: The government create jobs. No, but the government CAN create jobs, if money is spent properly. [/QUOTE] No, people are saying that she is trying to say that trickle-down economics doesn't work by cutting taxes for businesses and the rich, but she is saying it like an idiot.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46331461]There's no way that quote wasn't specifically designed for Republicans to spread as an example of how bad Liberals are. It's just to on-the-nose. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I find it near impossible to believe that Hillary could say that and not know it would serve as massive ammo against her.[/QUOTE] It's hillary fucking clinton A cursory look at her history should tell you how adept she is at putting foot in mouth Nearly everything she says and does is ammo against her. I fully expect her opponents to bring the spotlight on her history out, and given the amount of scandals shes been involved in, it doesn't look good for her.
If Hillary makes it on the presidential ticket (and if she does I'll be surprised) I'll just not vote.
[QUOTE=cdr248;46331511]No, people are saying that she is trying to say that trickle-down economics doesn't work by cutting taxes for businesses and the rich, but she is saying it like an idiot.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's a bad way to say it. In one way, sure businesses DO employ people, but that's not what "creating jobs" means. [editline]25th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Saxon;46331551]If Hillary makes it on the presidential ticket (and if she does I'll be surprised) I'll just not vote.[/QUOTE] I don't think this is a good response at all. Since both parties will ultimately vote the same way economically, and any healthcare legislation that gets through the cracks will be mutated beyond any possibility of universal coverage, at the [i]very least[/i] vote democratic because of the rights of women, gays, and minorities. At the VERY LEAST just recognize that the republicans official stance towards gay marriage and abortion is a resounding "no." [editline]25th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Baron von Hax;46331391]So Apple didn't create demand for the iPhone? Something has to be created in order for there to be a demand.[/QUOTE] Lets say Apple's not doing so hot these days. They came out with the iPhone 7, but nobody is buying it. They start closing shops, when the government gives them a nice little tax break. This way, they can keep some of the shops open! But nobody is coming in. Regardless of how many Apple stores you have, if unemployment is high, and the only jobs being created are making less than 19$/hr, people are going to buy less iPhones. And ultimately, regardless of their tax break, apple will close branches that cost them more in operation than they make back in profits. However, if demand can be stimulated otherwise, say by a tax refund around thanksgiving time for people making less than 40,000 a year, they might say "Hey, I just got 500$ from the government, and little stacy has had her shitty old flip phone forever. I'm a loving dad so I'm going to get her an iPhone 7 for christmas." This increased demand creates higher profits for apple. Thus, not only do they keep their local chains open: they also expand more and more. Business doesn't "create jobs". Jobs create demand, and demand creates business. A business with employees but no customers is not a business.
In a way, it's true. Businesses exist to make money, and running with the minimum number of employees maximizes their margin. Businesses are not there for the express purpose of giving people jobs, and the right's efforts to rebrand rich people as "job creators" are bullshit. If business owners could make the same money they do today with zero employees, they'd fire everyone in a heartbeat. Giving them piles of money in the form of tax cuts doesn't generate some magical corporate altruism that makes them start hiring people. That said, this was a fucking stupid thing to say. There are a ton of ways to tear apart trickle-down theory that are smarter than saying "Businesses don't create jobs". Besides, Americans by and large fetishize the business world, because they still think all business owners are basically Luke from Gilmore Girls. There aren't any points to be gained by beating up on "business" without specifying that you're talking about Wall Street types. Anyway, it's just pandering. The Clinton administration was as pro-business and anti-worker as any Republican administration in recent memory, and Hillary would govern the same way. Warren 2016.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;46331339]I know what she's saying, but she's going about it a bad way. Businesses are the jobs for the most part, but they don't have jobs unless something needs to be done. Like in the case of Kansas, removing all taxes for some business doesn't proportionally create jobs if the business already has enough people.[/QUOTE] ya what she should have said was business tax cuts don't equate to jobs created, since most businesses are already staffing all the positions they need [editline]25th October 2014[/editline] now government can create jobs overnight, its been done before with such things like the WPA or massive public works projects, but today those kind of things won't really work. the republican side of the argument is wrong in that pandering to the interest of the "job creators" is the only way to run a successful society, is a terrible practice and a huge pile of shit, as well as their doomsday scenario where companies pack up everything and leave america completely to go to china if we don't give them everything they want without regard to the social impact created by this one way system
[QUOTE=Saxon;46331551]If Hillary makes it on the presidential ticket (and if she does I'll be surprised) I'll just not vote.[/QUOTE] Just means you cant complain for the next 4 years about the administration
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46331686]Just means you cant complain for the next 4 years about the administration[/QUOTE] No I'll just complain about how they all suck like I've been doing for the past few years. If that women is on the ticket the dems won't win anyway because so many people feel the same way. I live in a republican district anyway so thanks to wonderful electroral college my vote don't mean shit for the preisdent anyway. Probably will still vote for senate though.
[QUOTE=Last or First;46331444]Listen, Hillary, I hate "trickle down economics" as much as you do, but please stop making our side look like idiots. What she [I]should[/I] say is that [I]lowering taxes for the rich[/I] doesn't create jobs. Because like she said, we've tested that, like with the 2001 Bush tax cuts. It didn't do shit for the lower class.[/QUOTE] neither does raising them in fact the rich already pay a good 70% of federal taxes anyways [editline]25th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Saxon;46331747] I live in a republican district anyway so thanks to wonderful electroral college my vote don't mean shit for the preisdent anyway. Probably will still vote for senate though.[/QUOTE] I know the feel man, being in the central valley and having all your representation stolen by democrats in the coastal cities is just downright shitty
[QUOTE=Medevila;46331659]wouldn't that be fucking peachy I would sell my soul to a Warren 2016 bid; think she's aware Hillary has more or less been coronated though[/QUOTE] Hillary is the obvious choice but a Sander ticket would be good enough for me. A Sander+Warren ticket would at least be enough to get this socialist to vote for capitalists.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46331328]Demand. And businesses don't create demand.[/QUOTE] They can and have.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46331616]In a way, it's true. Businesses exist to make money, and running with the minimum number of employees maximizes their margin. Businesses are not there for the express purpose of giving people jobs, and the right's efforts to rebrand rich people as "job creators" are bullshit. If business owners could make the same money they do today with zero employees, they'd fire everyone in a heartbeat. Giving them piles of money in the form of tax cuts doesn't generate some magical corporate altruism that makes them start hiring people. That said, this was a fucking stupid thing to say. There are a ton of ways to tear apart trickle-down theory that are smarter than saying "Businesses don't create jobs". Besides, Americans by and large fetishize the business world, because they still think all business owners are basically Luke from Gilmore Girls. There aren't any points to be gained by beating up on "business" without specifying that you're talking about Wall Street types. Anyway, it's just pandering. The Clinton administration was as pro-business and anti-worker as any Republican administration in recent memory, and Hillary would govern the same way. Warren 2016.[/QUOTE] Well actually businesses do create jobs. The whole basis of a capitalist economy is that everyone acts selfishly but in doing so they find ways to synergies and better benefit everyone. Of course if they could make the same amount of money on zero employees they'd fire everyone – but the thing is, this is impossible. Successful businesses take land, labor, and capital, extra emphasis on the labor part. You simply cannot realistically run a business that would ever have zero need for labor if it relied on labor before.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;46331920]Well actually businesses do create jobs. The whole basis of a capitalist economy is that everyone acts selfishly but in doing so they find ways to synergies and better benefit everyone. Of course if they could make the same amount of money on zero employees they'd fire everyone – but the thing is, this is impossible. Successful businesses take land, labor, and capital, extra emphasis on the labor part. You simply cannot realistically run a business that would ever have zero need for labor if it relied on labor before.[/QUOTE] In this fictional world of yours, we never invented transistors right? What about in the real world where automation is a thing and labor can be cut to tiny percentages? [editline]25th October 2014[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU[/media]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;46331818] in fact the rich already pay a good 70% of federal taxes anyways [/QUOTE] And that says something interesting about how out-of-control our inequality problem has become.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.