• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The middle class creates jobs, not the rich.

Dulanic

Diamond Member
I agree with most of these points and I have always believed this is the short shortsightedness of corporations and the rich. For a while it is nice... you have everything. Eventually it all fizzles away. The economy can't support only the top buying most products if the middle class and poor can no longer afford products.

Do the rich buy more cars? More TVs? Maybe a little bit... 100x more? 1000x more? a million x more?

It is a snowball effect IMO. The larger the income gap, the lesser amount of product the rich can sell us. As such, they need to find other ways to maintain their profits. In order to do so, they now need to layoff more people, cut labor costs further, and find other ways to siphon more amounts off the middle class. Eventually the middle class income will go down so far that they can no longer support the needs of the corporations and the rich.

Short Version: The middle class are the job creators, not the rich.

http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-inequality-speech-that-ted-wont-show-you.php

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That's why 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.

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?

Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification

We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

So here's an idea worth spreading.

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

Thank You.
 
We saw it before - the rich create jobs. Problem is that they often create those jobs overseas where they can reap the greatest profit from what is virtually slave labor.

In the context of the OP, what makes sense is that the middle class don't generally have the assets or contacts to create jobs overseas.
 
We saw it before - the rich create jobs. Problem is that they often create those jobs overseas where they can reap the greatest profit from what is virtually slave labor.

In the context of the OP, what makes sense is that the middle class don't generally have the assets or contacts to create jobs overseas.
Funny, that's the same thing I would say about the middle class. We buy things made in other countries because they are cheaper - the demand we create is filled by foreigners, not Americans.
 
Unfortunately we are left with a Republican party that supports the rich and a Democratic Party that supports the poor.

No one cares about the Middle Class.
 
The middle class creates jobs, not the rich

I agree with most of these points and I have always believed this is the short shortsightedness of corporations and the rich. For a while it is nice... you have everything. Eventually it all fizzles away. The economy can't support only the top buying most products if the middle class and poor can no longer afford products.

Do the rich buy more cars? More TVs? Maybe a little bit... 100x more? 1000x more? a million x more?

It is a snowball effect IMO. The larger the income gap, the lesser amount of product the rich can sell us. As such, they need to find other ways to maintain their profits. In order to do so, they now need to layoff more people, cut labor costs further, and find other ways to siphon more amounts off the middle class. Eventually the middle class income will go down so far that they can no longer support the needs of the corporations and the rich.

Short Version: The middle class are the job creators, not the rich.

http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-inequality-speech-that-ted-wont-show-you.php

When the middle class is decimated enough there will be no Ford.
 
In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

Whether you call it an "investment" or just plain government spending, it won't do a damn thing for those middle class "job creators." You'd figure after giving out 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, countless "job training programs," and scads of wasteful "infrastructure projects" that you'd realize that by now, but I suppose not.

On the demand side of the labor market, real job creators aren't going to give jobs to someone without the proper education, skills, and work ethic just because you think it's a good idea. They're also certainly not interested in hiring at the "living wage" the left proposes which makes labor non-competitive with an automated solution instead.
 
We saw it before - the rich create jobs. Problem is that they often create those jobs overseas where they can reap the greatest profit from what is virtually slave labor.

In the context of the OP, what makes sense is that the middle class don't generally have the assets or contacts to create jobs overseas.

Funny, that's the same thing I would say about the middle class. We buy things made in other countries because they are cheaper - the demand we create is filled by foreigners, not Americans.

Why would you pay more for the exact same thing, particularly if your job can be done by someone from a 3rd world country with a 2nd grade education? Try going to the boss and asking for a raise, and when he asks why saying "because I'm me, and therefore I deserve it." Why should the result be any different when the rationale is "because I'm an American, and therefore I deserve it."
 
When the middle class is decimated enough there will be no Ford.

Because when money's tight you don't mess around with buying a domestic car, you buy something dependable like a Honda or Toyota. You almost have to be rich to afford all the repairs on a shitty car like a Chrysler.
 
I'm so tired of the idiocy of the propaganda and misframing of the issue.

Everyone involved contributes - workers, entrepeneurs, CEO's, consumers, government.
 
I could tell the article was full of lies when I read this...flat out lie.

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.
 
I could tell the article was full of lies when I read this...flat out lie.
What's wrong spidey? Still upset you aren't a part of the billionaire club yet? I have faith that if you keep shilling for your masters they will throw you some more scraps soon.
 
Please explain how it's a lie. It's well known that the rich have become richer over the last decade.

He said most exemptions and lowest rates benefit the rich, that's a flat out lie. Most exemptions and deductions are totally eliminated for the "rich" and their rates are significantly higher, not lower.

And there is nothing wrong with rich getting richer, success is to be rewarded.
 
Why would you pay more for the exact same thing, particularly if your job can be done by someone from a 3rd world country with a 2nd grade education? Try going to the boss and asking for a raise, and when he asks why saying "because I'm me, and therefore I deserve it." Why should the result be any different when the rationale is "because I'm an American, and therefore I deserve it."
I would pay more for the same thing because I care about my country. Prosperity built on ever-increasing consumption on credit is a house of cards.

On a larger scale, this is why government needs to frame our tariffs and trade agreements to ensure that goods manufactured in third world economies are not cheaper, or at least not significantly cheaper. Otherwise there is always going to be someone hungrier who will do your job for less, driving labor costs down until there is a small group of resource owners and a very large group of subsistence-level workers. If you don't have a philosophical problem with that, you should at least recognize that it's a recipe for the horrors of Marxism, for when the majority has little to lose, redividing the pie sounds like a pretty good idea no matter how badly it's always failed in the past.
 
I would pay more for the same thing because I care about my country. Prosperity built on ever-increasing consumption on credit is a house of cards.

On a larger scale, this is why government needs to frame our tariffs and trade agreements to ensure that goods manufactured in third world economies are not cheaper, or at least not significantly cheaper. Otherwise there is always going to be someone hungrier who will do your job for less, driving labor costs down until there is a small group of resource owners and a very large group of subsistence-level workers. If you don't have a philosophical problem with that, you should at least recognize that it's a recipe for the horrors of Marxism, for when the majority has little to lose, redividing the pie sounds like a pretty good idea no matter how badly it's always failed in the past.

Guess you either haven't heard of comparative advantage, or think we're immune to it. But even if you disagree with it, your plan is naive to say the least. Even if we had a dictatorship and could pass laws executing anyone to offshore jobs, there's no way the textile plants, worker-intensive assembly lines, and similar low-skilled jobs would stay in this country. If you made it impossible to move them to the third world, they would be replaced by automation. Your idea will do nothing but make everyone poorer, and save no jobs in this country whatsoever.
 
He said most exemptions and lowest rates benefit the rich, that's a flat out lie. Most exemptions and deductions are totally eliminated for the "rich" and their rates are significantly higher, not lower.

And there is nothing wrong with rich getting richer, success is to be rewarded.

Sorry dude, that's BS.

The simple fact that deductions are taken off the top of your income (and thus enjoy the maximum tax rate credit) is proof.

When I made a lot less money, the tax credit I got back for my bus pass was next to nothing - I paid full price for the thing.

Now that I make a lot more, I get a way better deal on my transit pass because more of it is subsidized through a tax break.

...and tuition, and charitable donations, and political donations, and...
 
This isn't rocket science, we are a consumer driven economy...the ones who create jobs are the ones who drive demand, i.e. the poor.
 
Guess you either haven't heard of comparative advantage, or think we're immune to it. But even if you disagree with it, your plan is naive to say the least. Even if we had a dictatorship and could pass laws executing anyone to offshore jobs, there's no way the textile plants, worker-intensive assembly lines, and similar low-skilled jobs would stay in this country. If you made it impossible to move them to the third world, they would be replaced by automation. Your idea will do nothing but make everyone poorer, and save no jobs in this country whatsoever.

Only if you assume that automation is magical.

In reality.

You would need Engineers to design the new automation machines = jobs
You would need workers to build the automated machines = jobs
You would need mechanics to maintain them = jobs
You would need people to monitor the machine =jobs

The corporation would then pay property tax on their american factory instead of their chinese ones so local governments would have more money...

Which means they could hire more teachers = jobs
They could improve road maintenance = jobs

And then all of these people with jobs would spend there money on new houses = jobs
And then they would need new furniture which could be made in Automated America Factories which means...

If you think about it you dont really need to create that many new jobs. If there were 5-10% more jobs the economy would go from suckish to awesome.
 
Only if you assume that automation is magical.

In reality.

You would need Engineers to design the new automation machines = jobs
You would need workers to build the automated machines = jobs
You would need mechanics to maintain them = jobs
You would need people to monitor the machine =jobs

The corporation would then pay property tax on their american factory instead of their chinese ones so local governments would have more money...

Which means they could hire more teachers = jobs
They could improve road maintenance = jobs

And then all of these people with jobs would spend there money on new houses = jobs
And then they would need new furniture which could be made in Automated America Factories which means...

If you think about it you dont really need to create that many new jobs. If there were 5-10% more jobs the economy would go from suckish to awesome.
If automation did not save the company money in labour payroll, and therefore allow for a smaller workforce, the company would not do it. Take it from someone who does this for a living.
 
If automation did not save the company money in labour payroll, and therefore allow for a smaller workforce, the company would not do it. Take it from someone who does this for a living.

Yes but say it reduces the amount of jobs from 100 to 10.

10 is a lot more than 0.

This is how you get economic growth. One person goes from making 10 t-shirts per day to making 100. Then either people can own 10 times as many t-shirts, or some of the people can make other things. (obviously over-simplified)
 
Yes but say it reduces the amount of jobs from 100 to 10.

10 is a lot more than 0.

This is how you get economic growth. One person goes from making 10 t-shirts per day to making 100. Then either people can own 10 times as many t-shirts, or some of the people can make other things. (obviously over-simplified)

But then you have 90 who can't afford said tshirt. Then that person is only needing to make 10 and they only need 1 person to make the shirts. Now you have 99 people who can't afford the shirts.

Oversimplified of course, but the idea is the same. As income gap goes up demand goes down and it will have a negative effect on all.
 
Sorry dude, that's BS.

The simple fact that deductions are taken off the top of your income (and thus enjoy the maximum tax rate credit) is proof.

When I made a lot less money, the tax credit I got back for my bus pass was next to nothing - I paid full price for the thing.

Now that I make a lot more, I get a way better deal on my transit pass because more of it is subsidized through a tax break.

...and tuition, and charitable donations, and political donations, and...

The fact that you can deduct tuition says your education expense means you don't make as much money as you think you do. Those are fazed out and flat out elminated once you hit about 100k. And if your deducting political donations, you are committing tax fraud, those are not deductible.

Look into the phase out rules for deductions, I can't deduct jack shit outside of mortgage and charity.

Sorry dude, you don't know what you are talking about. Make more money and you'll understand that most all deductions aren't available and AMT starts biting even more.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you can deduct tuition says or education expense means you don't make as much money as you think you do. Those are fazed out and flat out elminated once you hit about 100k. And if your deducting political donations, you are committing tax fraud, those are not deductible.

Look into the phase out rules for deductions, I can't deduct jack shit outside of mortgage and charity.

Sorry dude, you don't know what you are talking about. Make more money and you'll understand that most all deductions aren't available and AMT starts biting even more.

But you're not rich, just upper middle class. Your income doesn't come from investment, the rewards of which are taxed at a much lower rate. You're not international, either, and don't enjoy the rewards of investment in various tax havens. You can't create negative tax liabilities for your corporate interests, either, even as you enjoy huge perks in the process.

You didn't get free zero liability 10:1 leverage in TANF loans, either.
 
But you're not rich, just upper middle class. Your income doesn't come from investment, the rewards of which are taxed at a much lower rate. You're not international, either, and don't enjoy the rewards of investment in various tax havens. You can't create negative tax liabilities for your corporate interests, either, even as you enjoy huge perks in the process.

You didn't get free zero liability 10:1 leverage in TANF loans, either.

I AM the 1%, apparently I'm rich. And a nice chunk of my income is from dividends that I wisely re-invest (that I happily only pay 15% on thanks to President Bush even though they are unrealized gains).

In under 10 years I will be retired at 50 and living off that as my main source of income. Fuck be upon obama.
 
I AM the 1%, apparently I'm rich. And a nice chunk of my income is from dividends that I wisely re-invest (that I happily only pay 15% on thanks to President Bush even though they are unrealized gains).

In under 10 years I will be retired at 50 and living off that as my main source of income. Fuck be upon obama.

I very seriously doubt that your AGI is over $343K. or that you'll retire at 50 w/o a serious downgrade to your lifestyle. Even at a 7% return, you'd need $5M in working investments to make $343K/yr...

Your wife's public payroll pension is another story...
 
Back
Top