Map of USA highlighting states with no income tax on wages (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
How many jobs could a job creator create
If a job creator could and would create jobs?
The GOP definition of a job creator is an employer, but employers do not create jobs, they just employ the real job creators. Real job creators are those who produce the goods and services that customers demand, and customers, willing and able to purchase, are the real job creators. Strip away all regulation and all income taxes, and employers will still not create any jobs if there is no demand for what they sell. Today in the US, our problem is not employers without incentive to create jobs, our problem is consumers without the ability to purchase and consume goods produced in the US by well-paid American workers.
Utah (Photo credit: Moyan_Brenn)
“Government jobs dip, unemployment ticks up,” screams the headline in today’s local newspaper, The Spectrum. Could it be that the two are connected? Maybe. The jobs decrease may be linked to the sequester said Carrie Mayne of the Utah Department of Workforce Services. Government jobs here in Utah have declined for six straight months. Overall though, Utah has a much lower unemployment rate than much of the country.
Employment Exhibition (Photo credit: Modern_Language_Center)
I believe that we must stimulate the economy to end the Great Recession and put people back to work. Beyond that, I think that we should consider sharing the work that remains to create full employment. To do that, I would reduce the work week from 40 hours to 30 hours and continue to pay workers for 40 hours of work. Employers would be forced to hire additional workers to make up for the reduced output of 30 hour work weeks. The 30 work week could be accomplished by five 6 hour days or three 10 hour days or four 7.5 hour days depending on the staffing needs of various industries. It was about 100 years ago in the decades between 1901 and 1921 that the US reduced the average work week from six 10 hour days to six 8 hour days.
Staples (Canada) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Mitt didn’t create jobs at Bain, that is not what private equity firms do. The business of private equity firms is making money by buying companies and making them more efficient. That frequently involves downsizing and offshoring jobs. US workers wind up getting paid less or losing their jobs entirely. If Bain invested in a company that grew, like Staples for example, the job growth at Staples came at the expense of small businesses that lost business and jobs. Thus a job at a small business might disappear and be replaced by a job at a firm like Staples that paid less.
After everything is said and done Mitt probably created no jobs. What he did do was move jobs from one business to another. Mitt wants to count only the jobs he “created”, not the jobs he destroyed. And the jobs “created” usually paid less so that both Mitt and the CEO of a firm like Staples could be well paid. So Mitt wasn’t a job creator, he was a job mover, from one firm or firms to another.
A job creator creates a new product or service that adds jobs to the total number of people employed within the US. If your product or service reduces the total number of people employed in the US, you are a job destroyer.
Map of minimum wage rates in the United States. See List of U.S. minimum wages. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The undocumented and newly arrived immigrants will work for the minimum wage or less. American citizens are reluctant to work for a wage that does not support a person in some dignity. That is especially true of minority members from inner cities. Employers say that they are reluctant to hire minority males because of poor work habits and a bad attitude toward them and co-workers. I believe that at least part of the observed bad attitudes stems from the feeling that minority males are taken advantage of by their employers and the system. They believe that the jobs offered to them pay too little and lead nowhere. And they are correct. In some respects, it is a chicken and egg situation; should wages be increased in advance of skills or should skills be improved first to gain higher wages.
I believe that to break the cycle of poverty, we must break the cycle at some point and paying a living wage is as good a place to start as any. Workers can improve their job skills ad infinitum and not improve their personal situations if the jobs are not there. On the other hand, a living wage can lead to the belief that the worker has achieved something worth working hard to keep. I believe that the living wage is a goal worth pursuing and an experiment worth trying.