The Wealthy Don’t Create Jobs; Good Jobs Create The Wealthy
What came first, the wealthy or the building blocks of wealth? This is no idle “chicken or the egg” question. Major political players base real policies with serious impact on their own answer to the question. What if most of them are getting it wrong? What if getting it wrong could wreck the system and ransack wealth?
To get the answer, the GOP base are obviously looking at wealthy investors. Our tax-cutting crowd clearly thinks they’re the starting point. They say that getting more money to them will mean more jobs. The idea runs that investors bet their capital on starting or expanding a company that can then hire folks, thus jobs. This seems to pass for unquestionable truth among the “starve the beast” set. They figure that the more money the wealthy have the more they’ll put into creating jobs. Even leaving aside the question of whether they’d likely choose to invest their money elsewhere, the anti-tax set need to reconsider two questions: 1) Is that usually how jobs are made? and 2) Where’d the capital come from in the first place? These two questions are necessarily linked. You can’t explain where the capital came from without considering ways to make jobs without capital.
So where’d the first capital come from? Unless you think it was somehow handed over to man by divine intervention — capital raining down from heaven or appearing from nothing — it had to come from work. We can set aside the factor of inherited wealth, since somebody had to collect it in order to pass it down to lucky heirs. That first capital accumulating work — whatever it was — was collecting and/or making something that could be sold or traded. In short, it was a job. It may not have been a modern job, but close enough for our question. Somebody did some work. It may have been all on his own. Or the work may have been getting others to do things for him. But whatever it was, somebody did some work that produced a surplus. Perhaps that surplus was then — directly or through heirs — reinvested by getting other folks to do more work to produce more surplus. At root, the workers involved still created the surplus. The worker-created surplus was then used to spur more work to create more surplus. The job came first. The assets produced were just a product of the job that lets that job contribute to even more jobs. Get together a lot of surplus produced from a lot of jobs, and you’ve got wealth. Even if you then use that wealth to spur more work that creates more wealth, the wealth still didn’t create itself but rather came as the sum effect of the work … the jobs.
Ultimately, the idea that wealth comes from somebody investing in business is a myth. If I build a factory and hire 50 people to make widgets, I’m not going to get any return on my investment unless there are people who can be interested in widgets and have enough money to spend on my widgets. If my widgets aren’t essentials, those people will only have enough money to spend if they’re making a surplus beyond the cost of living. Even if the widgets are essential, folks who don’t have an income aren’t going to be buying many widgets. If I don’t have enough potential customers to break even, I’m not going to be employing those 50 widget makers for long. But if I have enough customers to make a profit, I’ll keep employing them. And if I have too many customers for them to keep up, I’ll hire more. Then who really created the wealth I reap from my factory? Sure, I made the factory investment that allowed me to sell widgets. But without the customers, that investment would have just been a foolish building that couldn’t support long term jobs. It’s the customers who really make the difference.
Jobs further wealth in two ways. Obviously there’s the surplus collected by the initial business owner. But there’s also the circulation of resources wherein the worker’s share of surplus is spent at other businesses. The worker’s paycheck allows him to be a customer contributing to other jobs that yield other surpluses for other business owners. The paychecks from those other jobs may in turn be spent at yet further businesses or even end up winding back to the initial business. Jobs have no choice but to create wealth, even when they fail to do so directly for a specific employer. Unless they’re inefficient jobs, they’ll create a surplus. And even if they’re inefficient jobs they’ll mean money for workers to spend at efficient businesses yielding surplus. The job just can’t hold itself back from contributing to the creation of wealth. Wealth, on the other hand, can sit idle. It can be stored in some valuable thing that’ll sit collecting dust. Sure, wealth may be further invested in jobs and help yield more wealth. But it can also hang on the sidelines for years or even centuries and do nothing productive.
Clearly it’s the job that creates the wealth. We can use that answer to figure out what to do to get our economy rolling again. We want wealth and jobs. We need to push the one that creates the other. If we change our tax structure to get more money to the wealthy, we’re just tinkering with accelerating redistribution of income to the rich who may just sit on it. That risks having it grind to a halt if too much money is removed from the system to just sit idly in the stockpiles of the wealthy. I’m all for building wealth, but not at the cost of having all the money locked down to the point where it no longer flows from business to business through employees and customers. Since wealth ultimately comes from jobs, those of us who want both more jobs and more wealth need to focus on jobs in order to get both. With more wealth, there doesn’t necessarily have to be more jobs. With more jobs, there will be more wealth.
Now we’ve got a situation where there isn’t enough demand for products and services to spur widespread hiring. Too many people don’t have enough money to spend. And unemployment causes much of that current lack. Private industry can’t fix the situation because it won’t make any sense for them to hire until there’s demand for products and services. There’s only one credible way out: govt must step in to fill the void. Govt must stop hiding their heads in the sand and pretending that we can count on the wealthy to hire out of the goodness of their hearts — without enough demand causing it to make sense as an investment — if we just help a bit more money stick in their accounts. Govt must stop laying off workers and start hiring so there will be more paychecks to spend on goods and services. And to do that, govt is going to have to start leveling with us and facing that we’ll have to rack up a future bill in order to make things work here and now … and for the future.




























9:54 am
This article is FULL OF BULLSHIT! The only way to create jobs in this country right now is to elect Sarah Palin so she can implement Palinomics!
10:26 am
Please tell me that this comment, like the politician to which it refers, is nothing more than a poor attempt at a joke.
12:31 pm
Palin power, you need medication, good strong medication. and maybe a straight-jacket.
5:51 pm
The wealthy might employee people, but they do not appreciably create new jobs. Job growth comes from businesses that start off small and grow larger. job growth comes from innovation – from creating new ideas and products that people will buy. The wealthy do not invest in innovation – it is too risky. It is the wannabee wealthy, those that aren’t rich yet, that invest in small businesses and innovative ideas. Is Bill Gates starting another Microsoft? No, he is enjoying the fruits of his prior labors.
The other thing to consider is that we live in a global marketplace for goods, services, and labor, as well as investment opportunities. The wealthy and large corporations are currently sitting on piles of cash, there is no guarantee if we give them any more cash that they will invest it domestically.
12:39 pm
You are so wrong on many accounts.
First of all if you assumptions were true then wealth would have grown during the period between 1700- and 1850 when this country was made up of a bunch of one person businesses. It was not until the 1850′s or so when people started combining thier surplus wealth through the formation of Corporations (corporations were not allowed untill 1820). The combining of many people’s wealth is what allowed large investments in assets like machinery, real estate and those machines allowed workers to be more productive.
5:32 pm
talk about full of shit.
while for the northeast this is mostly true, the people who settled that area were there for other reasons than to make money. they were people who felt persecuted for their religious beliefs; however, the southern colonies were developed due to greed and a very interesting plant. tobacco. yea the northeast with its plethora of rivers did not take off economically until the industrial revolution; however, long before this(the 17th and 18th centuries, say 1650 onwards) was the boom of that most important economic crop king tobacco. thousands if not millions of acres were cultivated to provide tobacco to Europe. huge fortunes were created in the south(and Europe as well) by this plant, along with the development of the slave trade when white Europeans stopped agreeing to indentured servitude for a ride to the colonies.
and that is just a few brief historical facts that dismiss your argument. go back to school and take a few history courses and economics courses. maybe then you’ll realize that this author has a point. it is demand that sells products and it is demand that creates/saves jobs. If not for the fact of this current recession I would have said any idiot with a history book could figure this out. apparently I’m giving idiots to much credit.
7:17 pm
You are a genius! Well said!
9:49 am
I think it was cotton, not tobacco that made not only the South wealthy, but also the Northern textile mills and related merchants, shipping firms, etc.
Tobacco was an important cash crop but secondary to cotton by a long shot in the scenario you describe. True?
8:20 pm
Where those corporations had assets for their initial formation, their assets came from someone doing work initially to collect the assets needed to form the corporation. It was that job (or set of jobs) from which the assets were initially collected that allowed the corporation to be formed in the first place. The wealth still didn’t create itself but rather came as the sum effect of the work … the jobs. The fact that one could use that wealth to spur more work that creates more wealth does not change that fact that work had to be done first.
Beyond that, not all corporations start with significant cash assets (i.e., wealth). Some start with nothing more than a set of people coming together — perhaps with skills or even with just an idea — and building something from whatever they can scrounge (and perhaps accumulating wealth in the process). The corporation is indeed a valuable tool in the economic toolbox. I’m not disputing that fact. But the corporation is not always a product of wealth nor will any random accumulation of wealth necessarily result in a new corporation.