Are the Wealthy Essential to Job-Creation?

[CharlieFinley]

I hold that becoming wealthy is a by-product of being in a position to create jobs, rather than a cause. For example, the family that created Wal-Mart was not wealthy when they founded Wal-Mart, and were they to lose all their money this very day, Wal-Mart would continue undeterred.

To rebut a poster who said that Bill Gates owns the majority of Microsoft, Bill Gates actually owns the majority of the directly held shares. The top ten institutional holders own about five times as much stock in Microsoft as he does. Bill Gates does not, in fact, own the majority of Microsoft.

The myth that the wealthy create jobs is derived from the correlation between being wealthy and having caused jobs to be created. A man who founded a company that created many jobs is clearly the founder of a successful company; therefore, he will become wealthy. However, the success of the company is not contingent upon his own success. Were said hypothetical creator of a large corporation to lose all of his personal money, jobs would not be affected. Perhaps a boutique yachtmaker in Italy would close, perhaps not. The company he owned (we must postulate that he lost control of the company, otherwise he would have liquid assets in the form of his shares of the company) would continue to exist, would continue to employ the same number of people, and would likely continue with the same economic success. Why?

Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

Walmart is one of only three companies in the world with annual revenues in excess of $400 billion. It employs 2.2 million people (though many are only part-time), and we may assume that its payroll expenses are somewhere in the neighborhood of $45 billion. The Walton family is one of few examples of a founder of a very large company that still controls that company; they own 48% of the stock of Walmart. In fact, they're worth about $100 billion combined. Clearly, if we taxed them more heavily, Walmart would fade into oblivion, right?

Wrong.

The Walton family only "employs" the workers who owe their meager livelihoods to Walmart in the technical sense. They do not "employ" them as they employ their gardeners, cooks, cleaners, and accountants. They "employ" them as your immediate superior, a middle manager, will "employ" you: they tell their "employees" what to do, and they profit from the diligent work of those employees, but they do NOT use their own money to pay these employees, and their employees' continued employment is not contingent upon their well-being. The Walton family is not the ship upon which Walmart's employees are riding; Walmart itself is that ship. The Walton family is merely the captain. Captains are replaceable, however skilled they may be. Captains do not carry their passengers upon their backs. A captain may go down with his ship, but his ship need not go down with him.

For some reason, members of this forum seem to like to perpetuate the myth that should the very wealthy be personally taxed at a higher rate, jobs would evaporate.

Would you care to prove that the wealthy are essential to job-creation? I'm all ears.

[Manjusri]

No, wealthy people are not 'essential' to job creation. They do however speed up the process.

In order to have a successful business you need to have a creative and intuitive mind so that your company is both innovative and original. The problem with this is that some people have the creative aspect, but they're unable to start to company due to financial troubles.

This is where a wealthier organization or person will come in handy. One person to come up with the ideas, the other person to write the checks.

If however there was no wealthy party, starting a company would be very difficult. The financial costs of investing + buying merchandise would fuck you over, and you'd be in too much debt before you even knew what was going on.

Think about it this way: You want to start a company, but you need to introduce your idea - whatever that idea may be. In order to do this, you need to go to a management company who can help you get the ball rolling, right? Well what if that management company was poor? Neither party is going to be able to pay the bills, so the company fails.

Now what if there was a wealthy management company, you would rather introduce your idea to them wouldn't you? It gets the process going faster and generally just makes it easier knowing that one investor is capable of paying the finances.

So if an individual is granted two options; one being the poor management company, and the other being the wealthy, which would they choose? Anyone in their right mind would go with the latter.

A wealthy party will always be chosen over a party with less revenue - granted the option is there. More people will be flocking to the wealthier company, therefore expanding the amount of people your idea gets to, which in turn makes for a more successful company.

[CharlieFinley]

If you put it that way, wealthy people are just venture capital firms of size one.

[Danny_boi 16]

The Wealthy aren't essential to job creation; however, It's not like the poor are going to create jobs. The wealthy aren't essential but their the people who do it anyway and their the majority of people who do it.

[chrisawesome]

Some of you guys dont know a thing in running a business. People who take pride in their business and want it to succed will reinvest into their company. That makes it more financially stable, hiring new employees when the company needs it, and they can afford to do so. I agree, there are some employers out there who keep all their money to themselves. They have the right to do so, but this does not mean that they are good and clean business men. Instead of forcing the wealthy to pay more in taxes, the congress should have made it a law to write a check containing that extra 5% to their company's funds. Strong jobs are dependant on a strong company. Companies filing for chapter 13 will obviously lay people off.

All of this, "Is it right to tax someone more because of their income?" controversy couldve been avoided if only the govt. thought about where all of American jobs have been lost to, China. Give tax cuts to companies, not inividuals, who produce their products 100% in the U.SA. this will bring jobs back to America, companies will not need to pay import/export fees to bring products back to the place where their company is located, and more importantly we will have the money to pay off the national debt.

And you ask if wealth people are essential for job creation, well duh, what kind of employer is poor or a homeless bum?

[CharlieFinley]

The Wealthy aren't essential to job creation; however, It's not like the poor are going to create jobs. The wealthy aren't essential but their the people who do it anyway and their the majority of people who do it. I don't know that I agree with that. The working poor spend all of their money directly to purchase products, which funds businesses that create wealth. The very rich purchase stocks, earn interest, and transfer and accumulate wealth.

Some of you guys dont know a thing in running a business. Watch this, guys, he's going to tell us he does. That makes it more financially stable, hiring new employees when the company needs it, and they can afford to do so. And statistically, they have almost no impact on the hiring practices of the companies in which they invest. Look at the holdings of Microsoft. The vast majority is held by mutual funds in a diversified fashion.
I agree, there are some employers out there who keep all their money to themselves. They have the right to do so Oh? Please, tell me why they have that right. Are these moral rights or statutory rights? but this does not mean that they are good and clean business men. Instead of forcing the wealthy to pay more in taxes, the congress should have made it a law to write a check containing that extra 5% to their company's funds. Why? Income is taxed, not assets. If Congress did something outrageously stupid like make the very wealthy who are employed (never mind that you don't become very wealthy by earning a salary, you become very wealthy by owning stock in a successful company) pay 5% of their salaries to their companies, companies would just raise salaries, and nothing would be accomplished. Strong jobs are dependant on a strong company. Companies filing for chapter 13 will obviously lay people off.In what way is this relevant?

All of this, "Is it right to tax someone more because of their income?" controversy couldve been avoided if only the govt. thought about where all of American jobs have been lost to, China. Goods-based jobs are being phased out, as is meet and proper. As an economy develops, it transitions to a basis in services rather than goods. Give tax cuts to companies, not inividuals, who produce their products 100% in the U.SA. this will bring jobs back to America, companies will not need to pay import/export fees to bring products back to the place where their company is located, and more importantly we will have the money to pay off the national debt.Protectionism is stupid. Really stupid. You can't even comprehend how stupid it is. It should have stayed dead after it died in the 1800s.

And you ask if wealth people are essential for job creation, well duh, what kind of employer is poor or a homeless bum?
Good job creating a strawman. Please note that I never said the poor would be employers. Employers could be stockholders (this is how many companies raise money), or a middle-class man obtaining a loan from a bank. Don't be so freaking stupid.

[Danny_boi 16]

I don't know that I agree with that. The working poor spend all of their money directly to purchase products, which funds businesses that create wealth. The very rich purchase stocks, earn interest, and transfer and accumulate wealth.

I Disagree. The wealthy create jobs through the work they do. The working poor cannot create jobs, they spend their money to the wealthy; however, they do not create jobs. My family buys stock and other securities, my family also creates jobs for the working poor. The working poor work not create jobs.

[CharlieFinley]

I Disagree. The wealthy create jobs through the work they do. The working poor cannot create jobs, they spend their money to the wealthy; however, they do not create jobs. My family buys stock and other securities, my family also creates jobs for the working poor. The working poor work not create jobs.
What work do the very wealthy do that creates jobs that could not just as easily be done by a group of middle-class individuals with the same cumulative assets?

[Taryn98]

The very rich purchase stocks, earn interest, and transfer and accumulate wealth.



Stock is issued by companies to raise capital so that companies can expand either by hiring new employees, buying new assets, updating existing facilities or increasing prodution just to name a few things. So stock purchasing is providing investment for companies that can be used for job creation even if it's not direct.
Also earned interest from money in the bank helps the economy just as much as when anyone else buy goods or services. If you put $ in the bank, they turn around and loan it back out to people. Sometimes it could be so people can buy a house or a car (which helps the car or home building industry, i.e more jobs there) or it can be loaned to businesses (similar to capital raised by stocks).
Now I agree that middle class people can do the same thing here (buy stocks or put money in the bank), but wealthy people have more discretionary cash that can be used for the stock market or other investment.

[Danny_boi 16]

What work do the very wealthy do that creates jobs that could not just as easily be done by a group of middle-class individuals with the same cumulative assets?

I am middle class. The wealthy are able to create jobs for they have the assets and means to do so. We live in a capitalist society its a dog eat dog world. You need to spend money to make money; and the poor don't have money nor the requirements to follow business and banking regulations. The wealthy are wealthy because they have worked hard for it. If someone didn't work hard enough they don't deserve free money.

[Zenos]

actually yes to a degree the wealthy are essential ,people that say they are not for get that in America alot of the foundation of America as it expanded was only possible because of people with money who either:

1) Had a vision of American greatness and poured money into that vision,or

2) was inspired to back some poor bloke who didn't have the money but had the "Vision and said person of money who backed them was inspired by said poor blokes vision!

What work do the very wealthy do that creates jobs that could not just as easily be done by a group of middle-class individuals with the same cumulative assets?

The problem with said group of middle-class individuals with the same cumulative assets,is that they are "individuals",and might have diffrent ideas on how to go about it,and thus that might get in the way,where as a single Wealthy person would have more control and say in his buisness venture!

Please don't double post, use the "Edit" or "Multi-quote" button instead. ~TheMatrix

[TheMatrix]

Perhaps, we can look at this in a different light, in the way that Karl Marx himself described:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. [...] The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. [...] Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. [...] The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.
-- Karl Marx, from The Communist Manifesto

While the bourgeois arguably have created many jobs for people, the results are comparable to the consequences of the Industrial Revolutions of Europe. The proletariat were forced to live in filthy housing, with horrible living conditions. Of course, since then, much has changed, but the basics still remain: you, as proletariat worker, must endure constant fear of losing your job, especially at huge corporations such as "Wal-Mart".

But this can all change. Eventually, the dark instruments of Capitalism will come back to haunt the same Capitalists who brought the whole thing about, and the Proletariat will triumph, and set up a classless society where nobody need fear of losing their job, or having less than his neighbour.
I therefore conclude my post with the following call to action:
Working men of all countries, unite!

[CharlieFinley]

Stock is issued by companies to raise capital so that companies can expand either by hiring new employees, buying new assets, updating existing facilities or increasing prodution just to name a few things. So stock purchasing is providing investment for companies that can be used for job creation even if it's not direct.Right, but the middle-class dollar spends just as well as the 1% dollar does. Middle-class men and women buy stocks, as well.

Also earned interest from money in the bank helps the economy just as much as when anyone else buy goods or services. If you put $ in the bank, they turn around and loan it back out to people. Sometimes it could be so people can buy a house or a car (which helps the car or home building industry, i.e more jobs there) or it can be loaned to businesses (similar to capital raised by stocks). Which is a reason that the very wealthy are not, in fact, essential. Middle-class families save money, as well, and the function of banks in providing loans compensates for the reluctance of some middle-class families to invest.

Now I agree that middle class people can do the same thing here (buy stocks or put money in the bank), but wealthy people have more discretionary cash that can be used for the stock market or other investment.Of course they do, but that money doesn't just vanish if a good portion of it is taken from its owners. If you took 50% from the top .5%, and redistributed that among others, it would provide a good number of people with a much higher standard of living while preserving the total amount of money in circulation. Money has a diminishing utility as you get more of it. I highly doubt that Bill Gates, for example, has a standard of living any higher than Warren Buffet.

I am middle class. The wealthy are able to create jobs for they have the assets and means to do so. That's utterly meaningless unless you demonstrate that wealthy individuals accomplish something with that money that the upper-middle-class wouldn't be able to accomplish with the same aggregate amount of money. We live in a capitalist society its a dog eat dog world. I have no problem with capitalism. I have a problem with six damn people in the same damn family controlling more wealth than thirty fucking percent of the country. There is something fundamentally wrong with that, when people die on the streets every fucking day because they can't afford to eat. You need to spend money to make money; and the poor don't have money Right. Because (1) the only possible replacement for the wealthy is a large number of poor people, not the middle class, and (2) the wealthy's money just disappears once we take it away. nor the requirements to follow business and banking regulations. What requirements are these?
The wealthy are wealthy because they have worked hard for it. HAH! http://www.inheritancefunding.com/Inheritance-Funding-Blog/bid/20410/Heirs-to-Today-s-Largest-Fortunes
If someone didn't work hard enough they don't deserve free money. Because nobody poor ever worked hard. There aren't people everywhere working three jobs because one can't pay the bills.

actually yes to a degree the wealthy are essential ,people that say they are not for get that in America alot of the foundation of America as it expanded was only possible because of people with money who either Putting your blatant disregard for the dictates of the English language aside, you're wrong. You're actually fractally wrong, because not only can you not prove any of the numbered statements that followed me, you're making the assumption that what worked two hundred years ago works now.

1) Had a vision of American greatness and poured money into that vision, Never mind that the Southern aristocracy opposed America's independence, and we would've been screwed without the intervention of France, which used our inspiration as it overthrew the absurdly wealthy.

2) was inspired to back some poor bloke who didn't have the money but had the "Vision and said person of money who backed them was inspired by said poor blokes vision!And that couldn't have been done by a group of fifteen middle-class men, or a bank?



The problem with said group of middle-class individuals with the same cumulative assets,is that they are "individuals",and might have diffrent ideas on how to go about it,and thus that might get in the way,where as a single Wealthy person would have more control and say in his buisness venture!
That's why there are banks. Besides, taking business control away from the intellectual head of a business and giving it to someone who was merely fortunate enough to be in the right place with lots of money has frequently bankrupted the person who did the actual work and enriched said already-rich person.

EDIT: to whoever decided to negative rep me by saying, "wrong. do your research." I would say that it is self-evident that I have done much more research than anyone posting in disagreement. Simply disagreeing with me is not justification for negative rep.

[Taryn98]

If you took 50% from the top .5%, and redistributed that among others, it would provide a good number of people with a much higher standard of living while preserving the total amount of money in circulation.

What gives the government or anyone else for that matter the right to confiscate 50% of someones wealth to give it to someone else that hasn't earned it?
How would you like it if someone came to your door and said we're taking half of everything you have because we think someone else needs it more than you?
It's irrelevant of whether they're taking $100 from someone or $50 billion. The principle is what bothers me. I just don't believe the government makes better financial decisions than almost anyone in the private sector. If they did, we wouldn't be $16 trillion in debt.

I have a problem with six damn people in the same damn family controlling more wealth than thirty fucking percent of the country. There is something fundamentally wrong with that, when people die on the streets every fucking day because they can't afford to eat.
This is where Americans disagree. I don't care if someone has more (or much more) or less than me. I believe in making my own destiny and taking personal responsibility and being accountable for myself.
If someone has billions of dollars, that is motivation for me to work harder, not to be jealous or to think because they have money that they owe more than anyone else.
I believe that everyone should be treated equally. It doesn't matter if you are gay or straight, black/white/yellow/brown, rich or poor, man or women. The laws should be equal for everyone. And before anyone says that the rich exploit the laws, the deductions they use can be used by the middle class as well. They're not doing anything that others can't do as well.

[Danny_boi 16]

That's utterly meaningless unless you demonstrate that wealthy individuals accomplish something with that money that the upper-middle-class wouldn't be able to accomplish with the same aggregate amount of money.
I think the upper middle class are wealthy people. The question is: are the poor able to create jobs NO, are the wealthy essential to job creation, Yes and NO. Upper middle class can create jobs because they have money and the means to do so. The poor or the working poor cannot create jobs

I have no problem with capitalism. I have a problem with six damn people in the same damn family controlling more wealth than thirty fucking percent of the country. There is something fundamentally wrong with that, when people die on the streets every fucking day because they can't afford to eat. Right.
Those families are able to control business. The United States government controls the country. And don't give me any Liberal crap saying otherwise. I find it very unlikely that the poor can create and maintain an enterprise.


Because (1) the only possible replacement for the wealthy is a large number of poor people, not the middle class, and (2) the wealthy's money just disappears once we take it away.
It doesn't matter how many poor people their are. The wealthy will always be here. A person needs to have more money than another. a society need the haves and the have nots.


What requirements are these?
I doubt poor can reach the requirements to get a loan or have good credit.


Because nobody poor ever worked hard. There aren't people everywhere working three jobs because one can't pay the bills.


A person needs to be smart. buy treasury securities and stocks,buy assets. Its not that hard. But most of the rich are rich because they worked hard. and your saying its unfair to pass their money to their kids. If I make a butt load of money, and I die I'm giving that money to my kids.

[TheMatrix]

To the person who gave me this reputation comment(I know who you are even if you don't sign your name):
so you're advocating the workers unite to form a classless/Marxist society? That sounds terrible to me!

In fact, yes, that is exactly what I was suggesting. Good eye! ;-)
But do tell me, why would that be such a bad thing? I'd really like to know your reasoning.

[CharlieFinley]

What gives the government or anyone else for that matter the right to confiscate 50% of someones wealth to give it to someone else that hasn't earned it?
How would you like it if someone came to your door and said we're taking half of everything you have because we think someone else needs it more than you?
It's irrelevant of whether they're taking $100 from someone or $50 billion. The principle is what bothers me.The fact that without the government, it would be impossible to make money. No, really. Why the hell do you think a highly-taxed company doesn't just buy a bunch of land somewhere and declare itself a country, and thereby pay no taxes? Because companies need the government, just as the government needs companies. See how many people show up to work without roads. How many people do you think will be buying your products with no police, so they stand a reasonable chance of being mugged when they set foot outside? How about the regulation necessary to keep predatory lending practices from being used, or blatantly false advertising? Those services aren't free.
I just don't believe the government makes better financial decisions than almost anyone in the private sector. If they did, we wouldn't be $16 trillion in debt.
Sweet Lord. If you could borrow almost unlimited money, for free, with no penalties for defaulting, and distribute the benefits of borrowing that money over 300 million people whom you needed to keep happy, you would be substantially more than $16 trillion in debt.

This is where Americans disagree. I don't care if someone has more (or much more) or less than me. I believe in making my own destiny and taking personal responsibility and being accountable for myself. Actually, I'd say about half of them agree with me. Maybe even a bit more. We do, after all, have a liberal president. Also, how can you "take control of your own destiny" when you're born in the gutter to a druggie father and a prostitute mother? You'd be singing a different tune, then. Science has shown that the circumstances of birth and your genetics predict substantially more than half of a person's success or lack thereof. Essentially, birth circumstances have a substantially greater impact on your life than your "destiny" you've "made for yourself." It's pretty fucking easy to judge and talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps when you've never had to do that, sweetheart.

If someone has billions of dollars, that is motivation for me to work harder, not to be jealous or to think because they have money that they owe more than anyone else. Right. Because poor people are poor because they don't work hard. Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.

I believe that everyone should be treated equally. It doesn't matter if you are gay or straight, black/white/yellow/brown, rich or poor, man or women. The laws should be equal for everyone. And before anyone says that the rich exploit the laws, the deductions they use can be used by the middle class as well. They're not doing anything that others can't do as well.Except things that I addressed in the other thread, like taking a capital loss for tax reasons? The middle class and the poor don't have enough money for that. Offshore tax shelters? They don't care about the pittance they could get from the middle class. They can exploit loopholes to deposit investment earnings in IRA accounts that they shouldn't legally be allowed to. Middle class families cannot. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I think the upper middle class are wealthy people. The question is: are the poor able to create jobs NO, are the wealthy essential to job creation, Yes and NO. Upper middle class can create jobs because they have money and the means to do so. The poor or the working poor cannot create jobs Then we're at cross purposes, because I'm talking about the extremely wealthy.

Those families are able to control business. The United States government controls the country. And don't give me any Liberal crap saying otherwise. I find it very unlikely that the poor can create and maintain an enterprise.
Or you could, you know, prove whatever nonexistent point you're trying to make here.

It doesn't matter how many poor people their are. The wealthy will always be here. A person needs to have more money than another. a society need the haves and the have nots. Can you prove this, or give any evidence for this at all?

I doubt poor can reach the requirements to get a loan or have good credit.
That's a problem. It unfairly limits upward mobility, making it impossible for a person to rise or fall on his or her own merits.

A person needs to be smart. buy treasury securities and stocks,buy assets. A person also needs to: 1. have the time to do research on what stocks to buy and 2. have money to invest. Its not that hard. Oh? How much have you made on the stock market? But most of the rich are rich because they worked hard. and your saying its unfair to pass their money to their kids. No, most of the rich are either rich because they got it from their parents, or because they inherited a situation that allowed them to come rich by working hard. Sure, many rich people worked hard, but it's ridiculous to posit that they work 100 times harder than many poor people.